Acting Innocent? Acting Guilty? [Archive] - Page 2

jotun

07-28-2006, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

jotun, Kato Kaelin first testified in the grand jury five days after the murders Simpson was wearing a dark colored cotton sweat suit. Kaelin testified to the same facts in the preliminary hearing, the criminal trial, and the civil trial.

Fung was never asked about the dark colored sweat suit that was video taped in Simpson's washing machine. The only picture I know of was in Mark Fuhrman's book. A photo taken from the video tape showing the dark colored sweat suit in the washing machine. Fung looked at the sweat suit and the washing machine for blood but none was seen
bobaugust

ALL-Bob
So Kato said 3 times that O.J. was "wearing a sharp-looking sweat outfit.A warm-up I believe.'I don't know the EXACT clothing. I THOUGHT it was a sweat-outfit."
Kato also said O.J. was wearing that outfit when he got in the limo.And we know he was NOT.Maybe the police could have asked Kato that day what O.J. was wearing or was that the time he was taking the 5th. Or was he only taking the 5th at the grand jury.

Oh, Fung was NEVER ASKED about the 'sweatsuit" at either trial.Was ONLY in Fuhrman's book.Wonder WHY??? What page is this "looking for blood "on Bob??? All I could find was a line that Roberts said it was a sweatsuit then & now. Or the photo?NOT in my copy.I saw the washer video at trial.There were slips,bras,and panties.NO SWEATSUIT...In fact Johnnie was kidding with Gigi about the undies.
Also if it or anything else was at Rockingham, as Fuhrman later whined in his book. Fuhrman could have had anything there collected.
Page 37 Murder in Brentwood:"Placing his hand on my shoulder with confidence in his voice Vannater said
"You're in CHARGE of this crime scene".
jotun

nettathirty

07-28-2006, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Yes, it was because they didn't have knowledge of them.

GMAB, you cannot be that gullible!

limakey

07-28-2006, 11:09 PM

jotun,

I was just looking for the same information you posted. Didn't Kato also say that he thought it had a white zipper and white stripes down it?

And again, when did the DA's ever make a connection between the fibers found, a sweat suit and OJ Simpson?

I must have missed that part.

nettathirty

07-28-2006, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Step away from the mirror when you post :biggrin:

:biggrin: That was funny..

They still knew about the photos!

limakey

07-28-2006, 11:29 PM

While I think it is always interesting to read all posts about people's "gut" feelings regarding OJ Simpson and his actions and words, I think it would be interesting to find out who else was accused of "acting guilty" or "acting" innocent.

Kato Kalin comes to mind. It find it interesting that both juries felt Kato Kalin was not telling every thing he knew. That he was covering up for someone or something.

While Marcia Clark and Chris Darden would have gladly killed him with their bare hands because he so frustrated them, the defense team and OJ Simpson have nothing but nice things to say about him.

IMO, I think the most important part of his testimony was overlooked. Anyone else feel that way?

2L8 4A D8

07-28-2006, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Step away from the mirror when you post :biggrin:

:lol: :beer:

EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!!

2L8 4A D8

07-28-2006, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by limakey
While I think it is always interesting to read all posts about people's "gut" feelings regarding OJ Simpson and his actions and words, I think it would be interesting to find out who else was accused of "acting guilty" or "acting" innocent.

Kato Kalin comes to mind. It find it interesting that both juries felt Kato Kalin was not telling every thing he knew. That he was covering up for someone or something.

While Marcia Clark and Chris Darden would have gladly killed him with their bare hands because he so frustrated them, the defense team and OJ Simpson have nothing but nice things to say about him.

IMO, I think the most important part of his testimony was overlooked. Anyone else feel that way?

IMO, Kato was between a rock and a hard place. It came down to "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" so to speak!

jotun

07-28-2006, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Kate,
The criminal trial jurors were presented with 4 incidents of abuse in a relationship that spanned 17 years. In two of them, they were both drunk. The last one, you can Nicole and OJ and there was no physical abuse. The jurors also heard Nicole, in her own voice saying that he hit her on one occassion---a tape she didn't know was being made.

Also, if you remember, the officer who put the call out for other officers to come forward said that he only got 1 response, from Mark Fuhrman.

Limakey-All
The reason for no other officer responce. Because only Fuhrman had been there.In fact Dan Rather on CBS news had a special report.Since Edwards had said 8 times.They decided to check it out.Went into the call tape store room. Looked like a warehouse.
There were NO calls of any kind from Nicole. NONE.
jotun

jotun

07-29-2006, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by jotun

Limakey-All
The reason for no other officer responce. Because only Fuhrman had been there.In fact Dan Rather on CBS news had a special report.Since Edwards had said 8 times.They decided to check it out.Went into the call tape store room. Looked like a warehouse.
There were NO calls of any kind from Nicole. NONE.
jotun

All-Before a G complains.Except for the 1 from 89 and the 2 from 93 that were not there because the D.A.'s
had them.
jotun

2L8 4A D8

07-29-2006, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva
:confused: :shrug:

It just goes from bad to worse, doesn't it?

2L8 4A D8

07-29-2006, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Yep. I guess someone missed the blue light special :D

:lol: :beer: They've missed more than that girlfriend!

bobaugust

07-29-2006, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

No proof was ever offered, only speculation and inneudo:

nettathirty, you're uninformed and wrong. There was plenty of proof that Simpson was lying.

Simpson was contradicted by his own words when he changed his story and fabricated other stories.
Simpson later contradicted his own sworn statement to the police about the cut on his finger, and about going to his Bronco to get his phone before leaving for the airport.
Simpson was contradicted by Allan Park and Kato Kaelin about the small dark colored knapsack on the driveway.
Simpson was contradicted by Paula Barbieri, by his own telephone records, and even a defense doctor's notes.
Simpson was contradicted by authenticated photographs.
Simpson was contradicted by Kato Kaelin as to what clothing he was wearing the night of murder as well as the freshly washed sweat suit found in his washing machine the day after the murders.
Simpson's story about the small dark colored bag was contradicted by both Kato Kaelin and Allan Park.
Simpson was contradicted by A.C. Cowlings.
Simpson was contradicted by Gigi Gaurin.

bobaugust

bobaugust

07-29-2006, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

They've been argued without any validation: The shoe print at Bundy was labeled a BM, yet a duplicate of that brand with the same sole could not be produced. That ain't proof!

nettathirty, you're wrong again.

Either you're playing dumb or can't comprehend the testimony I posted where a Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoe with a Silga sole was entered into evidence.

bobaugust

limakey

07-29-2006, 06:34 AM

When did OJ Simpson say that the police were there eight times? In his civil disposition?

bobaugust

07-29-2006, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by jotun

ALL-Bob
So Kato said 3 times that O.J. was "wearing a sharp-looking sweat outfit.A warm-up I believe.'I don't know the EXACT clothing. I THOUGHT it was a sweat-outfit."
Kato also said O.J. was wearing that outfit when he got in the limo.And we know he was NOT.Maybe the police could have asked Kato that day what O.J. was wearing or was that the time he was taking the 5th. Or was he only taking the 5th at the grand jury.

Oh, Fung was NEVER ASKED about the 'sweatsuit" at either trial.Was ONLY in Fuhrman's book.Wonder WHY??? What page is this "looking for blood "on Bob??? All I could find was a line that Roberts said it was a sweatsuit then & now. Or the photo?NOT in my copy.I saw the washer video at trial.There were slips,bras,and panties.NO SWEATSUIT...In fact Johnnie was kidding with Gigi about the undies.
Also if it or anything else was at Rockingham, as Fuhrman later whined in his book. Fuhrman could have had anything there collected.
Page 37 Murder in Brentwood:"Placing his hand on my shoulder with confidence in his voice Vannater said
"You're in CHARGE of this crime scene".
jotun

jotun, your comments about Kaelin's testimony is irrelevant and only shows you still can't seem to grasp the facts in this case.

The defense never disputed the fact that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders and the fact that a freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders confirms Kaelin's testimony.

The fact is that the same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks. Those fibers tie Simpson to the murders, not the clothing that was never collected.

Nobody on either side talked about the sweatsuit that was video taped in Simpson's washing machine. Since it was never collected the prosecutors didn't bring it up and the defense sure wasn't going to. In the criminal trial only a small portion of the video tape was played showing Arnelle's clothing. Gigi identified Arnelle's clothing and laundry basket and said that neither were there when she left for the weekend. Arnelle testified that the only time she was in her father's house before she let the police in Monday morning was for about an hour Saturday morning. She lied.

Fuhrman talked about the sweat suit in the washing machine and included a photo of it in the washing machine in the paper back version of his book as well as a photo of Simpson's master bath showing Simpson's clothing hamper and black towels.

Vannatter put Fuhrman in charge when Vannatter left to get the search warrant. When he returned that's when the search began. Fuhrman was not in charge of that search. Robbery Homicide detectives were. Fuhrman and Roberts stayed to help with the search at the request of the Robbery Homicide detectives.

Page 326
"Brad brought his discovery to my attention and then in turn to the attention of two other Robbery Homicide detectives. Brad and I watched as the detectives looked at the sweats and Dennis Fung inspected a possible blood transfer on the washing machine, which turned out to be rust. Brad and I continued searching and Brad found a blood smudge on a light switch cover in the maid's half bath, just feet from the washing machine.

Brad's discovery seemed important enough for the LAPD video photographer to film the sweats inside the washing machine. But the sweats were never booked as evidence. Surprisingly, the blood transfer in the maids' bathroom was never recovered either."

bobaugust

nettathirty

07-29-2006, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

nettathirty, you're wrong again.

Either you're playing dumb or can't comprehend the testimony I posted where a Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoe with a Silga sole was entered into evidence.

bobaugust

August,

You know this is misleading, and you know what i'm talking about..

bobaugust

07-29-2006, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

You know this is misleading, and you know what i'm talking about..

nettathirty, I see it's misleading because it contradicts your statement.

Your claim is wrong, your facts are wrong, and your beliefs are wrong. It is undisputed that the killer wore Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes with Silga soles.

Later over thirty photographs from three different photographers surfaced showing Simpson wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes with Silga soles at a football game where Simpson was being honored on the anniversary of his record running record. Pure and simple impeachment. And undisputed evidence that Simpson left the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

Why you are even arguing this is beyond me since you admit that Simpson was at Bundy. You make meaningless arguments only to argue.

bobaugust

limakey

07-30-2006, 01:18 AM

S-Diva, Taz and 2Late,

What is wrong with a "Blue Light Special"? I have always told my son that what he is, "A Blue Light Special" and that he was a 110% off of the retail price. He was always proud of this until someone just had to tell him that a "Blue Light Special" was from K-Mart. I truly hate it when other kids' feel the need to debunk these types of things!

limakey

07-30-2006, 01:21 AM

2Late,

I don't believe that was Kato's motive because if it was, why say anything at all? I do believe that Marcia Clark scared the living hell out of him and that when he refused to testify until he had a lawyer to represent him really just frosted her.

However, you didn't give an opinon, do you think he knew more then what he said?

2L8 4A D8

07-30-2006, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

I don't believe that was Kato's motive because if it was, why say anything at all? I do believe that Marcia Clark scared the living hell out of him and that when he refused to testify until he had a lawyer to represent him really just frosted her.

However, you didn't give an opinon, do you think he knew more then what he said?

Marcia Clark would scare the living hail out of me too. LOL!

I think Kato came to his own conclusions and was going to keep them to himself. When he was on the witness stand, he just did what was expected of him ~ nothing less and nothing more. I think any of us would have done the same thing under the circumstances.

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

07-30-2006, 11:55 PM

2Late,

Totally agree with on Marica Clark!

IMO, I think Kato was one of the witnesses who would not say what one side or the other wanted him to say. Some of his actions don't make sense or should I say some of the comments that he was alleged to have made no sense. IMO.

2L8 4A D8

07-31-2006, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

Totally agree with on Marica Clark!

IMO, I think Kato was one of the witnesses who would not say what one side or the other wanted him to say. Some of his actions don't make sense or should I say some of the comments that he was alleged to have made no sense. IMO.

Let's face it, Kato is the biggest WIMP! I really don't think that he wanted to be dragged into the mess. It's amazing that he even went to Court and testified at all.

You're right that Kato "would not say what one side or the other wanted him to say" and I think that's what frustrated Marcia Clark. He just wanted to remain neutral, not taking either side and that enabled him to sleep at night. OJ did it; OJ didn't do it. I am not going to say one way or the other. You figure it out and let me get on with my life.

JMO and MOO!!

tazzybaby

07-31-2006, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by limakey
S-Diva, Taz and 2Late,

What is wrong with a "Blue Light Special"? I have always told my son that what he is, "A Blue Light Special" and that he was a 110% off of the retail price. He was always proud of this until someone just had to tell him that a "Blue Light Special" was from K-Mart. I truly hate it when other kids' feel the need to debunk these types of things!

LOL! I can remember going to K-Mart with my family and the "blue light special" was announced and they ran over to it...lol I thought I was going to die! I also thought I was going to die just walking into the store. My mother told me...."whoever you see here is also shopping here. They can't make fun of you". I was okay after that until they ran to the special. Kids can be cruel and I was cool and wanted to stay that way :rolleyes:

They don't even have K-Marts in Texas anymore. I have to cross the border for any type of specials...lol I'd be the one running today. Of course I wouldn't take it as far as the two women did in Wal-Mart the year they had the scooters on sale the day after Thanksgiving. They were fist fighting on the floor over a scooter. I was in shock to see two grown women fighting in Wal-Mart.

sorry.....I know that's way off topic

Martyrdom

07-31-2006, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by limakey

Yes, there is documentation, however, there is also documentation of Simpson taking responsibility what he did, made no excuses and that he knew what his punishment was going to be if it happend again. There is also documentation that Nicole said it only happened once.

It seems that you just don't what want to understand the situation. You don;t believe the women on this board who share there stories with you to help you understand how this stuff goes down and I guess you don't want to believe me and my experiences as being the batterer.

You know the Blue Wall of Silence thing that you talk about with cops? There's an even bigger code of silence that exists in the world of domestic violence.

Simpson never took responsibilty other then to say he felt responsible, but what's feeling responsible when you say you didn;t harm her? Do you really think he's trying to say that he takes responsability for someone else kicking her butt that night? Nope, only one person touched her that night and if he says he takes responsability then he should be prepared to admit that he beat up on her.

And you know what else? Women lie and lie all the time to cover up for the sick and awful guys that beat them up. Brainwashing at it's greatest lemme tell ya. It's true though. My wife lied to keep me out of trouble on way more than one occassion.

tazzybaby

07-31-2006, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Tazzy,

*snip*

The calls from Rockingham Ave. to 911 except for the 89 and 93 incident weren't mentioned, and we know the cops keep a log.. Why wasn't that information presented or even mentioned, care to take a gander as to why?

Hi Netta,

There is no reason to believe that the maid placed the call to 911. She never stated that she did. She didn't have any marks on her. She wasn't scared, breathing hard, hiding or waiting for help.

I don't know why exactly you say that Nicole didn't say he hit her to the police?

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU ASK OR POSE ANY QUESTION TO NICOLE BROWN AT THAT TIME?

A: YES. I ASKED HER WHAT HAPPENED TO HER FACE.

Q: AND WAS SHE STILL HYSTERICAL AT THAT POINT?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID SHE SAY?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR. HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: SHE SAID THAT O.J. HAD SLAPPED HER, HIT HER WITH HIS FIST AND KICKED HER AND PULLED HER -- I THINK PULLED HER BY THE HAIR.

http://simpson.walraven.org/jan31.html

And, don't forget that Simpson RAN from the police that night also.

Did you ever read any of the testimony from the civil trial? An example....the lady from the vet's office and the man on the beach. There's two examples of people witnessing abuse.

http://walraven.org/simpson/simpson.html

Please read the rest to understand the full extent of the abuse. These people were also ready in the criminal trial to testify.

They only keep 911 calls for so long. They lucked out to have the tapes that they did have. They wouldn't have it on their log if they did nothing about it.

Kate Sachel

07-31-2006, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Nicole's diary and her letter was not admitted in either trial, you care to take a guess as to why?

No one has to guess, because Nicole's diary and her letter to OJ were admitted as evidence in the civil trial.

The diary was exhibit 735 and the letter was exhibit 732.

Kate

jotun

07-31-2006, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

jotun, your comments about Kaelin's testimony is irrelevant

The defense never disputed the fact that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit

Fuhrman talked about the sweat suit in the washing machine

bobaugust

All
Kato taking the 5th "irrelevant"??? Tells me he didn't want to incriminate himelf.Like Fuhrman when he said "I wish to assert my 5th amendment priviledge"

The defence DID dispute the black sweatsuit.This was the point of the washer video.With slips, bras and panties inside.
NO SWEATSUIT.In fact Gigi testified that O.J. DID NOT own a black sweatsuit.

This fathom suit is ONLY in Fuhrman's book years after the trial.Along with other evidence that was 'not collected' with himself in CHARGE.
Utter Nonsence.And our resident 'COP' believes every word.Talk about GULLIBLE....
jotun

jotun

07-31-2006, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Martyrdom

It seems that you just don't what want to understand the situation. You don;t believe the women on this board who share there stories with you to help you understand how this stuff goes down and I guess you don't want to believe me and my experiences as being the batterer.

This case was about murder.Not domestic violence.Tho you all have taken advantage to promote your cause.A ridiculous theory.You ALL are believed.It just has NOTHING to do with this case. TOTALLY IRRELEVANT....
It is hard to feel any sympathy for you or the resident "BATTERED WOMEN" who post here.They are so nasty about everything and have projected this HATE onto O.J.
In fact O.J.said as much in his BET interview Jan 95."A certain type of woman, that as had a bad experience with a man. I HAVE BECOME THEIR WHIPPING BOY."
It has always been my belief that you FIND each other.Studies have shown it is learned at home. O.J.'s father left his family when O.J. was 4 years old. So O.J. most certainly didn't learn it at home.IF,which I doubt, Nicole had put up with this. She learned it fom her own parents. Nicole was the BATTERER... Now she is the poster girl. Ironic . A child also idenifies with the parent of their own sex. Who is out fighting with people and slapping cops???
SYNDEY.
jotun

nettathirty

07-31-2006, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

It was only "irrelevant" to those that don't have a clue as to domestic violence. Obviously not all batterers murder, but sometimes they do, as evidenced in this case.

Nicole has always said OJ never hit her!

limakey

08-01-2006, 12:04 AM

JOTUN,

I have to disagree with you about Kato taking the fifth. IMO, anyone would be nuts not to have legal representation. I know the term "lawyering up", but I truly believe that anyone who doesn't "lawyer up", is nuts.

If I remember correctly, Kato was told that he was a prime suspect in this case, I think it was Cora. Again, I'm not sure, but I do believe that Marcia Clark probably made it clear that she "knew" he was covering up something or for someone, was him or OJ?

Again, IMO.

limakey

08-01-2006, 12:37 AM

Taz and 2 Late,

I hope this is the right thread, I hate playing catch up!

I believe most people have at least two sides. However, in this case, it seems to me that only OJ Simpson has two sides. That to even mention Nicole's, Ron's or Mark Fuhrman's or anyone else is either simply dismissed or in Nicole's case, her dark side was competely justified because "OJ made her do it", "OJ made her say it." Perfect example, when Nicole slapped the maid, well it seems to me that Nicole was excused from this because it was all OJ's fault. That doesn't make sense to me nor do I think it is fair.

Taz, I do believe that even a child can physically hurt a adult. Does it mean it was done on purpose--no, but when it comes to hurting someone in regards to being physical, size doesn't matter.

I think it is a mistake, even for G's to say that Nicole, if she in fact, did hit, slap or kick OJ (which I'm just using examples), it doesn't matter because of her size, that she couldn't hurt him because of his size.

IMO, to hang on to this, sends a message that domestic abuse only counts when a mark is left, when a bruise is left, or when it "didn't hurt".

2L8 4A D8

08-01-2006, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Taz and 2 Late,

I hope this is the right thread, I hate playing catch up!

<snipped>

I am confused why I was included in this post. I don't think that I have ever posted to you Limakey re: the abuse of Nicole.

:shrug: :confused: :shrug:

limakey

08-01-2006, 07:30 AM

2Late,

Sorry, about that! Hope all is well.

Kate Sachel

08-01-2006, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by jotun

This case was about murder.Not domestic violence.Tho you all have taken advantage to promote your cause.A ridiculous theory.You ALL are believed.It just has NOTHING to do with this case. TOTALLY IRRELEVANT....
It is hard to feel any sympathy for you or the resident "BATTERED WOMEN" who post here.They are so nasty about everything and have projected this HATE onto O.J.
In fact O.J.said as much in his BET interview Jan 95."A certain type of woman, that as had a bad experience with a man. I HAVE BECOME THEIR WHIPPING BOY."
It has always been my belief that you FIND each other.Studies have shown it is learned at home. O.J.'s father left his family when O.J. was 4 years old. So O.J. most certainly didn't learn it at home.IF,which I doubt, Nicole had put up with this. She learned it fom her own parents. Nicole was the BATTERER... Now she is the poster girl. Ironic . A child also idenifies with the parent of their own sex. Who is out fighting with people and slapping cops???
SYNDEY.
jotun

As a woman who has never been in an abusive relationship, nor known anyone (to my knowledge) that has been in one I can tell you just how ridiculous and loony your comments are.

Of course, as a die hard supporter of a double murderer and an apparent supporter of domestic violence, your lunacy doesn't much surprise me.

If you cared to research, what you would understand about Sydney is that research shows that more than likely she is outspoken and easily volatile as a result of the behaviors that she witnessed growing up in the fact that she heard and probably saw some of the abuse inflicted on her mother. Because of this, her defensive mechanisms are high and she feels it necessary to be greatly outspoken.

OJ is their "whipping boy" because he battered his wife. It's no great mystery or sinister conspiracy that you are apparently used to dealing with over on IAGO. It's cut and dry with no shade of gray.

Aren't you the man that believes that Kato murdered Nicole and Ron? I suppose that speaks volumes enough for me.

Kate

bobaugust

08-01-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by jotun

All
Kato taking the 5th "irrelevant"??? Tells me he didn't want to incriminate himelf.Like Fuhrman when he said "I wish to assert my 5th amendment priviledge"

The defence DID dispute the black sweatsuit.This was the point of the washer video.With slips, bras and panties inside.
NO SWEATSUIT.In fact Gigi testified that O.J. DID NOT own a black sweatsuit.

This fathom suit is ONLY in Fuhrman's book years after the trial.Along with other evidence that was 'not collected' with himself in CHARGE.
Utter Nonsence.And our resident 'COP' believes every word.Talk about GULLIBLE....
jotun

jotun, more false information from you.

Kaelin's 5th amendment assertion was a completely different situation than Mark Fuhrman's.

At the start of the Grand Jury when Kaelin was first called to testify he invoked his right to the 5th amendment. It was explained to him that his refusal to answer questions was without any legal cause and if he persisted he would be in contempt of the Grand Jury. When Kaelin persisted the Grand Jury went into recess and proceedings continued against Kaelin.

Kaelin returned and cooperated fully testifying in the Grand Jury, the preliminary hearing, the criminal trial, depositions, and the civil trial.

The defense never disputed the black sweatsuit found in Simpson's washing machine. They never said one word about it. The point of showing limited portions of the video taken of Simpson laundry room was for Gigi to identify Arnelle's clothing. They never showed the portion showing the dark colored sweat suit. Your statement that Simpson did not own a black sweatsuit is false.

Your claim that Fuhrman said he was in charge of the search of Simpson's house is false. It's your mistake not comprehending what you read.

The fact that Mark Fuhrman was the only one who would talk about this evidence is not nonsense. No one, not any prosecutor, not any defense attorney, not any witness has ever disputed this either in court, publicly, or in a book.

The fact is that the sweatsuit was video taped.
The fact is that a second search warrant was issued to go back to Rockingham to collect that sweatsuit. But it was gone.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-01-2006, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*SNIPPED*

The fact that Mark Fuhrman was the only one who would talk about this evidence is not nonsense.

bobaugust

August,

Your at times delusional, Mark Fuhrman is a convicted perjuror.. He lied on the witness stand, after he swore to tell the truth and nothing but!

He's a liar in his book, his a liar and a crook..
He's a liar very far, he's a liar in his car..
He's a liar over there, he's a liar everywhere!

imo jmo moo

bobaugust

08-01-2006, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

He lied on the witness stand, after he swore to tell the truth and nothing but!

He's a liar in his book, his a liar and a crook..
He's a liar very far, he's a liar in his car..
He's a liar over there, he's a liar everywhere!

nettathirty, Mark Fuhrman told one irrelevant lie that had nothing to do with these murders. Orenthal James Simpson told many lies all related to these murders.

Your post and your poem describes Orenthal James Simpson to a tee.

Good job.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-01-2006, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

nettathirty, Mark Fuhrman told one irrelevant lie that had nothing to do with these murders. Orenthal James Simpson told many lies all related to these murders.

Your post and your poem describes Orenthal James Simpson to a tee.

Good job.

bobaugust [/QUOTE

It DOES fit Orenthal to a tee :lol:

Looks like Netta's been reading Dr Seuss again. Too bad he refuses to read any of the books relative to this case :rolleyes:

Dr Seuss, has more credibility! :lol:

nettathirty

08-01-2006, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

nettathirty, Mark Fuhrman told one irrelevant lie that had nothing to do with these murders.

bobaugust

August,

If Mark Fuhrman (convicted perjuror) could lie about something irrelevant that has nothing to do with the murders. What would he be capable of if he felt he had a reason, maybe those tapes weren't so fictional after all.. Considering he'll lie for absolutely no reason!

jotun

08-01-2006, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

jotun, more false information

Your claim that Fuhrman said he was in charge of the search of Simpson's house is false.

bobaugust

None of my info is false.
I watched that trial. I saw the video, with the slips, bras & panties. NO SWEATSUIT.I saw Gigi say that O.J. did NOT own a black sweatsuit.She also said O.J.folded his dirty clothes.Impressive huh?

Fuhrman was in charge for a time, in which he could have collected any of this "not collected" evidence.
This is what Fuhrman said:
Page 37-Murder in Brentwood
Placing his hand on my shoulder
and with confidence in his voice,Vannater said
" YOU'RE IN CHARGE OF THIS CRIME SCENE.
jotun

bobaugust

08-01-2006, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

If Mark Fuhrman (convicted perjuror) could lie about something irrelevant that has nothing to do with the murders. What would he be capable of if he felt he had a reason, maybe those tapes weren't so fictional after all.. Considering he'll lie for absolutely no reason!

nettathirty, many people lie under oath about personal questions that they are too embarrassed to answer truthfully. In this case the question should never had been asked of Mark Fuhrman. It had absolutely nothing to do with Simpson's guilt or innocence.

You were evidently so swayed by this one meaningless dumb lie that Fuhrman told that it has completely distorted your ability to comprehend the reality of what the real evidence tells us. Yet the fact that Simpson told many lies under oath all related to these murders doesn't seem to bother you one bit and you can't seem to comprehend the reality of what Simpson's lies mean.

You're thinking is backwards and confused.

bobaugust

jotun

08-01-2006, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

Of course, as a die hard supporter of a double murderer

Sydney is that research shows that more than likely she is outspoken and easily volatile as a result of the behaviors that she witnessed growing up in the fact that she heard and probably saw some of the abuse inflicted on her mother.

OJ is their "whipping boy" sinister conspiracy that you are apparently used to dealing with over on IAGO.

Aren't you the man that believes that Kato murdered Nicole and Ron? I suppose that speaks volumes enough for me.

Kate

Kate
I DON'T support a killer.
O.J. IS INNOCENT...

According to the custody trial Sydney NEVER witnessed any abuse of Nicole by O.J.
She is volatile because she is confrontational like her mother. O.J. and the Browns have all said so.

I don't deal with conspiracy om lago because I don't believe it. As you would see if you bothered to research.
Post as o.j.nut there.
Dec-05-June-06.
It's an interesting site.

No am not the MAN who thinks Kato did it.Tho did see a video of Kato soon after the murders with a knife to a woman's throat while 'Deliah'
played.

Maybe speaks volumes enough for you. But is totally WRONG.
I'm a WOMAN.
jotun

bobaugust

08-01-2006, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by jotun

None of my info is false.
I watched that trial. I saw the video, with the slips, bras & panties. NO SWEATSUIT.I saw Gigi say that O.J. did NOT own a black sweatsuit.She also said O.J.folded his dirty clothes.Impressive huh?

Fuhrman was in charge for a time, in which he could have collected any of this "not collected" evidence.
This is what Fuhrman said:
Page 37-Murder in Brentwood
Placing his hand on my shoulder
and with confidence in his voice,Vannater said
" YOU'RE IN CHARGE OF THIS CRIME SCENE.
jotun

jotun, your arguments are false based on your problem of not understanding what you read. I've already explained this to you before.

You only saw a very small portion of the video tape showing only Arnelle's clothing and her laundry basket. The rest of the video showing the dark colored sweats in the washing machine was never shown.

Gigi never said Simpson did NOT own black sweatsuit. She was asked if she knew if Simpson owned black sweat pants. She said she never saw any black sweat pants. She also said she didn't know if Simpson owned any black sweat pants. She was asked if she saw Simpson wearing black sweats in any video. She said she never watched the video.

Does this mean Simpson never owned black sweats? Of course not. It only means that Gigi never saw them. The fact is that Leslie Gardiner testified that Simpson kept the black sweats he wore when he made the exercise video and Kato Kaelin testified that Simpson was wearing a dark colored cotton sweatsuit the night of the murders. And a freshly washed dark colored sweatsuit was found in Simpson's washing machine the afternoon after the murders.

Mark Fuhrman never said nor was he ever in charge of the search of Simpson's house. On page 37 Vannatter left Fuhrman in charge of securing Simpson's house when he left to get a search warrant. No evidence inside the house was ever collected until Vannatter arrived back with the search warrant.

I suggest you learn to read a little further in the book so you can comprehend what was written instead of taking one line out of context.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-01-2006, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

You were evidently so swayed by this one meaningless dumb lie that Fuhrman told that it has completely distorted your ability to comprehend the reality of what the real evidence tells us.

Yet the fact that Simpson told many lies under oath all related to these murders doesn't seem to bother you one bit and you can't seem to comprehend the reality of what Simpson's lies mean.

You're thinking is backwards and confused.

bobaugust

August,

Stop it right here and right now.. You know what my feelings are about this case.. I believe OJ is as much a batterer as MF is a racist, but because of some past behavior both men fell victim to his prior actions. Mark Fuhrman tried to get out of work by filing a "false claim" more lies by detective MF.. OJ Plead No Contest to spousal abuse, the photo surfaced and we label OJ a batterer!

Both men, probably weren't what they were labeled but do to they own pride and egos, they created their own fates!

jotun

08-01-2006, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by limakey

When did the DA's prove that OJ Simpson was wearing a sweat suit that night? It was from Kato Kalin, yet, he described it as having white stripes and a zipper, I think. Yet, he totally got what OJ was wearing to the airport wrong.

--when did the LAPD suspect Simpson. In my opinon, he was a suspect shortly after the murders were discovered,

limakey
The DA's never proved that O.J. was wearing a sweat-suit.They couldn't even decide where it was.Marcia got Kato to say some of what she wanted. Sharp-looking jogging suit with a white zipper seems like the nylon type. There is a bit of O.J.'s depo where he talks about that windbreaker.

I posted this on the general
thread in June:

Line-up- Fox news- June 11-06

Lange: on Bundy
"Walked thru and QUICKLEY we learned that this was perhaps O.J.Simpson's wife.Whattt thought they testi-lied, that they didn't know for hours. Were too lame to figure out DADDY on the speed dial.And still didn't know after Sydney told them who her daddy was.

Lange: on Rockingham
"When we got there of course we didn't know,what we had inside.WE ALL FELT WE HAD AN ADDITIONAL CRIME SCENE INSIDE HIS HOME. And of course we DID. WHATTTTTTT. Didn't they ALL testi-Lie that O.J.wasn't a suspect.
jotun

limakey

08-01-2006, 11:46 PM

Jotun,

And didn't the civil trial lawyers have some sweat suits? Did they ever compare the fibers?

bobaugust

08-02-2006, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by jotun

limakey
The DA's never proved that O.J. was wearing a sweat-suit.They couldn't even decide where it was.Marcia got Kato to say some of what she wanted. Sharp-looking jogging suit with a white zipper seems like the nylon type. There is a bit of O.J.'s depo where he talks about that windbreaker.

I posted this on the general
thread in June:

Line-up- Fox news- June 11-06

Lange: on Bundy
"Walked thru and QUICKLEY we learned that this was perhaps O.J.Simpson's wife.Whattt thought they testi-lied, that they didn't know for hours. Were too lame to figure out DADDY on the speed dial.And still didn't know after Sydney told them who her daddy was.

Lange: on Rockingham
"When we got there of course we didn't know,what we had inside.WE ALL FELT WE HAD AN ADDITIONAL CRIME SCENE INSIDE HIS HOME. And of course we DID. WHATTTTTTT. Didn't they ALL testi-Lie that O.J.wasn't a suspect.
jotun

jotun, you seem only to want to believe in unsubstantiated media reports, stories, and rumors for your opinions and ignore the actual facts, evidence, and testimony presented in court as well as supported facts written in books by the key players in this case.

That's one of the reasons why almost all of your opinions are wrong. They're based on false and misinformation.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

08-02-2006, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by jotun

<snipped>

According to the custody trial Sydney NEVER witnessed any abuse of Nicole by O.J.
She is volatile because she is confrontational like her mother. O.J. and the Browns have all said so.

<snipped>

Again, another one of your posts where you offer up no link or testimony re: "O.J. and the Browns have all said so." All we've got is your babble and we are just supposed to believe it. GMAB!

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

08-02-2006, 07:12 AM

Mr. August,

I get it now, the more you talk in riddles and more the more times you post how NG's live in a fantasy world, that means we have asked you a question that was never, ever proven.

Straight up---when the DA's or the Civil Trial lawyers link OJ Simpson to the sweat suit that allegedly left those fibers?

Straight up---where were those same fibers in any of Simpson's cars?

Straight up---what size of extra large gloves does Simpson wear and what size where the one's found at the scene?

limakey

08-02-2006, 07:16 AM

2Late,

OJ Simpson has several times given Mr. and Mrs. Brown credit for helping him with the children. It appears to me that the one thing Simpson and the Browns agreed on was to do what was best for the children. I'm sure that has to be tough for both sides but at least give them both the credit for this.

IMO, I think if Sydney and or Justin did witness any violence between OJ and Nicole, they would have testified and it would have come out in their custody case.

Martyrdom

08-02-2006, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

OJ Simpson has several times given Mr. and Mrs. Brown credit for helping him with the children. It appears to me that the one thing Simpson and the Browns agreed on was to do what was best for the children. I'm sure that has to be tough for both sides but at least give them both the credit for this.

IMO, I think if Sydney and or Justin did witness any violence between OJ and Nicole, they would have testified and it would have come out in their custody case.

I don't think that's true. My kids never said anything. Some I'm sure would, others don't.

weezer

08-02-2006, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

Your at times delusional, Mark Fuhrman is a convicted perjuror.. He lied on the witness stand, after he swore to tell the truth and nothing but!

He's a liar in his book, his a liar and a crook..
He's a liar very far, he's a liar in his car..
He's a liar over there, he's a liar everywhere!

imo jmo moo And Orenthal James Simpson has been found by a court of law to be responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. I'm wondering why you don't apply the same standard to the double murderer Orenthal Simpson? He was proven to lie about everything -- important and trivial.

bobaugust

08-02-2006, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

I get it now, the more you talk in riddles and more the more times you post how NG's live in a fantasy world, that means we have asked you a question that was never, ever proven.

Straight up---when the DA's or the Civil Trial lawyers link OJ Simpson to the sweat suit that allegedly left those fibers?

Straight up---where were those same fibers in any of Simpson's cars?

Straight up---what size of extra large gloves does Simpson wear and what size where the one's found at the scene?

limakey, I don't talk in riddles, I talk the truth of these murders.

I believe I've answered every legitimate question asked to me. You on the other hand not only never answered the questions I asked you in a couple of posts you never even acknowledged them

Straight up- The dark colored sweat suit that Kaelin testified Simpson was wearing the night of the murders and was found freshly washed in Simpson's washing machine the afternoon after the murders was never collected, so it was never tested to see if it was the source of the fibers.

The fibers link Simpson to the murder, not the sweat suit. The same blue black cotton fibers were found on Ron Goldman's shirt, the killer's right hand glove, and on Simpson's sock.

Straight up- there were no fibers of any kind found in any of Simpson's cars.

Straight up- Rubin testified as to what size glove Simpson would wear, "Between a large in some styles and an extra large in other styles." The killer's gloves found at the murder scene were extra large.

Your turn.
Straight up- Who do you think planned and committed these murders if not Simpson? And how and why did they do it on June 12, 1994?

bobaugust

bobaugust

08-02-2006, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

Stop it right here and right now.. You know what my feelings are about this case.. I believe OJ is as much a batterer as MF is a racist, but because of some past behavior both men fell victim to his prior actions. Mark Fuhrman tried to get out of work by filing a "false claim" more lies by detective MF.. OJ Plead No Contest to spousal abuse, the photo surfaced and we label OJ a batterer!

Both men, probably weren't what they were labeled but do to they own pride and egos, they created their own fates!

nettathirty, the fact is that everyone tells lies in the course of living their lives, but not everyone murders people, and not everyone tells lies under oath testifying for their life.

Mark Fuhrman told one meaningless, dumb lie under oath that was not relevant to these murders or to Simpson's guilt or innocence . Orenthal James Simpson told many lies under oath, all related to the murders.

I agree that both men have their own pride and egos and they each had a hand in creating their own fates. Mark Fuhrman is no longer a police detective but a successful author. Orenthal James Simpson is no longer a wealthy successful celebrity but a pariah who will be forever known as having murdered two people.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

08-02-2006, 04:40 PM

nettathirty

08-02-2006, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

No duh. He IS a batterer!

Socal,

If you believe OJ a batterer for pleading NO contest.. Then MF planted the glove at Rockingham, because of the audio tapes and his disability claim!

bobaugust

08-02-2006, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Socal,

If you believe OJ a batterer for pleading NO contest.. Then MF planted the glove at Rockingham, because of the audio tapes and his disability claim!

nettathirty, your analogy stinks.

The fact is that there is plenty of evidence that Simpson physically abused Nicole. There isn't one shred of evidence that any evidence was planted in the Simpson case.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-02-2006, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

nettathirty, your analogy stinks.

The fact is that there is plenty of evidence that Simpson physically abused Nicole. There isn't one shred of evidence that any evidence was planted in the Simpson case.

bobaugust

August,

On the tape, MF talked frequently about planting evidence..

bobaugust

08-02-2006, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

On the tape, MF talked frequently about planting evidence..

nettathirty, it doesn't matter what Fuhrman said when he was recorded on tape creating a fictional screen play. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Simpson case.

There isn't one shred of evidence that any evidence was planted in the Simpson case. Not by Mark Fuhrman and not by anyone else. Simpson left all that evidence all by himself.

bobaugust

jotun

08-02-2006, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

jotun, your arguments are false based on your problem of not understanding what you read.

Mark Fuhrman never said nor was he ever in charge of the search of Simpson's house.

I suggest you learn to read a little further in the book so you can comprehend what was written instead of taking one line out of context.
bobaugust

Understand this.
Fuhrman wrote:
page 37.
Vannatter said "YOU'RE IN CHARGE OF THIS CRIME SCENE"
Did read a little further.Next line:
"One of the first things I did was instruct an officer to complete an impound report for the Bronco and have it imported to LAPD headquarters at Parker Center.........."
I have read ALL of this book. As have you. Most of what you post over & over come from it.
I have read most of the books about this case.Even read the DEFENCE BOOKS!!!
jotun

bobaugust

08-02-2006, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by jotun

Understand this.
Fuhrman wrote:
page 37.
Vannatter said "YOU'RE IN CHARGE OF THIS CRIME SCENE"
Did read a little further.Next line:
"One of the first things I did was instruct an officer to complete an impound report for the Bronco and have it imported to LAPD headquarters at Parker Center.........."
I have read ALL of this book. As have you. Most of what you post over & over come from it.
I have read most of the books about this case.Even read the DEFENCE BOOKS!!!
jotun

jotun, evidently you didn't read my post or understand what you read in Fuhrman's book.

You said in your original post, "Fuhrman was in charge for a time, in which he could have collected any of this 'not collected' evidence."

First, Fuhrman was put in charge of securing Rockingham by Vannatter when he left to obtain a search warrant. There was no search inside Simpson's house at that time. All of the evidence found in Simpson's house, including the evidence that wasn't collected, was never seen until Vannatter returned with a search warrant. That's when the search began.
Second, Detectives do not collect evidence. Criminalists do.

It doesn't matter how many books you read. If you can't comprehend what you read you're comments would still be based on false and misinformation just like the one you made above.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-02-2006, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by jotun

Understand this.
Fuhrman wrote:
page 37.
Vannatter said "YOU'RE IN CHARGE OF THIS CRIME SCENE"
Did read a little further.Next line:
"One of the first things I did was instruct an officer to complete an impound report for the Bronco and have it imported to LAPD headquarters at Parker Center.........."
I have read ALL of this book. As have you. Most of what you post over & over come from it.
I have read most of the books about this case.Even read the DEFENCE BOOKS!!!
jotun

Jotun,

You have to believe Guilty until proven innocent.. This is why, we have the Innocence Program thanks to people like August, Socal, 2L8, Kay, Rain, Md and the others... These are the same people who set on juries like the one that sent " Geromino Pratt" to prison for a Santa Monica crime that took place while he was in Oakland in the 70's..

These naive souls, have been conditioned to believe certain behaviors that someone says exist in another human, will yield a certain kind of of action or reaction!

I know, sad huh.

limakey

08-02-2006, 10:51 PM

Mr. August,

Straight up, it was never proven what Mr. Simpson was wearing that night. Those fibers were never, ever linked to any sweat suit.

Straight up, those blue black fibers were never linked to Mr. Simpson.

Straight up, where did the white person's hair come from that was found on the glove?

Straight up, who's blood was Nicole's back?

Straight up, who's blood was the back gate and who's finger print was in it?

Striaght up, how could those same police officer's who say those saw the blood on the back gate, miss the bloody fingerprint Mark Fuhrman said was there?

Straight up, how could four seasoned detectives, with over 100 years of experience between them, at least two of them knowing of the Simpsons' past, not suspect him in these murders?

Straight up, why if Mr. Simpson was no more of a suspect in the murders then his lawyer Robert Shapiro, why did the kids have to stay at a police station for over 4 or 5 hours?

Straight up, why wasn't Mr. Simpson a prime suspect?

Straight up, I don't know who killed Ron and Nicole, but I think it is obvious that who ever did it, did not have the same concerns that OJ Simpson would have to have had.

Straight up, is there only one size of extra large gloves?

Straight up, is there an extra large glove size that is fitted for men who have long slender fingers and for a man who has short stubby fingers?

Straight up, I don't even know who was the target that night. I think it is very possible that Nicole was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Straight up, I'm sure you will agree that Nicole did not have very good taste or sense when it comes to men, however, as bad as that may have been, it was even worse when it came for her to pick her friends.

limakey

08-02-2006, 11:03 PM

S-Diva,

Straight up, I give you this, I'm sure Nicole never thought in a million years that her friends would sell her out and that her best friend would tell the world that she liked to sneak into men's rooms and give them blow jobs. Okay, you got this one, so rock on!

But wait, didn't she tell another friend that her friends would sell her out? I forget.

bobaugust

08-03-2006, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Straight up, it was never proven what Mr. Simpson was wearing that night. Those fibers were never, ever linked to any sweat suit.

Straight up, those blue black fibers were never linked to Mr. Simpson.

Straight up, where did the white person's hair come from that was found on the glove?

Straight up, who's blood was Nicole's back?

Straight up, who's blood was the back gate and who's finger print was in it?

Striaght up, how could those same police officer's who say those saw the blood on the back gate, miss the bloody fingerprint Mark Fuhrman said was there?

Straight up, how could four seasoned detectives, with over 100 years of experience between them, at least two of them knowing of the Simpsons' past, not suspect him in these murders?

Straight up, why if Mr. Simpson was no more of a suspect in the murders then his lawyer Robert Shapiro, why did the kids have to stay at a police station for over 4 or 5 hours?

Straight up, why wasn't Mr. Simpson a prime suspect?

Straight up, I don't know who killed Ron and Nicole, but I think it is obvious that who ever did it, did not have the same concerns that OJ Simpson would have to have had.

Straight up, is there only one size of extra large gloves?

Straight up, is there an extra large glove size that is fitted for men who have long slender fingers and for a man who has short stubby fingers?

Straight up, I don't even know who was the target that night. I think it is very possible that Nicole was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Straight up, I'm sure you will agree that Nicole did not have very good taste or sense when it comes to men, however, as bad as that may have been, it was even worse when it came for her to pick her friends.

limakey, more questions for me. Questions that I've answer many times before and again not one answer from you to the questions I asked you. I understand though, you can't answer my questions because what you believe is pure fantasy and you're too embarrassed to admit it.

Straight up, Kato Kaelin testified Simpson was wearing a dark colored cotton sweat suit the night of the murders. Leslie Gardiner testified that Simpson kept the dark colored cotton sweats he wore making an exercise video. A freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the afternoon after the murders.

Straight up, the same blue black cotton fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt, and on the killer's right hand glove were found on Simpson's socks. That fiber evidence ties Simpson to the murders.

Straight up, Douglas Deedrick testified that the short light brown Caucasian hair found on the Rockingham glove most likely came from Ron Goldman.

Straight up, we'll never know whose blood was on Nicole's back since it was washed off her body. But if it had dripped from the murder weapon it was probably either Ron or Nicole's. If it dripped from Simpson's cut it was his blood.

Straight up, all of the blood collected off the rear gate was Simpson's blood. So the blood on the brass deadbolt and possible fingerprint most likely came from Simpson.

Straight up, all of the police who saw the blood on the gate saw it by flashlight when they were given a tour of the crime scene. No one examined any of the blood closely except for the two lead West LA detectives at that time, Fuhrman and Roberts.

Straight up, anyone who knew the victims were possible suspects until further information was learned and they were eliminated, including Nicole's ex husband, Simpson.

Straight up, the time Simpson's kids stayed at the police station had nothing to do with any possible suspicion the detectives had, it was due to the fact that Simpson was not at his house to go get them. After the police spoke with Juditha Brown they told Arnelle to get the kids at the police station. Arnelle said she couldn't get them herself and had to call someone. She called AC Cowlings. Cowlings arrived at Rockingham about 6:45 but Arnelle was not ready to go until about a half hour later.

Straight up, Simpson wasn't a prime suspect because there was nothing at the murder scene that obviously pointed to him. No one knew he didn't have an airtight alibi. Simpson was only a possible suspect just like everyone else until he could be eliminated. After Fuhrman found the glove and when it became light outside and Vannatter saw the blood trail on Simpson's driveway, Simpson became a strong suspect.

Straight up, you say you don't know who killed Ron and Nicole and I say your are in denial. There is no doubt that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. No one else could have but Simpson.

Straight up, yes there is only one size of extra large gloves.

Straight up, no there is not an extra large glove size for different size fingers. Skin tight thin leather gloves stretch to fit longer than normal fingers.

Straight up, all of the know evidence and plain old common sense tells us Nicole was the target and Ron Goldman was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It seem no matter how much evidence is offered that Simpson went to Bundy to kill Nicole you will never be convinced. You are in great denial.

Straight up, Nicole's friends are irrelevant to these murders. Simpson also had some bad choices of friends. His friends are also irrelevant to these murders. All of the relevant physical evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson. Nothing points to anyone else. Nothing eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

08-03-2006, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Straight up, it was never proven what Mr. Simpson was wearing that night. Those fibers were never, ever linked to any sweat suit.

<snipped>

bobaugust
Member
Posts: 934

limakey, I don't talk in riddles, I talk the truth of these murders.

<snipped>

Your turn.
Straight up- Who do you think planned and committed these murders if not Simpson? And how and why did they do it on June 12, 1994?

bobaugust

Old Post 08-02-2006 10:10 AM
Limakey:

Straight Up ~ when are you going to ANSWER Bob's question re: the above? He's only been asking you for months!

Kayleighjo

08-03-2006, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Jotun,

You have to believe Guilty until proven innocent.. This is why, we have the Innocence Program thanks to people like August, Socal, 2L8, Kay, Rain, Md and the others... These are the same people who set on juries like the one that sent " Geromino Pratt" to prison for a Santa Monica crime that took place while he was in Oakland in the 70's..

These naive souls, have been conditioned to believe certain behaviors that someone says exist in another human, will yield a certain kind of of action or reaction!

I know, sad huh.

So now Bob, Socal, 2L8, Rain, Md and myself are responsible for sending innocent people to jail? You get more humorous and entertaining by the day.

I'd so much rather have people like you in the world who are close minded, base everything on race, and lump every single person of the same race all together ... yes, that's sure the way to go:rolleyes:

Kayleighjo

08-03-2006, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by limakey

Straight up, I'm sure you will agree that Nicole did not have very good taste or sense when it comes to men, however, as bad as that may have been, it was even worse when it came for her to pick her friends.

Chicks like this (limakey) give me a headache. How is that statement relevant to anything whatsoever? Everybody sold out everybody in this God forsaken case.

And now thanks to all these ludicrous "straight up" things posted all over, I have that stupid Paula Abdul song in my head:tongue:

2L8 4A D8

08-03-2006, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Kayleighjo

Chicks like this (limakey) give me a headache. How is that statement relevant to anything whatsoever? Everybody sold out everybody in this God forsaken case.

And now thanks to all these ludicrous "straight up" things posted all over, I have that stupid Paula Abdul song in my head:tongue:

Me too Kayleighjo. I think that ALL of us have answered her same questions a thousand times and she just keeps on keeping on. Now she has started this "Straight Up" cr@p like that's going to change our answers to her questions!

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

08-03-2006, 11:13 PM

Mr. August,

Straight up, you still haven't linke OJ Simpson to a sweat suit nor have the blue black fibers been linked to him. Do you mean to tell me that the sweats the lady said OJ was given for the video were not examined to see if they could have been the source?

Straight up, I want proof that those fibers were tested and I want the brand names of the sweat suits that those fibers could come from. If you can't provide the proof, that you say exists, then produce it. If not, then there is no link to Simpson. Kato's word isn't good enough and neither is some dumb a-- picture that was never entered into evidence.

Where is the proof?

limakey

08-03-2006, 11:47 PM

2Late,

I have posted why I believe Mr. Simpson could not have murdered Ron and Nicole. I have also posted why I believe that who ever killed them knew what they were doing and knew that if the played it even half right, they would never have to answer to the law for their crimes.

I have posted that I believe that the phone call Nicole had with Faye that night should have been further investigated. I have also posted that I believe that one of the most important witness never testified.

I also believe that two important witnesses who testified were not given the attention they deserved and what they had to say was glossed over or the focus was placed on places it should have been.

I have also posted why I believe the evidence can't be trusted. I realize that not every question is going to be answered, however, when the same questions that are being asked and the same excuse is used to "answer" them, isn't good enough.

Our justice system, as it was layed out, is the perfect system because even back then, our forefathers understood the abuse of power and authority. They understood that pressure and corruption were alive in our system.

Mr. Simpson had the resources to challenge each every piece of evidence, he leveled the playing field. He did not buy his aquittal.

I have also posted that a key issue in this trial, the timeline could have and should have been left up to three witnesses.

I have also posted that it will never make any sense why two eyewitnesses never took the stand.

I don't know who killed them, I'm not even sure that Nicole was the target. But I do know that the problems of evidence would have made it impossible for anyone to spend the rest of their lives behind bars.

However, if the killers ever call me and finally tell me it was them, I will PM you most quickly! LOL!

2L8 4A D8

08-04-2006, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by limakey

<snipped>

However, if the killers ever call me and finally tell me it was them, I will PM you most quickly! LOL!

Limakey: I don't have the desire nor the stamina to read through your very long and rambling posts, which pretty much say the same thing, over and over again. Sorry!

I would appreciate it if you would cease with the sarcasm. It's not funny to me. Thanks!

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

08-04-2006, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Straight up, you still haven't linke OJ Simpson to a sweat suit nor have the blue black fibers been linked to him. Do you mean to tell me that the sweats the lady said OJ was given for the video were not examined to see if they could have been the source?

Straight up, I want proof that those fibers were tested and I want the brand names of the sweat suits that those fibers could come from. If you can't provide the proof, that you say exists, then produce it. If not, then there is no link to Simpson. Kato's word isn't good enough and neither is some dumb a-- picture that was never entered into evidence.

Where is the proof?

limakey, straight up I answered every one of your questions with facts, evidence and reasonable explanations and yet you still won't even attempt to answer my questions. I guess you're just too embarrassed, right?

You say that the blue black fibers haven't been linked to Simpson. Are you really this dense? I repeat again, the same blue black cotton fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the killer's glove were also found on Simpson's socks.

What part of that fact don't you understand? The fact that the these same fibers found all over Ron's shirt and on the killer's gloves most likely came from the killer's clothing. And they were later found on Simpson's socks. That fact ties Simpson to the murders. How else do you think those fibers got on Simpson's socks? Are you going to now claim they were also planted?

July 5, 1995 Douglas Deedrick
MS. CLARK: Can you tell us, sir, what conclusion you reached concerning the blue black cotton fibers found on the Rockingham glove, Ron Goldman's shirt and the sock found in the Defendant's bedroom?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they all could have originated from the same fabric.
MS. CLARK: What appearance would those fibers have in a piece of fabric in terms of color?
MR. DEEDRICK: They would be black. It would look black.

Is this just coincidence that Kato Kaelin who testified as a hostile witness for the prosecution because he was a Simpson supporter at the time said Simpson was wearing a dark colored, blue or black, cotton sweat suit when they went to McDonalds for dinner.

June 17. 1994 Grand Jury Kato Kaelin
Q. AND WHAT WAS YOUR RESPONSE?
A. I WENT IN MY DRAWER AND I HAD $45, AND I INVITED MYSELF TO GO ALONG BECAUSE I WAS HUNGRY. SO WE WENT TOGETHER TO MC DONALD'S.
Q. WHAT CAR WERE YOU DRIVING IN?
A. HIS ROLLS ROYCE.
Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT HE WAS WEARING.
A. TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, I BELIEVE IT WAS A DARK OUTFIT, LIKE A SWEAT OUTFIT, A SWEAT SUIT TYPE OUTFIT.
Q. DO YOU RECALL IF IT HAD LONG SLEEVES?
A. YES.
Q. LONG PANTS?
A. YES.
Q. DO YOU REMEMBER HOW THE MATERIAL LOOKED?
A. MY BEST RECOLLECTION IS LIKE COTTON.
Q. LIKE A SWEAT SHIRT?
A. YEAH.

Is it just coincidence that Leslie Gardiner testified that the black cotton sweat suit she bought for Simpson that he wore when he made the exercise video was left at Simpson's house when the filming was completed?

December 4, 1996 Leslie Gardiner
Q. So when you packed up your things and left Mr. Simpson's house on that third and final day, did you take with you any of the articles of black sweat clothing that you had acquired for Mr. Simpson?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you leave that black sweat clothing at Mr. Simpson's house?
A. I left it there.

Is it just coincidence that a freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the afternoon after the murders and when the police went back to Rockingham with another search warrant to collect it, it was gone?

The fact is that the sweat suit was video taped in the washing machine when Simpson's laundry room was video taped. The picture that you call dumb was in Mark Fuhrman's book. A picture he attributed to "Prime Time Live" taken from the video tape. The picture has the time and the date on it that was recorded when the video tape was made. We know the time on the video camera was not correct but the date was. 3:01 PM 6-13-94,

That picture was never entered into evidence but the video tape was. The fact is that since the sweat suit was never collected the prosecution never talked about it and neither did the defense. But that doesn't change the fact that it was there. The video tape documented it.

There is no proof that the fibers came from the sweat suit Simpson was wearing since that sweat suit disappeared after the police finished their search of Simpson's house. But the source doesn't really matter since the fact is that the fibers themselves tie Simpson to the murders. They were found on his socks.

bobaugust

bobaugust

08-04-2006, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by limakey

I have posted why I believe Mr. Simpson could not have murdered Ron and Nicole. I have also posted why I believe that who ever killed them knew what they were doing and knew that if the played it even half right, they would never have to answer to the law for their crimes.

I have also posted that I believe that one of the most important witness never testified.

I also believe that two important witnesses who testified were not given the attention they deserved and what they had to say was glossed over or the focus was placed on places it should have been.

I have also posted that a key issue in this trial, the timeline could have and should have been left up to three witnesses.

I have also posted that it will never make any sense why two eyewitnesses never took the stand.

limakey, I don't recall you posting why Simpson could not have murdered Ron and Nicole or why the supposed real killer knew he or they would never have answer for their crime. Please post it again.

Who do you think is the most important witness who never testified?

What two important witnesses who testified do you think were not given the attention they deserved?

You say the time line could have and should have been left up to three witnesses. It was, Allan Park, Robert Heidstra, and Jill Shively. What three witnesses do you think it should have been left up to?

What two witnesses do you think should have taken the stand?

bobaugust

jotun

08-04-2006, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Jotun,

You have to believe Guilty until proven innocent.. This is why, we have the Innocence Program thanks to people like August, Socal, 2L8, Kay, Rain, Md and the others...
I know, sad huh.

Yes.Netta It is very sad.But very true.Maybe someday it will be PROVEN that O.J.IS INNOCENT.Even then all of THEM will come-up with an EXCUSE.
jotun

nettathirty

08-04-2006, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by jotun

Yes.Netta It is very sad.But very true.Maybe someday it will be PROVEN that O.J.IS INNOCENT.Even then all of THEM will come-up with an EXCUSE.
jotun

Jotun,

The abuse was so lacking in this case, it wasn't even funny.

2L8 4A D8

08-04-2006, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by jotun

Yes.Netta It is very sad.But very true.Maybe someday it will be PROVEN that O.J.IS INNOCENT.Even then all of THEM will come-up with an EXCUSE.
jotun

It has been PROVEN that O.J. IS GUILTY. Even then, all of YOU have come up with EXCUSE after EXCUSE!!

JMO and MOO!!

nettathirty

08-07-2006, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

It has been PROVEN that O.J. IS GUILTY. Even then, all of YOU have come up with EXCUSE after EXCUSE!!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8,

October 3, 1995 We the jury in the above entitle action (Criminal Trial) the one that matters, find the defendant Orenthal James Simpson - NOT GUILTY on the charge of 1st degree murder!!!

The civil trial should never have been, but because the balance of power in the Great USA leans one sidedly, well you know the rest!

August,

You don't find it odd that the Prosecution tried OJ for both murders at the same time, instead of each murder separately? If he beat the one, you can come back and try him again!

Kayleighjo

08-07-2006, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

2L8,

October 3, 1995 We the jury in the above entitle action (Criminal Trial) the one that matters, find the defendant Orenthal James Simpson - NOT GUILTY on the charge of 1st degree murder!!!

The civil trial should never have been, but because the balance of power in the Great USA leans one sidedly, well you know the rest!

August,

You don't find it odd that the Prosecution tried OJ for both murders at the same time, instead of each murder separately? If he beat the one, you can come back and try him again!

All I can offer on this one is .... :lol:

Oh, how simple-minded some outlooks are.

nettathirty

08-07-2006, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Kayleighjo

Oh, how simple-minded some outlooks are.

Why?

2L8 4A D8

08-07-2006, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

2L8,

October 3, 1995 We the jury in the above entitle action (Criminal Trial) the one that matters, find the defendant Orenthal James Simpson - NOT GUILTY on the charge of 1st degree murder!!!

<snipped>

As ALL of us have stated to you and anybody else who will listen at least 50 times ~ a verdict of NOT GUILTY does not prove that OJ is INNOCENT. You can argue that OJ is NOT GUILTY until you are blue in the face. As far as I am concerned, OJ is GUILTY as hail. OJ knows it and anybody with a minute amount of brain matter knows it too!

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

08-08-2006, 11:34 PM

Mr. August,

Unlike some G's (not all!), NG's have never posted that OJ Simpson would not have committed these crimes. I believe Mr. Simpson could not have committed these crimes because of the timeline, I do not believe one person could have murdered two, young and healthy people--unless the person was on some drug, perhaps a steriod.

IMO, the most important witness that didn't testify was Sydney Simpson. Now before posters (both G's and NG's!) just finish reading the post. Sydney (and perhaps Justin) were the logical start of the timeline---what time did they go to bed that night? Did she those blood drops before that night? And, why or how did she know her mother was crying on the phone that night?

To be honest to both sides, I do believe that it is a risk to put a child on the stand. IMO, it would be very difficult to figure out what a jury would think about it and would they hold it against the side that put them on the stand? Yet, we have seen children, even younger the Sydney take the stand---on the State's side.

The timeline witnesses that were more important were the two cops who, Steven Swab, flagged down when Kato decided to make him his best friend.

The clerk or the manager for the ice cream store, what did the receipts show that night?

I think Stewart Tanner's testimony has its problem, he refused to give a clear and accurate as to what the plans they had that night and what time they were to meet.

The police officers who listened to and took the answering machine's tape from Ron's apartment.

I have the same problem with Jill Schively's evidence now as I had then. While she did sell her story, she wasn't the only one. Also, she says that there was another witness, yet they never came forward? Yet, some say this person did, so why weren't they used?

limakey

08-08-2006, 11:41 PM

2Late,

I agree with you, that despite our "Innocent Until Proven Guilty", once the trial over, the verdict Not Guilty doesn't mean innocent.

However, if you adopt that, then isn't it just as fair to say that a civil trial verdict "liable" only means that is more likey then not the person committed the crime?

Isn't also fair to say that in a civil trial, the jurors are allowed a lot more leeway when it comes to the evidence?

I would not disagree with any G that OJ was a "dog" when it came to women. That even if he only hit Nicole once, he is still a batterer.

I would also agree that some of OJ's behavior reeked of guilt, but not of murder. Again, IMO.

bobaugust

08-09-2006, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Unlike some G's (not all!), NG's have never posted that OJ Simpson would not have committed these crimes. I believe Mr. Simpson could not have committed these crimes because of the timeline, I do not believe one person could have murdered two, young and healthy people--unless the person was on some drug, perhaps a steriod.

IMO, the most important witness that didn't testify was Sydney Simpson. Now before posters (both G's and NG's!) just finish reading the post. Sydney (and perhaps Justin) were the logical start of the timeline---what time did they go to bed that night? Did she those blood drops before that night? And, why or how did she know her mother was crying on the phone that night?

To be honest to both sides, I do believe that it is a risk to put a child on the stand. IMO, it would be very difficult to figure out what a jury would think about it and would they hold it against the side that put them on the stand? Yet, we have seen children, even younger the Sydney take the stand---on the State's side.

The timeline witnesses that were more important were the two cops who, Steven Swab, flagged down when Kato decided to make him his best friend.

The clerk or the manager for the ice cream store, what did the receipts show that night?

I think Stewart Tanner's testimony has its problem, he refused to give a clear and accurate as to what the plans they had that night and what time they were to meet.

The police officers who listened to and took the answering machine's tape from Ron's apartment.

I have the same problem with Jill Schively's evidence now as I had then. While she did sell her story, she wasn't the only one. Also, she says that there was another witness, yet they never came forward? Yet, some say this person did, so why weren't they used?

limakey, your reasons that you believe Simpson couldn't have committed the murders is contradicted by all of the evidence and witness testimony. Add to that the information you base your opinions on is limited to the criminal trial and it's obvious to anyone who has educated themselves about all the new information and evidence learned after the criminal trial that your opinions are wrong.

There's no reason that Sydney Simpson could have told us anything about these murders. She and Justin were sleeping when they were committed. Simpson's blood was not at Bundy before the murders. Simpson told us that.

Steven Schwab did not flag down two cops. One patrol officer stopped and talked to Schwab. He later came forward after Schwab testified, realizing that it was him Schwab was talking about. The prosecution was able to obtain the report Officer Benjamin Jones wrote at the time and gave a copy of it to the defense. If the defense found that it contradicted anything Schwab had testified to they would have called Officer Jones as a witness. He was never called.

Juditha Brown testified that when they started their drive home after dinner that night at 8:30 she saw Nicole walking across the street with Justin, Sydney, and Rachel to get ice cream.

There was no problem with Stuart Tanner's testimony. He testified that he was going to meet Ron at a bar in Marina Del Rey. He said it wasn't a definite plan that after Ron got off work Ron was either going to call him or he was going to call Ron.

I don't know anything about the police officers who listened to Ron's answering machine. It was never brought up at either trial.

There was no problem with the facts that Jill Shively testified to. Her testimony fits the time line perfectly. Heidstra saw Simpson's Bronco speed away from Bundy. A short time later Simpson ran a red light, speeding with his head lights off, at Bundy and San Vicente. That's when he nearly hit Jill Shively's car and Jill Shively identified Simpson making eye contact with him.

If you want to learn the details of that incident and why Clark was deceived into dropping Shively as a witness you can read about it on Dick Wagner's web site. I suggest you start learning the facts before you offer your opinion.
http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/remember.htm
http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/sell.htm
http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/eyes.htm
http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/time.htm

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

08-09-2006, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

I agree with you, that despite our "Innocent Until Proven Guilty", once the trial over, the verdict Not Guilty doesn't mean innocent.

However, if you adopt that, then isn't it just as fair to say that a civil trial verdict "liable" only means that is more likey then not the person committed the crime?

Isn't also fair to say that in a civil trial, the jurors are allowed a lot more leeway when it comes to the evidence?

I would not disagree with any G that OJ was a "dog" when it came to women. That even if he only hit Nicole once, he is still a batterer.

I would also agree that some of OJ's behavior reeked of guilt, but not of murder. Again, IMO.

As far as I am concerned, the criminal trial and the civil trial are two completely different matters. However, if OJ had been found "not liable" in the civil trial, I would still have the same feelings ~ OJ is guilty as hail!

JMO and MOO!!

Kate Sachel

08-09-2006, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

You don't find it odd that the Prosecution tried OJ for both murders at the same time, instead of each murder separately? If he beat the one, you can come back and try him again!

No, this is not odd at all. It is standard operating procedure in all States and a little bit of research will yield for you exactly why it occurs as it does.

Kate

weezer

08-09-2006, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I'm guessing Netta is thinking about the fact that Andrea Yates was only charged with 2 or 3 of the 5 children's murders. There was some speculation as to the DA doing that in order to reserve the right to charge her at a later point for the other murders. Wouldn't that be something? If only Orenthal could face charges now! Now that the civil trial exposed and revealed the facts -- He'd be sitting on a slab in prison!

nettathirty

08-09-2006, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
[b]

anybody with a minute amount of brain matter knows it too!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8,

That's all the brain matter you used to come to your conclusion, huh? :lol:

weezer

08-09-2006, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

2L8,

That's all the brain matter you used to come to your conclusion, huh? :lol: That's all it took.

nettathirty

08-09-2006, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
That's all it took.

Or was that, all you had?

limakey

08-09-2006, 11:32 PM

2Late,

You have touched on something that is so true on this board and many others. It truly appears to me that while you posted that anyone with brains know he is guilty. However, IMO, the same can be said that there too many problems with the evidence to not to understand that the only option the jury had in the criminal trial was a not guilty verdict.

I do believe that G's passion for their position are just as strong as NG's. While I think Mr. August is stubborn, I can't knock his passion. I don't think he argues with the NG's for sport. IMO, of course!

Which is why I started this thread, what means signs of guilt to you, may be another person's reason for being a "NG".

bobaugust

08-10-2006, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

You have touched on something that is so true on this board and many others. It truly appears to me that while you posted that anyone with brains know he is guilty. However, IMO, the same can be said that there too many problems with the evidence to not to understand that the only option the jury had in the criminal trial was a not guilty verdict.

I do believe that G's passion for their position are just as strong as NG's. While I think Mr. August is stubborn, I can't knock his passion. I don't think he argues with the NG's for sport. IMO, of course!

Which is why I started this thread, what means signs of guilt to you, may be another person's reason for being a "NG".

limakey, there's your problem again. You can't seem to understand that we aren't discussing the criminal trial verdict, we're discussing if Simpson was the killer.

My position has nothing to do with passion it has to do with evidence. All the relevant physical evidence, all the witness testimony, and all of Simpson's lies prove Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. There is no doubt about that.

What you may think is being stubborn is just my persistence in correcting all the false and misinformation that you and some other posters use to argue in your denials of the truth. It seems all of you argue just to argue.

All of your arguments about the evidence in this case sound intelligent but have been shown to be either outright wrong or explained with reasonable explanations yet you still continue to make them even when you're proved wrong. It seems you think that your questions are more important than the answers you're given. I guess you think that if you can ask a question that somehow means reasonable doubt to you. It doesn't. I'm sorry but all it means is that you're evidently not bright enough to understand what the reality of the answers mean or you just can't admit to being wrong.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

08-10-2006, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

<snipped>

However, IMO, the same can be said that there too many problems with the evidence to not to understand that the only option the jury had in the criminal trial was a not guilty verdict.

That's where you and I part company Limakey. You say "that there were too many problems with the evidence...that the only option the jury had in the criminal trial was a not guilty verdict."

For me, the fact that the Jury totally, totally disregarded ALL of the DNA evidence because they "didn't understand it or didn't get it" is absolutely mindboggling to me. They had an obligation to TRY and understand the DNA evidence and if they still needed help, they needed to request ALL of the DNA testimony and read it. I don't care if it took them weeks to do this.

But to hand out a Not Guilty Verdict simply because they felt that this cop lied, that cop lied, MF lied, there was a conpiracy, there was a frame-up, there was this, there was that ~ ad nauseum ~ is absolutely unforgivable and unacceptable. They had already made up their minds long before the DNA testimony. That's when they all tuned out and off. That's why I will never agree with the Not Guilty Verdict ~ NEVER!

JMO and MOO!!

<snipped>

2L8 4A D8

08-10-2006, 03:22 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

<snipped>

What you may think is being stubborn is just my persistence in correcting all the false and misinformation that you and some other posters use to argue in your denials of the truth. It seems all of you argue just to argue.

<snipped>

bobaugust
Hmmm......................:D

weezer

08-10-2006, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

Or was that, all you had? Why do you continue to bait me?

limakey

08-10-2006, 11:54 PM

2Late,

You see here is the problem--the DA's tried to float an arguement that the defense never made. They never challenged who's DNA it was, just when and how did it get there.

The state gave a reason why certain blood stains were so degraded, they used the A/C unit on the truck, they never said or proved that is what caused, only it could have. I don't remember any experiment being done by them to prove that is what happened.

The only time the jury did question who's DNA it was when the "blood xray" was too difficult to read the "lines" because it was degraded.

If you read the jury instructions and the law, they had no choice. As for the police lies, well I think you have to ask yourself, what is the real issue, the actual words of the lie or the motive behind it?

As much as we may all hate to admit it, but the "wink, wink" is still alive and living large in our legal system. IMO, the criminal trial jurors debated the one issue that was neutral---and that was the timeline. IMO.

limakey

08-11-2006, 12:11 AM

Mr. August,

Again, your arguments are weak. About the blood on Ron's keys, when did the state determine that testing the blood on the keys was not necessary because they already had enough evidence against Mr. Simpson? How did they know, just looking at the blood on those keys that had to come from only Ron or Nicole? If Mr. Simpson's blood was found on those keys---well how would the defense explain that?

In regards to the fibers, here is another point, how did they know that the fibers had to come from the sweat suit that a witness who testified about? Why didn't they take every single piece of dark clothing Mr. Simpson had and test them? And Kato did not say he was positive what he was wearing.

Where was this Leslie person during the criminal trial? And when she did come foward, when did they test the fibers?

When did Mr. Rubin reveal the type size of extra large gloves with ones found at the scene? What about the other gloves in Mr. Simpson home, they were not taken---why, because they knew they weren't the ones? They knew they weren't the ones found at the scene? And what about the gloves that Nicole gave to a friend of their's for Christmas?

Why would the defense even mention the sweat suit when the DA's hadn't even come close to proving or linking Mr. Simpson to a sweat suit. The fibers were important to the DA's but to the defense--there guy wasn't there, you didn't link them to him and where are these same fibers found in Mr. Simpson's cars, in his home, in his washing machine?

bobaugust

08-11-2006, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Again, your arguments are weak. About the blood on Ron's keys, when did the state determine that testing the blood on the keys was not necessary because they already had enough evidence against Mr. Simpson? How did they know, just looking at the blood on those keys that had to come from only Ron or Nicole? If Mr. Simpson's blood was found on those keys---well how would the defense explain that?

In regards to the fibers, here is another point, how did they know that the fibers had to come from the sweat suit that a witness who testified about? Why didn't they take every single piece of dark clothing Mr. Simpson had and test them? And Kato did not say he was positive what he was wearing.

Where was this Leslie person during the criminal trial? And when she did come foward, when did they test the fibers?

When did Mr. Rubin reveal the type size of extra large gloves with ones found at the scene? What about the other gloves in Mr. Simpson home, they were not taken---why, because they knew they weren't the ones? They knew they weren't the ones found at the scene? And what about the gloves that Nicole gave to a friend of their's for Christmas?

Why would the defense even mention the sweat suit when the DA's hadn't even come close to proving or linking Mr. Simpson to a sweat suit. The fibers were important to the DA's but to the defense--there guy wasn't there, you didn't link them to him and where are these same fibers found in Mr. Simpson's cars, in his home, in his washing machine?

limakey, no my explanations are not weak, your inability to comprehend the evidence is what's weak.

The police never said anything about the blood on the keys. They showed the keys to the owner of the red Toyota who told them she had loaned her car to her friend Ron Goldman and she identified the keys as hers.

The entire crime scene was filled with blood. Both victims were killed in such a way that they both lost a lot of blood. The criminalists could not collect every drop of blood, only samples of blood. No one knew whose blood it was when it was collected but after it was tested the fact is that all of the blood collected from both crime scenes and Simpson's Bronco all came from only three people. The two victims and Simpson.

The fact about the fibers that you still can't seem to grasp is that all of the blue black cotton fibers were the same. They all came from the same source. The fact they were found on the Ron's shirt and on the killer's right hand glove and on Simpson's socks ties Simpson to the murders. Your inability to comprehend this fact and what it means only shows how limited you are in understanding logical reasonable inferences.

Kato Kaelin testified Simpson was wearing a dark colored cotton sweat suit in the grand jury five days after the murders. He again testified to that fact in the preliminary hearing, and again in the criminal trial, and again in his deposition, and again in the civil trial.

Leslie Gardiner testified in the civil trial. I know of no evidence that the prosecutors spoke with her at the time of the criminal trial. The prosecutors showed the exercise video to contradict the defense claim that Simpson wasn't physically capable of committing the murders.

Rubin testified in the criminal trial the extra large gloves were manufactured with the intent for them all to be exactly the same size. The gloves found in Simpson's house were not the same as the gloves the killer wore. They were made by Aris but they were black and they had a different lining.

Once again your questions about where are the same fibers is irrelevant and meaningless. We convict people on evidence that is found, not evidence that is not found. When Simpson's house was searched the police never even knew Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders let alone what fiber evidence would be later found.

bobaugust

limakey

08-11-2006, 07:32 PM

Mr. August,

It is not my failure to comprehend, it is yours. The DA's said that the blue/black fibers came from the killer's clothing. The DA's said that they came from a sweat suit that Kato thought Mr. Simpson was wearing. They did not fiber comparisons to any sweat suits? How can that be? How could the state and the DA's know within a week that those fibers had to have come from the sweat suit that Kato thought he was wearing? What was the process of their elimination?

Again, I asked you a question, when did the DA's and the state's experts decide they had more then enough evidence that they didn't need to test the blood on the keys? According to you, they knew from the moment they got to the scene that the killer was bleeding, let me guess, they could just tell by looking at the keys that only Ron's and Nicole's blood could have been on them? Hey, wait, didn't they just test the socks because they were there and look how lucky they got!

It is not my refusal to deal the reality of the evidence, it is your's. The state's case can best be explained by Kelberg's direct exam of Dr. L, it went on and on and on for eight days and what did Dr. Lucky testify to with any degree of medical certainity? That Ron and Nicole were dead.

bobaugust

08-11-2006, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

It is not my failure to comprehend, it is yours. The DA's said that the blue/black fibers came from the killer's clothing. The DA's said that they came from a sweat suit that Kato thought Mr. Simpson was wearing. They did not fiber comparisons to any sweat suits? How can that be? How could the state and the DA's know within a week that those fibers had to have come from the sweat suit that Kato thought he was wearing? What was the process of their elimination?

Again, I asked you a question, when did the DA's and the state's experts decide they had more then enough evidence that they didn't need to test the blood on the keys? According to you, they knew from the moment they got to the scene that the killer was bleeding, let me guess, they could just tell by looking at the keys that only Ron's and Nicole's blood could have been on them? Hey, wait, didn't they just test the socks because they were there and look how lucky they got!

It is not my refusal to deal the reality of the evidence, it is your's. The state's case can best be explained by Kelberg's direct exam of Dr. L, it went on and on and on for eight days and what did Dr. Lucky testify to with any degree of medical certainity? That Ron and Nicole were dead.

limakey, you're getting confused.

Tell me where the prosecutors ever said the fibers came from a sweat suit Simpson was wearing?
Tell me where the prosecutors ever said they knew within a week that those fibers came from the sweat suit Kaelin testified Simpson was wearing?

Once again you make arguments based on questions you dream up out of your imagination that have no basis in fact.

Fact: The same blue black cotton fibers were found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the killer's right hand glove.
Reasonable inference: The fibers came from the clothing the killer was wearing.

Fact. The same blue black cotton fibers were found on Simpson's socks.
Reasonable inference: Simpson wore the clothing the killer wore.

Fact: Kaelin testified that Simpson was wearing a dark colored cotton sweat suit the night of the murders.
Fact: A freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders.
Fact: That sweat suit disappeared after the the search of Simpson's house was completed.
Reasonable inference: Simpson was wearing that sweat suit when he killed both victims.

I really don't know if the blood on the keys was tested or not. I only assumed it wasn't since it was never listed in any of the blood tests entered into evidence, but maybe it was. The fact is that question was never asked by the defense and I don't believe there is anything in the record to indicate one way or the other.

The only facts we know about the keys are they were found near Ron Goldman's body and that they were later identified by Andrea Scott, the owner of the red Toyota as her keys.

Of course the coroner could not testify to any medical certainty how all the wounds were made. He could only testify as to what kind of wounds they were, where they were on the bodies, the results of those wounds, and offer his opinion based on his experience and expertise. Very few things in life are known to a certainty. It takes intelligent people using common sense to make logical reasonable inferences based on the known evidence to understand what happened that night when the only witnesses are either dead or the lying killer.

bobaugust

jotun

08-11-2006, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

limakey, there's your problem again.

What you may think is being stubborn is just my persistence in correcting all the false and misinformation that you and some other posters use to argue in your denials of the truth. It seems all of you argue just to argue.

I'm sorry but all it means is that you're evidently not bright enough to understand what the reality of the answers mean or you just can't admit to being wrong.

bobaugust

All-NG's

Argue just to argue. US??? We thought it was THEM. Us are just not worthy to argue with THEM. LOL!!!

Posting to G's is like trying to explain COLOR to the blind.In the land of the blind the one-eyed
man is king.Even tho the king can only see
BLACK.

Seems US have been deemed
just too DIM to see the "truth" by the king.

Maybe US should take a vacation.

Leave the king to CORRECT
himself.

jotun

limakey

08-11-2006, 11:37 PM

Mr. August,

You are wrong again, which is par for your course. The fact is, Kato thought OJ was wearing a sweat a suit that night. In fact, he also thought that he still had it on when he left for the airport.

The fact is that you just keep throwing up what the DA's fed you, that is the sad, sad, sad fact, Mr. August. The sad fact for you Mr. August, the DA's made all these promises they couldn't keep and you just fell for their lies, hook, line and sinker.

limakey

08-11-2006, 11:57 PM

Mr. August,

I have asked reasonable questions. You have given what you feel are reasonable answers, I have only posted that your answers not only do not answer the question, they don't even pass the laugh test.

You have an answer for everything but the question itself. IMO.

tazzybaby

08-12-2006, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by Kayleighjo

*snip*

And now thanks to all these ludicrous "straight up" things posted all over, I have that stupid Paula Abdul song in my head:tongue:

Okay, that literally made me laugh out loud!! LOL I had that stupid song in my head too!!!

:lol:

tazzybaby

08-12-2006, 07:50 AM

bobaugust

08-12-2006, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

You are wrong again, which is par for your course. The fact is, Kato thought OJ was wearing a sweat a suit that night. In fact, he also thought that he still had it on when he left for the airport.

The fact is that you just keep throwing up what the DA's fed you, that is the sad, sad, sad fact, Mr. August. The sad fact for you Mr. August, the DA's made all these promises they couldn't keep and you just fell for their lies, hook, line and sinker.

limakey, you say I'm wrong and then say exactly what I said. Kaelin testified Simpson was wearing a dark colored cotton sweat suit the night of the murders. So how am I wrong?

It seems you're the one who is making arguments based on what you think the DA's said, not me. I base my arguments on the evidence and what witnesses said, not what the lawyers said. I listened to the witnesses and I've read their testimony in the grand jury protocols, the preliminary hearing, the criminal trial, the depositions, and the civil trial to come to my conclusions. That's something you evidently haven't done.

The DA's didn't tell any lies. People who try to argue Simpson wasn't the killer always make arguments based on false and information and then scream liar whenever they're shown to be wrong.

Lets see if you can support your accusation. What do you think the prosecutors lied about?

bobaugust

tazzybaby

08-12-2006, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by limakey

*snip*

Mr. Simpson had the resources to challenge each every piece of evidence, he leveled the playing field. He did not buy his aquittal.

Limakey,

No, he didn't level the playing field. He abused it. When he stood up there and gave a speach when asked how he plead I knew what kind of trial it was going to be. He was ALLOWED to give a big I could not, would not.....not that's not what was asked. Innocent or guilt? That's one of two words.

He DEFINATELY bought his aquittal. He hid behind his lawyers and did not take the stand. This is after he stated that he was going to take the stand. They said he never received Paula's call. They said he was "too crippled" to commit the murders. The list goes on Limakey.

bobaugust

08-12-2006, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

I have asked reasonable questions. You have given what you feel are reasonable answers, I have only posted that your answers not only do not answer the question, they don't even pass the laugh test.

You have an answer for everything but the question itself. IMO.

limakey, most of your questions are based on your ignorance of the facts. When you are informed of the facts and given the answer to your questions yet you still continued to ask the same questions, those are not reasonable questions.

I've answered every one of you legitimate questions with the actual facts in this case, even posting the testimony that supports my answers yet you still can't seem to understand the reality of what I explained to you. I'm sorry to tell you the problem is yours, not ours. You seem intelligent enough to be able to grasp the significance of the evidence so maybe your problem is that you just can't admit to being wrong no matter how clear it is that you are. That's what I would call sad.

bobaugust

limakey

08-13-2006, 12:30 AM

Taz,

If I remember correctly, during the criminal trial, I believe the maid testified she never saw any sweats. I also believe that the wardrobe lady never testified. The point is Taz, when were tests conducted on the fibers to link them to any sweat suit? Again, I didn't follow the civil trial that much but I believe she said gave the brand name of them---why not test those fibers against the sweat suit she said she left?

IMO, Kato never ever said that he was sure of what he was wearing that night. The picture that is talk about doesn't describe the sweat suit he described. And to remind you, Kato got it wrong on what he was wearing to the airport.

However, IMO, the biggest question I have are where are the fibers in the cars? Where are they in his house? Where are they behind the wall?

IMO, it makes no sense.

limakey

08-13-2006, 12:41 AM

Taz,

If I was a defense lawyer, I wouldn't put my client on the stand, even if he was my beloved Pope John Paul the II. If the Queen of England was my client, I wouldn't put her on the stand either.

What does what he said when asked to enter a plea have to do with anything? However, I think it is fair to say that a defendant, any defendant is judge by their words, their demeanor and what ever else people focus on. During his first appearance in court, he looked like a broken man. IMO, if I was his lawyer, I would tell him that he better appear much more confident the next time he was in court. Had he just gave a meek, "not guilty", many people would have said that if he was innocent, he would have given a stronger, "Not guilty".

He did not buy his aquittal, he used his money to level the playing field. If two people were dying of cancer, and one lived because he could afford better medical care, would you accuse this person of abusing the system?

limakey

08-13-2006, 12:56 AM

Mr. August,

To the best of my memory, you have never looked the "other side" of the evidence. You have accepted it on its face value, yet you deny the questions that surround the evidence. The testimony you post only goes to your belief on the case, you have not posted the other side evidence.

You have not answered my questions, IMO, you have continued to dodge them and just throw up what you were told to believe by the DA's and the civil trial lawyers.

While you feel you can list the reaons that implicate OJ's guilt, you refuse to hold those same standards to the state's witnesses. IMO.

Mr. August, when was it proven that the broken A/C unit was the cause of the degraded blood?

When was it determined that the blood on the back gate was not collected? Who made this discovery?

Who determined that Dennis Fung didn't collect the drop of blood that was on Nicole's back? And who determined that the blood could have only come the killer?

How many times can you give the state the benefit of the doubt?

bobaugust

08-13-2006, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Taz,

If I remember correctly, during the criminal trial, I believe the maid testified she never saw any sweats. I also believe that the wardrobe lady never testified. The point is Taz, when were tests conducted on the fibers to link them to any sweat suit? Again, I didn't follow the civil trial that much but I believe she said gave the brand name of them---why not test those fibers against the sweat suit she said she left?

IMO, Kato never ever said that he was sure of what he was wearing that night. The picture that is talk about doesn't describe the sweat suit he described. And to remind you, Kato got it wrong on what he was wearing to the airport.

However, IMO, the biggest question I have are where are the fibers in the cars? Where are they in his house? Where are they behind the wall?

IMO, it makes no sense.

limakey, once again you ask when were tests conducted on the fibers to link them to any sweat suit?

There were no tests EVER conducted on ANY sweat suit. There was NO sweat suit to test. The police failed to collect the freshly washed dark colored sweat suit found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders. When they went back to Rockingham with a new search warrant about two weeks later to get it, it was gone.

Leslie Gardiner testified about the sweat suits she bought for Simpson two and a half years after the murders. She testified she bought the sweat suits for the video from the Reebok store in Santa Monica and Bullock's Men's store as well as from Donna Karan Men's clothes in New York.

Let me remind you that you're wrong about Kaelin not being sure that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders.

June 17. 1994 Grand Jury Kato Kaelin
Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT HE WAS WEARING.
A. TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, I BELIEVE IT WAS A DARK OUTFIT,
LIKE A SWEAT OUTFIT, A SWEAT SUIT TYPE OUTFIT.
Q. DO YOU RECALL IF IT HAD LONG SLEEVES?
A. YES.
Q. LONG PANTS?
A. YES.
Q. DO YOU REMEMBER HOW THE MATERIAL LOOKED?
A. MY BEST RECOLLECTION IS LIKE COTTON.
Q. LIKE A SWEAT SHIRT?
A. YEAH.

Your question why there were no fibers from the sweat suit in Simpson's Bronco is irrelevant and meaningless. There were NO fibers of any kind found in Simpson's Bronco except for fibers from the Bronco carpet. Does that mean Simpson only drove his Bronco naked? No. It means no fibers from any clothing Simpson ever wore anytime were ever transferred to his Bronco's leather seats.

You ask where are they in Simpson's house? Your question is meaningless. No one went around looking for fibers in Simpson's house. At the time of the search the police never even knew Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders let alone what fibers would later be found on some of the evidence.

You ask were they found I assume on the back wall of Kaelin's room? No. All of the fibers in this case were found only on fabric, not on any other kind of surface. Fibers transferred from fabric to fabric.

Your questions make no sense.

bobaugust

bobaugust

08-13-2006, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

To the best of my memory, you have never looked the "other side" of the evidence. You have accepted it on its face value, yet you deny the questions that surround the evidence. The testimony you post only goes to your belief on the case, you have not posted the other side evidence.

You have not answered my questions, IMO, you have continued to dodge them and just throw up what you were told to believe by the DA's and the civil trial lawyers.

While you feel you can list the reaons that implicate OJ's guilt, you refuse to hold those same standards to the state's witnesses. IMO.

Mr. August, when was it proven that the broken A/C unit was the cause of the degraded blood?

When was it determined that the blood on the back gate was not collected? Who made this discovery?

Who determined that Dennis Fung didn't collect the drop of blood that was on Nicole's back? And who determined that the blood could have only come the killer?

How many times can you give the state the benefit of the doubt?

limakey, you're wrong again. Yes I have looked at the "other side" of the evidence. I listened to and read all of the defenses arguments and found them to be pure speculation. They used many different arguments of remote unlikely possibilities to try and attack only some of the evidence. None of their arguments were supported by any evidence and I never found any of them credible.

You keep saying I haven't answered any of your questions. That's false. All I've done was answer your questions, one by one. You're the one who has never even acknowledged my questions let alone answered them.

I've never said that the blood was degraded because of the broken air conditioning unit in the criminalist truck. Some blood drops were more degraded than other blood drops based on the surface they were found on. Blood found on the porous cement walkway were degraded. Blood found on painted metal were less degraded.

The prosecutors accompanied by detectives conducted a walk through of the Bundy crime scene on July 3, 1994 when the blood on the rear gate was seen. Dennis Fung was called and the blood stains were photographed and collected.

It was not Dennis Fung's job to collect any blood evidence from the bodies of the victims, that was the coroner's responsibility. Who determined that the blood could have come from the killer? People who speculate about it.

How many times can I give the state the benefit of the doubt? Every time an accusation is made without any evidence to support it and a a reasonable explanation is offered that explains what actually happened.

bobaugust

limakey

08-14-2006, 03:53 PM

Mr. August,

If the DA's tell the jury, which includes the jury in the court of public opinon, that the blue black fibers came from a sweat suit that the killer was wearing that night, then you better find a brand of sweat suit they could have come from. Especially when the only "eye witness" was never positive about what he was wearing and got what he was wearing wrong on his way to the airport.

If the DA's tell the jury that the glove was dropped by the killer behind the wall of the estate, then you better give a demonstration how this could have happened, and how it could be done without leaving any trace evidence behind.

The only side using speculation IMO, is your's. You have haven't proved any thing other then that perhaps some of these detectives and lab techs should change careers because they suck at that their job.

It is not speculation that there is a clear and consistant pattern of "errors" surrounding the evidence in this case. No has to accept, nor should they accept, that the state's experts just were having a bad day, IMO.

BTW, during their walk through at Bundy, did they have photographs of the scene and that is how they realized that the blood drop was not collected? Didn't Marcia Clark have crime scene photos very early on and no one noticed Mr. Blood Drop on the back gate did not make home to the evidence room at Parker Center?

bobaugust

08-14-2006, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

If the DA's tell the jury, which includes the jury in the court of public opinon, that the blue black fibers came from a sweat suit that the killer was wearing that night, then you better find a brand of sweat suit they could have come from. Especially when the only "eye witness" was never positive about what he was wearing and got what he was wearing wrong on his way to the airport.

If the DA's tell the jury that the glove was dropped by the killer behind the wall of the estate, then you better give a demonstration how this could have happened, and how it could be done without leaving any trace evidence behind.

The only side using speculation IMO, is your's. You have haven't proved any thing other then that perhaps some of these detectives and lab techs should change careers because they suck at that their job.

It is not speculation that there is a clear and consistant pattern of "errors" surrounding the evidence in this case. No has to accept, nor should they accept, that the state's experts just were having a bad day, IMO.

BTW, during their walk through at Bundy, did they have photographs of the scene and that is how they realized that the blood drop was not collected? Didn't Marcia Clark have crime scene photos very early on and no one noticed Mr. Blood Drop on the back gate did not make home to the evidence room at Parker Center?

limakey, your opinions are again based on false information.

There was no doubt that Kaelin saw Simpson wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders. He first testified to that fact five days after the murders in the grand jury and consistently testified to that fact every time he was asked about it. And the evidence that later became known supports his belief.

A freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders that disappeared after the initial search of Simpson's house supports Kaelin's testimony. The blue black cotton fibers that were found on Simpson's socks supports Kaelin's testimony.

The prosecutors never said that the blue black cotton fibers found on Ron's shirt, on the killer's right hand glove, and on Simpson's socks came from the sweat suit Simpson was wearing the night of the murders. They didn't have to. Anyone who is capable of making logical reasonable inferences understands that fact. Evidently no one on the criminal trial jury had that common sense ability, and it seems neither do you.

July 5, 1995
MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Testimony was presented in this case that as of 9:45 on the night of June the 12th the Defendant was wearing a dark blue or black cotton type sweatsuit. Did you find any fibers like that in any of the
fibers collected from the evidence that you examined in this case?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did.
*
MS. CLARK: Can you please tell us from which items you found such fibers?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there were blue black cotton fibers found on the Rockingham glove, on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the socks from the Defendant's bedroom.

Most of the defense arguments were pure speculation. There was no evidence to support their claims except human error. Do I speculate? Of course but the difference is when I speculate about something I support my speculation with facts and evidence. If I ever speculate something where there are no facts and evidence I make that clear up front.

When the prosecutors and the detectives did a walk through of the Bundy crime scene on July 3, there were no photographs that had been specifically taken of the blood on the rear gate. After they saw the blood they called Dennis Fung who came over to Bundy with a photographer.

In the criminal trial there was a crime scene photograph taken on June 13 entered into evidence. It was a perspective shot that showed the bottom half of the rear gate. When that photograph was enlarged one of the bloodstains on the rear gate was clearly visible. Dennis Fung compared the blood stain in that photograph to the blood stain shown in the July 3 photograph and testified that they were the same. After that the defense never again claimed the blood on the rear gate was planted.

Hank Goldberg wrote,
"During my direct examination of Dennis, when I attempted to introduce a blowup of this photograph, defense attorney Barry Scheck went ballistic. Scheck fought tooth and nail to keep the photograph out of evidence, "Your Honor... we have a small version of that photograph, but we never had a blownup version."

This was a spurious objection. the defense had been provided first generation photographs from the crime scene. They could have found the stain in question, just as Woody had, with a magnifying glass. Judge Ito overruled the objection and allowed the photograph. Tragically, the jury apparently never considered this evidence. In post trial interviews, numerous jurors continue to raise questions about the possible planting of blood on the rear gate, apparently ignoring or forgetting about the clear photographic proof to the contrary."

bobaugust

limakey

08-14-2006, 10:53 PM

Mr. August,

Again, where is the proof that those blue black fibers could have come from a sweat suit? Where is the proof that the sweat suit you said was found in the washing machine could have been the source of them? If I remember correctly, the sweat suit that Kato described was not accurate in the picture.

Didn't OJ's maid testify that she never washed a sweat suit or something like that? The she never saw one? However, when did the DA's present their process of fiber elimination? The fact that Kato thought Simpson was wearing a sweat suit, doesn't mean that he was wearing a sweat suit. However, I will give you this, he did describe the clothes as dark. So, why weren't all the dark clothes taken from Simpson's estate? How did they know, that early on, that the only source of the fibers were a sweat suit?

In all fairness Mr. August, both sides loved to try to "sandbag" each other. However, while they play their games, the defendant is still on trial for his life and the victims' families become even more stressed and upset by these games.

IMO, the DA's had witnesses on the stand for days on direct, however, the defense made their points very quickly. In regards to the blood on the back gate, the defense had EDTA on their side, they had the fact the crime scene was wash down the day after and they also had the degraded blood on their side. And, just like a lot of the evidence, the defense once again proved that the evidence in this case was aging and getting better then a fine wine.

Be fair Mr. August, how many times can evidence keep popping up and the DA's have the same excuse, "Its this person's fault!"

The police believed the killer was injured, they believe some of the blood had to have come from the killer, they knew that Ron Goldman put up tremendous struggle, they knew that he tried to defend himself, how did they know he didn't try to use the car keys as a weapon?

Mr. August, do you really think that any lawyer in this case would write a book that wasn't favorable to their side?

bobaugust

08-15-2006, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Again, where is the proof that those blue black fibers could have come from a sweat suit? Where is the proof that the sweat suit you said was found in the washing machine could have been the source of them? If I remember correctly, the sweat suit that Kato described was not accurate in the picture.

Didn't OJ's maid testify that she never washed a sweat suit or something like that? The she never saw one? However, when did the DA's present their process of fiber elimination? The fact that Kato thought Simpson was wearing a sweat suit, doesn't mean that he was wearing a sweat suit. However, I will give you this, he did describe the clothes as dark. So, why weren't all the dark clothes taken from Simpson's estate? How did they know, that early on, that the only source of the fibers were a sweat suit?

In all fairness Mr. August, both sides loved to try to "sandbag" each other. However, while they play their games, the defendant is still on trial for his life and the victims' families become even more stressed and upset by these games.

IMO, the DA's had witnesses on the stand for days on direct, however, the defense made their points very quickly. In regards to the blood on the back gate, the defense had EDTA on their side, they had the fact the crime scene was wash down the day after and they also had the degraded blood on their side. And, just like a lot of the evidence, the defense once again proved that the evidence in this case was aging and getting better then a fine wine.

Be fair Mr. August, how many times can evidence keep popping up and the DA's have the same excuse, "Its this person's fault!"

The police believed the killer was injured, they believe some of the blood had to have come from the killer, they knew that Ron Goldman put up tremendous struggle, they knew that he tried to defend himself, how did they know he didn't try to use the car keys as a weapon?

Mr. August, do you really think that any lawyer in this case would write a book that wasn't favorable to their side?

limakey, how many times does it have to be said to you that the fibers themselves link Simpson to the murders, not the sweat suit that was never collected. How can you not comprehend this?

The fact is that Kaelin testified in the preliminary hearing that Simpson was wearing a dark blue or black sweat suit the night of the murders before anyone ever knew about the fiber evidence.

The fact is that a dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders before anyone ever knew about the fiber evidence.

The fact that those fibers were found on Simpson's socks means that he was wearing the same clothing that left the same fibers on Ron's shirt and on the killer's right hand glove. How do you account for that? How do you explain away that incriminating evidence?

You seem to be having a very hard time understanding the logical reasonable inferences that any normal reasonable person understands. Maybe that's because you're not a reasonable thinking person, limakey, or maybe you're in such great denial of the truth of these murders you simply ignore the reality of the fiber evidence by repeating the same old excuse that the sweat suit wasn't tested. That's so lame.

Gigi testified that she did not see any black sweat pants, she didn't know if Simpson actually had any, she just didn't see any. She also said she never saw Simpson's exercise video when he was wearing a dark colored sweat suit.

No dark colored clothing was taken from Simpson's house during the search because at that time the police didn't know that the killer was wearing dark colored clothing or that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders. They didn't didn't know that blue black cotton fibers would later be found on Ron's shirt, the killer's glove, and Simpson's socks. After Kaelin testified that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders the police obtained a second search warrant to go back to Rockingham and get the clothing found in Simpson's washing machine, but it was gone.

You say in regards to the blood on the rear gate the defense had EDTA on their side. No they didn't. Are you really this uninformed about the evidence in this case? The fact is there was no EDTA preserved blood ever found in Simpson's blood stains from the rear gate and Nicole's blood stains from Simpson's socks. No blood was ever planted in this case from any source let alone a purple top vial containing preserved blood.

You keep going back to the blood on the keys when there is no evidence one way or the other if that blood was tested. You keep asking me questions that you should be asking Simpson's attorneys. If there is anything legitimate about what you imagine about the keys then it would have been up to them to ask those questions. They never did.

You ask if I think any lawyer in this case would write a book that wasn't favorable to their side? Every lawyer wrote their books based on their own personal experiences in this case. But when it came to writing about the actual evidence their personal experiences were irrelevant. The facts are the facts. The evidence is the evidence. The evidence proves Simpson was the killer. Any reasonable person understands that.

bobaugust

limakey

08-15-2006, 11:13 PM

Mr. August,

No, my questions should have been answered by the DA's-they filed the charges.

Again, you evade the issue. When was it proved that the blue/black fibers came from a sweat suit or could have come from a sweat suit? When did they ever link a sweat suit to OJ Simpson? The DA's used pictures in their attempt to link the gloves to Simpson. They also used I believe at least one witness to link the gloves that Nicole bought to OJ Simpson. When did they do the same with the sweat suit?

You also make my point, according to you, OJ Simpson was never a suspect until Vanatter saw the gloves, the socks were collected simply because they looked out place, however, it makes no sense they didn't take all of his clothing simply because of the socks.

Mr. August, again you make my point---the blood on the keys was never tested, why? Were the DA's that confident that they did need any more testing?

And after their "manna from heaven" when someone decided to test the socks for blood, they didn't bother to inventory the evidence and see what else wasn't tested and perhaps, more "manna from heaven"?

I don't remember Simpson wearing a sweat suit during the video. But I do remember somethign about the lady in the civil trial. Again, did she forget the brand of sweat suit was he wearing and that is why they never did fiber comparisons?

IMO, if they had the money to send an FBI agent to a shoe factory in Italy, they could have spend a few bucks comparing the fibers to a sweat suit or two. Again, just MO.

limakey

08-15-2006, 11:44 PM

Mr. August,

Another problem with the fibers on the sock. When were those fibers found on the socks?

IMO, if they found the fibers before they found the blood, then explain how they used the right equipment to search for fibers, but not for blood?

bobaugust

08-16-2006, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

No, my questions should have been answered by the DA's-they filed the charges.

Again, you evade the issue. When was it proved that the blue/black fibers came from a sweat suit or could have come from a sweat suit? When did they ever link a sweat suit to OJ Simpson? The DA's used pictures in their attempt to link the gloves to Simpson. They also used I believe at least one witness to link the gloves that Nicole bought to OJ Simpson. When did they do the same with the sweat suit?

You also make my point, according to you, OJ Simpson was never a suspect until Vanatter saw the gloves, the socks were collected simply because they looked out place, however, it makes no sense they didn't take all of his clothing simply because of the socks.

Mr. August, again you make my point---the blood on the keys was never tested, why? Were the DA's that confident that they did need any more testing?

And after their "manna from heaven" when someone decided to test the socks for blood, they didn't bother to inventory the evidence and see what else wasn't tested and perhaps, more "manna from heaven"?

I don't remember Simpson wearing a sweat suit during the video. But I do remember somethign about the lady in the civil trial. Again, did she forget the brand of sweat suit was he wearing and that is why they never did fiber comparisons?

IMO, if they had the money to send an FBI agent to a shoe factory in Italy, they could have spend a few bucks comparing the fibers to a sweat suit or two. Again, just MO.

limakey, no I haven't evaded the issue, you just can't seem to comprehend what I've explained to you so many times already. The fibers link Simpson to the murders, not the sweat suit.

Once again It was never proved that the fibers came from a sweat suit. It was inferred. There was no sweat suit to compare the fibers to.

The fibers found on Simpson's socks were blue black cotton fibers. Simpson wore a dark blue or black cotton sweat suit the night of the murders. A dark colored sweat suit was found freshly washed in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders and then disappeared after the initial search was over.

A sweat suit was linked to Simpson by a witness, Leslie Gardiner. I already posted her testimony where she told where she bought those sweat suits from. I doubt anyone ever thought about doing fiber comparison to sweat suits in those stores well over two years after the murders.

What doesn't make sense was for the police to take all of Simpson's clothing. The socks were out of place so they collected them. That was another one of Simpson's mistakes. In his haste to get back downstairs to load the limousine he never took the time to put his socks back on. He just left them on the rug by his bed.

I don't know if the blood on the keys was tested or not. All reference to those keys by the defense was regarding the red Toyota. Nothing was ever said about the blood that was on them. If you know of any evidence that the blood on the keys was never tested, please present it.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that they didn't bother to inventory the evidence.

bobaugust

bobaugust

08-16-2006, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Another problem with the fibers on the sock. When were those fibers found on the socks?

IMO, if they found the fibers before they found the blood, then explain how they used the right equipment to search for fibers, but not for blood?

limakey, the fiber evidence was found before the blood evidence.

The fiber evidence from the socks was not found by examining the socks it was found in the debris that was removed from the socks. When the socks were later examined under high intensity lighting the bloodstains were seen.

bobaugust

limakey

08-16-2006, 11:00 PM

Mr. August,

Again, your argument makes no sense. They examined the socks for debris, but not for blood. How does that work?

Also, you still have not linked the fibers to any sweat suit. You have not linked a sweat suit to OJ Simpson. You are basing your opinon on a picture that was never introduced into evidence.

You also haven't explained why an FBI agent would travel all the way to Italy in an attempt to track down the shoes, but couldn't take a couple of sweat suits from Wal-Mart and compare the fibers?

I have seen several shows with Doug Deedrick and how he has worked and how he has tracked down fibers and where they have come from. One case involved a little girl who was taken from a Christmas party--it was amazing to see. Yet, his report on the Bronco fibers was misleading and he gave no testimony to link the fibers to the sweat suit. Why?

I do agree with you that the fibers found probably came from the clothing of one of the attackers, however, the fibers were never linked to any type of clothing.

Think about it Mr. August, why didn't the DA's link the fibers to a sweat suit? They have Mr. Simpson wearing shoes that were expensive and rare, gloves that were expensive but to worn for him to wear in public, you have him wearing dress socks--so he wouldn't be caught dead wearing just a name brand sweat suit?

I do know that you believe that the blood on the socks was just a mistake by the state---but I don't buy it. They were truly the most important piece of evidence they had, yet no one paid any attention to them? How many times does that happen?

bobaugust

08-17-2006, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Again, your argument makes no sense. They examined the socks for debris, but not for blood. How does that work?

Also, you still have not linked the fibers to any sweat suit. You have not linked a sweat suit to OJ Simpson. You are basing your opinon on a picture that was never introduced into evidence.

You also haven't explained why an FBI agent would travel all the way to Italy in an attempt to track down the shoes, but couldn't take a couple of sweat suits from Wal-Mart and compare the fibers?

I have seen several shows with Doug Deedrick and how he has worked and how he has tracked down fibers and where they have come from. One case involved a little girl who was taken from a Christmas party--it was amazing to see. Yet, his report on the Bronco fibers was misleading and he gave no testimony to link the fibers to the sweat suit. Why?

I do agree with you that the fibers found probably came from the clothing of one of the attackers, however, the fibers were never linked to any type of clothing.

Think about it Mr. August, why didn't the DA's link the fibers to a sweat suit? They have Mr. Simpson wearing shoes that were expensive and rare, gloves that were expensive but to worn for him to wear in public, you have him wearing dress socks--so he wouldn't be caught dead wearing just a name brand sweat suit?

I do know that you believe that the blood on the socks was just a mistake by the state---but I don't buy it. They were truly the most important piece of evidence they had, yet no one paid any attention to them? How many times does that happen?

limakey, the facts do make sense, your apparent inability to understand them is what makes no sense.

The fiber evidence was taken from the package the socks were in. That's how fiber evidence is collected. The socks themselves weren't a high priority and were not examined for possible blood evidence until later. When they were put under high intensity lighting bloodstains were seen.

A blood stain from the toe of one of the socks was found to be Simpson's blood. Most likely transferred from the cut on his finger when he took his socks off.

A blood stain from the ankle of one of the socks was found to be Nicole's blood. Most likely splattered there when Simpson was at Bundy.

The defense claimed that Nicole's blood was planted from her preserved autopsy sample. Tests were conducted on that bloodstain and it was found it did not contain any EDTA preserved blood. In the civil trial Dr. Cotton testified about other test results conducted on that stain and on Nicole's autopsy sample that showed Nicole's blood on the sock was less degraded than her autopsy sample. That fact proved it was impossible for Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock to have been planted from her autopsy sample.

My opinion about the sweat suit is not based on a picture, it's based on a video tape.

You keep asking why no one collected fibers from a sweat suit and I keep telling you there was no sweat suit to collect them from. Leslie Gardiner never testified until the civil trial. The prosecutors in the criminal trial were under a great time constraint and there is no evidence that Clark had even talked to her.

A couple of sweat suits from Walmart? This is where I should call you a name but I wont. You evidently didn't read Leslie Gardiner's testimony I posted to you in an earlier response. Here it is again. Read it this time please.

December 4, Leslie Gardiner
Q. Focus on the sweat suit. Did you acquire a sweat suit for Mr. Simpson?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What color?
A. Black, mostly black, and gray.
Q. Where did you get the black sweat suit for Mr. Simpson?
A. I bought them at the Reebok store in Santa Monica and Bullock's Men's Store.
Q. Anywhere else?
A. I had some sent in from New York.
Q. From what company in New York?
A. Donna Karan Men's Clothes. That's DKNY.

You say you agree that the blue black cotton fibers found probably came from the clothing of one of the attackers. First of all there is no evidence of attackers. All of the relevant physical evidence tells us there was only one killer. But good for you. Since you agree to that fact, what does the fact that the same blue black cotton fibers were found on Simpson's socks tell you?

What do you think was misleading about Deedrick's report about the Bronco carpet fibers?

That's two more questions I'm asking you. I've answered all of your questions, please answer mine.

bobaugust

Thinking

08-17-2006, 03:38 PM

I started out reading this thread and thinking that the argument was reasonable and carefully thought out, especially Limakey and socaldiva as they made their respective points. Interesting reading. But then we started to get more speculations and personal thoughts stressing what people were doing and why they were doing it, when no one can judge that human behavior.
Then of course, once bobaugust got involved with his diffusion tactics of using the money trial info and media stuff AFTER the real trial, to make spurious arguments, the discussion once again degenerated to the Nancy Grace show format.
The fact is, and using the topic about acting innocent or guilty, psychologists have, for many years, been trying to group behaviors into catagories, and most professionals will admit that there will be a separate catagory of certain behavior and reaction to an event, for every single person on Earth.
So however someone reacts to news or events, can NEVER be used to draw a reliable conclusion about the crime, in this case innocence or guilt.
I do like the ideas coming out from what people said at the time of the crime. This kind of reasoning and opinion is way more accurate to debate on and read about, and forwards the discussion, whether you like or hate OJ Simpson.
Thanks
:beer:

bobaugust

08-17-2006, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Thinking

Then of course, once bobaugust got involved with his diffusion tactics of using the money trial info and media stuff AFTER the real trial, to make spurious arguments,

Thinking, my postings on this thread have only been in response to other posters false and misinformation about the facts and evidence in this case. That's not a diffusing tactic that's simply correcting the record.

The problem with posters who try to argue Simpson's innocence is that most have formed their opinions with information they learned up to the criminal trial. To understand the truth of these murders and the fact that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole takes learning the huge amount of additional information and new evidence that became known after the criminal trial from the many depositions and the civil trial testimony.

As I said before, trying to argue the truth of these murders with someone who intentionally keeps themselves uninformed about all the known facts and evidence is like tying to argue the earth is round with someone who believes the earth is flat and refuses to learn anything more about it.

bobaugust

limakey

08-19-2006, 12:09 AM

Mr. August,

Your argument is weak, very, very weak. Lets be honest sir, why didn't the DA's or the civil trial lawyers do fiber comparisons? Either they did the tests and they couldn't find a sweat suit that had the same type of fibers or the color wasn't right. Either way, it is clear, they were not interested in finding the source of the fibers.

Mr. Deedrick was not a very convincing witness because of his demeanor on the stand and his reason why his report wasn't turned in on time---Judge Ito disallowed his report to be entered into evidence. Judge Fujisaki ruled that the Bronco fibers were not as rare as he was led to believe. I have seen too many shows featuring Mr. Deedrick's work to believe that he just made a mistake regarding the report and what had to be turned over and when it was turned over.

Miss Gardner gave her testimony, she gave the store where she bought them, the gave the brand names of the sweat suits---so, why weren't any tests conducted on the fibers to see if any these sweat suits could have been the source?

Another weakness is that Mrs. Simpson bought those two pairs of gloves and gave them as a Christmas gift to a friend of the family's. He turned the gloves over to the DA's and the defense. Yet, even if the gloves that were on that receipt were proved to have been given to this friend---you would use the pictures saying that those type of gloves were the type that Mr. Simpson has worn in the past and there you go, there is your evidence.

Sir, probably is not good enough for our legal system. There is a reason why legal system was designed as it was. Our founding fathers (and mothers!) knew what abuse of power was. They understood the dangers of having people in position of power and that is why our system is based on "check and balances".

The DA's were more then happy to let the court of public opinon make up their minds---with a case that was never presented to the criminal trial jurors.

Those fibers were found where? On Ron's shirt---how did they get there? Friction with his encounter with his attacker? If that is the case, where are the fibers on Nicole's dress? Where the fibers in his car? Where are the fibers in his home? His washing machine?

The socks---well where do we begin about them? With the fact they were ignored for how long? The fact that the state witnesses refused to use the equipment they knew they needed and then refused to let the defense use the same equipment to examine them?

You love to talk about Jill S. and what she said---well, what about the reporter who insisted she was told who's blood was on the socks before they were even sent out for testing? Now had she said that she was told that all of their blood was on them, that would be one thing, but to know that only one of the victim's blood was on the socks---well that is just too good of guess for me.

limakey

08-19-2006, 12:19 AM

Thinking,

Thank you for your post. This case is truly one of black and white and I'm not talking about race!

I have always believed that neither side had the truth as their number on goal. Dr. Lee made a comment that I did agree with but I have slightly changed my opinon. He said that both sides were afraid of the evidence--which I'm sure happens in most cases. However, IMO, I have come to believe the DA's were not afraid of the evidence, they were terrified of it. When Gill G., and the other DA's made their rounds of the talk shows, gave their press conferences---there was no way they were going to back off their theory.

Another point, I started this thread not just based on Simpson's actions and words, but everybody's in this case.

Example---I will still stand by statement that the only one who knew those gloves weren't going to fit, was Chris Darden.

I also believe even if Mark Fuhrman lied on the stand regarding his use of the word---it was his arrogance that did him in. IMO, he knew he was lying, he knew the lawyers knew he was lying, he knew the judge knew he was lying, but more importantly, he knew the jurors knew he was lying and didn't care. Not only did he not care how this would affect his credibility but he was willing and did take everybody else's as well, IMO.

bobaugust

08-19-2006, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Your argument is weak, very, very weak. Lets be honest sir, why didn't the DA's or the civil trial lawyers do fiber comparisons? Either they did the tests and they couldn't find a sweat suit that had the same type of fibers or the color wasn't right. Either way, it is clear, they were not interested in finding the source of the fibers.

Mr. Deedrick was not a very convincing witness because of his demeanor on the stand and his reason why his report wasn't turned in on time---Judge Ito disallowed his report to be entered into evidence. Judge Fujisaki ruled that the Bronco fibers were not as rare as he was led to believe. I have seen too many shows featuring Mr. Deedrick's work to believe that he just made a mistake regarding the report and what had to be turned over and when it was turned over.

Miss Gardner gave her testimony, she gave the store where she bought them, the gave the brand names of the sweat suits---so, why weren't any tests conducted on the fibers to see if any these sweat suits could have been the source?

Another weakness is that Mrs. Simpson bought those two pairs of gloves and gave them as a Christmas gift to a friend of the family's. He turned the gloves over to the DA's and the defense. Yet, even if the gloves that were on that receipt were proved to have been given to this friend---you would use the pictures saying that those type of gloves were the type that Mr. Simpson has worn in the past and there you go, there is your evidence.

Sir, probably is not good enough for our legal system. There is a reason why legal system was designed as it was. Our founding fathers (and mothers!) knew what abuse of power was. They understood the dangers of having people in position of power and that is why our system is based on "check and balances".

The DA's were more then happy to let the court of public opinon make up their minds---with a case that was never presented to the criminal trial jurors.

Those fibers were found where? On Ron's shirt---how did they get there? Friction with his encounter with his attacker? If that is the case, where are the fibers on Nicole's dress? Where the fibers in his car? Where are the fibers in his home? His washing machine?

The socks---well where do we begin about them? With the fact they were ignored for how long? The fact that the state witnesses refused to use the equipment they knew they needed and then refused to let the defense use the same equipment to examine them?

You love to talk about Jill S. and what she said---well, what about the reporter who insisted she was told who's blood was on the socks before they were even sent out for testing? Now had she said that she was told that all of their blood was on them, that would be one thing, but to know that only one of the victim's blood was on the socks---well that is just too good of guess for me.

llimakey, no my argument isn't weak it's the reality of what happened.

Once again the blue black cotton fibers were never compared against a sweat suit because there was no sweat suit to compare them against. What is weak is your inability to grasp this simple fact.

The fact is that the fibers found on Simpson's socks tie Simpson to the murders, not the sweat suit he wore.

Nothing Deedrick did or did not do changed the Bronco carpet fiber evidence. The fact is that fibers were found that were consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpet on the blue knit hat found at Bundy, the towel found in the Bronco, the shovel found in the Bronco, the plastic found in the Bronco, and the glove found at Rockingham.

I have explained to you that Leslie Gardiner never testified until the civil trial a year and a half after the murders. No one involved in the civil trial did any testing on fibers and even if they wanted to it's very doubtful they could have found the same exact sweat suits still in the Reebok and Bullock's stores that Gardiner originally bought for the exercise video.

Having pictures of the same exact gloves the killer wore is different than having the exercise video of Simpson wearing a sweat suit. One has nothing to do with the other. I agree probably is not good enough, but the fiber evidence was not probably the same, they were microscopically the same. You already agreed that the fibers were left from Goldman's attacker, why are you questioning what you already agreed to?

You ask about how the fiber transferred to Ron's shirt. The evidence is that Simpson held Ron from behind him as he stabbed and cut him. There were many blue black cotton fibers found on Ron's shirt.

July 5, 1995
"MR. DEEDRICK: The more rigorous the contact, the longer the duration. The more forceful contact often results in greater fiber exchanges up to a certain number. Again, it just depends on the nature of the fibers. It depends on the nature of the contact, but the greater force, the more surface area coming into actual physical contact in the common sense kind of, but they show this through studies, that you will transfer more fibers that way. Just like if you walk through the mud, the more you walk through the mud, you get more mud on you. It is kind of all the same principle."

There is no reason why fibers would have been on Nicole's dress. There is no evidence that Simpson had that kind of clothing to clothing contact with her when he killed her. There were no fibers of any kind found in Simpson's car or his home, or his washing machine because none of those items were collected. The fibers in this case were found not by examining the evidence but in analyzing the debris in the packaging of the evidence.

No one refused to use the equipment they need to search for blood on the socks. When it came time to test the socks they were examined under high intensity lighting. It was all a matter of priorities as to what evidence to test first. There was so much blood evidence that was collected from both crime scenes and Simpson's Bronco that they had the priority for testing. The socks had a lower priority but eventually they were examined and blood was found. on them and then tested.

The rumors and speculation about a reporter who supposedly was told whose blood was on the socks is irrelevant and meaningless. The supposed reporter never testified and her story was never investigated as to who or what was told to her. Rumors, uncorroborated stories, and unsupported speculation are not reliable information.

bobaugust

limakey

08-19-2006, 03:55 PM

Mr. August,

Do you truly believe that no effort was made to link them to their source? Do you truly believe that when they were examining all of the fiber evidence, they based their sole link on Kato's testimony on what he was wearing?

Do you truly believe they would send an FBI agent all the way to Italy, to small factory in regards to the shoes but make no effort to find a source of the fibers?

The DA's had no link to the shoes, none, yet they did everything in their power to create one---why wasn't the same done for the fibers?

What if the source of the fibers were from a pair of dockers? Didn't Simpson say he was given so many of them? What about the video we saw of him that night with the kids? Wasn't that a dark shirt over a white one? What about the pants he wore to the show that night? Were they tested to see if they could have been a source of the fibers?

Your argument is only strong in your mind because you can't even consider the possibilty that you again, have been "punked" by the DA's and the civil trial attorneys. There has never ever been a link from the fibers to their source. Never.

bobaugust

08-19-2006, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Do you truly believe that no effort was made to link them to their source? Do you truly believe that when they were examining all of the fiber evidence, they based their sole link on Kato's testimony on what he was wearing?

Do you truly believe they would send an FBI agent all the way to Italy, to small factory in regards to the shoes but make no effort to find a source of the fibers?

The DA's had no link to the shoes, none, yet they did everything in their power to create one---why wasn't the same done for the fibers?

What if the source of the fibers were from a pair of dockers? Didn't Simpson say he was given so many of them? What about the video we saw of him that night with the kids? Wasn't that a dark shirt over a white one? What about the pants he wore to the show that night? Were they tested to see if they could have been a source of the fibers?

Your argument is only strong in your mind because you can't even consider the possibilty that you again, have been "punked" by the DA's and the civil trial attorneys. There has never ever been a link from the fibers to their source. Never.

limakey, you keep insisting on asking questions about why the fibers were never matched to a sweat suit, evidently because you already admitted and realize how incriminating the fiber evidence is. But even though the fibers found on Simpson's socks link him to the murders they are only one small piece of all the circumstantial and physical evidence that links Simpson to the murders.

Yes there was more attention paid to the shoes the killer wore and rightly so because there were bloody shoe prints. The police never had the sweatsuit so any fiber comparisons to other sweat suits would be meaningless. The bloody shoe prints were very clear and Bodziak was able to track down and identity the exact kind of shoes and soles that made them. Later many photographs became known showing Simpson wearing those exact shoes.

Your arguments about this I'm sorry to say are only one of the many excuses you use to avoid the truth of these murders. The fact that there was no physical link to the source of the fibers is true but means nothing. Would the prosecution have liked to have the actual clothing Simpson wore the night of the murders? Of course, but they didn't. Just as they would have liked to have the murder weapon. This is not unusual, criminals always try to dispose of incriminating evidence. Sometimes they're successful, sometimes they're not. But these two items are not necessary to physically have to understand Simpson was the killer since there is so much other additional evidence that proves him guilty.

bobaugust

limakey

08-20-2006, 12:53 AM

Mr. August,

You are slipping! You know as well as I do that fiber evidence can be very damning, however, you know as well as I do that the word, "match" is not a word that can be used in the courtroom when it comes to fiber evidence and hair evidence. The only word that can used, legally, is "consistent" with.

It was the DA's and the civil trial lawyers who refused to even test if these fibers were consistent with a sweat suit that they insist that he wore.

Any "evidence" that came out in the civil trial seemed a little too pat. It is obvious that every question the DA's couldn't answer during the criminal trial had to be answered in the civil trial. Which is why the civil trial lawyers pointed out that OJ had another way on to his property, so if you didn't believe he jumped the fence or you believed the glove was planted, they gave another option on how he entered is estate.

I think it is unreasonable to say that a defense team was so afraid of the evidence and that is why they didn't do their own tests. They didn't file the charges, the DA's did. They should be fearless in conducting tests because if they are such believers in truth and justice then they would have conducted the fiber tests, and if they didn't come from a sweat suit that they believed to him have worn, then they knew that they better be looking else where to make this link.

You have tried to cover for the DA's and the civil trial lawyers by providing one lame excuse after another on why they didn't do certain tests. Then when you have run out of them, you then simply say forget it, there was more then enough of other evidence. However, the same pattern follows.

Weren't you the one who said even if you believe the glove was planted, there was more then enough evidence to convict him. Well now, according to you, the fibers are to be ignored, the glove can be ignored, so perhaps it is time to focus on the one piece of evidence that neither side could manipulate? Which would be what Mr. August???

bobaugust

08-20-2006, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

You are slipping! You know as well as I do that fiber evidence can be very damning, however, you know as well as I do that the word, "match" is not a word that can be used in the courtroom when it comes to fiber evidence and hair evidence. The only word that can used, legally, is "consistent" with.

It was the DA's and the civil trial lawyers who refused to even test if these fibers were consistent with a sweat suit that they insist that he wore.

Any "evidence" that came out in the civil trial seemed a little too pat. It is obvious that every question the DA's couldn't answer during the criminal trial had to be answered in the civil trial. Which is why the civil trial lawyers pointed out that OJ had another way on to his property, so if you didn't believe he jumped the fence or you believed the glove was planted, they gave another option on how he entered is estate.

I think it is unreasonable to say that a defense team was so afraid of the evidence and that is why they didn't do their own tests. They didn't file the charges, the DA's did. They should be fearless in conducting tests because if they are such believers in truth and justice then they would have conducted the fiber tests, and if they didn't come from a sweat suit that they believed to him have worn, then they knew that they better be looking else where to make this link.

You have tried to cover for the DA's and the civil trial lawyers by providing one lame excuse after another on why they didn't do certain tests. Then when you have run out of them, you then simply say forget it, there was more then enough of other evidence. However, the same pattern follows.

Weren't you the one who said even if you believe the glove was planted, there was more then enough evidence to convict him. Well now, according to you, the fibers are to be ignored, the glove can be ignored, so perhaps it is time to focus on the one piece of evidence that neither side could manipulate? Which would be what Mr. August???

limakey, Deedrick explained the use of the word "match" to the jury.

June 29, 1995
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, a match indicates that the questioned material and the known material exhibit the same microscopic characteristics. With textile fibers they may also exhibit certain optical properties which are also the same. When I say "Match," we cannot say with absolute certainty that a fiber originated from a particular fabric. It is not possible to do that, nor do we say that a hair that is found at a crime scene or in a proficiency test originated absolutely from that individual. Now, on a proficiency test you know it did because that is the way the test is designed. You have a known sample from an individual and you have a questioned hair. Now the questioned hair, I know came from that person. That is a fact. But the most an examiner can say about that hair is that hair could have come from that person if it exhibits the same microscopic characteristics. It is a fine line but we only say "Could have."

Not saying the word "match" doesn't change the fact that all of the blue black cotton fibers found on Ron's shirt, the killer's gloves, and Simpson's socks had the same microscopic characteristics. Not saying the word "match" doesn't change the fact that the Simpson's hair found on Ron's shirt, and Simpson's hairs found inside and outside the blue knit hat all had the same microscopic characteristics as the samples of hair taken from Simpson,

All of this evidence points to Simpson.

Yes the plaintiffs attorneys were able to answer a lot of the questions the prosecutors couldn't answer and had additional evidence that prosecutors never knew about because of the additional time to complete testing and the advantage of hind site to correct the prosecutors mistakes.

No attorney that I know of ever made the claim you made about Simpson having another way to enter his property in the civil trial or anywhere else, because that claim is false. If you think you know where it was made, please post it.

Your comments about what the prosecutor should have done about testing other clothing for fibers is ridiculous. If the defense hadn't demanded a speedy trial and the prosecutors had the normal time to test and prepare their case they may very well have conducted some to the tests you think they should have, but that wasn't what happened.

There was no sweat suit they could compare the fibers to, and they were never expected to spend time conducting endless speculative testing when they needed all the available time to conduct necessary tests on evidence they already had. As it was new test results were still coming in even during the civil trial almost two years after the murders.

I never said the fibers were to be ignored, the fact is that the fibers on Simpson's socks tie him to the murders.

None of the evidence should be ignored. This was a circumstantial evidence case. No one single piece of physical evidence proves Simpson's guilt, it's the accumulation of all of the evidence, including witness testimony, as well as Simpson's many lies he told under oath that proves his guilt. Like putting together a puzzle with many pieces.

The most incriminating evidence in this case was blood. Simpson's fresh blood found at the murder scene, in his Bronco mixed with both victims blood, on the killer's glove along with both victims blood, at his house, and on his socks along with Nicole's blood.

The fact is that all of the relevant physical evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. Nothing points to anyone else. Nothing eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

limakey

08-22-2006, 12:36 AM

Mr. August,

I now understand how desperate are to protect a weak case! You are now blaming the defense for demanding a speeding trial and poor understaff state had to make do with a multi-million dollar budge, a team of about 40 lawyers and countless other "minons" (as Chris Darden described his), and please lets forget about the other equipment, diagrams, visual aids that were donated to the state for this trial. Those mean, nasty defense attorneys! How dare they level the playing the field and make the DA's do their jobs and hold those accountable who didn't.

And when did the civil trial lawyers conduct the fiber comparisons?
Didn't they already have a problem because the color was wrong?
And Mr. August, the Goldmans had people making offers to kill Mr. Simpson and they would never get caught and if they did, they would keep them out of it---are you telling me that people were ready to kill OJ Simpson for them but no one was willing to test fibers from a sweat suit? You do realize how lame that sounds, don't you?

Mr. August, for once be a man and admit that the stop watch on this case started when the files against Mr. Simpson. I'm sure I don't have to remind you on how the LAPD and the DA's office turned on one another on this issue. They started the stop watch, the defense didn't.

bobaugust

08-22-2006, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

I now understand how desperate are to protect a weak case! You are now blaming the defense for demanding a speeding trial and poor understaff state had to make do with a multi-million dollar budge, a team of about 40 lawyers and countless other "minons" (as Chris Darden described his), and please lets forget about the other equipment, diagrams, visual aids that were donated to the state for this trial. Those mean, nasty defense attorneys! How dare they level the playing the field and make the DA's do their jobs and hold those accountable who didn't.

And when did the civil trial lawyers conduct the fiber comparisons?
Didn't they already have a problem because the color was wrong?
And Mr. August, the Goldmans had people making offers to kill Mr. Simpson and they would never get caught and if they did, they would keep them out of it---are you telling me that people were ready to kill OJ Simpson for them but no one was willing to test fibers from a sweat suit? You do realize how lame that sounds, don't you?

Mr. August, for once be a man and admit that the stop watch on this case started when the files against Mr. Simpson. I'm sure I don't have to remind you on how the LAPD and the DA's office turned on one another on this issue. They started the stop watch, the defense didn't.

limakey, that's funny. No I'm not desperate to protect a weak case, I simply stated the reality of how long it takes to prepare a case with as much physical evidence as this case had. The defense had the right to ask for a speedy trial and that worked to their advantage in the criminal trial. It took time and the civil trial to eventually prove the truth.

No the color of the sweat suit was not wrong. Try reading this again.

July 5, 1995
MS. CLARK: Can you tell us, sir, what conclusion you reached concerning the blue black cotton fibers found on the Rockingham glove, Ron Goldman's shirt and the sock found in the Defendant's bedroom?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they all could have originated from the same fabric.
MS. CLARK: What appearance would those fibers have in a piece of fabric in terms of color?
MR. DEEDRICK: They would be black. It would look black.

Maybe some day you may actually realize the fact that no one compared the fibers to any sweat suit because there was no sweat suit to compare them to. Simpson disposed of it.

Maybe some day you may actually understand that the fibers that were found on Simpson's socks link him to the murders, not the clothing they came from.

I have no idea what you're tying to say about a stop watch. All of your claims have been shown to be false so you have nothing left to talk about except some kind of gibberish. The fact is that the evidence proved Simpson guilty in the criminal trial but the jury didn't want to understand it and ignored it. The fact is that the same evidence as well as additional evidence along with Simpson's lying testimony proved Simpson guilty in the civil trial and that jury unanimously found him responsible for both deaths.

Reasonable thinking people understand the truth of these murders. Fanatics and apologists for what ever reason use any excuse they can dream up to deny the truth no matter how many times their arguments are proven wrong. I'm sorry to say limakey, you're not a reasonable thinking person.

bobaugust

limakey

08-22-2006, 11:06 PM

Mr. August,

You have not linked the fibers that were found on Mr. Goldman's shirt and the socks to any sweat suit. The most the "expert" could say that he believe the fibers were consistent with coming from the same material. That "material" has never been linked to the fibers from the clothes the DA's said he was wearing.

Didn't your girl in the civil trial say that the sweats were black and gray, but mostly black? Didn't Kato say the sweat suit was black but had white stripes or something like that?

No link to the fibers, no link to a sweat suit, no link to Mr. Simpson.

Reasonable people have different opinons on this case. Reasonable people, even who may believe in his guilt or innocence differ greatly on their opinons. Not every G feels the same way you do, not every NG's feels the way I do. That is why our country is great!

bobaugust

08-23-2006, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

You have not linked the fibers that were found on Mr. Goldman's shirt and the socks to any sweat suit. The most the "expert" could say that he believe the fibers were consistent with coming from the same material. That "material" has never been linked to the fibers from the clothes the DA's said he was wearing.

Didn't your girl in the civil trial say that the sweats were black and gray, but mostly black? Didn't Kato say the sweat suit was black but had white stripes or something like that?

No link to the fibers, no link to a sweat suit, no link to Mr. Simpson.

Reasonable people have different opinons on this case. Reasonable people, even who may believe in his guilt or innocence differ greatly on their opinons. Not every G feels the same way you do, not every NG's feels the way I do. That is why our country is great!

limakey, you don't have to be a reasonable person to understand the fibers themselves link Simpson to the murders, you just have to have a little common sense.

That's what fiber evidence does when it is found on the victim of a crime and on a suspect who may have committed the crime. The clothing is immaterial. Simpson disposed of the clothing just like he disposed of the knife and his shoes.

No, Leslie Gardiner did not say she bought a black and gray sweatsuit. She said she bought sweat suits, some black, some gray. Kaelin testified that the dark blue or black cotton sweat suit Simpson was wearing had a white zipper. The fibers found came from the material of the sweat suit, not the zipper.

I say again what any semi intelligent person with even a little common sense can understand. The same blue black cotton fibers found all over Ron Goldman's shirt and on the killer's gloves came from the clothing the killer was wearing. Those same blue black cotton fibers were also found on Simpson's socks. That fact ties Simpson to the murders.

Even if we never knew that Simpson was wearing a dark blue or black cotton sweat suit the night of the murders. Even if we never knew that Leslie Gardiner bought a black cotton sweat suit for Simpson. Even if we never knew that a freshly washed sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders and then disappeared, the fibers would still tie Simpson to the murders.

I'm sorry to say your "no link to the fibers, no link to a sweat suit, no link to Mr. Simpson" is not only false and doesn't make any sense, it's dumb. It seems you forgot about Simpson's socks.

I suggest you explain to your son where these same fibers were found and then ask him what it means. See if he can explain it to you.

bobaugust

limakey

08-25-2006, 01:01 AM

Mr. August,

I answered this on the other thread.

bobaugust

08-25-2006, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

I answered this on the other thread.

limakey, no you answered nothing. You only continued to show you still can't admit to the simple truth that Simpson's socks link him to the murders.

Did you ask your son to explain the fiber evidence to you?

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-25-2006, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

limakey, no you answered nothing. You only continued to show you still can't admit to the simple truth that Simpson's socks link him to the murders.

Did you ask your son to explain the fiber evidence to you?

bobaugust

August,

The same sock that was inspected and NO blood found, and under a NASA satellite microscope Nicole Simpsons blood was found 3 weeks later..

Oh, that sock!

bobaugust

08-25-2006, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

The same sock that was inspected and NO blood found, and under a NASA satellite microscope Nicole Simpsons blood was found 3 weeks later..

Oh, that sock!

nettathirty, a NASA satellite microscope? You're so weird.

No, the same socks that were later examined under high intensity lighting and bloodstains were first seen.

The same sock that the bloodstain on the ankle of was identified as Nicole's blood and proved that it was not planted from Nicole's autopsy sample the defense falsely claimed.

The same socks that the blue black cotton fibers came from that that link Simpson to the murders.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-25-2006, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

NASA? satellite? :confused: :lol:

you like

limakey

08-27-2006, 11:43 PM

I have often wondered about Dennis Fung. He was totally destroyed in both trials. IMO, I always felt that he would not say what Clark and the DA's wanted him to say. His shaking the defense's team hands always struck me as odd.

I remember Hank Goldberg saying that he prepared Dennis Fung for hours and hours and he knew early on that he was going to be a bad witness---why?

And while he made mistakes, I wonder how many did he and Andera M. really make or how many were they told they made? A big difference if you think about it.

nettathirty

08-29-2006, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by limakey
I have often wondered about Dennis Fung. He was totally destroyed in both trials. IMO, I always felt that he would not say what Clark and the DA's wanted him to say. His shaking the defense's team hands always struck me as odd.

I remember Hank Goldberg saying that he prepared Dennis Fung for hours and hours and he knew early on that he was going to be a bad witness---why?

And while he made mistakes, I wonder how many did he and Andera M. really make or how many were they told they made? A big difference if you think about it.

Limakey

His shaking the defense's team hands always struck me as odd.

Maybe, I read way to much into Fungs actions. But it appeared to me that he was thanking the defense, more than being star struck!

limakey

08-30-2006, 12:44 AM

Netta,

I don't believe in the "star struck" theory at all. I think that was the excuse given to explain the "unexplainable". I remember the DA's who said that the defense didn't need to use race, they had celebrity going for them. What does that mean? Like the evidence would change?

I think Dennis Fung knew something was wrong with the evidence, I think that he knew certain things that happened with the evidence in this case, as it has in others. IMO, it could have been possible that he hoped the weaknesses exposed in the procedures, etc., would eventually lead to changes that need to be made.

If you think about it, what are the most common reasons when a case is over turned? We know it doesn't happen often, but when it does, what are the most common reasons?

I do feel that both Dennis and Andrea knew that something was done and were made to feel that it is was there fault. Like Andrea must have forgotten she didn't put her initials on the envelope, etc.

How many times can you hear that without doubting how to even spell your own name?

bobaugust

08-30-2006, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Netta,

I don't believe in the "star struck" theory at all. I think that was the excuse given to explain the "unexplainable". I remember the DA's who said that the defense didn't need to use race, they had celebrity going for them. What does that mean? Like the evidence would change?

I think Dennis Fung knew something was wrong with the evidence, I think that he knew certain things that happened with the evidence in this case, as it has in others. IMO, it could have been possible that he hoped the weaknesses exposed in the procedures, etc., would eventually lead to changes that need to be made.

If you think about it, what are the most common reasons when a case is over turned? We know it doesn't happen often, but when it does, what are the most common reasons?

I do feel that both Dennis and Andrea knew that something was done and were made to feel that it is was there fault. Like Andrea must have forgotten she didn't put her initials on the envelope, etc.

How many times can you hear that without doubting how to even spell your own name?

limakey, your opinion that Fung and Mazzola knew something was wrong with the evidence is pure fantasy and contradicted by the reasonable explanations for the mistakes that were made.

The fact that you still can't seem to grasp that Mazzola's handwriting was on the bindles inside the coin envelopes she mistakenly thought she had initialed. That fact proved that the blood samples were the original samples and nothing sinister ever happened to them like the defense tried to insinuate.

How many times does the reality of this evidence have to be explained to you before you realize that you're opinion is outright wrong? It's no wonder that you doubt you can't spell your own name. That's Funny.

bobaugust

limakey

08-31-2006, 03:29 PM

Mr. August,

Andrea was on her first case, fresh out of her training, which is where she learned just how important it was to protect the integrity of the evidence. She was taught how important it was for the proper anotations were made on the evidence envelopes.

So how is it possible, on her first case, that she screwed this up? How is it possible that her "error" went unnoticed until how many months later?

How many times can a person tell her supervisor that she was positive she did something but was told that she was wrong, not matter what? How much pressure does it take for one person to cave into that type of pressure?

As for Dennis Fung, didn't he testify in the civil trial that he wasn't even sure of a picture of the glove? Didn't he go in glove identification class in the hallway of the courthouse?

IMO, I think it is also very possible that if either Dennis or Andrea pressed these issues, they would have been given the, "Well if what you are saying is true, then someone has tampered with the evidence in a murder case. If what you are saying is true, not only has the evidence been tampered with, it has to be someone who had access to it. And if what you say is true, that the evidence was tampered with, and someone had access to the evidence, then is must be someone in your department. And if what you are saying is true, that the evidence has been tampered with, that the person had access to the evidence, and the person is your department, then you are accusing a person of this serious crime. Who was it? When did they do it, why did they do it?

It appears to me that there must be some kind of rule that if a person tampers with evidence, there has to be an eyewitness to this. Going with your gut feeling is not good enough to make such an accusation.

Now, you sure you want to press this issue, New Trainee Andrea?

Dennis, you sticking to yours as well?

They were under a tremendous amount of stress, in fact, IMO, I think after going through that, the stress of their cross examination couldn't even be compared to what they had already gone through. IMO.

bobaugust

08-31-2006, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Andrea was on her first case, fresh out of her training, which is where she learned just how important it was to protect the integrity of the evidence. She was taught how important it was for the proper anotations were made on the evidence envelopes.

So how is it possible, on her first case, that she screwed this up? How is it possible that her "error" went unnoticed until how many months later?

limakey, the integrity of the blood evidence was protected. The mistaken recollection by Mazzola didn't change the evidence.

Mazzola testified that in the Griffin Hearing on August 23, 1994 that she had initialed the coin envelopes. She thought she had because at the previous scene that she done, her first scene, that's the way the criminalist at that scene did it. But Dennis Fung decided that he and Mazzola would work the Simpson case as a team. There was only two of them and all of the evidence had to be picked up by either one of them.

Dennis Fung's initials were on the coin envelopes, not Mazzola's, because Fung did the final packaging. Inside the coin envelopes were the bindles that held the blood swathes. All of those bindles had item numbers on them. That's the important information because the item number on the bindle ties it to the item number of the blood stain that was collected. Mazzola recognized her handwriting of the item numbers on the bindles as well as Fung's handwriting.

That fact proved that there was no tampering with blood samples.

The rest of your post is irrelevant. Only your own personal opinion to avoid the reality of the evidence and the fact that there wasn't one shred of evidence that anything in this case was ever planted or tampered with.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-31-2006, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

limakey, the integrity of the blood evidence was protected. The mistaken recollection by Mazzola didn't change the evidence.

bobaugust

August,

Let me get this straight:
All the defense witnesses supporting the black defendant were liars..
Everybody who supported HARDWORKING LE was simply mistaken, is that the case?

weezer

08-31-2006, 06:35 PM

nettathirty

08-31-2006, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
:confused:

fbg,

It's O.K. The post wasn't meant for you anyway..

bobaugust

08-31-2006, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

Let me get this straight:
All the defense witnesses supporting the black defendant were liars..
Everybody who supported HARDWORKING LE was simply mistaken, is that the case?

nettathirty, the only defense witnesses that I know of that lied were Arnelle Simpson, Skip Taft, and Orenthal James Simpson. What defense witnesses do you think supported Simpson?

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-31-2006, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

nettathirty, the only defense witnesses that I know of that lied were Arnelle Simpson, Skip Taft, and Orenthal James Simpson. What defense witnesses do you think supported Simpson?

bobaugust

August,

Mark Fuhrman, his lie worked in support of OJ..

bobaugust

08-31-2006, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

Mark Fuhrman, his lie worked in support of OJ..

nettathirty, Fuhrman's dumb lie was irrelevant to Simpson's guilt or innocence. I agree it probably gave the criminal trial jury another excuse to ignore the relevant evidence that proved Simpson's guilty. But it's a ridiculous stretch in imagination to say Mark Fuhrman deliberately lied to help Simpson.

Fuhrman said what he said to help his own image, not Simpson.

bobaugust

nettathirty

08-31-2006, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

nettathirty, Fuhrman's dumb lie was irrelevant to Simpson's guilt or innocence. I agree it probably gave the criminal trial jury another excuse to ignore the relevant evidence that proved Simpson's guilty. But it's a ridiculous stretch in imagination to say Mark Fuhrman deliberately lied to help Simpson.

Fuhrman said what he said to help his own image, not Simpson.

bobaugust

August,

Help his image with the jury?

weezer

08-31-2006, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

Mark Fuhrman, his lie worked in support of OJ.. I must have missed that part -- you know, the one where Mark Fuhrman was a defense witness.

bobaugust

09-01-2006, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by nettathirty

August,

Help his image with the jury?

nettathirty, with whoever was watching him testify.

bobaugust

limakey

09-28-2006, 11:22 PM

Like many NG's, I have always maintained that the detectives' actions that night do not match up. They make no sense. I have also said that IMO, the cops knew where OJ was, knew that he did see Nicole within 24 hours of her death, knew when he left.

Mr. August has always said that GiGi's telephone call was a trigger for the murders. Mr. Simpson found the perfect opportunity he was looking for.

Yet, when the detectives entered the estate and house, using the live in maid as an excuse, it appears to me that they already knew she wasn't in the house. How could they know that?

They detectives went to the maid's room, yet only checked there for her body, why? Why not check the whole house? How did they know that she knew nothing about the events of that night?

In other words, what if she saw Simpson entering the house? Or put clothes in the washer that night? Simpson killed Ron because he was witness, yet he wouldn't kill the maid because she was witness? She could testify about his whereabouts that night? About what she saw and heard?

And, who else knew about the maid not being home? Did Kato know? Did Arnelle know? How could any of them know that she was given the night off?

bobaugust

09-29-2006, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Like many NG's, I have always maintained that the detectives' actions that night do not match up. They make no sense. I have also said that IMO, the cops knew where OJ was, knew that he did see Nicole within 24 hours of her death, knew when he left.

Mr. August has always said that GiGi's telephone call was a trigger for the murders. Mr. Simpson found the perfect opportunity he was looking for.

Yet, when the detectives entered the estate and house, using the live in maid as an excuse, it appears to me that they already knew she wasn't in the house. How could they know that?

They detectives went to the maid's room, yet only checked there for her body, why? Why not check the whole house? How did they know that she knew nothing about the events of that night?

In other words, what if she saw Simpson entering the house? Or put clothes in the washer that night? Simpson killed Ron because he was witness, yet he wouldn't kill the maid because she was witness? She could testify about his whereabouts that night? About what she saw and heard?

And, who else knew about the maid not being home? Did Kato know? Did Arnelle know? How could any of them know that she was given the night off?

limakey, your belief that the police knew where Simpson was before they went to Rockingham is based on nothing but your imagination. It's pure fantasy. The detectives actions match up to the orders they were following.

When Arnelle let the detectives in the rear door they had Arnelle show them where the housekeepers room was. They looked in and saw that the bed was made and the room was in good order. Clearly there had not been a struggle there or anywhere else that they could see.

You are so confused. When the detective entered Simpson's house they knew nothing about the laundry in the washing machine. They knew nothing about Gigi except that Westec told them a live in housekeeper should have been there.

There is no evidence that Simpson told anyone about Gigi's telephone call and that she was returning later that morning. If Kaelin or Arnelle realized that Gigi's car was not parked there they never said anything about it.

bobaugust

limakey

09-30-2006, 12:27 AM

Mr. August,

Here are the glaring weaknesses in your fantasy.

1. The security company knew about GiGi leaving on the estate, she was a "live in" made, however, where is written that she did not, could not, never had occupied one of the guest rooms, where Kato and Arnelle lived?

2. If Mr. Simpson realized the importance of ensuring the security company knew that he did have an employee that lived on his estate, how much brain power do you need to figure that Arnelle was on that list and most likely Kato?

3. I don't know about you, but if I just came back from doing the wacko hacko on my ex and his friend, the first place I'm going to go is into the maid's room to see if she saw me enter my house, saw me wearing the murder clothes and shes--Yes, siree Bob, that would be the first place I would go. And you know what, if she was in that room, I would kill her, because I would have too, but if she was anywhere else in the house, I couldn't touch her because then the police wouldn't know where to look for her body. Can't fool with those police guys, we all know that they will only check one room and that is that!

4. Sydney and Justin knew where there father was, in fact, that is one reason why Sydney kept calling her mother's house. We also know that Sydney did make some statements, that included that her father did see her that day.

5. You have constantly posted what has been written by Daniel Petrocelli and other's. However, in Robert Shapiro's book, he says that Fuhrman and Roberts called the station and asked them to ask the kids where Simpson was.

6. I have no problem with the police going over to Rockingham at all, they had three very good reasons on going over there. I'm sure that all three of these reasons were given to Commander Bushy, so they would be covered.

7. Why was Kato never asked to go back and asked to give the best possible recreation of the thumps?

8. If Mark Fuhrman was so concerned about a victim or even a suspect who was in a state of distress do to injury, why did he wait so long to check it out? What did take like 15 minutes to get from the kitchen to the glove?

9. Also, why did Fuhrman and the other detectives assume that the fence was jumped and that is when the glove was dropped? At that point in time, they could not have know how that glove got back there. Even if Simpson is the killer, isn't it just as reasonable to believe that he threw the glove over the fence, hoping that the cops wouldn't look back there?

10. IMO, I think it is fair that in the detectives' training and experience, they know just how important washers and dryers are in a case. There was a reason why Fung was told and/or taught to check the washer and dryer.

And Mr. August, last but not least, the reason you have so far refused to say it doesn't matter what the police knew and when they knew, is because you know just how important this issue is.

IMO.

bobaugust

09-30-2006, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Here are the glaring weaknesses in your fantasy.

1. The security company knew about GiGi leaving on the estate, she was a "live in" made, however, where is written that she did not, could not, never had occupied one of the guest rooms, where Kato and Arnelle lived?

2. If Mr. Simpson realized the importance of ensuring the security company knew that he did have an employee that lived on his estate, how much brain power do you need to figure that Arnelle was on that list and most likely Kato?

3. I don't know about you, but if I just came back from doing the wacko hacko on my ex and his friend, the first place I'm going to go is into the maid's room to see if she saw me enter my house, saw me wearing the murder clothes and shes--Yes, siree Bob, that would be the first place I would go. And you know what, if she was in that room, I would kill her, because I would have too, but if she was anywhere else in the house, I couldn't touch her because then the police wouldn't know where to look for her body. Can't fool with those police guys, we all know that they will only check one room and that is that!

4. Sydney and Justin knew where there father was, in fact, that is one reason why Sydney kept calling her mother's house. We also know that Sydney did make some statements, that included that her father did see her that day.

5. You have constantly posted what has been written by Daniel Petrocelli and other's. However, in Robert Shapiro's book, he says that Fuhrman and Roberts called the station and asked them to ask the kids where Simpson was.

6. I have no problem with the police going over to Rockingham at all, they had three very good reasons on going over there. I'm sure that all three of these reasons were given to Commander Bushy, so they would be covered.

7. Why was Kato never asked to go back and asked to give the best possible recreation of the thumps?

8. If Mark Fuhrman was so concerned about a victim or even a suspect who was in a state of distress do to injury, why did he wait so long to check it out? What did take like 15 minutes to get from the kitchen to the glove?

9. Also, why did Fuhrman and the other detectives assume that the fence was jumped and that is when the glove was dropped? At that point in time, they could not have know how that glove got back there. Even if Simpson is the killer, isn't it just as reasonable to believe that he threw the glove over the fence, hoping that the cops wouldn't look back there?

10. IMO, I think it is fair that in the detectives' training and experience, they know just how important washers and dryers are in a case. There was a reason why Fung was told and/or taught to check the washer and dryer.

And Mr. August, last but not least, the reason you have so far refused to say it doesn't matter what the police knew and when they knew, is because you know just how important this issue is.

IMO.

limakey,
1. The possibility that Gigi was living in the guest house is irrelevant. The detectives didn't even know there was guest house until after they entered the estate and walked around the house.

2. Westec didn't tell the police about Arnelle or Kaelin. Whether Westec knew or didn't know about Arnelle and Kaelin living in the guest house is irrelevant. They only told the detectives about the housekeeper who should have been in the house.

3. Your comments about what you would do are irrelevant. The police didn't enter Simpson's house because they suspected him of being the killer, they entered to check if there was possibly another victim.

4. None of the detectives talked to Sydney or Jason. She was taken to the West LA police station before any of them arrived at Bundy.

5. Does Shapiro say when Fuhrman and Roberts supposedly called their station to find out from the kids where Simpson was? Fuhrman wrote that he was writing his notes when Roberts arrived at Bundy. Fuhrman stopped writing to give Roberts a tour of the crime scene. That's when they noticed the bloody fingerprint on the brass dead bolt on the rear gate. Fuhrman wrote that after they made their way to the front of the house. Roberts went to join Phillips and Fuhrman went back in the house to finish his notes. Before he completed them Phillips came in and told him that the case had been assigned to Robbery Homicide.

6. Commander Bushey's reason to have the police notify Simpson in person was to avoid having Simpson hear about this from the media. as well as to help Simpson recover his kids from their station.

7. After Fuhrman talked to Kaelin, they followed Lange, Vannatter, and Phillips through the rear door of Simpson's house where Fuhrman left Kaelin at the bar area while he went to find Vannatter. Vannatter returned and questioned Kaelin about everything he had told Fuhrman.

8. What leads you to believe it took Fuhrman 15 minutes to get from the kitchen to the glove?

9. What leads you to believe that the detectives assumed that the fence was jumped?

10. Fung was asked to check the dark colored sweat suit for blood as well as the washing machine. He didn't see any.

I have never said it doesn't matter what the police knew and when they knew. What is the evidence that tells you what they knew and when?

bobaugust

limakey

09-30-2006, 11:16 PM

Mr. August,

If I remember correctly, it was around 2:00 a.m. when Fuhrman and Phillips made that phone call.

It is very possible that there was a very good reason why the detectives never talked to Sydney and Justin, I'm sure that ever comments they made in the police car and in the station were given to the detectives.

To say that the media and the children were the prime reasons why the detectives makes no sense. If they never suspected OJ Simpson, then the order to go over to Rockingham would have been given much sooner. If the sole reason of them going over there was to prevent Mr. Simpson from hearing about the murders through the media, then they not only would have gone over to Rockingham much sooner, but there would have been an urgency to find him. I'm sorry, but most states do have TV's and radio as well as most hotel rooms. The Chicago Police force would have been notified to give a personal notification. If Phillips could have told OJ about the murders at about 6:00 a.m., then why couldn't he or another LAPD rep contact him much sooner?

Who from Westec testified about there encounter with the police? Who from Westec said only a maid lived at the estate and who testified that according to their records, the maid lived inside the main house?

If the police were concerned about this maid, then they would have busted down the front door and never would have taken the time to walk back to where the guest rooms were.

And Mr. August, it is very relevant who lived on the estate, according the police, they said they were concerned that even Mr. Simpson could have been a victim, so why would Kato and Arenlle be eliminated as possible victims---because they didn't live in the main house?

Mark Fuhrman was the only person who linked the thumps to Simpson and his theory was that Mr. Simpson ran into it three times, that caused the glove to be dropped. He used the thumps as his perfect cover---IMO, no thumps, no glove would have been found back there--it would have been found in the Bronco or in another place on the estate---if Fuhrman was the one who planted the glove. I believe the glove was planted, but I'm willing to say that I'm a hundered percent sure it was him.

limakey

10-11-2006, 08:34 PM

Martin,

I answering your post on this thread.

IMO, I think had the DA's used one of the tape conversation from the Bronco, they might have opened the door to all the taped conversations in the Bronco.

I also think that had they even been allowed to only use the tape they wanted, it would reveal just what the LAPD and the DA's knew. The defense always made the point that no other suspect was looked at, etc. I bet within 24 hours of the murders, OJ's accounts were being monitored, if not frozen. They had the boarder police on the look out, etc. In other words, they had every avenue blocked before he was arrested.

I thought it was interesting that Clark blamed the LAPD for "rushing" the arrest and the LAPD blamed the DA's for "rushing the arrest". IMO, again, I believe they were confident that the bloody clothes, weapon and shoes would show up.

limakey

10-11-2006, 08:49 PM

To say the DA's didn't use the Bronco Chase (and I don't think the civil trial attorneys used it either) because of the self serving statements--if you think about it, makes no sense.

OJ Simpson just saying that he didn't do it, is hardly self serving. However, maybe it was more of what he didn't say on those tapes is why the DA's didn't use it.

IMO, I think that it is fair to say that a majority people who know they are being accused of a murder, will start tossing out names and/or other people who did this. They say or do anything to throw the cops off their trail, even if it just buys them a couple hours.

Also, it is not only the defendant who has the motive to give self serving statements. IMO, I believe that the four lead detectives and some member of the LAPD gave self serving statements to protect their case. I can understand why a defendant would do this, but police officers. IMO, self serving statements happend every day in our courtrooms and not just by the defendant or the defense's witnesses.

martin II

10-14-2006, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Martin,

I answering your post on this thread.

IMO, I think had the DA's used one of the tape conversation from the Bronco, they might have opened the door to all the taped conversations in the Bronco.

I also think that had they even been allowed to only use the tape they wanted, it would reveal just what the LAPD and the DA's knew. The defense always made the point that no other suspect was looked at, etc. I bet within 24 hours of the murders, OJ's accounts were being monitored, if not frozen. They had the boarder police on the look out, etc. In other words, they had every avenue blocked before he was arrested.

I thought it was interesting that Clark blamed the LAPD for "rushing" the arrest and the LAPD blamed the DA's for "rushing the arrest". IMO, again, I believe they were confident that the bloody clothes, weapon and shoes would show up.

limakey

that is really funny or tragic. both lapd and the da accused each other of rushing to arrest. seems like neither had their ducks lined up as they thought. Maby this accounts for all the 'MISTAKES' they were accused of making.

So j Cochran must have been correct when he said 'RUSH TO JUDGEMENT" IMO
MARTIN ii

martin II

10-14-2006, 09:09 PM

limakey

10-17-2006, 10:58 PM

Martin,

I was very surprised to find out that rifts between police departments and DA's are very common---something that was confirmed by the JonBenet Ramsey murder case.

I remember Lange and Vanatter being very upset that it was the DA's who gave them the nicknames, "Dumb and Dumber".

However, IMO, I think their rifts are nothing more then playing "The Blame Game". If you think about the title of their book, Lange and Vanatter went on the offensive to give the impression that there was a lot of evidence that wasn't used.

bobaugust

10-18-2006, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

If I remember correctly, it was around 2:00 a.m. when Fuhrman and Phillips made that phone call.

It is very possible that there was a very good reason why the detectives never talked to Sydney and Justin, I'm sure that ever comments they made in the police car and in the station were given to the detectives.

To say that the media and the children were the prime reasons why the detectives makes no sense. If they never suspected OJ Simpson, then the order to go over to Rockingham would have been given much sooner. If the sole reason of them going over there was to prevent Mr. Simpson from hearing about the murders through the media, then they not only would have gone over to Rockingham much sooner, but there would have been an urgency to find him. I'm sorry, but most states do have TV's and radio as well as most hotel rooms. The Chicago Police force would have been notified to give a personal notification. If Phillips could have told OJ about the murders at about 6:00 a.m., then why couldn't he or another LAPD rep contact him much sooner?

Who from Westec testified about there encounter with the police? Who from Westec said only a maid lived at the estate and who testified that according to their records, the maid lived inside the main house?

If the police were concerned about this maid, then they would have busted down the front door and never would have taken the time to walk back to where the guest rooms were.

And Mr. August, it is very relevant who lived on the estate, according the police, they said they were concerned that even Mr. Simpson could have been a victim, so why would Kato and Arenlle be eliminated as possible victims---because they didn't live in the main house?

Mark Fuhrman was the only person who linked the thumps to Simpson and his theory was that Mr. Simpson ran into it three times, that caused the glove to be dropped. He used the thumps as his perfect cover---IMO, no thumps, no glove would have been found back there--it would have been found in the Bronco or in another place on the estate---if Fuhrman was the one who planted the glove. I believe the glove was planted, but I'm willing to say that I'm a hundered percent sure it was him.

limakey, I see I never responded to this posting although I have explained some of these things to you in other postings.

I don't know where you got your information from about what Phillips said he did. But according to his testimony he and Fuhrman arrived at Bundy at 2:10 AM. After arriving there Sergeant Rossi was talking on the cellular telephone and handed it to Phillips who then talked to Commander Bushey. Commander Bushey told Phillips that because one of the victims was O.J. Simpson's ex wife he didn't want Simpson to be made aware of the death in the media. He wanted Phillips to notify him in person as a courtesy to him. Phillips said Bushey told him it was probably going to be a major news event because Simpson was her one time husband. He told him they had Simpson's children at their West LA station and that it may be a bigger case than the four West LA detectives could handle and they may have to transfer it downtown to Robbery Homicide who had more resources than they had.

The only call Phillips made after that was at 2:38 AM when he called Captain Gartland and was told he was relieved of the responsibility of being in charge of the crime scene. The case was being turned over to Robbery Homicide.

After the case was transferred everything was put on hold until the Robbery Homicide detectives arrived. All the West LA detectives did was secure the murder scene. After Vannatter and Lange arrived and were given tours of the crime scene they were told about Commander Bushey's order to notify Simpson in person. Lange made the decision to take Phillips and Fuhrman with them because the West LA detectives knew where Simpson lived and after the notification they could stay and help Simpson recover his children from their station.

I've already explained to you how a Westec patrol officer told the detectives that as far as he knew Simpson should have been home as well as a live in housekeeper.

Mark Fuhrman wasn't the only one who linked Simpson to the thumps. If there were no thumps, Fuhrman would never have gone back there to investigate and the glove would not have been found. But the fact is that Kaelin always believed there was someone back there that caused the thumps and the fact is that Simpson was never concerned about it.

Mark Fuhrman didn't plant the glove, he only found it, Simpson dropped it there when he jumped from the top of his fence to enter his property after returning from Bundy. Simpson hit the wall jumping to the narrow south path causing the thumps and vibrations Kaelin felt and that moved the picture beside his bed. That's when Simpson unknowingly dropped the glove.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

10-18-2006, 01:27 AM

Now, let's see how long it takes for Limakey and all of her other comrades to ask these same questions AGAIN and Bobaugust answers these same questions AGAIN ~ ad nauseum!

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

10-19-2006, 12:20 AM

Mr. August,

Here is the problem with the Westec guy---were they, Westec informed every time that OJ Simpson was going to be out of town ? If they were not informed every time he went out of town, then his saying that OJ Simpson should have been the house could mean that he should be in the house because it was his estate, his house, so what are the chances he would live inside the house?

Another important question--which would support your claims about Arnelle and the alarm--was there a record kept when the alarm was turned off and on?

Did the LAPD call Westec to the scene---or was it their lucky day he happend to be driving by?

As for the cell phone records, how many of the entries were blacked out on them? And what was the excuse for doing this? Perhaps their cell phone records that night also had important evidence on it?

Another point, how do we know that the LAPD did infact call inside the home? Where is the record of that? When was that evidence introduced?

bobaugust

10-19-2006, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Here is the problem with the Westec guy---were they, Westec informed every time that OJ Simpson was going to be out of town ? If they were not informed every time he went out of town, then his saying that OJ Simpson should have been the house could mean that he should be in the house because it was his estate, his house, so what are the chances he would live inside the house?

Another important question--which would support your claims about Arnelle and the alarm--was there a record kept when the alarm was turned off and on?

Did the LAPD call Westec to the scene---or was it their lucky day he happend to be driving by?

As for the cell phone records, how many of the entries were blacked out on them? And what was the excuse for doing this? Perhaps their cell phone records that night also had important evidence on it?

Another point, how do we know that the LAPD did infact call inside the home? Where is the record of that? When was that evidence introduced?

limakey, there was no problem with Westec.

I have no idea if Simpson informed Westec every time he went out of town, all we know is that he didn't inform them that night and he never informed them that his housekeeper would not be there that night. Simpson didn't tell anyone about that.

I doubt it there was a record of when Simpson's house alarm was turned on and off. It doesn't work that way. The only record Westec would have was when the alarm actually sounded.

After seeing the Westec sign on the gate Phillips called his station and requested the watch commander call Westec to get Simpson's telephone number, possibly a key, and to find out if they knew if the residents were out of town. Westec informed him they had no information that anyone was out of town. Phillips requested they send a Westec unit to the house.

As they were waiting a Westec patrol car happened to drive by and the detectives flagged it down. They asked for Simpson's telephone number and the Westec officer called his supervisor and then gave it to them. At that time another Westec car arrived with a Westec supervisor. The detectives then called the house but no one answered.

What ever telephone numbers that were blocked off Simpson's telephone records were at the request of the Simpson's attorneys. There would be no record of the telephone calls the police made to Simpson's house. They were local calls and no one ever answered the phone.

bobaugust

martin II

10-20-2006, 06:47 AM

weezer

10-20-2006, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by martin II

limakey

very good point about the cops call records to oj's house from the gate.

if there were all of these calls they would have been recorded on the cops cell phones for that time. without these records there is no proof that they did make these calls.imo

didn't westec have opj's cell number?
martin II your ignorance about this case is unbelievable. Why don't you talk to the Butcher and ask him these questions?

martin II

10-20-2006, 03:31 PM

fbg

when will you post the pictures (link ) to the bloody foot prints you swear oj left at Bundy??? that is the question.

martinII

weezer

10-20-2006, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by martin II
fbg

when will you post the pictures (link ) to the bloody foot prints you swear oj left at Bundy??? that is the question.

martinII oh please -- I've posted links/transcripts to orenthal's pigeon-toed footprints being left in Nicole's blood at the murder scene. Did my part.

martin II

10-20-2006, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
oh please -- I've posted links/transcripts to orenthal's pigeon-toed footprints being left in Nicole's blood at the murder scene. Did my part.

fbg
not true

i never asked for transcripts as they contain opinions. i asked you to post a link to the acutal crime scens photos that show pigeon toed foot prints and you have evaded that request daily
martin II

weezer

10-20-2006, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by martin II

not true

martin ii excuse me? the fact that you can't follow a link or interpret testimony is your personal problem -- not mine.

martin II

10-20-2006, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
excuse me? the fact that you can't follow a link or interpret testimony is your personal problem -- not mine.

fbg
all the bloody foot prints at bundy are on web sites. PICTURES DON'T LIE. you have never posted the crime scene pictures showing pigeon toed bloody foot prints to back up your many clams. that is what i am asking. imo
martin II

weezer

10-20-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg
all the bloody foot prints at bundy are on web sites. PICTURES DON'T LIE. you have never posted the crime scene pictures showing pigeon toed bloody foot prints to back up your many clams. that is what i am asking. imo
martin II you mean EXCEPT for the pictures showing orenthal wearing the gloves and BM's?

martin II

10-20-2006, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
you mean EXCEPT for the pictures showing orenthal wearing the gloves and BM's?

stop evading the issue post the pictures
martin II

martin II

10-20-2006, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
you mean EXCEPT for the pictures showing orenthal wearing the gloves and BM's?

fbg
i am talking about bloody FOOT prints the ones you claim oj left at bundy.

WAITING

martinII

weezer

10-20-2006, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by martin II

stop evading the issue post the pictures
martin II if I thought you could grasp/retain/understand, I might be tempted to re-post for you BUT since I know you deal with a comprehension problem when it comes to the Butcher of Brentwood, I'm not going to. You can go back to earlier posts and find the many links/transcripts I have posted on this subject in the past. In other words, do your own research.

weezer

10-20-2006, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg
i am talking about bloody FOOT prints the ones you claim oj left at bundy.

WAITING

martinII I didn't say blood FOOT prints -- I said pigeon-toed bloody footprints made my orenthal and left by him at the murder scene on the night of the murders. Along with his hair, hat, fiber, blood, and glove

weezer

10-20-2006, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Why don't you do us all a favor & hold your breath til you pass out? Here's a recent photo of Martin II

http://www.brawlboard.com/forums/images/smilies/45024.gif LOL -- thanks

martin II

10-20-2006, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I didn't say blood FOOT prints -- I said pigeon-toed bloody footprints made my orenthal and left by him at the murder scene on the night of the murders. Along with his hair, hat, fiber, blood, and glove

show the pigeon toed bloody foot prints left by oj at bundy,
martin II

weezer

10-20-2006, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by martin II

show the pigeon toed bloody foot prints left by oj at bundy,
martin II nah -- I'm only required to post links/transcripts once and I've done it multiple times. You go back read the old posts and find the links -- they're there.

martin II

10-20-2006, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
nah -- I'm only required to post links/transcripts once and I've done it multiple times. You go back read the old posts and find the links -- they're there.

fbg

i understand you now know you posted a rumor rather than the truth and now want to play dodge ball over the issue.

this is expected as you have done this before.imo
martin II

weezer

10-20-2006, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

i understand you now know you posted a rumor rather than the truth and now want to play dodge ball over the issue.

this is expected as you have done this before.imo
martin II nope -- never post rumor and this is not rumor. when I post, I back it up with links/transcripts/reference. I cannot help it that you are not able to grasp/understand/comprehend and are not able to followup for your own research. Your problem -- not mine.

martin II

10-21-2006, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
nope -- never post rumor and this is not rumor. when I post, I back it up with links/transcripts/reference. I cannot help it that you are not able to grasp/understand/comprehend and are not able to followup for your own research. Your problem -- not mine.

fbg

i see you need help.

Bodziak the fbi expert made a diagram of all the bloody shoe prints at the murder scene, you can find it on Wagers site then you can tell me which set of bloody shoe prints are pigeon toed .other wise this idea of yours will remain a false rumor imo
martin II

martin II

10-21-2006, 08:27 AM

fbg

i asked for picture proof of any bloddy pigeon foot prints at bundy
to back up your frequent claims on this issue not only for myself but for any other poster that may have a question about your claims. imo
martin II

ojisinnocent
Member

Registered: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 20

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by socaldiva

Sure it was. When he dripped fresh blood to the left of his pigeon toed BM prints @ Bundy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This sentence contains TWO Oj case myths: that the blood drops on Bundy lined up with the footprints, and to the left of them, and that the fotprints at Bundy were pigeon-toed. Neither myth is true. The uultimate source of information on these items is the testimony and diagram of Bodziak, the FBI fotprint expert

Of the five blood drops with OJ's DNA in them, two were too far from where the prints faded out to say they had any elationship to them at all, ONE was off to the side of the prints, and two -- would you believe -- were IN BETWEEN the closest set of right and left prints.

Moreover,m in the one instance of the drop being off to the side, it was in an area where prints wee going BOTH WAYS to and from the corpses. Which is to say, you could just as easily conclude it was to the RIGHT of the prints.

As for being pigeon toed: to come to that conclusion you would need to have an aerial shot of two complete shoe prints that were obviosly paired with each other. Nosuch photo or testmony exists. I don't know where this "pigeion toed" thing got started, but would lov to find out.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

10-16-2006 10:00 PM

limakey

10-21-2006, 12:05 PM

Mr. August,

Reality Check---Nicole's condo also had the Westec sign that OJ had on his estate. So they called Westec to find out who should have been in the house or whatever---well Mr. August, why didn't they do the same at the Condo?

They all testified they weren't sure who the female victim, they thought it maybe Nicole Simpson, but weren't sure. Well what about Ron Goldman? They had no way of knowing if Ron was Nicole's live in lover or whatever? They had no way of knowing what Ron and Nicole's relationship was, yet the right away zeroed in on OJ as a suspect?

Nicole was killed "neat and sweet"---Ron Goldman was hacked to death, which means Ron's body took much, much more punishment then Nicole's---which any detective and state expert would have picked up on. Ron was tortured, Nicole wasn't.

bobaugust

10-21-2006, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Reality Check---Nicole's condo also had the Westec sign that OJ had on his estate. So they called Westec to find out who should have been in the house or whatever---well Mr. August, why didn't they do the same at the Condo?

They all testified they weren't sure who the female victim, they thought it maybe Nicole Simpson, but weren't sure. Well what about Ron Goldman? They had no way of knowing if Ron was Nicole's live in lover or whatever? They had no way of knowing what Ron and Nicole's relationship was, yet the right away zeroed in on OJ as a suspect?

Nicole was killed "neat and sweet"---Ron Goldman was hacked to death, which means Ron's body took much, much more punishment then Nicole's---which any detective and state expert would have picked up on. Ron was tortured, Nicole wasn't.

limakey, Nicole's death wasn't "neat and sweet". there was evidence that she fought with her killer and knocked unconscious before her throat was cut. Ron wasn't tortured he was killed by an amateur killer.

You ask why didn't the police call Nicole's security company at Nicole's condo? You're question makes no sense. Why should they have? Witnesses told patrol officers what they saw. The officers found the condo gate open, two dead victims in the front of the house, and the front door to the house open.

You either need to learn the facts or you do need a reality check.

bobaugust

limakey

10-22-2006, 05:44 PM

Mr. August,

Yes, Nicole did struggle with her attacker, hard enough for a ring to come off her finger. However, she was not hacked to death, she did not have any torture wounds on her body---Ron Goldman did.

Ron Goldman may have been killed by a person who had no idea that Ron had the training to protect himself. Or the killer underestimated his strength---under estimating someone does not mean the person was an amatuer. However, if we go with your amatur theory, then you have to acknowledge that Ron did in fact landed a few punches and a few kicks to his attackers. There were no bruises on OJ's body. You would also have to hang up the belief that a rookie killer could and did understand how to ensure that no blood was sprayed on or knew how to avoid being drenched in blood.

The state's own witness could not testify with any degree of medical certainity how many killers there were, what type of knife it was and if there were more then one knife used in the killings.

It was the state's own witness who described the wounds on Ron as being called torture wounds. However, he did explain that the killer could have just been playing with the body with the knife or was making sure that Ron was dead. This adds more time to the killings, time OJ Simpson couldn't afford if he was the killer. Either Ron was tortured before his death or his body was played with after death, why would an amaturer hang around and play with Ron?

bobaugust

10-22-2006, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Yes, Nicole did struggle with her attacker, hard enough for a ring to come off her finger. However, she was not hacked to death, she did not have any torture wounds on her body---Ron Goldman did.

Ron Goldman may have been killed by a person who had no idea that Ron had the training to protect himself. Or the killer underestimated his strength---under estimating someone does not mean the person was an amatuer. However, if we go with your amatur theory, then you have to acknowledge that Ron did in fact landed a few punches and a few kicks to his attackers. There were no bruises on OJ's body. You would also have to hang up the belief that a rookie killer could and did understand how to ensure that no blood was sprayed on or knew how to avoid being drenched in blood.

The state's own witness could not testify with any degree of medical certainity how many killers there were, what type of knife it was and if there were more then one knife used in the killings.

It was the state's own witness who described the wounds on Ron as being called torture wounds. However, he did explain that the killer could have just been playing with the body with the knife or was making sure that Ron was dead. This adds more time to the killings, time OJ Simpson couldn't afford if he was the killer. Either Ron was tortured before his death or his body was played with after death, why would an amaturer hang around and play with Ron?

limakey, Ron didn't have any torture marks on his body.

The nature of the killing is that of an armature. That fact is that Simpson was bigger and stronger than Goldman and armed with a weapon. Goldman was caught in a small enclosed area with little room to maneuver. If Simpson managed to get behind Goldman, holding him with his left arm while stabbing and cutting Goldman with the knife in his right hand, Goldman would not have been able to land any blows or kicks. All he could do was try to twist and turn and grab Simpson's hands tying to break his hold.

That is consistent with the evidence. Goldman managed to pull Simpson's hat and left hand glove off, but according to Dr. Spitz the killing wound came early in the struggle. A stab to Goldman's left flank that cut his aorta. Goldman would have immediately weakened from the internal bleeding but he continued to struggle until Simpson finally dropped him to the ground where he bled to death.

The fact it that Dr. Golden, Dr. Lakshmanan, and Dr. Spitz testified that all of the wounds were consistent with having been made with one knife.

The fact is that there isn't single shred of physical evidence, blood, fiber, or hair, that tells us anyone else was at Bundy that night. Only three people. The two victims and Simpson.

Ron's body wasn't played with. No expert ever speculated that. There are opinions after the killer dropped Goldman, and then returned to Nicole and sliced her throat, that he returned to Goldman. We know that because Nicole's blood is found on the bottom of one of Goldman's shoes.

Journey Into Darkness John Douglas
"This fact tells us the offender is not a professional killer. This is not a hit man. He doesn't know exactly what it takes to kill this guy. He has to come back and check on him. He sees that Goldman is dying and he goes back and stabs him multiple times. In fact, he's actually stabbed more times than Brown, even though the personalized sort of attack is reserved for her. That's because even though she's the one he's out to punish, to revenge himself on, the male is the greater physical threat. That's another reason we know the crimes were committed by a single offender. Two or more killers would have been able to control the situation better. You wouldn't have the evidence of such a struggle on Goldman's body."

bobaugust

martin II

10-23-2006, 07:47 AM

here is another opinion suporting the idea that professionsl killers did the killing.

on the one hand many have said ron was young and strong and in great shape. i think that the killer that grabed him got more 'FIGHT than he expected from ron but was able to control him because ron was grabbed from behind without warning and a knife put to his neck. imo
martin II

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/killpos.htm

bobaugust

10-23-2006, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by martin II
here is another opinion suporting the idea that professionsl killers did the killing.

on the one hand many have said ron was young and strong and in great shape. i think that the killer that grabed him got more 'FIGHT than he expected from ron but was able to control him because ron was grabbed from behind without warning and a knife put to his neck. imo
martin II

http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/killpos.htm

martin II, about the only thing Wagner got right was the killer was behind Goldman. The fact that Goldman was stabbed and cut over thirty times eliminates the speculation the killing was committed by a professional killer. It also eliminates the speculation of more than one killer.

bobaugust

weezer

10-23-2006, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva
To whom it may concern,

You also need to clear out the sent messages if you haven't already, as that will cause the box to be full. ;) :D :o

martin II

10-23-2006, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

martin II, about the only thing Wagner got right was the killer was behind Goldman. The fact that Goldman was stabbed and cut over thirty times eliminates the speculation the killing was committed by a professional killer. It also eliminates the speculation of more than one killer.

bobaugust

BOB
One of the first wounds to ron was to his flank i think. He would have died from this wound even if he had not received some of the additional wounds. so it seems that the killer did know how to inflict the fatal wound and did so early on. imo
martin II

martin II

10-23-2006, 04:50 PM

bob
the additional wounds to ron were made because he continued to fight back imo
martin II

bobaugust

10-23-2006, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by martin II

BOB
One of the first wounds to ron was to his flank i think. He would have died from this wound even if he had not received some of the additional wounds. so it seems that the killer did know how to inflict the fatal wound and did so early on. imo
martin II

martin II, that's funny. A professional killer choosing to stab someone in their flank hoping to cut their aorta. Do you even know where the flank is? And then continued to cut and stab Goldman over thirty times. Good one.

You're comments are as ridiculous as most of your uninformed comments.

bobaugust

martin II

10-23-2006, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

martin II, that's funny. A professional killer choosing to stab someone in their flank hoping to cut their aorta. Do you even know where the flank is? And then continued to cut and stab Goldman over thirty times. Good one.

You're comments are as ridiculous as most of your uninformed comments.

bobaugust

bob

where was the stab wound that cut ron's aorta?
martin II

martin II

10-23-2006, 08:57 PM

bob
after the cut to ron's jugular he was finished. it is my belief that this was done early on. the fact that the killer grabed him from behind with his left hand over ron's mouth, indicates that the killer knew how to silence ron. the killer also knew that with the blade next to rone neck that ron would submit to being manhandeled to the ground where additional stab wounds were inflicted. if ron had not tried to get free , maby he would not have received the additional wounds. but he had no choice.

if oj was doing something to nicole when ron came in the gate, how in the he** did he get behind ron to grabe him. ron would have been facing oj.imo
martin II

2L8 4A D8

10-24-2006, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by martin II

bob

where was the stab wound that cut ron's aorta?
martin II

As usual, you can't give Bob a straight answer to his Post, so you throw out Baiting Question No. 2000+. Ignorance doesn't even come close to describing you!

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

10-24-2006, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by martin II
bob
after the cut to ron's jugular he was finished. it is my belief that this was done early on. the fact that the killer grabed him from behind with his left hand over ron's mouth, indicates that the killer knew how to silence ron. the killer also knew that with the blade next to rone neck that ron would submit to being manhandeled to the ground where additional stab wounds were inflicted. if ron had not tried to get free , maby he would not have received the additional wounds. but he had no choice.

martin II, no one knows exactly what Simpson did to Ron blow by blow. All we know are the results of what he did and can only speculate how he did it.

This was no killing by any professional killer. A professional killer using a knife would know how to disable and kill his victim quickly with little or no resistance. That's not what happened here. Goldman was killed by an amateur, someone who never killed anyone before. That's what the over thirty stabs and cuts tell the experts.

Dr. Spitz believed the killing wound happened early. A stab to Goldman's left flank that cut his aorta. After sustaining that cut Goldman immediately weakened. The killer continued to randomly stab and cut Goldman until there was no more resistance and then dropped him to the ground.

Journey Into Darkness, John Douglas
"By this point the offender has worked himself up into a frenzy. As soon as he's got Ron neutralized, which is not easy, he goes back to Nicole, lifts her head from behind, and cuts her throat, slicing right through her voice box,
nearly taking her head off.

The (killer) then goes back to Goldman because he has to make sure he finishes him off. We know he goes back because her blood is found on the bottom of one of Goldman's shoes. Now, this is very, very important, because it tells you that the offender is not a professional killer. This is not a hit man. He doesn't know exactly what it takes to kill this guy. He has to come back and check on him. He sees that Goldman is dying and he goes back and stabs him multiple times. In fact, he's actually stabbed more times than Brown, even though the personalized sort of attack is reserved for her. That's because even though she's the one he's out to punish, to revenge himself on, the male is the greater physical threat. That's another reason we know the crimes were committed by a single offender. Two or more killers would have been able to control the situation better. You wouldn't have the evidence of such a struggle on Goldman's body."

bobaugust

martin II

10-24-2006, 08:18 AM

bob
again

It seems to me that when the killer grabbed ron from behind and held him with his left arm around rons neck and his hand over rons mouth, the killer knew this was the correct way to control ron and inflict the death cut to rons jugular. i see this as a professional move.

ron did not immediately feel the full effect of this wound and continued to fight or try to wiggle his way out of the grip the killer had on him. so the killer continued to slice and stab him until there was no resistance from rom. with ron in a sitting position,
the killer could have easily stabbed him in the chest and stomach
and other parts until ron weakened.

a professional killers job is to make sure the job is well done and that there is no chance for the victim to survive. therefore all of the additional wounds.

again i ask, IF nicole was at the bottom of her condo steps being
attacked by oj when ron arrived inside the gate and yelled, this would put ron at the gate and oj at the steps.

how then did oj get in a position to grab ron from behind?

some believe that oj knocked nicole out with a blow to the skull with something. what was this something? not the pen knife.

imo

martin II

weezer

10-24-2006, 08:25 AM

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
It seems to me that when the killer grabbed ron from behind and held him with his left arm around rons neck and his hand over rons mouth, the killer knew this was the correct way to control ron and inflict the death cut to rons jugular. i see this as a professional move. where in the world did you get this scenario?

weezer

10-24-2006, 08:27 AM

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
some believe that oj knocked nicole out with a blow to the skull with something. what was this something? not the pen knife.
:punch: IIRC, EXPERT testimony is that Nicole hit her head on the step.........

weezer

10-24-2006, 08:30 AM

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
again i ask, IF nicole was at the bottom of her condo steps being attacked by oj when ron arrived inside the gate and yelled, this would put ron at the gate and oj at the steps.

how then did oj get in a position to grab ron from behind? there is NO basis for anyone to assume this was the scene when Ron came upon the scene. What makes you think Orenthal was standing over Nicole? He could very well have heard Ron coming up the walk and stepped into the shadows to come up behind him and the "Hey, hey, hey" could have been when orenthal first grabbed him.

weezer

10-24-2006, 08:31 AM

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
i see this as a professional move.

a professional killers job is to make sure the job is well done and that there is no chance for the victim to survive. therefore all of the additional wounds. You've been watching WAY too much tv.

martin II

10-24-2006, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* You've been watching WAY too much tv.

fbg

not too much tv just nedia reports of some mob and drug killings over the years. would you agree that it would be risky for a person to cut rons neck(jugular) and then walk away without knowing he is in fact dead? imo
martin II

martin II

10-24-2006, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* there is NO basis for anyone to assume this was the scene when Ron came upon the scene. What makes you think Orenthal was standing over Nicole? He could very well have heard Ron coming up the walk and stepped into the shadows to come up behind him and the "Hey, hey, hey" could have been when orenthal first grabbed him.

fbg

it has been widly assumed and stated that oj was at the steps
and had hit nicole on the head and was about to cut her when ron arrived at the gate and saw this, that he yelled hey hey hey
and slammed the gate as he entered. that oj then attacked ron at the gate. There was a lot of blood between the gate and the tiles going away from the gate almost to the sidewalk. so it is reasonable to assume that ron was cut at that place.

if oj was at nicole when ron arrived at the gate, how did oj get BEHIND ron to grab him from behind by surprise and cut his jugular?
imo
martin II

martin II

10-24-2006, 09:48 AM

weezer

10-24-2006, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

not too much tv just nedia reports of some mob and drug killings over the years. would you agree that it would be risky for a person to cut rons neck(jugular) and then walk away without knowing he is in fact dead? imo
martin II evidence shows that orenthal walked back to Ron's body after butchering Nicole to check Ron.

weezer

10-24-2006, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

it has been widly assumed and stated that oj was at the steps
and had hit nicole on the head and was about to cut her when ron arrived at the gate and saw this, that he yelled hey hey hey
and slammed the gate as he entered. that oj then attacked ron at the gate. There was a lot of blood between the gate and the tiles going away from the gate almost to the sidewalk. so it is reasonable to assume that ron was cut at that place.

if oj was at nicole when ron arrived at the gate, how did oj get BEHIND ron to grab him from behind by surprise and cut his jugular?
imo
martin II Widely assumed by whom? IIRC, testimony was that Nicole hit her head on the step hard enough to knock her out -- I have not heard/read testimony that orenthal hit her on the head. Maybe orenthal was standing over Nicole when Ron walked up -- I doubt Ron would have expected orenthal to attack so it is quite plausible that orenthal could have maneuvered himself to be behind Ron.

2L8 4A D8

10-24-2006, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* there is NO basis for anyone to assume this was the scene when Ron came upon the scene. What makes you think Orenthal was standing over Nicole? He could very well have heard Ron coming up the walk and stepped into the shadows to come up behind him and the "Hey, hey, hey" could have been when orenthal first grabbed him.
Here's my two cents:

Ron walked up and opened the gate to let himself in, with the gate slamming shut behind him. He then saw OJ standing over Nicole with the knife in his hand, ready to finish her off. That's when Ron said "Hey, Hey, Hey" as in "WTH is happening here?"

With that, OJ started coming at Ron, knife at the ready. Ron immediately turned around and opened the gate to literally run for his life, but OJ caught up to him and grabbed Ron from behind before he could make it out of the open gate.

That is how OJ was able to get behind Ron and pull him back into the entry-way, backing him into the corner with nowhere to go and slaughtered him with such force that he had approximately 30 stab wounds to his body.

With the gate now open, that is how Kato got out into the street.

This is my theory. It's JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

10-24-2006, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by martin II
bob
again

It seems to me that when the killer grabbed ron from behind and held him with his left arm around rons neck and his hand over rons mouth, the killer knew this was the correct way to control ron and inflict the death cut to rons jugular. i see this as a professional move.

ron did not immediately feel the full effect of this wound and continued to fight or try to wiggle his way out of the grip the killer had on him. so the killer continued to slice and stab him until there was no resistance from rom. with ron in a sitting position,
the killer could have easily stabbed him in the chest and stomach
and other parts until ron weakened.

a professional killers job is to make sure the job is well done and that there is no chance for the victim to survive. therefore all of the additional wounds.

again i ask, IF nicole was at the bottom of her condo steps being
attacked by oj when ron arrived inside the gate and yelled, this would put ron at the gate and oj at the steps.

how then did oj get in a position to grab ron from behind?

some believe that oj knocked nicole out with a blow to the skull with something. what was this something? not the pen knife.

imo

martin II

martin II, you have things backwards again. The fact that Goldman was stabbed and cut so many times tells the experts that this was not a killing by a hit man.

No one but Dick Wagner ever speculated what you are now taking as gospel the way the killer may have held Goldman. If a professional killer using a knife as a weapon had Ron in the position that Wagner speculated he would know where to stab his victim to prevent the kind of situation that happened with Goldman. One well placed stab would not only kill but incapacitate.

You ask how did Simpson get in the the position to grab Ron from behind? How did Wagner's and now your professional killer grab Goldman from behind?

I've always speculated that after Goldman yelled at Simpson, Simpson went after him. Simpson was bigger, stronger, and armed. Goldman was caught in a very small confined area with no room to maneuver or fight. so he many have turned and pushed the gate open to get back outside. Simpson may have grabbed him from behind pulling him back in. Goldman may have held onto the gate. As Goldman was jerked back in his grip was broken an the gate slammed hard and bounced back open.

bobaugust

bobaugust

10-24-2006, 02:15 PM

bobaugust

10-24-2006, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Here's my two cents:

Ron walked up and opened the gate to let himself in, with the gate slamming shut behind him. He then saw OJ standing over Nicole with the knife in his hand, ready to finish her off. That's when Ron said "Hey, Hey, Hey" as in "WTH is happening here?"

With that, OJ started coming at Ron, knife at the ready. Ron immediately turned around and opened the gate to literally run for his life, but OJ caught up to him and grabbed Ron from behind before he could make it out of the open gate.

That is how OJ was able to get behind Ron and pull him back into the entry-way, backing him into the corner with nowhere to go and slaughtered him with such force that he had approximately 30 stab wounds to his body.

With the gate now open, that is how Kato got out into the street.

This is my theory. It's JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8, I agree with your speculation except for one point of fact. When Ron arrived the Akita was already in the street barking loudly and strangely. That's what Heidstra testified to.

That's why when Ron opened the gate and yelled he surprised Simpson. Simpson never heard him enter because of the barking Akita just outside the gate.

bobaugust

weezer

10-24-2006, 03:36 PM

weezer

10-24-2006, 03:37 PM

martin II

10-24-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Widely assumed by whom? IIRC, testimony was that Nicole hit her head on the step hard enough to knock her out -- I have not heard/read testimony that orenthal hit her on the head. Maybe orenthal was standing over Nicole when Ron walked up -- I doubt Ron would have expected orenthal to attack so it is quite plausible that orenthal could have maneuvered himself to be behind Ron.

fbg

maneuvered how? maby ron just turned around and said ok oj you got me. start cutting.imo
martin II

martin II

10-24-2006, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* where in the world did you get this scenario?

for a change read some of the tesimony in the civil trial describing the wounds. although i don't think it will help. imo

or you can ask bob. imo
martin II

martin II

10-24-2006, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

fbgweezer, martin is playing with you feeding you his bull crap beliefs, adding things that I've speculated about to him.

When Ron entered Nicole's gate and yelled at Simpson, I've always speculated that he surprised Simpson who was standing over Nicole lying unconscious on the ground. Simpson would not have heard Goldman arrive because the Akita was barking loudly just outside the gate. Simpson respond by yelling back and then attacking Ron.

bobaugust

fbg
now since bob has told you what i told you that oj would have to have been standing over nicole when ron arrived at the gate, you now believe what he said and what i have been trying to get you to understand great.
keep bob close by because you do need him imo
hahahaha

martin II

martin II

10-24-2006, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* :punch: IIRC, EXPERT testimony is that Nicole hit her head on the step.........

fbg
which expert??
martin II

martin II

10-24-2006, 05:32 PM

martin II

10-24-2006, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Okay -- this scenario sounds very plausible. I'd forgotten about the the timeline for the barking dog.

was the akita right out side the gate barking or was he nearer to bundy and gorham where heidstra was when he heard the dog barking nearby? this is the reason heidstra gave for turning around and going into the alley. he did not want the barking dog and his dog to have a fight.
imo
martin II

martin II

10-24-2006, 05:54 PM

bob
your post
You ask how did Simpson get in the the position to grab Ron from behind? How did Wagner's and now your professional killer grab Goldman from behind?

here is your answer.

one killer was at nicole. another BACKUP was in the small space near where the mailbox and bushes hiding. when ron walked past this spot and to the gate, the back up killer was close enough to just grabe him from behind with his left arm around the left side of rons neck and with his hand over rons mouth to muffle any shouts by ron.

with knife in right hand it was very easy for the killer to reach around past rons face and cut his neck and ear before manhandeling him to a sitting position to inflict the other wounds.
imo
mc

nettathirty

10-24-2006, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
evidence shows that orenthal walked back to Ron's body after butchering Nicole to check Ron.

fbg,

LINK PLEASE

bobaugust

10-24-2006, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by martin II

one killer was at nicole. another BACKUP was in the small space near where the mailbox and bushes hiding. when ron walked past this spot and to the gate, the back up killer was close enough to just grabe him from behind with his left arm around the left side of rons neck and with his hand over rons mouth to muffle any shouts by ron.

with knife in right hand it was very easy for the killer to reach around past rons face and cut his neck and ear before manhandeling him to a sitting position to inflict the other wounds.
imo
mc

martin II, your fantasizing is contradicted by the known evidence.

All of the relevant physical evidence tells us there were only three people at Bundy that night, the two victims and Simpson. Nothing points to anyone else. Nothing eliminates Simpson.

All of the wounds on both victims are consistent with being made by one knife. You can imagine as many additional killers as you want but there isn't once single shred of evidence to support that theory. It has no credibility and makes no sense. The fact that Ron was stabbed and cut over thirty times tells knowledgeable experts that this killing was done by one amateur killer, not a professional killer and not by more than one killer.

bobaugust

nettathirty

10-24-2006, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

*Snipped*

All of the wounds on both victims are consistent with being made by one knife.

bobaugust

Marcia Clark presented a likeness of the knife purchased at Ross Cutler as the murder weapon (Long Thin Blade) .. Yet, the knife you described (Swiss Army) as the murder is different.. Who are we to believe?

2L8 4A D8

10-25-2006, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

2L8 4A D8, I agree with your speculation except for one point of fact. When Ron arrived the Akita was already in the street barking loudly and strangely. That's what Heidstra testified to.

That's why when Ron opened the gate and yelled he surprised Simpson. Simpson never heard him enter because of the barking Akita just outside the gate.

bobaugust

I agree Bob and then I don't agree. Why would Ron walk up the sidewalk to Nicole's Condo with an unknown Akita dog in "the street barking loudly and strangely?"

An Akita would scare me to death. I would have stopped dead in my tracks; slowly turned around and walked back to my car; fearing that the unknown Akita dog would have attacked me.

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

10-25-2006, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by martin II
Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Here's my two cents:

Ron walked up and opened the gate to let himself in, with the gate slamming shut behind him. He then saw OJ standing over Nicole with the knife in his hand, ready to finish her off. That's when Ron said "Hey, Hey, Hey" as in "WTH is happening here?"

2l

you post proved beyond any doubt that you have no understanding of a subject that has been discussed by all.

if anyone to believe your two cents worth, then they would have to discount Heidstras testimony.

you say the gate was slammed by ron when he entered and then ron yelled hey hey hey.

Heidstra said he heard the hey hey hey and THEN he heard the gate slam. imo

but i am sure you believe you are correct and heidstra is wrong.
imo
martin II

You are the very, very LAST person that should post something like this: "you post proved beyond any doubt that you have no understanding of a subject that has been discussed by all."

It's YOU who has absolutely "no understanding of a subject that has been discussed by all." All of us "G" Posters know it, but YOU, on the other hand, "don't know it" and have absolutely "no clue" to the OJ Simpson double-murder case and your assinine posts prove it!

My two cents is worth a hellava lot more than any assinine theory that you have come up with. And again, for the 1000th time, "What part of JMO and MOO don't you understand?"

JMO and MOO!!

martin II

10-25-2006, 06:57 AM

2l

then i guess we are to assume that you are correct and heidstra was wrong in his testimony.imo

the gate slamed before the hey hey hey was heard according to you.
martin ii

martin II

10-25-2006, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Widely assumed by whom? IIRC, testimony was that Nicole hit her head on the step hard enough to knock her out -- I have not heard/read testimony that orenthal hit her on the head. Maybe orenthal was standing over Nicole when Ron walked up -- I doubt Ron would have expected orenthal to attack so it is quite plausible that orenthal could have maneuvered himself to be behind Ron.

fbg

ron arrives and sees nicole on the ground, oj standing with knife in hand and bloody and he does not expect oj to attack him. WOW.
imo
martin II

martin II

10-25-2006, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

I agree Bob and then I don't agree. Why would Ron walk up the sidewalk to Nicole's Condo with an unknown Akita dog in "the street barking loudly and strangely?"

An Akita would scare me to death. I would have stopped dead in my tracks; slowly turned around and walked back to my car; fearing that the unknown Akita dog would have attacked me.

JMO and MOO!!

the dog could not be at the gate in front of nicoles condo and up near Gorham and Bundy where Heidstra was when he turned around and walked into the alley.

bob is trying to find a way to explain how and when the dog got out so he can try to explain what timne the murders took place.
imo
martin II

martin II

10-25-2006, 08:44 AM

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And now, when you got to that point did you see anything at that point when it is 10:35 and you are at Bundy and Gorham?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Nothing.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you are still walking your dogs?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: And you heard that at about 10:35?

MR. HEIDSTRA: 10:35, right.

MR. COCHRAN: Prior to that had you heard that Akita dog barking that night?

MR. HEIDSTRA: No, not at all.

MR. COCHRAN: And at that point you were at the intersection of Bundy and Gorham when you heard that sound?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yeah.

http://walraven.org/simpson/jul11.html

netta
when heidstra arrived near to Bundy and Gorham at 10:35 he had not heard any barking upon arriving.

then at about 10:35 all of a sudden the dog starts to bark so he turned around and entered the alley to evade the barking dog.

now

if the murders took place at 10:30 pm after ron arrived.

and if the dog only started barking at or just after 10:35 then the dog could not have been outside the gate barking when ron arrived at 10:30 imo

martin II

weezer

10-25-2006, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

ron arrives and sees nicole on the ground, oj standing with knife in hand and bloody and he does not expect oj to attack him. WOW.
imo
martin II who said anything about a "knife in hand and bloody"?

bobaugust

10-25-2006, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by martin II

the dog could not be at the gate in front of nicoles condo and up near Gorham and Bundy where Heidstra was when he turned around and walked into the alley.

bob is trying to find a way to explain how and when the dog got out so he can try to explain what timne the murders took place.
imo
martin II

martin II, no, this has nothing to do with how the dog got out the gate. We know the time of the murders based on the fact that the two voices were heard after 10:30. About five minutes later Heidstra saw what was most likely Simpson's Bronco speed away from Bundy.

When Ron arrived the Akita was probably in the street in front of Nicole's condo, not down the street..

We can pretty much assume Ron Goldman knew the dog. He was Nicole's friend and had been at her house before. Besides the dog wasn't barking viciously it was barking because it was upset. The barking was described as wailing

bobaugust.

martin II

10-25-2006, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

martin II, no, this has nothing to do with how the dog got out the gate. We know the time of the murders based on the fact that the two voices were heard after 10:30. About five minutes later Heidstra saw what was most likely Simpson's Bronco speed away from Bundy.

When Ron arrived the Akita was probably in the street in front of Nicole's condo, not down the street..

We can pretty much assume Ron Goldman knew the dog. He was Nicole's friend and had been at her house before. Besides the dog wasn't barking viciously it was barking because it was upset. The barking was described as wailing

bobaugust.

bob
you are very wrong.

when heidstra arrived at gorham and bundy just before 10:35
everyting was quiet. then at 10:35 the akita started barking.
Heidstra went into the alley and heard hey hey hey at 10:40.
He walked out of the alley to Dorothy until he was under the large tree. At this time he turned around and saw a suv turn right onto bundy at 10:45 imo

If ron arrived at 10:30 and the dog was in the street at nicoles gate barking so loud that oj could not hear ron walking in the walkway to nicoles gate, then heidstra is wrong when he testified that before 10:35 all was silent and the dog only started barking at 10:35
imo

so either heidstra is wrong or you are.
martin II

martin II

10-25-2006, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
who said anything about a "knife in hand and bloody"?

it should be bloody clothes.

or saw oj in all black clothes with watch cap on head and knife in hand.
ron was grabbed from behind by the back up killer, period
martin

martin II

10-25-2006, 03:16 PM

bobaugust

10-25-2006, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by martin II

bob
you are very wrong.

when heidstra arrived at gorham and bundy just before 10:35
everyting was quiet. then at 10:35 the akita started barking.
Heidstra went into the alley and heard hey hey hey at 10:40.
He walked out of the alley to Dorothy until he was under the large tree. At this time he turned around and saw a suv turn right onto bundy at 10:45 imo

If ron arrived at 10:30 and the dog was in the street at nicoles gate barking so loud that oj could not hear ron walking in the walkway to nicoles gate, then heidstra is wrong when he testified that before 10:35 all was silent and the dog only started barking at 10:35
imo

so either heidstra is wrong or you are.
martin II

martin ll, no, I'm not wrong

In the criminal trial Heidstra only estimated the time he heard the Akita start to bark at about 10:35. In the civil trial he estimated between 10:30 and 10:35.

Denise Pilnak based on her telephone records estimated the time she heard the Akita start to bark as between 10:30 and 10:35.

Heidstra testified that he heard the two male voices and the Nicole's front gate slam about five minutes later.

I never said Ron Goldman arrived AT 10:30. Try reading my post again. I said "the two male voices were heard AFTER 10:30."

bobaugust