Acting Innocent? Acting Guilty?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
you know as well as i do that the thread that you previously posted pictures for sale showing furhman marketing pictures of himself and others with prices for the pictures promoting his book, has been deleted by the moderator. but you lknow it is true. imo
martin II


martin II, absolutely not. I never did any such thing. If that was done, and I don't remember it being done, it wasn't me that did it.

You always seem to attribute things to me that I never said. Once again, you're wrong. Drop it.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, absolutely not. I never did any such thing. If that was done, and I don't remember it being done, it wasn't me that did it.

You always seem to attribute things to me that I never said. Once again, you're wrong. Drop it.

bobaugust

bob
i must be difficult for you to keep up with what you post. but you did post those pictures of furhman marketing his book and each picture had a purchase price
imo
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



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

bob

can you prove that the akita was in front of nicoles gate barking loudly when ron arrived at the gate at 10:30 ?
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
i must be difficult for you to keep up with what you post. but you did post those pictures of furhman marketing his book and each picture had a purchase price
imo
martin II


martin II, no, it's not difficult for me keep up with what I post, it's difficult for you make a true statement based on your memory. This isn't the first time you've mistakenly attributed something to me that someone else did or said. Your memory isn't very good.

I've never posted anything about Mark Fuhrman marketing his book. If I posted a web address it would have been either to support something I've said or something related to the Simpson case. I've never intentionally posted any link on this discussion group to promote someone selling anything.

You're accusation is false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

can you prove that the akita was in front of nicoles gate barking loudly when ron arrived at the gate at 10:30 ?
martin II


martin II, your question makes no sense. Try reading what I said before you ask me unintelligent questions.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, your question makes no sense. Try reading what I said before you ask me unintelligent questions.

bobaugust

bob
this is your post about the akita being JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE when ron arrived. my point is he could not be just outside the gate and at bundy and gorham at the same time.
imo
martinII

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

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
this is your post about the akita being JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE when ron arrived. my point is he could not be just outside the gate and at bundy and gorham at the same time.
imo
martinII




martin II, you also stated that Ron arrived AT 10:30. The same false claim that I had just corrected you on. That's why your question didn't make any sense. Your belief that dog could not be by the front gate makes even less sense.

Heidstra said when the dog started barking it "sounded panicking and he sounded very close on the street." Heidstra was concerned about his dogs so he turned back and went down the alley. It was a couple of minutes later when Heidstra was in the alley listening to the dogs barking that he heard the two male voices coming from Nicole's condo. The Akita could very well have been just outside the front gate.

The point is that no one knows exactly where Nicole's Akita was in the street when Ron arrived except for Ron. What we do know is that the dog was barking loudly and strangely. We assume that the dog was barking because of what was happening inside the gate so that's most likely where it would be, outside the gate.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, you also stated that Ron arrived AT 10:30. The same false claim that I had just corrected you on. That's why your question didn't make any sense. Your belief that dog could not be by the front gate makes even less sense.

Heidstra said when the dog started barking it "sounded panicking and he sounded very close on the street." Heidstra was concerned about his dogs so he turned back and went down the alley. It was a couple of minutes later when Heidstra was in the alley listening to the dogs barking that he heard the two male voices coming from Nicole's condo. The Akita could very well have been just outside the front gate.

The point is that no one knows exactly where Nicole's Akita was in the street when Ron arrived except for Ron. What we do know is that the dog was barking loudly and strangely. We assume that the dog was barking because of what was happening inside the gate so that's most likely where it would be, outside the gate.

bobaugust

bob
nope
look at the distance from nicoles gate to bundy and gorham
heidstra said the dog was very close. Heidstr was not exactly standing on the corner of bundy and gorham but he was almost there. for the akita to have been very close to that corner, he could not have been in front of nigoles gate at the same time.
heidstra was in the alley behind the house listening at 10:40
and was on dorothy looking in the direction od bundy at 10:45 when he saw a suv turnonto bundy. that you cannot change. even if you try a million times
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
nope
look at the distance from nicoles gate to bundy and gorham
heidstra said the dog was very close. Heidstr was not exactly standing on the corner of bundy and gorham but he was almost there. for the akita to have been very close to that corner, he could not have been in front of nigoles gate at the same time.
heidstra was in the alley behind the house listening at 10:40
and was on dorothy looking in the direction od bundy at 10:45 when he saw a suv turnonto bundy. that you cannot change. even if you try a million times
martin II



martin II, you are confused again.

Heidstra first heard the Akita start to bark before he turned onto Bundy. He believed the dog was in the street.

Heidstra turned and walked back to the alley. He then walked down the alley and stopped at a house that was across from Nicole's condo. The Akita was still barking. A small dog in the yard next to him also started to bark. That's when Heidstra said he heard the two voices coming from Bundy.

Heidstra continued his walk down the alley and turned and walked up Dorothy St. He stood under a large tree listening to the barking and then saw what was most likely Simpson's Bronco speed away from Bundy.

Heidstra estimated the times as between 10:30 and 10:35 when he heard the dog start barking.
About three, four, or five minutes later heard the two male voices coming from Nicole's condo.
About 10:45 when he saw white jeep like vehicle speed away.

Between the time Heidstra heard the Akita start to bark and the time he heard the two voices is when Ron Goldman arrived. And the Akita may very well have been in the street in front of Nicole's condo.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Martin,

I think the police knew what time Ron arrived Bundy, they had the evidence to support it, but chose not to use it. One major key to this issue is his answering machine. I would love to know what time the calls were made and when Ron listened to his messages.

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, you are confused again.

Heidstra first heard the Akita start to bark before he turned onto Bundy. He believed the dog was in the street.

Heidstra turned and walked back to the alley. He then walked down the alley and stopped at a house that was across from Nicole's condo. The Akita was still barking. A small dog in the yard next to him also started to bark. That's when Heidstra said he heard the two voices coming from Bundy.

Heidstra continued his walk down the alley and turned and walked up Dorothy St. He stood under a large tree listening to the barking and then saw what was most likely Simpson's Bronco speed away from Bundy.

Heidstra estimated the times as between 10:30 and 10:35 when he heard the dog start barking.
About three, four, or five minutes later heard the two male voices coming from Nicole's condo.
About 10:45 when he saw white jeep like vehicle speed away.

Between the time Heidstra heard the Akita start to bark and the time he heard the two voices is when Ron Goldman arrived. And the Akita may very well have been in the street in front of Nicole's condo.

bobaugust

bob
utter nonsense youy have posted

1. heidstra never put one foot on bundy as you have stated.. he was almost at bundy and gorham (past the alley) and he did not hear the dog barking. then at 10:35 the dog STARTED barking and was very close to heidstra at bundy and gorham and heidstra turned around, walked back to the alley and entered it.

1.
if heidstra says the dog was near him at bundy and gorham at 10:35 barking the dog could not be at nicoles gate further down bundy from gorham at the same time. 10:35 imo

2.
at 10:40 heidstra was IN the alley and he said this is when he heard the hey hey hey and then a gate slam.
if the hey hey was in fact ron arriving at the gate then ron was not at the gate at 10:30 when most say the murders took place
imo

martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by limakey
Martin,

I think the police knew what time Ron arrived Bundy, they had the evidence to support it, but chose not to use it. One major key to this issue is his answering machine. I would love to know what time the calls were made and when Ron listened to his messages.

limakey

do you know what happened to rons answering machine. i think the cops held it for some time and then gave it to the goldmans
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
utter nonsense youy have posted

1. heidstra never put one foot on bundy as you have stated.. he was almost at bundy and gorham (past the alley) and he did not hear the dog barking. then at 10:35 the dog STARTED barking and was very close to heidstra at bundy and gorham and heidstra turned around, walked back to the alley and entered it.


at 10:40 heidstra was IN the alley and he said this is when he heard the hey hey hey and then a gate slam.
if the hey hey was in fact ron arriving at the gate then ron was not at the gate at 10:30 when most say the murders took place
imo

martin II


martin II, you are being very stupid about this.

I'm not saying the murders happened at 10:30. They happened after 10:30, after Ron arrived, after Heidstra heard the two male voices yelling at each other.

Heidstra never said where the in the street the Akita was when it started to bark. He never saw it. He said it sounded close because it was in the street, not behind the gate.

The Akita didn't stay in one place on the street barking. The dog was evidently very agitated walking up and down the street but the fact is that it was upset because of what was happening behind the gate, so it's not unreasonable to assume that's it spent most of it's time in front of the gate.

Heidstra testified it was about three, four, five minutes after hearing the dog start to bark until he heard the voices coming from Nicole's condo. During that time is when Ron arrived. At that time the dog could very well have been in front of the gate.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, you are being very stupid about this.

I'm not saying the murders happened at 10:30. They happened after 10:30, after Ron arrived, after Heidstra heard the two male voices yelling at each other.

Heidstra never said where the in the street the Akita was when it started to bark. He never saw it. He said it sounded close because it was in the street, not behind the gate.

The Akita didn't stay in one place on the street barking. The dog was evidently very agitated walking up and down the street but the fact is that it was upset because of what was happening behind the gate, so it's not unreasonable to assume that's it spent most of it's time in front of the gate.

Heidstra testified it was about three, four, five minutes after hearing the dog start to bark until he heard the voices coming from Nicole's condo. During that time is when Ron arrived. At that time the dog could very well have been in front of the gate.

bobaugust

bob
WRONG
heidstra agreed that it was 10:40 when he stopped in the alley and heard the voices and 10:45 when he saw a suv turn onto bundy.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
WRONG
heidstra agreed that it was 10:40 when he stopped in the alley and heard the voices and 10:45 when he saw a suv turn onto bundy.
martin II


martin II, no I'm not wrong, you're spinning your wheels because just can't seem to comprehend what I'm saying.

Heidstra did not say it was 10:40 when he heard the voices, he said "around 10:40 or something."

Heidstra was estimating times. I don't disagree with his estimate. Heidstra heard the dog start to bark between 10:30 and 10:35. He said it took him a few minutesor possibly more to walk down the alley before he heard the two voices. During the time it took Heidstra to walk down the alley Ron Goldman arrived at Bundy. Give or take a minute either way it probably was around 10:40 when he heard the voices.

So tell me, what do you think I'm wrong about?

July 11, 1995
MR. DARDEN: And so when you tell us that you heard the dog barking at 10:30, that is an approximation, isn't it?
MR. HEIDSTRA: 10:30, 10:35, around that time.


October 26, 1996 Heidstra
Q. And what time was it, sir, when you heard the dog barking like crazy, and then made the decision to cut across the alleyway?
A. This must have been around 10:30, 10:35.
Q. Between 10:30 and 10:35?
A. Yeah, something like that.
Q. Now, you then began to walk across the alleyway, right?
A. Yeah.
Q. Approximately how long is that alley?
A. Oh, I think it was only a few minutes, two, three minutes.
Q. Do you know what the distance is?
A. 150 meters something like that.
Q. 150 meters?
A. Yes.
Q. So normally, it would take you two or three minutes to cross the alley?
A. Yeah.
Q. Now, did anything happen when you started to walk across the alley?
A. Well, the dog kept barking and barking and barking. And I went into the alley slowly. And I reach the point where I was going opposite Nicole's condo, and I stood there listening to the dog. My God, is this going on still?
*
Q. Then what happened?
A. Then I stood there, I would say, for a minute, listened to these two dogs. The little black dog started to barking also. Two dogs were barking then.
Q. The two dogs being the little black dog that the property owner had?
A. Yeah. It started to bark, too.
Q. At the same time, you're still hearing the Akita?
A. Yeah. Nonstop.
*
Q. Now, when you were sitting there, or standing there with your dogs at the alley opposite Nicole's condominium and you heard the dogs barking, did you then hear anything else?
A. Because -- yeah, but it was around about a minute there, all of a sudden, when the dogs keep barking, I heard the first voice, a clear voice, saying, "Hey, hey, hey," for three, four times.


July 11, 1995
MR. COCHRAN: What time is it by this time now when you now hear at least two dogs barking? Give us your time, the best time that you--
MR. HEIDSTRA: Around 10:40 or something.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

B*u*m*p.....................

[martin II]

martin II, no I'm not wrong, you're spinning your wheels because just can't seem to comprehend what I'm saying.

Heidstra did not say it was 10:40 when he heard the voices, he said "around 10:40 or something."

Heidstra was estimating times. I don't disagree with his estimate. Heidstra heard the dog start to bark between 10:30 and 10:35. He said it took him a few minutesor possibly more to walk down the alley before he heard the two voices. During the time it took Heidstra to walk down the alley Ron Goldman arrived at Bundy. Give or take a minute either way it probably was around 10:40 when he heard the voices.

So tell me, what do you think I'm wrong about?

July 11, 1995
MR. DARDEN: And so when you tell us that you heard the dog barking at 10:30, that is an approximation, isn't it?
MR. HEIDSTRA: 10:30, 10:35, around that time.


October 26, 1996 Heidstra
Q. And what time was it, sir, when you heard the dog barking like crazy, and then made the decision to cut across the alleyway?
A. This must have been around 10:30, 10:35.
Q. Between 10:30 and 10:35?
A. Yeah, something like that.
Q. Now, you then began to walk across the alleyway, right?
A. Yeah.
Q. Approximately how long is that alley?
A. Oh, I think it was only a few minutes, two, three minutes.
Q. Do you know what the distance is?
A. 150 meters something like that.
Q. 150 meters?
A. Yes.
Q. So normally, it would take you two or three minutes to cross the alley?
A. Yeah.
Q. Now, did anything happen when you started to walk across the alley?
A. Well, the dog kept barking and barking and barking. And I went into the alley slowly. And I reach the point where I was going opposite Nicole's condo, and I stood there listening to the dog. My God, is this going on still?
*
Q. Then what happened?
A. Then I stood there, I would say, for a minute, listened to these two dogs. The little black dog started to barking also. Two dogs were barking then.
Q. The two dogs being the little black dog that the property owner had?
A. Yeah. It started to bark, too.
Q. At the same time, you're still hearing the Akita?
A. Yeah. Nonstop.
*
Q. Now, when you were sitting there, or standing there with your dogs at the alley opposite Nicole's condominium and you heard the dogs barking, did you then hear anything else?
A. Because -- yeah, but it was around about a minute there, all of a sudden, when the dogs keep barking, I heard the first voice, a clear voice, saying, "Hey, hey, hey," for three, four times.


July 11, 1995
MR. COCHRAN: What time is it by this time now when you now hear at least two dogs barking? Give us your time, the best time that you--
MR. HEIDSTRA: Around 10:40 or something.

bobaugust

bob
heidstra said he was a few feet on Gorham almost to Bundy at about 10:30:10:35 when he heard the dog bark first. The dog was so close to him and his dog that he turned and went into the alley. The dog was closer to Bundy and Gorham than Nicoles condo.

Heidstra then walked to the house opposite nicoles condo where he heard the small black dog and the akita barking and the hey hey hey and the gate slam and he said this was at 10:40. It is assumed that this is when ron arrived
and that this was ron yelling hey hey hey but there is no proof that this was ron and there is no proof that the murders happened a that time.No one saw ron arrive at nicoles condo and we don't know what time he arrived.

Heidstra said at 10:45 he saw a white jeep like truck turn from dorothy onto Bundy heading in the opposite direction to oj's house.

Kato and his girlfriend said the knocks on the wall happened at 10:45.

SO again Oj could not be in the jeep at Bundy and Dorothy at 10:45 if he was at katos back wall at 10:45.
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob

Heidstra said at 10:45 he saw a white jeep like truck turn from dorothy onto Bundy heading in the opposite direction to oj's house.

Kato and his girlfriend said the knocks on the wall happened at 10:45.

SO again Oj could not be in the jeep at Bundy and Dorothy at 10:45 if he was at katos back wall at 10:45.
martin II

martin II, you never learn, you just keep repeating the same false claim using estimated times as specific times.

Heidstra saw what we believe was Simpson's Bronco speed away down Bundy about 10:45. Jill Shively encountered Simpson's speeding bronco at the intersection of Bundy and San Vicente shortly after that. Simpson's estate was less than a five minute drive from Nicole's condo.

Simpson fell against Kaelin's wall jumping from the top of his fence to enter estate causing the noises and vibrations that scared Kaelin as well as unknowingly dropping his glove there. Kaelin testified he left his room to check out the noises a few minutes after he heard them. Based on telephone records we know that Allan park saw Kaelin come from around the house about 10:55. Those facts tell us Simpson entered his estate shortly after 10:50.

That's the reality of what happened.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, you never learn, you just keep repeating the same false claim using estimated times as specific times.

Heidstra saw what we believe was Simpson's Bronco speed away down Bundy about 10:45. Jill Shively encountered Simpson's speeding bronco at the intersection of Bundy and San Vicente shortly after that. Simpson's estate was less than a five minute drive from Nicole's condo.

Simpson fell against Kaelin's wall jumping from the top of his fence to enter estate causing the noises and vibrations that scared Kaelin as well as unknowingly dropping his glove there. Kaelin testified he left his room to check out the noises a few minutes after he heard them. Based on telephone records we know that Allan park saw Kaelin come from around the house about 10:55. Those facts tell us Simpson entered his estate shortly after 10:50.

That's the reality of what happened.

bobaugust

bob
what you believe has nothing to do with fact.

No 10:45 is the time he heard the thumps he left in 2 minutes and was to the front walkway at 10:48 looking at the limo. Not 10:55

I am sure you know this but are still trying to change what happened to fit you theory.

martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
what you believe has nothing to do with fact.

No 10:45 is the time he heard the thumps he left in 2 minutes and was to the front walkway at 10:48 looking at the limo. Not 10:55

I am sure you know this but are still trying to change what happened to fit you theory.

martin II

martin II, You are wrong. This has been explained to you many times before yet somehow you are either unable to retain information or you are intentionally lying. Park testified he was talking on the phone with his boss when he saw Kaelin come from around the house and then almost simultaneously he saw Simpson walk up and enter his front door. It took both Kaelin and Simpson the same amount of time to make it around to the front of the house after Kaelin heard and felt the vibrations on his wall.

March 28, 1995 Allan Park

Q AT SOME POINT DURING YOUR PHONE CONVERSATION WITH DALE ST. JOHN DID SOMETHING ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION?
A YES. A WHITE MALE WALKED FROM BEHIND THE HOUSE AREA ON A PATHWAY AND HE HAD A FLASHLIGHT IN HIS HAND AND HE STOPPED -- HE STOPPED BEFORE HE GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY.
Q OKAY.
A SO I -- I TOLD DALE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY IS HOME.
*
Q AND THAT PERSON THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING, HAVE YOU SINCE LEARNED WHAT HIS NAME IS?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT IS HIS NAME?
A KATO.
*
Q HOW LONG -- NOW, AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU SAW KATO KAELIN IN THE SIDE YARD,
DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE?
A YES. I SAW A FIGURE COME DOWN -- WELL, NOT COME DOWN, BUT I SAW A FIGURE COME
INTO THE ENTRANCEWAY OF THE HOUSE JUST ABOUT WHERE THE -- WHERE THE DRIVEWAY
STARTS.
*
Q HOW LONG AFTER YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING GO INTO THE HOUSE DID YOU CONTINUE TO TALK TO DALE ST. JOHN?
A OH, IT WAS JUST ANYWHERE BETWEEN TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS. IT WASN'T VERY LONG.
Q OKAY.
SO ON THE PHONE BILL IN FRONT OF YOU, SIR, ON THAT LAST CALL WHERE IT INDICATES 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS, DOES IT INDICATE HOW LONG THE PHONE CALL WAS FOR, THE DURATION OF THE CALL?
A UMM, YES, TWO MINUTES AND 55 SECONDS.
Q OKAY. DOES THAT COMPORT WITH YOUR MEMORY OF THE LENGTH OF THE PHONE CALL?
A YES.
Q AND SO YOU WOULD HAVE HUNG UP WITH HIM AT 10:55 AND 12 SECONDS?
A YES.
Q AND IT WAS WITHIN THE LAST TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS OF THAT CALL AT 10 -- OF ENDING THAT CALL AT 10:55 THAT YOU SAW THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON GO INTO THE ENTRANCE?
A YES.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

bob
what you believe has nothing to do with fact.

No 10:45 is the time he heard the thumps he left in 2 minutes and was to the front walkway at 10:48 looking at the limo. Not 10:55

I am sure you know this but are still trying to change what happened to fit you theory.

martin II

And what you believe has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with fact!

And, I am sure you know this, but you are still trying to change what happened to fit all of your ridiculous theories!

And, again, how many times does Bob have to tell you all of this before you get it?

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

martin II, You are wrong. This has been explained to you many times before yet somehow you are either unable to retain information or you are intentionally lying. Park testified he was talking on the phone with his boss when he saw Kaelin come from around the house and then almost simultaneously he saw Simpson walk up and enter his front door. It took both Kaelin and Simpson the same amount of time to make it around to the front of the house after Kaelin heard and felt the vibrations on his wall.

March 28, 1995 Allan Park

Q AT SOME POINT DURING YOUR PHONE CONVERSATION WITH DALE ST. JOHN DID SOMETHING ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION?
A YES. A WHITE MALE WALKED FROM BEHIND THE HOUSE AREA ON A PATHWAY AND HE HAD A FLASHLIGHT IN HIS HAND AND HE STOPPED -- HE STOPPED BEFORE HE GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY.
Q OKAY.
A SO I -- I TOLD DALE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY IS HOME.
*
Q AND THAT PERSON THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING, HAVE YOU SINCE LEARNED WHAT HIS NAME IS?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT IS HIS NAME?
A KATO.
*
Q HOW LONG -- NOW, AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU SAW KATO KAELIN IN THE SIDE YARD,
DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE?
A YES. I SAW A FIGURE COME DOWN -- WELL, NOT COME DOWN, BUT I SAW A FIGURE COME
INTO THE ENTRANCEWAY OF THE HOUSE JUST ABOUT WHERE THE -- WHERE THE DRIVEWAY
STARTS.
*
Q HOW LONG AFTER YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING GO INTO THE HOUSE DID YOU CONTINUE TO TALK TO DALE ST. JOHN?
A OH, IT WAS JUST ANYWHERE BETWEEN TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS. IT WASN'T VERY LONG.
Q OKAY.
SO ON THE PHONE BILL IN FRONT OF YOU, SIR, ON THAT LAST CALL WHERE IT INDICATES 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS, DOES IT INDICATE HOW LONG THE PHONE CALL WAS FOR, THE DURATION OF THE CALL?
A UMM, YES, TWO MINUTES AND 55 SECONDS.
Q OKAY. DOES THAT COMPORT WITH YOUR MEMORY OF THE LENGTH OF THE PHONE CALL?
A YES.
Q AND SO YOU WOULD HAVE HUNG UP WITH HIM AT 10:55 AND 12 SECONDS?
A YES.
Q AND IT WAS WITHIN THE LAST TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS OF THAT CALL AT 10 -- OF ENDING THAT CALL AT 10:55 THAT YOU SAW THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON GO INTO THE ENTRANCE?
A YES.

bobaugust

bob
Park saw oj when oj was going BACK into the house from bringing the two bags down and moving the bag. OJ may have looked at the ashford gate and saw the limo and went back in and answered the phone.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*SNIP*
Park saw oj when oj was going BACK into the house from bringing the two bags down and moving the bag.

Nope. You are confused AGAIN.

[bobaugust]

bob
Park saw oj when oj was going BACK into the house from bringing the two bags down and moving the bag. OJ may have looked at the ashford gate and saw the limo and went back in and answered the phone.

martin II

martin II, that's pure rubbish that only you have fantasized.

I see that you completely ignored the fact that you were wrong when you claimed Park saw Kaelin at 10:48. I have no doubt you will ignore what Park testified to and sometime in the future you will once again make this false claim again, since that's what you always seem to do.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, that's pure rubbish that only you have fantasized.

I see that you completely ignored the fact that you were wrong when you claimed Park saw Kaelin at 10:48. I have no doubt you will ignore what Park testified to and sometime in the future you will once again make this false claim again, since that's what you always seem to do.

bobaugust

bob
you believe park when he said he saw two cars in the driveway when there was one and when he said he did not see the bronco rockingham gate at about 11:15 when he was about 3 feet from it. i believe that you believe every word park said other then when he said the AA going into the house could have been wearing a black bath robe.
martin II

martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
you believe park when he said he saw two cars in the driveway when there was one and when he said he did not see the bronco rockingham gate at about 11:15 when he was about 3 feet from it. i believe that you believe every word park said other then when he said the AA going into the house could have been wearing a black bath robe.
martin II

martin II

martin II, changing the subject again I see while you ignore the reality of what was testified to so you can make your false claims again later, right?. Funny. No I don't believe there were two cars in the driveway, I believe that Park honestly thought that was what he saw but he was mistaken and could never identify the second car.

And what does that have to do with Park's testimony about the time he first saw Kaelin then Simpson? The time of which we know based on his telephone records? Park never said the Bronco was not parked on Rockingham when he and Simpson left for the airport, he said he wasn't concerned with parked cars to his right, that he was watching oncoming traffic. It's amazing how you still can't comprehend this.

Park never testified that Simpson was wearing a bath robe he testified he didn't know what Simpson was wearing and when asked of it could have been a robe he said could just as he would have answered about any other dark clothing if he was asked. If Park was asked could it have been a dark colored sweatsuit he would have given the same answer. Could have.

March 28, 1995 Cochran questioning Park
Q NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS PERSON THAT YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT YOU SAW SOMEWHERE OUT THERE IN THE DRIVEWAY AREA -- AND YOU'VE DESCRIBED IT SOME -- WITH SOME PARTICULARITY, SO I WON'T GO INTO THAT IN DETAIL -- COULD THIS PERSON HAVE HAD A ROBE ON?
A COULD HAVE.
Q ALL RIGHT. YOU -- YOU COULDN'T TELL FROM YOUR DISTANCE. YOU JUST SAW A PERSON ABOUT SIX FOOT THAT YOU FELT WAS ABOUT 200 POUNDS, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q THAT WAS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN IN DARK CLOTHING, RIGHT?
A YES.
*
March 29, 1995 Clark questioning Park
Q BY MS. CLARK: WHEN YOU SAW THAT PERSON WALK INTO THE DOOR, SIR, WERE YOU ABLE -- DID YOU SEE THE HEM OF A ROBE SWIRLING AROUND THE LEGS AT ALL?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR. ARGUMENTATIVE. SPECULATIVE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. COCHRAN: ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO.
*
November 20, 1996 Petrocelli questioning Park
Q. When you say all black clothing, what do you mean by that?
A. Well, dark pants, dark top,
Q. Now, if you can sort of put yourself back at that moment in time when you're seeing this person in all dark clothing, you're on the phone with Dale St. John, still?
A. Yes.
Q. At that moment in time, did you believe that you were seeing that person wear a robe?
A. At the time, no.
Q. Did you believe that you saw a swirling hem of a robe?
A. No.
Q. Did you believe you saw, like a belt of a robe waving and flipping around and so forth?
A. No.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, changing the subject again I see while you ignore the reality of what was testified to so you can make your false claims again later, right?. Funny. No I don't believe there were two cars in the driveway, I believe that Park honestly thought that was what he saw but he was mistaken and could never identify the second car.

And what does that have to do with Park's testimony about the time he first saw Kaelin then Simpson? The time of which we know based on his telephone records? Park never said the Bronco was not parked on Rockingham when he and Simpson left for the airport, he said he wasn't concerned with parked cars to his right, that he was watching oncoming traffic. It's amazing how you still can't comprehend this.

Park never testified that Simpson was wearing a bath robe he testified he didn't know what Simpson was wearing and when asked of it could have been a robe he said could just as he would have answered about any other dark clothing if he was asked. If Park was asked could it have been a dark colored sweatsuit he would have given the same answer. Could have.

March 28, 1995 Cochran questioning Park
Q NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS PERSON THAT YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT YOU SAW SOMEWHERE OUT THERE IN THE DRIVEWAY AREA -- AND YOU'VE DESCRIBED IT SOME -- WITH SOME PARTICULARITY, SO I WON'T GO INTO THAT IN DETAIL -- COULD THIS PERSON HAVE HAD A ROBE ON?
A COULD HAVE.
Q ALL RIGHT. YOU -- YOU COULDN'T TELL FROM YOUR DISTANCE. YOU JUST SAW A PERSON ABOUT SIX FOOT THAT YOU FELT WAS ABOUT 200 POUNDS, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q THAT WAS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN IN DARK CLOTHING, RIGHT?
A YES.
*
March 29, 1995 Clark questioning Park
Q BY MS. CLARK: WHEN YOU SAW THAT PERSON WALK INTO THE DOOR, SIR, WERE YOU ABLE -- DID YOU SEE THE HEM OF A ROBE SWIRLING AROUND THE LEGS AT ALL?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR. ARGUMENTATIVE. SPECULATIVE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. COCHRAN: ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO.
*
November 20, 1996 Petrocelli questioning Park
Q. When you say all black clothing, what do you mean by that?
A. Well, dark pants, dark top,
Q. Now, if you can sort of put yourself back at that moment in time when you're seeing this person in all dark clothing, you're on the phone with Dale St. John, still?
A. Yes.
Q. At that moment in time, did you believe that you were seeing that person wear a robe?
A. At the time, no.
Q. Did you believe that you saw a swirling hem of a robe?
A. No.
Q. Did you believe you saw, like a belt of a robe waving and flipping around and so forth?
A. No.

bobaugust


bob
petrocellie used the same type trick question on park that clark used.

Park did not have to see a hem or belt flapping in the wind for him to think the person COULD have had on a bathrobe. OJ war not running in the door at some full speed. he was walking in from dropping the two bags near the door.
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
petrocellie used the same type trick question on park that clark used.

Park did not have to see a hem or belt flapping in the wind for him to think the person COULD have had on a bathrobe. OJ war not running in the door at some full speed. he was walking in from dropping the two bags near the door.
martin II

martin II, that's funny. No, neither Clark or Petrocelli used a trick question, they only asked questions to clarify what Park actually saw. Cochran was the one who asked a question that had no basis in fact.

Park consistently testified that the figure he saw enter the house was wearing all dark clothing. In the grand jury Park said, "It was just a dark shirt and dark parts." The robe was only an imagined suggestion by Cochran. It didn't matter what speed Simpson was walking at, if he was wearing a robe it would have been distinguishable. Clark and Petrocelli made it clear with their questions that Park never saw Simpson wearing a robe.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, that's funny. No, neither Clark or Petrocelli used a trick question, they only asked questions to clarify what Park actually saw. Cochran was the one who asked a question that had no basis in fact.

Park consistently testified that the figure he saw enter the house was wearing all dark clothing. In the grand jury Park said, "It was just a dark shirt and dark parts." The robe was only an imagined suggestion by Cochran. It didn't matter what speed Simpson was walking at, if he was wearing a robe it would have been distinguishable. Clark and Petrocelli made it clear with their questions that Park never saw Simpson wearing a robe.

bobaugust

bob
jc asked Park if the person he saw could have been wearing a bath robe. very simple questIon. park said COULD HAVE.

Park could have been mistaken as he was about the two cars in the driveway.
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
jc asked Park if the person he saw could have been wearing a bath robe. very simple questIon. park said COULD HAVE.

Park could have been mistaken as he was about the two cars in the driveway.
martin II

martin II, Park didn't think about his answer, he was simply tying to tell the truth. He said could have because he didn't know what Simpson was wearing only that it was dark clothing. Clark and Petrocelli's questions made it clear that Park never saw Simpson wearing a robe. As well as the fact that there is no evidence Simpson was wearing a robe, only evidence that he was wearing a dark colored sweat suit that night.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

martin II, that's funny. No, neither Clark or Petrocelli used a trick question, they only asked questions to clarify what Park actually saw. Cochran was the one who asked a question that had no basis in fact.

Park consistently testified that the figure he saw enter the house was wearing all dark clothing. In the grand jury Park said, "It was just a dark shirt and dark parts." The robe was only an imagined suggestion by Cochran. It didn't matter what speed Simpson was walking at, if he was wearing a robe it would have been distinguishable. Clark and Petrocelli made it clear with their questions that Park never saw Simpson wearing a robe.

bobaugust

No "basis in fact" is correct, Bob! If Cochran said that OJ walked in or out of the front door bare***** naked, his idol/hero worshippers would believe that too! And if OJ was wearing a robe, which any person in their right mind knows that he wasn't, they would have seen some bare legs. Parks stating "It was just a dark shirt and dark pants" doesn't even come close to wearing a bathrobe with your bare legs showing! I sure didn't hear or read any testimony from Parks about seeing OJ's bare legs! Hello? Common sense! Duh!

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

martin II, Park didn't think about his answer, he was simply tying to tell the truth. He said could have because he didn't know what Simpson was wearing only that it was dark clothing. Clark and Petrocelli's questions made it clear that Park never saw Simpson wearing a robe. As well as the fact that there is no evidence Simpson was wearing a robe, only evidence that he was wearing a dark colored sweat suit that night.

bobaugust

It is not unreasonable to belive that a person who was taking a shower after a nap would put on a bathrobe. Simpson did not have to prove he was wearing a robe; the prosecution had to prove he was not.

[Kayleighjo]

It is not unreasonable to belive that a person who was taking a shower after a nap would put on a bathrobe. Simpson did not have to prove he was wearing a robe; the prosecution had to prove he was not.

Not unreasonable if you believe that the person actually took a shower, but he told so many stories about what he was doing that I have a hard time digesting any of them.

What are your thoughts regarding all of the different scenarios he gave?

[martin II]

It is not unreasonable to belive that a person who was taking a shower after a nap would put on a bathrobe. Simpson did not have to prove he was wearing a robe; the prosecution had to prove he was not.

william

Oj played golf that morning and hanging out around the house and at Mc Donalds with kato and maby a short nap. I would think that it is reasonable that he would take a shower and change clothes before going to the airport as most people would do.imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

Not unreasonable if you believe that the person actually took a shower, but he told so many stories about what he was doing that I have a hard time digesting any of them.

What are your thoughts regarding all of the different scenarios he gave?

I did not follow the civil trial and have not had time to get up to speed, yet. I will look at his testimony this week or try to and let you know.

[Kayleighjo]

I did not follow the civil trial and have not had time to get up to speed, yet. I will look at his testimony this week or try to and let you know.


Great, I look forward to discussing this with you!

[William Anthony]

Great, I look forward to discussing this with you!

As always, I enjoy a civil and respectful conversation. I may be able to get to it on Friday. Thank you.

[weezer]

william

Oj played golf that morning and hanging out around the house and at Mc Donalds with kato and maby a short nap. I would think that it is reasonable that he would take a shower and change clothes before going to the airport as most people would do.imo
martin II

Don't forget watching TV, chipping balls, getting his golf bag and going through to select clubs, going through the golf ball bag and selecting golf balls, calling the friend of Kato's hoping to get lucky, complaining about Nicole's dress to Kato, the trip out to Kato's bungalow (twice),
getting his phone from the Bronco, talking to the maid on the phone, packing his bags, taking a nap, and 'running around like a crazy man.'

Actually, I believe the part about 'running around like a crazy man.'

[martin II]

Don't forget watching TV, chipping balls, getting his golf bag and going through to select clubs, going through the golf ball bag and selecting golf balls, calling the friend of Kato's hoping to get lucky, complaining about Nicole's dress to Kato, the trip out to Kato's bungalow (twice),
getting his phone from the Bronco, talking to the maid on the phone, packing his bags, taking a nap, and 'running around like a crazy man.'

Actually, I believe the part about 'running around like a crazy man.'

weezer
you have offered what oj was doing . I offer that if he was doing all of that, he did not have time time to chat with A Park on the phone.
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
you have offered what oj was doing . I offer that if he was doing all of that, he did not have time time to chat with A Park on the phone.
martin II

orenthal 'offered' what he was doing. I believe he was busy butchering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

[martin II]

orenthal 'offered' what he was doing. I believe he was busy butchering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

WEEZER
I am so pleased that you do not consider me a enemy, if you did, i believe i would be in big trouble. :rolleyes:
martin II

[martin II]

orenthal 'offered' what he was doing. I believe he was busy butchering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

weezer
i believe that if oj had confronted Ron in the yard at bundy, Oj would have ended up in the brentwood hospital energency room all bandaged and splintered up.
martin II

[socaldiva]

weezer
i believe that if oj had confronted Ron in the yard at bundy, Oj would have ended up in the brentwood hospital energency room all bandaged and splintered up.
martin II

Well, that just goes to show that what you think & reality don't necessarily go hand in hand ;)

Obviously Ron & Nicole were both butchered & NO ONE ended up in the emergency room. OJ or anyone else.

[AmyW]

It is not unreasonable to belive that a person who was taking a shower after a nap would put on a bathrobe. Simpson did not have to prove he was wearing a robe; the prosecution had to prove he was not.


At 10:20 p.m., Simpson said, he went to his bedroom and sat on his bed for awhile before taking a book into the bathroom. He then hopped in the shower to prepare for his flight, during which time he thought he heard his gate buzzer. After showering, Simpson says he packed his garment bag.

Limo driver Park testified that Simpson answered the intercom claiming he had overslept. During his deposition, Simpson said he did not sleep, and would not have slept, because he had planned on sleeping during his red-eye flight to Chicago.
Simpson repeated what he said publicly during a call into "Larry King Live" after he was acquitted -- that he was the shadowy figure Park saw in the entryway.



http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9601/01-31/index.html

[2L8 4A D8]

orenthal 'offered' what he was doing. I believe he was busy butchering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

I'm sorry, but this just cracked me up! :lol: So true, So true! :lol:

[AmyW]

Yup. :beer:

[weezer]

At 10:20 p.m., Simpson said, he went to his bedroom and sat on his bed for awhile before taking a book into the bathroom. He then hopped in the shower to prepare for his flight, during which time he thought he heard his gate buzzer. After showering, Simpson says he packed his garment bag.

Limo driver Park testified that Simpson answered the intercom claiming he had overslept. During his deposition, Simpson said he did not sleep, and would not have slept, because he had planned on sleeping during his red-eye flight to Chicago.
Simpson repeated what he said publicly during a call into "Larry King Live" after he was acquitted -- that he was the shadowy figure Park saw in the entryway.



http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9601/01-31/index.html

Didn't Christian R (Faye's boyfriend) testify that when orenthal called him around 9p (?) that orenthal told him he was packing his bags then?

[AmyW]

Didn't Christian R (Faye's boyfriend) testify that when orenthal called him around 9p (?) that orenthal told him he was packing his bags then?

Yes he did:

In earlier testimony Tuesday, Christian Reichardt testified that Simpson seemed upset and depressed at times over his breakup with Nicole Brown Simpson in the weeks before her murder, but appeared relaxed and happy in a telephone call the night she was killed.

Reichardt, a chiropractor and former boyfriend of Faye Resnick, said Simpson and his ex-wife had a rocky, on-again-off-again relationship in the 18 months Reichardt knew them.

Reichardt testified that Simpson called him around 9pm on June 12, 1994, and they spoke for about 15 minutes.

Reichardt said Simpson was packing his bag for Chicago while they were on the phone, and they made plans to have dinner later that week after Simpson returned to Los Angeles.



http://www.courttv.com/trials/ojsimpson/weekly/31.html

[martin II]

Yes he did:

In earlier testimony Tuesday, Christian Reichardt testified that Simpson seemed upset and depressed at times over his breakup with Nicole Brown Simpson in the weeks before her murder, but appeared relaxed and happy in a telephone call the night she was killed.

Reichardt, a chiropractor and former boyfriend of Faye Resnick, said Simpson and his ex-wife had a rocky, on-again-off-again relationship in the 18 months Reichardt knew them.

Reichardt testified that Simpson called him around 9pm on June 12, 1994, and they spoke for about 15 minutes.

Reichardt said Simpson was packing his bag for Chicago while they were on the phone, and they made plans to have dinner later that week after Simpson returned to Los Angeles.



http://www.courttv.com/trials/ojsimpson/weekly/31.html


Amyw
hi

Is there something wrong with oj saying he was packing to christian at about 9 pm and finishing his packing just before he came down stairs?
martinII

[weezer]

Amyw
hi

Is there something wrong with oj saying he was packing to christian at about 9 pm and finishing his packing just before he came down stairs?
martinII

There's nothing wrong with the testimony -- it just points out another instance of orenthal changing his story. Remember, he said he was running around at the last minute packing and that was the reason he was running late.

[martin II]

There's nothing wrong with the testimony -- it just points out another instance of orenthal changing his story. Remember, he said he was running around at the last minute packing and that was the reason he was running late.

weezer

I am not sure a person packing three bags would do it in 30 minutes or so.
I think it is done at a relaxed pace. I don't think a person, not having a reason to remember, months later, exactly what he said or did not say in a quick phone conversation as he was finishing packing and rushing to come down to the limo. Remember Park, KATO AND OJ were rushing to get finished loading and that may be why there were different testimony about who put which bags into the limo or the trunk.
martin II

[weezer]

weezer

I am not sure a person packing three bags would do it in 30 minutes or so.
I think it is done at a relaxed pace. I don't think a person, not having a reason to remember, months later, exactly what he said or did not say in a quick phone conversation as he was finishing packing and rushing to come down to the limo. Remember Park, KATO AND OJ were rushing to get finished loading and that may be why there were different testimony about who put which bags into the limo or the trunk.
martin II

what three bags? besides, orenthal was the one that said 'everyone' knows that he runs around at the end like a crazy man to finish packing.

[martin II]

what three bags? besides, orenthal was the one that said 'everyone' knows that he runs around at the end like a crazy man to finish packing.

weezer

Look for the testimony of Kato Park and OJ when the bags were loaded into the limo.

martin II

[martin II]

what three bags? besides, orenthal was the one that said 'everyone' knows that he runs around at the end like a crazy man to finish packing.

no conflict there. Sound like many people packing for a trip.
martin II

[sassylassy]

what three bags? besides, orenthal was the one that said 'everyone' knows that he runs around at the end like a crazy man to finish packing.


ummm more OJ said... ;)
((ha ha ))
just kidding.....:D

[weezer]

ummm more OJ said... ;)
((ha ha ))
just kidding.....:D

just a gentle reminder to martin who quotes orenthal as back up that not everything orenthal says is truthful.

good laugh though, thanks.

[sassylassy]

Snip

good laugh though, thanks.

:beer: to Humour!

[martin II]

just a gentle reminder to martin who quotes orenthal as back up that not everything orenthal says is truthful.

good laugh though, thanks.

Wezzer
you quote fred, vanhatter, furhman ,YOUR HERO and bob.
martin II

[weezer]

Wezzer
you quote fred, vanhatter, furhman ,YOUR HERO and bob.
martin II

I've also quoted the 'dream team' and other orenthal apologists.

You have a real problem with bob and his status on this board........is it because he actually knows the evidence and testimony in this case and can give a logical, valid argument or simply because he believes orenthal is a butcher?

[2L8 4A D8]

Wezzer
you quote fred, vanhatter, furhman ,YOUR HERO and bob.
martin II

At least Weezer quotes people that are TRUTHFUL unlike you who quotes YOUR HERO AND IDOL, OJ SIMPSON WHO IS NOT THE LEAST BIT TRUTHFUL, NEVER HAS BEEN AND WOULDN'T KNOW THE TRUTH IF IT HIT HIM SQUARE BETWEEN THE EYES!

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

I've also quoted the 'dream team' and other orenthal apologists.

You have a real problem with bob and his status on this board........is it because he actually knows the evidence and testimony in this case and can give a logical, valid argument or simply because he believes orenthal is a butcher?

weezer
i have no problem with bob as he has done a lot of work and saved a lot of testimony on his computer. i think he has 100% faith in LAPD and a agenda
that requires oj to be guiilty and have told him so.
What does what i think about BOB have to do with you trashing the oj defense team as scum bags. You want bob to help you out here a little?
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
i have no problem with bob as he has done a lot of work and saved a lot of testimony on his computer. i think he has 100% faith in LAPD and a agenda
that requires oj to be guiilty and have told him so.
What does what i think about BOB have to do with you trashing the oj defense team as scum bags. You want bob to help you out here a little?
martin II

you're not being honest -- you do have a problem with bob and your attacks on him prove that. I've never read any of bob's posts that state or even imply that he has 100% faith in LE. What he has stated over and over is that there is and has been no credible evidence that LE conspired against orenthal. My opinion of the defense team is my own based on my very own opinions about the tactics and downright sleazy defense of orenthal that they took. I don't need bob's help nor does he need mine -- we just just happen to have the same opinion that orenthal james simpson murdered Nicole and Ron.

[Kayleighjo]

Kay, they are NOT funny! They are serious as h311! They are nothing but troublemakers and have been since Day 1. That is both their agendas. They would love nothing better than to see Bob banned from this Board. I am sure that you know which side we have to be on ~ and it isn't theirs! All IMO!

I was being sarcastic. Come on, I know you know me better than to think I'd give credit where it isn't deserved.

[Kayleighjo]

Of course I know that you are being sarcastic Kay, but THEY don't. They really do take you at your word ~ that they are being funny! They are two of the biggest m****s that I think that I have the displeasure of reading on a public message board! Sorry that we don't agree! All IMO!


Oh, I get it ... ding ding ding ... the light just went on in my head:)

Don't apologize to me for not agreeing!! You know I adore you and value you and would never mind the fact of a difference of opinion!!!

:rose:

[Kate Sachel]

Ever the psychologist huh?

Newsflash, I've been on this board for a long time, longer than many of those that I post here with and there's only one person that leads me and that is me.

On the flip side it's clear that martin and yourself lead each other all over the place, backing up ridiculous and ruthless postings that serve no puprose other than to bait and inflame.

martin's got me on ignore for one reason: because he told me that I deserved the beating that my husband gave me and he got banned for it. Now he's too embarassed to face me so he hides behind his "ignores" and seemingly superior disposition.

It's a shame that you live your life so locked down in the injustices of racial animosity that makes you somehow support a fellow poster seemingly based on race.

I teach my bi-racial kids not to be victims, and you and martin are two people I use to show them the kind of character NOT to have.

Hi Kay,

Your children will be precious if you teach them to look up to the beautiful beliefs that their mother holds so dearly.

Kate

[sassylassy]

This type of c*** belongs in a PM, not on the board, genius.

Correction, you have said you have us on ignore, but you have proven otherwise :lol:

As for us "improving", what a joke. :rolleyes:

I dont see the point of the Ignore feature anyways, it doesnt work!

I noticed posters say I am not going to post to you anymore & all of sudden another posters picks up where they left off for them ....

I think we have some posters with a few different Nics, the writting style gives it away every time.....

just moo of course!

its kinda funny :tongue:

[weezer]

*Snip*I think we have some posters with a few different Nics, the writting style gives it away every time.....

really? who?

[martin II]

*Snip*

really? who?

you would not be baiting would you?
martin II

[socaldiva]

you would not be baiting would you?
martin II

Sassy stated that she thinks there are posters with multiple nics & FBG simply asks who & you accuse FBG of baiting & not the OP? :confused:

[sassylassy]

*Snip*

really? who?


No need to mention names, that would just spell TROUBLE ( & thats not my intentions)

its something I have noticed for a long time now & I just wanted to mention that I notice it!

thats all. :beer:

[martin II]

No need to mention names, that would just spell TROUBLE ( & thats not my intentions)

its something I have noticed for a long time now & I just wanted to mention that I notice it!

thats all. :beer:

sassy hi

Thanks for your post.:beer: :beer:
martin II

[jotun]

I noticed posters say I am not going to post to you anymore & all of sudden another posters picks up where they left off for them ....

I think we have some posters with a few different Nics, the writting style gives it away every time.....

just moo of course!

its kinda funny :tongue:

Sassy---Have noticed the same. At least 2 are quite obvious one a work nic and the other a home nic.Then agrees with herself.I mentioned this in one of my earliest posts in June or July.
jotun

[William Anthony]

Hi Kay,

Your children will be precious if you teach them to look up to the beautiful beliefs that their mother holds so dearly.

Kate

Originally Posted by Kayleighjo
Ever the psychologist huh?

Newsflash, I've been on this board for a long time, longer than many of those that I post here with and there's only one person that leads me and that is me.

On the flip side it's clear that martin and yourself lead each other all over the place, backing up ridiculous and ruthless postings that serve no puprose other than to bait and inflame.

martin's got me on ignore for one reason: because he told me that I deserved the beating that my husband gave me and he got banned for it. Now he's too embarassed to face me so he hides behind his "ignores" and seemingly superior disposition.

It's a shame that you live your life so locked down in the injustices of racial animosity that makes you somehow support a fellow poster seemingly based on race.

I teach my bi-racial kids not to be victims, and you and martin are two people I use to show them the kind of character NOT to have.

I believe that eveyone is entitled to their beliefs. I tend to support those opinions in which I find truth. I have truth in the words of the Late and Great Dr. Martin Luther King who was killed for standing up for the rights of those who were locked down/victimized by racial bigotry. I understand that there are those, who have never been so victimized and want others to simply ignore it. I on the other hand believe it should be exposed and eliminated so that it will not flourish, regardless of how arduous it is to face.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by Kayleighjo
Ever the psychologist huh?

Newsflash, I've been on this board for a long time, longer than many of those that I post here with and there's only one person that leads me and that is me.

On the flip side it's clear that martin and yourself lead each other all over the place, backing up ridiculous and ruthless postings that serve no puprose other than to bait and inflame.

martin's got me on ignore for one reason: because he told me that I deserved the beating that my husband gave me and he got banned for it. Now he's too embarassed to face me so he hides behind his "ignores" and seemingly superior disposition.

It's a shame that you live your life so locked down in the injustices of racial animosity that makes you somehow support a fellow poster seemingly based on race.

I teach my bi-racial kids not to be victims, and you and martin are two people I use to show them the kind of character NOT to have.

I believe that eveyone is entitled to their beliefs. I tend to support those opinions in which I find truth. I have truth in the words of the Late and Great Dr. Martin Luther King who was killed for standing up for the rights of those who were locked down/victimized by racial bigotry. I understand that there are those, who have never been so victimized and want others to simply ignore it. I on the other hand believe it should be exposed and eliminated so that it will not flourish, regardless of how arduous it is to face.


WILLIAM

It is like a JACKED BOOTED man has another pinned to the ground with his boot on his neck.The pinned man is yelling " let me go" . A third person obsever says" it does not look like it hurts that much." "Why is he yelling so loud" " He will wake up the neighbors"
martin II

[socaldiva]

WILLIAM

It is like a JACKED BOOTED man has another pinned to the ground with his boot on his neck.The pinned man is yelling " let me go" . A third person obsever says" it does not look like it hurts that much." "Why is he yelling so loud" " He will wake up the neighbors"
martin II

What the heck is a 'JACKED BOOTED man"? :confused: :shrug:

[William Anthony]

WILLIAM

It is like a JACKED BOOTED man has another pinned to the ground with his boot on his neck.The pinned man is yelling " let me go" . A third person obsever says" it does not look like it hurts that much." "Why is he yelling so loud" " He will wake up the neighbors"
martin II

Martin,

I choose to believe in what the truth is and give it the weight it deserves. I do not applaud a woman-beater or abuser. However, I do applaud the truthfulness contained in other of your posts, as with this one. While it may be true that he will wake up the neighbors, he is still being victimized and those who ask why and do nothing are participating, imho.

[martin II]

Martin,

I choose to believe in what the truth is and give it the weight it deserves. I do not applaud a woman-beater or abuser. However, I do applaud the truthfulness contained in other of your posts, as with this one. While it may be true that he will wake up the neighbors, he is still being victimized and those who ask why and do nothing are participating, imho.

William
There are some that complain that certain victims are locked down on the subject of discrimination and injustices and that it should just be forgoten and move on but take every opportunity provided to stay put on the subject of abuse or other subjects of importance.
martin II

[William Anthony]

William
There are some that complain that certain victims are locked down on the subject of discrimination and injustices and that it should just be forgoten and move on but take every opportunity provided to stay put on the subject of abuse or other subjects of importance.
martin II

Martin,

I think that is a common tendency that victims often internalize thier abuse and are not able to consider the abuse suffered by victims of a different type of abuse.

[socaldiva]

William
There are some that complain that certain victims are locked down on the subject of discrimination and injustices and that it should just be forgoten and move on but take every opportunity provided to stay put on the subject of abuse or other subjects of importance.
martin II

Factors or circumstances that don't relate to this case, don't belong here. OJ was never discriminated against. To the contrary, he was given preferential treatment because he was a "celebrity".

I guess there are some here that think you need to be a victim of abuse yourself in order to rally against it.

[martin II]

Martin,

I think that is a common tendency that victims often internalize thier abuse and are not able to consider the abuse suffered by victims of a different type of abuse.

william

I agree. It may also be that some in their desire to bring attention to themselves as the abused, refuse to accept that any other victims cry
is important.
martin II

[William Anthony]

william

I agree. It may also be that some in their desire to bring attention to themselves as the abused, refuse to accept that any other victims cry
is important.
martin II

Matin,

I do not think that you need to be victimized to rally against abuse of any sort-only endowed with a modicum of human decency.

[socaldiva]

william

I agree. It may also be that some in their desire to bring attention to themselves as the abused, refuse to accept that any other victims cry
is important.
martin II

It seems that you assume that anyone here that speaks up on abuse was abused themselves. You don't have to be a victim to have knowledge & empathy.

Also, I've never seen anyone here "try to bring attention to themselves". A couple have only given small examples of their experiences in this regard & I've seen nothing but compassion shown by them towards Nicole & other victims of abuse.

[weezer]

It seems that you assume that anyone here that speaks up on abuse was abused themselves. You don't have to be a victim to have knowledge & empathy.

Also, I've never seen anyone here "try to bring attention to themselves". A couple have only given small examples of their experiences in this regard & I've seen nothing but compassion shown by them towards Nicole & other victims of abuse.

I've always found it ironic that the 'victims' of alledged racial abuse scoff at the victims of domestic abuse. Especially when the trial was about abuse that culminated in murder. It was never about race except in the 'used car salesman' mind of cochran.

The other thing I've found interesting is that there is a segment of society and posters on this Board who believe that the fight for civil rights was done only in the black community. Wonder if they understand that that is one of the insults they've dished out to other races who fought with them and why some reacted to the jury and the celebration of orenthal's not guilty with such surprise and angst?

IMO

[martin II]

The civil rights movement was started by blacks in the black community. Many whites joined hands in this movement led mostly by the religious community and later by others.

The students shown at Howard University rejoicing when the not guilty verdict was announced were expressing their agreement with the veridct.
They were doing the same as whites have done when other vedricts were issued that they agreed with. S Peterson etc.

The black and white people that agreed with the oj verdict had no obligaiton to supress this agreement just because some whites participated in some civil rights struggle activities previously. So i see no slap in the face of anyone.

oj simpson was never charged with abuse. He was charged with murder.
martin II

[weezer]

"O.J. turned out to be a string of dichotomies -- a black ex-football player who hung out with white businessmen; a philandering husband and wife-beater who claimed that he loved his wife "too much;" an articulate college graduate who could barely write a sentence. He wasn't living the life of a football legend; he was eating meals at McDonald's with Kato, filming cheesy infomercials, throwing tantrums because his wife didn't save him a seat at their daughter's dance recital. His whole life was a lie."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/040611

[weezer]

It seems that you assume that anyone here that speaks up on abuse was abused themselves. You don't have to be a victim to have knowledge & empathy.

Also, I've never seen anyone here "try to bring attention to themselves". A couple have only given small examples of their experiences in this regard & I've seen nothing but compassion shown by them towards Nicole & other victims of abuse.

some people don't and/or can't comprehend 'insight' -- their idea of victimization is only black and white -- forget the red. Go figure.

IMO

[martin II]

Rosa Parks was the mother of the civil rights movement.

The civil rights movement while started and maintained mostly by blacks was not only about blacks. It was about civil rights for all u.s. citizens. Women, especially white women have been the great beneficiaries of the civil rights movement especially in the areas of jobs and new businesses.

You could not possibly be suggesting that because some whites joined the civil rights movement, that blacks, if they felt the NOT GUILTY verdict was a just verdict ,were not supposed to show their pleasure with the OJ verdict.

The oj trial was NOT about abuse culminating in murder. Abuse was
a side issue the prosecution tossed in in a effort to help their case.
but the defense quickly defused this as a issue and the prosecution did not do a great job in presenting this issue at all.

I think most people dissagree with any kind of abuse of another human.
However the civil rights movement had little to do with the Oj Simpson trial.

martin II

[Kayleighjo]

Martin,

I choose to believe in what the truth is and give it the weight it deserves. I do not applaud a woman-beater or abuser. However, I do applaud the truthfulness contained in other of your posts, as with this one. While it may be true that he will wake up the neighbors, he is still being victimized and those who ask why and do nothing are participating, imho.

It appears you're a martin apologist, the same as you accuse others as being Fuhrman apologists.

[weezer]

Read this on the net -- cracked me up:

"Given that this jury is supposedly so sympathetic to the defense, I think Cochran should have the jury participate in the closing arguments. For example, Cochran could have a huge board divided into the three aforementioned categories, and the jury should guess into which category each piece of evidence falls. Cochran may call out "OJ cuts his left hand twice in one night", to which the jury will cry out "Coincidence!".

Cochran may call out "the PCR blood drops at Bundy", to which the jury will yell out "contamination", and Cochran will then write these blood drops on the board under the contamination category. If Cochran calls out "the blood on the socks", the jury will yell out "the Man put it there!".

Some of the other pieces of evidence may be more ambiguous. For example, if Cochran mentions "Ron Goldman's blood in the Bronco", an eager-beaver juror, remembering Gerdes testimony, may call out "contamination!". Cochran will probably chuckle, then note that this one is a trick question. "Actually, Juror #5," Cochran will say "two weeks ago you would have been correct, but after the RFLP results came back, we realized that the Man put this blood there!"

To summarize some of the other pieces of evidence:
shoe print in the Bronco- the Man put it there
OJ's blood in the Bronco- coincidence (OJ cut his finger on June 12)
Thumps on the wall- coincidence
Blood on the Bundy gate- the Man put it there
OJ's blood on the glove- contamination (Yamauchi)
No Bronco seen by two people - coincidence
OJ owned a pair of the Aris gloves used in the murders- coincidence
RFLP blood drop at Bundy- the Man put it there
OJ's hair in the cap- unclear- all three are possibilities
The killer wore size 12 expensive shoes- coincidence
The Rockingham glove- the Man (Fuhrman) put it there"

I rest my case.

[martin II]

No telling WHO wrote that little ditty.

martin II

[martin II]

read this on the net . it cracked me up.


david jenkins Posted - 3/16/2005 10:58:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's one layman who believes OJ DID NOT kill Nicole and Ron - for reasons spelled out to me one night by a high ranking police official in Durham NC during the trial... 1) No motive... 2) No witnesses... 3) major problems with blood evidence (one example - on first inspection morning after the incident there's no blood evidence on Nicole's back gate (photos back this up) - then three weeks later there is) 4) Timeline makes it impossible for OJ to have done it, 5) No blood found in OJ's bathroom or any bathroom on the property, including shower and sink drains, 6) Video of first examination shows no socks on floor of OJ's bedroom, then they find socks with a blood drop of equal size and position on both sides of one sock (impossible if they were worn), 7) Ron Goldman's hands show evidence of fierce battle, while OJ has no facial injuries, 8) cut on OJ's hand while no cut on glove he supposedly wore, 9) no murder weapon ever found, 10) no bloody clothes ever found... and on and on and on. He didn't do it. But he knows who did. Ask Nicole's cokehead girlfriend Faye how much the two of them owed the Columbian coke dealers they partied with (by her own admission,) and where those guys were that night. There's your killers.

Jane Posted - 6/12/2005 10:46:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the evidence suggests that OJ is NOT guilty. The people who insist that he is guilty are the same who beleived that there were WMDs in Iraq and that JFK was killed by one bullet. OJ had no motive and no time. Furthermore, the defense proved that the evidence, including blood and DNA, were planted. Also, the gloves did not fit -- latex gloves don't make a diference and blood can not shrink anything like water -- especially a few drops of blood on a glove! Some people obviously WANT to believe that he is guilty due to some bias that they formed since Day One. The white public's blind condemnation is like something out of the "Twilight Zone." The man is obviously Not Guilty!

Smart Consumer Posted - 6/13/2005 1:54:36 AM

[weezer]

They made me laugh too....................

[martin II]

the two post has so much truth to them that i cracked me up in a way that much of what was said is what many intellegent posters have been saying here for some time.OJ NOT GUILTY.
MARTIN ii

[socaldiva]

the two post has so much truth to them that i cracked me up in a way that much of what was said is what many intellegent posters have been saying here for some time.OJ NOT GUILTY.
MARTIN ii

And like the "intelligent posters" that you refer to, those two posts contain information that is factually incorrect.

[bobaugust]

the two post has so much truth to them that i cracked me up in a way that much of what was said is what many intellegent posters have been saying here for some time.OJ NOT GUILTY.
MARTIN ii

martin II, that's funny. The two posts are riddled with false and misinformation. The only thing the two posters show is how uninformed they are about the facts and evidence in this case. Their opinions are based on ignorance not intelligence just like other uninformed posters who have tried to offer the same false information on this discussion group.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, that's funny. The two posts are riddled with false and misinformation. The only thing the two posters show is how uninformed they are about the facts and evidence in this case. Their opinions are based on ignorance not intelligence just like other uninformed posters who have tried to offer the same false information on this discussion group.

bobaugust

oj simpson not guilty of murder

martin II

[bobaugust]

oj simpson not guilty of murder

martin II

martin II, Simpson was later proved to be a liar and a killer and found responsible for both deaths.

bobaugust

[weezer]

And like the "intelligent posters" that you refer to, those two posts contain information that is factually incorrect.

they have to be factually incorrect in order to support the 'orenthal not guilty' of the NGs.

[martin II]

martin II, Simpson was later proved to be a liar and a killer and found responsible for both deaths.

bobaugust

oj simpson

NOT GUILTY OF MUDERING ANYONE. PERIOD.

A civil trial decided to TRY to extract money from him and after 12 years that is now PENDING and fading.


PS oj is a free man.
martin II

[weezer]

orenthal james simpson was found to be liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. orenthal james simpson was ordered by a court of law to pay a penalty for his actions. orenthal james simpson tucked his tail and ran to florida and has spent 12 years hiding behind a loophole in the law. someday, someway, orenthal james simpson will pay for the murders he committed. IMO

[martin II]

martin II, that's funny. The two posts are riddled with false and misinformation. The only thing the two posters show is how uninformed they are about the facts and evidence in this case. Their opinions are based on ignorance not intelligence just like other uninformed posters who have tried to offer the same false information on this discussion group.

bobaugust

Bob the post are like most of yours. Wrong on some details but the overriding
issues is that OJ was NOT GUILTY OF MURDER.

martin II

[martin II]

in case you missed it, the veridct and the courtroom scens can be found on YOUTUBE. I heard the jury say NOT GUILTY to the charge and saw the prosecution looking into space.

Everyone knew there would be a money trial as the powers that be were not
pleased with the verdict so the outcome of the trial in SEARCH FOR MONEY
was no surprise.
Mr Fred Goldman has for the last 12 years been in SEARCH FOR THAT SAME MONEY.
MARTIN ii

[socaldiva]

they have to be factually incorrect in order to support the 'orenthal not guilty' of the NGs.

Of course! lol. Did you notice that those posts were from 2005? I guess the poster had to really dig for those. :D

[bobaugust]

in case you missed it, the veridct and the courtroom scens can be found on YOUTUBE. I heard the jury say NOT GUILTY to the charge and saw the prosecution looking into space.

Everyone knew there would be a money trial as the powers that be were not
pleased with the verdict so the outcome of the trial in SEARCH FOR MONEY
was no surprise.
Mr Fred Goldman has for the last 12 years been in SEARCH FOR THAT SAME MONEY.
MARTIN ii

martin II, found not guilty in the criminal trial in no way means Simpson didn't commit the murders except maybe to a small group of ignorant people who use that verdict as an excuse to make false claims.

All the evidence in the criminal trial as well as all the new evidence in the civil trial proved Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. Simpson's story changes, fabrications and outright lies he told under oath confirmed his guilt.

The civil trial wasn't about money it was about the truth and it was about justice. The truth was found and money was the only means available to the jury to punish the proven killer.

bobaugust

[weezer]

martin II, found not guilty in the criminal trial in no way means Simpson didn't commit the murders except maybe to a small group of ignorant people who use that verdict as an excuse to make false claims.

All the evidence in the criminal trial as well as all the new evidence in the civil trial proved Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. Simpson's story changes, fabrications and outright lies he told under oath confirmed his guilt.

The civil trial wasn't about money it was about the truth and it was about justice. The truth was found and money was the only means available to the jury to punish the proven killer.

bobaugust

as always, the voice of reason. I appreciate the fact that you continue to interject truth into this discussion.

[martin II]

martin II, found not guilty in the criminal trial in no way means Simpson didn't commit the murders except maybe to a small group of ignorant people who use that verdict as an excuse to make false claims.

All the evidence in the criminal trial as well as all the new evidence in the civil trial proved Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. Simpson's story changes, fabrications and outright lies he told under oath confirmed his guilt.

The civil trial wasn't about money it was about the truth and it was about justice. The truth was found and money was the only means available to the jury to punish the proven killer.

bobaugust


bob
two differances

Criminal trial was about taking ones freedom away and required a much higher level of proof for evidence/testimony in the trial and for a verdict .

Civil trial was not about taking ones freedom but only about how much money can we make him pay and required a much lower level of proof of testimony in the trial and for a verdict.

Any way you cut it the criminal trial was a much more serious trial and required a higher level of proof of the prosecution.It was all over after the criminal trial. Which may be why most people did not follow the civil trial because they knew it was about b.s.

martin II

[socaldiva]

orenthal james simpson was found to be liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. orenthal james simpson was ordered by a court of law to pay a penalty for his actions. orenthal james simpson tucked his tail and ran to florida and has spent 12 years hiding behind a loophole in the law. someday, someway, orenthal james simpson will pay for the murders he committed. IMO

:beer: :beer:

[bobaugust]

bob
two differances

Criminal trial was about taking ones freedom away and required a much higher level of proof for evidence/testimony in the trial and for a verdict .

Civil trial was not about taking ones freedom but only about how much money can we make him pay and required a much lower level of proof of testimony in the trial and for a verdict.

Any way you cut it the criminal trial was a much more serious trial and required a higher level of proof of the prosecution.It was all over after the criminal trial. Which may be why most people did not follow the civil trial because they knew it was about b.s.

martin II

martin II, the differences do not change the fact that a not guilty verdict in the criminal trial does not mean Simpson wasn't the killer. The differences do not change all the evidence. The differences do not change someone's ability or inability to learn and understand what all the evidence means. The differences do not change the lies Simpson told. The differences do not change the truth.

The civil trial wasn't b.s. it was the real search for the truth where the defendant had to testify and was proved to be a liar and a killer.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, the differences do not change the fact that a not guilty verdict in the criminal trial does not mean Simpson wasn't the killer. The differences do not change all the evidence. The differences do not change someone's ability or inability to learn and understand what all the evidence means. The differences do not change the lies Simpson told. The differences do not change the truth.

The civil trial wasn't b.s. it was the real search for the truth where the defendant had to testify and was proved to be a liar and a killer.

bobaugust

BOB
Based on your logic then the civil trial did not get to the truth of who murdered ron and nicole.

The criminal trial with it's much higher standard of proof required would be the trial that i would say saught to uncover more of the truth than the civil trial where the requirement of proof was much less.

The criminal trial required that the jury believe the evidence was proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT for a conviction.

The civil trial the jury only had to believe that he more than likely commited the murders and no proof BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT WAS REQUIRED.

Therefore it was much easier to convict in the civil trial than the criminal trial.
JMOO
MARTIN ii

[Jayme K]

I love people who grasp at straws.

I've read where someone who completely thinks OJ is innocent posted that the jurors in the criminal trial were super intelligent and whatnot but even many of those jurors thought OJ probably did it. What does that tell you?

It tells me that most people, including the criminal jurors, thought he probably did it. Generally you don't think that someone probably committed a crime as serious as murder unless you truly believe it based on facts you know.

Kinda funny.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
BOB
Based on your logic then the civil trial did not get to the truth of who murdered ron and nicole.


You deduced this from Bob's post? :confused:

[Jayme K]

You deduced this from Bob's post? :confused:

Surprised?

[bobaugust]

BOB
Based on your logic then the civil trial did not get to the truth of who murdered ron and nicole.

The criminal trial with it's much higher standard of proof required would be the trial that i would say saught to uncover more of the truth than the civil trial where the requirement of proof was much less.

The criminal trial required that the jury believe the evidence was proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT for a conviction.

The civil trial the jury only had to believe that he more than likely commited the murders and no proof BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT WAS REQUIRED.

Therefore it was much easier to convict in the civil trial than the criminal trial.
JMOO
MARTIN ii


martin II, no it's your logic that doesn't make any sense. The civil trial was not about convicting Simpson it was about uncovering the truth as to his involvement in these murders. The new information and new evidence as well as Simpson's blatant lies under oath make it clear beyond any reasonable doubt that Simpson was the killer. It was proved to a certainty.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

Jotun

I have noticed this also.

martin II

You went back 8 days & 8 pages of posts to drudge these accusations up again? Why? I think you are trying to infer that Jayme & I are one poster & I resent the implication as it is false.

[Jayme K]

You went back 8 days & 8 pages of posts to drudge these accusations up again? Why? I think you are trying to infer that Jayme & I are one poster & I resent the implication as it is false.

I get that feeling too and laugh. I am more than capable of standing my ground without having to pretend that I'm someone else in order to do it.

Apparently the similar writing styles give it away as Sassylassy posted! If that's the case then I could say that I've noticed a bunch of similar writing styles of numerous people on the board, yet I seriously doubt that they're all the same people:D

[Jayme K]

Jotun

I have noticed this also.

martin II

Of course you did martinII ... cause you're so quick huh!;)

[martin II]

The criminal trial lasted about 9 months with about 150 witnesses testifying before a sitting jury. The DA presented their case as best as they could, but it was not enough.RUSH TO JUDGEMENT.

Unlike the civil trial where the judge confined the testimony and argument in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defense, the criminal trial judge allowed each side as much latitude, within the law, as they required.

The prosecution had to meet a much higher level of proof of evidence and testimony that was allowed in the trial. This for me means that this evidence/testimony had to withstand a closer examination by the judge and eventually the jury.

The "mountain" of evidence ended up as just a pile of accusations not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the civil trial, the judge, basically, with his rulings against the defense as to what they could argue prevented the jury from hearing these arguments and made the decision for the jury as if they were not capable to deciding for themselves.

By the time the civil trial was held in Santa Monica, (74% white,4% AA,14% Hispanic and 7% Asian) the media reporting on the large number of Whites that dissaproved on the criminal trial verdict had for all practical purposes POISINED THE JURY POOL in Santa Monica. So the results of the civil trial was expected soon after the trial started.

Martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*

The DA presented their case as best as they could, but it was not enough.RUSH TO JUDGEMENT.

the criminal trial judge allowed each side as much latitude, within the law, as they required.

The "mountain" of evidence ended up as just a pile of accusations not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

So the results of the civil trial was expected soon after the trial started.

Martin II

The defense was rushing to get this case to trial, not the DA.

If the civil judge erred in his rulings & favored the defense, Orenthal would have won the appeal he filed. He didn't.

As for the results being "expected soon after the trial started", even Petrocelli has stated that he was very uncertain as to what the verdict would be, even towards the end of the trial.

To most, the criminal trial did produce a mountain of evidence. That's why the vast majority shuns Orenthal & he is an outcast. They know he is a double murderer from the criminal trial & the civil trial just affirmed that belief.

[martin II]

correction to my post

The judges ruling favored the plaintiff. not the defense.

martin II

[socaldiva]

correction to my post

The judges ruling favored the plaintiff. not the defense.

martin II

Correct. I posted defense & it should have read plaintiff. Regardless, Orenthal lost the appeal. Are you now saying the appeal ruling was biased as well?

[bobaugust]

The criminal trial lasted about 9 months with about 150 witnesses testifying before a sitting jury. The DA presented their case as best as they could, but it was not enough.RUSH TO JUDGEMENT.

Unlike the civil trial where the judge confined the testimony and argument in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defense, the criminal trial judge allowed each side as much latitude, within the law, as they required.

The prosecution had to meet a much higher level of proof of evidence and testimony that was allowed in the trial. This for me means that this evidence/testimony had to withstand a closer examination by the judge and eventually the jury.

The "mountain" of evidence ended up as just a pile of accusations not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the civil trial, the judge, basically, with his rulings against the defense as to what they could argue prevented the jury from hearing these arguments and made the decision for the jury as if they were not capable to deciding for themselves.

By the time the civil trial was held in Santa Monica, (74% white,4% AA,14% Hispanic and 7% Asian) the media reporting on the large number of Whites that dissaproved on the criminal trial verdict had for all practical purposes POISINED THE JURY POOL in Santa Monica. So the results of the civil trial was expected soon after the trial started.

Martin II

The civil trial was the real search for the truth. The mountain of evidence all pointed to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer and no amount of imagined possibilities ever changed that fact.

Judge Fujisaki didn't rule against the defense, he ruled against either side making arguments and accusations that were not supported by evidence. Fujisaki's ruling was not an exception, Ito's rulings were. It's normal for a judge to allow hypotheticals to be used in questioning but only if those hypotheticals have some basis in fact. In the criminal trial Ito didn't do that. He allowed the defense to offer unlimited speculation based only on imagination, not evidence. As a result some people have come to believe that unsupported speculation somehow raises reasonable doubt when in fact it doesn't. The only kind of doubt imagined speculation raises is imagined doubt.

The civil trial jury came from the community where Simpson lived and where the murders were committed. A jury of Simpson's peers. Unlike the criminal trial, in the civil trial race and LE conduct were not issues, the evidence and the testimony was. The truth of these murders was found based on all the physical evidence from the criminal trial, new evidence presented in the civil trial, and on Simpson's lying testimony.

bobaugust

[martin II]

The civil trial was the real search for the truth. The mountain of evidence all pointed to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer and no amount of imagined possibilities ever changed that fact.

Judge Fujisaki didn't rule against the defense, he ruled against either side making arguments and accusations that were not supported by evidence. Fujisaki's ruling was not an exception, Ito's rulings were. It's normal for a judge to allow hypotheticals to be used in questioning but only if those hypotheticals have some basis in fact. In the criminal trial Ito didn't do that. He allowed the defense to offer unlimited speculation based only on imagination, not evidence. As a result some people have come to believe that unsupported speculation somehow raises reasonable doubt when in fact it doesn't. The only kind of doubt imagined speculation raises is imagined doubt.

The civil trial jury came from the community where Simpson lived and where the murders were committed. A jury of Simpson's peers. Unlike the criminal trial, in the civil trial race and LE conduct were not issues, the evidence and the testimony was. The truth of these murders was found based on all the physical evidence from the criminal trial, new evidence presented in the civil trial, and on Simpson's lying testimony.

bobaugust

bob
In the criminal trial the prosecution presented their case. They failed to convince the jury that they had proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. You may have another opinion but it means nothing as far as the results of the case is concerned. Oj was found NOT GUIILTY by the jury and it was written in law. fini

martin II

[martin II]

judge ito in the criminal trial allowed the prosecution to make all kinds of accusations in their opening statement. their timeline was one. j. shivery,
op jumping the fencee,etc which they abandonded after the defense had a chance to attack some of these issues. The judge allowed both sides to state what they thought happened. It was not the defense fault that these issues did not hold up.
Ito allowed the JURY to sort out all the issues and determine what the truth was. The civil judge decided for the jury what was true and what was not. So in a way the civil judge was the judge and the jury.

Jury pool was poisined in the Santa Monica area before the civil trial started.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*

Oj was found NOT GUIILTY by the jury and it was written in law. fini



In relation to Orenthal being an outcast, it's not "fini" :biggrin:

[bobaugust]

bob
In the criminal trial the prosecution presented their case. They failed to convince the jury that they had proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. You may have another opinion but it means nothing as far as the results of the case is concerned. Oj was found NOT GUIILTY by the jury and it was written in law. fini

martin II

martin II, yes I do have another opinion than the criminal trial jurors and my opinion turned out to be correct and their opinon turned out to be wrong. The criminal trial was not the end of this case only the end of Simpson going back to jail for the murders he committed.

bobaugust

IMO needs to be added here Bob

[bobaugust]

judge ito in the criminal trial allowed the prosecution to make all kinds of accusations in their opening statement. their timeline was one. j. shivery,
op jumping the fencee,etc which they abandonded after the defense had a chance to attack some of these issues. The judge allowed both sides to state what they thought happened. It was not the defense fault that these issues did not hold up.
Ito allowed the JURY to sort out all the issues and determine what the truth was. The civil judge decided for the jury what was true and what was not. So in a way the civil judge was the judge and the jury.

Jury pool was poisined in the Santa Monica area before the civil trial started.

martin II

martin II, sometimes I think you never even watched the criminal trial based on all the misinformation you post here. Please post where Clark referred to Jill Shively or that Simpson scaled his fence in her opening statement or anywhere in the criminal trial.

The speculation prosecutors made was based on the evidence in this case. The accusations of evidence planting and speculation of other killers the defense made were based on nothing but pure imagination. No evidence. The civil trial judge did not decided what was true or what was not, he only allowed arguments that had a basis in fact or that were supported by evidence. The civil trial jury used the evidence and the testimony to determine the truth, not the judge.

The only "poisoned" jury pool in this case was in the criminal trial when the case was moved to LA and the jury pool came from a community that had nothing in common with Simpson except his race. That community had a hatred and distrust for the LAPD based on their experiences and the jurors mistakenly believed that this wealthy black celebrity was treated the same way some people in their community were treated. They were wrong.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, sometimes I think you never even watched the criminal trial based on all the misinformation you post here. Please post where Clark referred to Jill Shively or that Simpson scaled his fence in her opening statement or anywhere in the criminal trial.

The speculation prosecutors made was based on the evidence in this case. The accusations of evidence planting and speculation of other killers the defense made were based on nothing but pure imagination. No evidence. The civil trial judge did not decided what was true or what was not, he only allowed arguments that had a basis in fact or that were supported by evidence. The civil trial jury used the evidence and the testimony to determine the truth, not the judge.

The only "poisoned" jury pool in this case was in the criminal trial when the case was moved to LA and the jury pool came from a community that had nothing in common with Simpson except his race. That community had a hatred and distrust for the LAPD based on their experiences and the jurors mistakenly believed that this wealthy black celebrity was treated the same way some people in their community were treated. They were wrong.

bobaugust

Santa Monica
Jury pool poisined
Public outcry for a civil conviction
The judge pereventing the jury from heraing ALL arguments
Judge acting like judge and jury.

results as expected.

martin II

[socaldiva]

Santa Monica
Jury pool poisined
Public outcry for a civil conviction
The judge pereventing the jury from heraing ALL arguments
Judge acting like judge and jury.

results as expected.

martin II

"Public outcry" doesn't garner a conviction. If it did, Orenthal would have been found guilty in the criminal trial.

If the judge did what you said, Orenthal would have won an appeal. He didn't.

[bobaugust]

Santa Monica
Jury pool poisined
Public outcry for a civil conviction
The judge pereventing the jury from heraing ALL arguments
Judge acting like judge and jury.

results as expected.

martin II

martin II, your claims are false and meaningless. Nothing you claim changed the evidence that proved Simpson was the killer. Nothing you claim changed the lies that Simpson told. Nothing you listed changed the truth of these murders that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. All your claims show is how uninformed you are about what happened in the civil trial and the excuses you use to remain that way.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, your claims are false and meaningless. Nothing you claim changed the evidence that proved Simpson was the killer. Nothing you claim changed the lies that Simpson told. Nothing you listed changed the truth of these murders that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. All your claims show is how uninformed you are about what happened in the civil trial and the excuses you use to remain that way.

bobaugust

bob
what i have posted, impacted on the civil trial from beginning to jury verdict.
You either have no ability to understand or do not want to admit that you understand but that does not change any of what i have posted or why
the outcome was predictable.
martin II

[martin II]

"Like it or not when the police detained O.J. in handcuffs when he first got home after beng informd of Nicole's death, they poisined the jury pool right then. Here you have a celeb that is being handcuffed when there is no reason to believe that he had committed the crime and prevented from entering his own home. And you had Mark Furman illegally entering O.J.'s house under the pretense that he thought O.J. might be in danger. Did that really pass the laugh test?"

[bobaugust]

bob
what i have posted, impacted on the civil trial from beginning to jury verdict.
You either have no ability to understand or do not want to admit that you understand but that does not change any of what i have posted or why
the outcome was predictable.
martin II

martin II, what you have written is only your opinion of what you think impacted the civil trial. The fact is that you have no idea what happened in the civil trial and your opinions are wrong.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

"Like it or not when the police detained O.J. in handcuffs when he first got home after beng informd of Nicole's death, they poisined the jury pool right then. Here you have a celeb that is being handcuffed when there is no reason to believe that he had committed the crime and prevented from entering his own home. And you had Mark Furman illegally entering O.J.'s house under the pretense that he thought O.J. might be in danger. Did that really pass the laugh test?"

martin II, once again you post an anonymous quote. A quote that that not only suggests that the criminal trial jury was poisoned but shows how uniformed the writer is regarding the police entry on to Simpson's property.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

martin II, once again you post an anonymous quote. A quote that that not only suggests that the criminal trial jury was poisoned but shows how uniformed the writer is regarding the police entry on to Simpson's property.

bobaugust

And the poster claims the jury pool was tainted because of the handcuffs?? It didn't taint it too much, they let him walk on a murder charge. :tongue:

[martin II]

martin II, what you have written is only your opinion of what you think impacted the civil trial. The fact is that you have no idea what happened in the civil trial and your opinions are wrong.

bobaugust

bob
you may not still know this but everyone is giving their opinions including you.
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
you may not still know this but everyone is giving their opinions including you.
martin II

martin II, that's right everyone does give their opinion and when some of those opinions are based on false and misinformation, like yours mostly are, then others point that out.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

martin II, that's right everyone does give their opinion and when some of those opinions are based on false and misinformation, like yours mostly are, then others point that out.

bobaugust

:beer: :beer: :beer:

[martin II]

martin II, that's right everyone does give their opinion and when some of those opinions are based on false and misinformation, like yours mostly are, then others point that out.

bobaugust

bob
The problem with what you have posted is that you seem to believe YOU are the only one that gets to decide what is the truth and what is not. You were not a tryer of fact in the criminal trial the jury was. Your dissagreement with the jury is only a opinion you offer.

martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
The problem with what you have posted is that you seem to believe YOU are the only one that gets to decide what is the truth and what is not. You were not a tryer of fact in the criminal trial the jury was. Your dissagreement with the jury is only a opinion you offer.

martin II

martin II, no I'm not the only one who believes they know the truth of these murders. People who learn about the evidence that was presented in the civil trial and have read Simpson's lying testimony all understand the truth for themselves. People like you who refuse to learn about this evidence or Simpson's lying testimony and cling to the criminal trial verdict like it somehow it means Simpson is innocent are the ones who are oblivious to the truth that Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, no I'm not the only one who believes they know the truth of these murders. People who learn about the evidence that was presented in the civil trial and have read Simpson's lying testimony all understand the truth for themselves. People like you who refuse to learn about this evidence or Simpson's lying testimony and cling to the criminal trial verdict like it somehow it means Simpson is innocent are the ones who are oblivious to the truth that Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer.

bobaugust

i will take not guilty over liable any day.
martin II

[bobaugust]

i will take not guilty over liable any day.
martin II

martin II, there is no choice. Simpson was first found not guilty and later found responsible for the murders. This discussion is not about the verdicts but about the truth of who the killer was. Simpson was proved to have murdered both Ron and Nicole and he lied under oath to avoid admitting to it, just as many other killers have done.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, there is no choice. Simpson was first found not guilty and later found responsible for the murders. This discussion is not about the verdicts but about the truth of who the killer was. Simpson was proved to have murdered both Ron and Nicole and he lied under oath to avoid admitting to it, just as many other killers have done.

bobaugust

bob speaks

martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

martin II, there is no choice. Simpson was first found not guilty and later found responsible for the murders. This discussion is not about the verdicts but about the truth of who the killer was. Simpson was proved to have murdered both Ron and Nicole and he lied under oath to avoid admitting to it, just as many other killers have done.

bobaugust

:beer: :beer: :beer:

[martin II]

martin II, there is no choice. Simpson was first found not guilty and later found responsible for the murders. This discussion is not about the verdicts but about the truth of who the killer was. Simpson was proved to have murdered both Ron and Nicole and he lied under oath to avoid admitting to it, just as many other killers have done.

bobaugust

bob
It seems that you are trying to put forth the idea that the 9 months criminal trial and all the testimony and witnesses and the defense attacks on this testimony and evidence either did not happen or it makes no difference that it did occur. The because oj may have changed some of his testimony
as prosecution witnesses did in the criminal trial, that this means that oj killed these two people. I don't see it that way.

Your position seems to be that since you did not like the NOT GUILTY verdict, the jury was ignorant and biased because the 9 blacks, two whites and one asian/hispanic jurors
believed the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and voted NOT GUILTY.
martin II

[bobaugust]

If a person is killed by a driver, who was driving under the influence, in a car that had defective brakes, is the brake manufacturer, the car salesman or the driver guilty of being a killer?

What does this have to do with the Simpson case?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

What does this have to do with the Simpson case?

bobaugust

Can you answer the question?

[bobaugust]

Can you answer the question?

Sure, I would think the driver would be responsible for the death.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I noticed you used the words responsible for instead of the killer. Therefore, you do know the distinction from a civil and a criminal trial. The truth is that they all could be responsible under different theories of liability. The fact that someone is driving under the influence does not mean that they are legally imparied to drive. Therefore, you know that the civil trial did not prove Simpson the killer only liable.

hahahahahaha

ha ha ha ha ha

I am on the floor.
:beer: :beer:
martin II

[bobaugust]

I noticed you used the words responsible for instead of the killer. Therefore, you do know the distinction from a civil and a criminal trial. The truth is that they all could be responsible under different theories of liability. The fact that someone is driving under the influence does not mean that they are legally imparied to drive. Therefore, you know that the civil trial did not prove Simpson the killer only liable.

In your example the person who was driving the car that killed someone would be responsible for their death.

Simpson was found responsible for both deaths because the jury believed he murdered both victims. Their belief was based on the evidence that proved Simpson was the killer and Simpson's lies that confirmed his guilt.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

hahahahahaha

ha ha ha ha ha

I am on the floor.
:beer: :beer:
martin II

I think it's humorous too that a poster would offer up a legal riddle that has no bearing on the Simpson case, in an effort to deflect Simpson's guilt.

[2L8 4A D8]

In your example the person who was driving the car that killed someone would be responsible for their death.

Simpson was found responsible for both deaths because the jury believed he murdered both victims. Their belief was based on the evidence that proved Simpson was the killer and Simpson's lies that confirmed his guilt.

bobaugust

:beer: :beer: :beer:

[2L8 4A D8]

I think it's humorous too that a poster would offer up a legal riddle that has no bearing on the Simpson case, in an effort to deflect Simpson's guilt.

:beer: :beer: :beer: Yes, and as usual, we just need to consider the source! LOL!

[jotun]

Simpson was found responsible for both deaths because the jury believed he murdered both victims. Their belief was based on the evidence that proved Simpson was the killer and Simpson's lies that confirmed his guilt.

bobaugust

All:
Perhaps O.J.was found "RESPONSIBLE"
because the defense was NEVER allowed by the judge to fully put on their case or call their witnesses.Their belief based on the PLANTED evidence didn't prove anything.
Lies confirmed his guilt??? The state attorney general stated on tv that he was asked to bring perjury charges on O.J.
He said he had read O.J.'s ENTIRE depo and ENTIRE trial testi-money. He found
"NO LIES"!!!

jotun

[2L8 4A D8]

All:
Perhaps O.J.was found "RESPONSIBLE"
because the defense was NEVER allowed by the judge to fully put on their case or call their witnesses.Their belief based on the PLANTED evidence didn't prove anything.
Lies confirmed his guilt??? The state attorney general stated on tv that he was asked to bring perjury charges on O.J.
He said he had read O.J.'s ENTIRE depo and ENTIRE trial testi-money. He found
"NO LIES"!!!

jotun

That's it? You're going to have to come up with a lot more than that, like a Link maybe! "The state attorney general stated" OR "You stated" does not even come close to substantiating what both of you have Stated and what YOU have Posted. No substantiation = No believability. Period! :rolleyes:

Please, I ALSO ASKED YOU TO NOT INCLUDE ME AS "ALL" IN YOUR POSTS. I am not the least bit interested in what you have to say or post. Thus, maybe you could say, "ALL, except 2L8 4A D8!" would be a start! Thanks!

JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

*snip*
That's it? You're going to have to come up with a lot more than that, like a Link maybe! [b]"The state attorney general stated

Yes, I'd like that backed up too. I've never heard of such a thing. Why on earth would the state atty general say such a thing, considering Orenthal told multiple lies?

[weezer]

If a person is killed by a driver, who was driving under the influence, in a car that had defective brakes, is the brake manufacturer, the car salesman or the driver guilty of being a killer?

The driver is guilty of the death -- when he/she got behind the wheel under the influence, he/she assumed responsibility for their driving. The person would never have been killed by that car with the defective brakes except for the fact that the driver was behind the wheel and in control of the car. IMO

[martin II]

The driver is guilty of the death -- when he/she got behind the wheel under the influence, he/she assumed responsibility for their driving. The person would never have been killed by that car with the defective brakes except for the fact that the driver was behind the wheel and in control of the car. IMO

The issue seems to be what did cause the accident. the driver under the influence or the brakes that failed. If a sober person is driving and the brakes fail and the driver cannot stop the car, who is at fault. the brake manufacture or the driver.
martin II

[koolchick]

The issue seems to be what did cause the accident. the driver under the influence or the brakes that failed. If a sober person is driving and the brakes fail and the driver cannot stop the car, who is at fault. the brake manufacture or the driver.
martin II


No, he said who's responsible. The driver would be breaking the law by driving the vehicle drunk. So, the one breaking the law is the driver. Had that driver not gotten in the vehicle drunk, that particular accident would not have happened. If the driver is sober and not breaking laws the guilt is shifted.

[martin II]

No, he said who's responsible. The driver would be breaking the law by driving the vehicle drunk. So, the one breaking the law is the driver. Had that driver not gotten in the vehicle drunk, that particular accident would not have happened. If the driver is sober and not breaking laws the guilt is shifted.

kool chick
i did not find "Responsible" in William's port. nor did i see DRUNK.

However, Being IMPARED in one issue but does that automatically mean that he caused the brake to malfunction? NO.

martin II

[weezer]

actually, his post said 'under the influence' -- that means that the driver was not in control of himself and could not be in control of the car unless you want to say "impared" is like being 'a little bit pregnant'................;)

[koolchick]

kool chick
i did not find "Responsible" in William's port. nor did i see DRUNK.

However, Being IMPARED in one issue but does that automatically mean that he caused the brake to malfunction? NO.

martin II


I also didn't see in his post that the issue seemed to be what caused the accident as you claim in your post.

He said which one is guilty. I used responsible instead of guilty. Which is basically the same thing. Impaired could also mean drunk and usually does. If they are "impaired" they should never be behind the wheel. Therefore, they are to blame for this accident. If the driver wouldn't have gotten in the vehicle then the brakes would never have malfunctioned. And, since the driver wasn't legally suppose to be in the vehicle it is therefore the drivers fault.

:punch:

[koolchick]

actually, his post said 'under the influence' -- that means that the driver was not in control of himself and could not be in control of the car unless you want to say "impared" is like being 'a little bit pregnant'................;)

lol

:lol:

[martin II]

I also didn't see in his post that the issue seemed to be what caused the accident as you claim in your post.

He said which one is guilty. I used responsible instead of guilty. Which is basically the same thing. Impaired could also mean drunk and usually does. If they are "impaired" they should never be behind the wheel. Therefore, they are to blame for this accident. If the driver wouldn't have gotten in the vehicle then the brakes would never have malfunctioned. And, since the driver wasn't legally suppose to be in the vehicle it is therefore the drivers fault.

:punch:

I think it may be that driver could be charged with being impaired. But i am not sure that being impaired automatically means he did not operate the car properly. If so then the car manufacture could be at fault for selling a defective brake part on the car.
martin II

[socaldiva]

I think it may be that driver could be charged with being impaired. But i am not sure that being impaired automatically means he did not operate the car properly. If so then the car manufacture could be at fault for selling a defective brake part on the car.
martin II

I still don't see the correlation between this hypothetical scenario & the Simpson case. The only way there would be a parallel would be if Orenthal were taking some sort of prescription drug & he attempted to argue that the drug either didn't work or caused him to commit murder. Yeah, that's the ticket, it was his arthritis medicine that caused him to go wild & murder 2 people. :tongue:

[socaldiva]

Freshwater,
WHY has my answer to this been DELETED?

jotun

I think this query is best suited to a PM, not an open board. JMO

[sassylassy]

Freshwater,
WHY has my answer to this been DELETED?

jotun

Hi Jotun

Freshwater may not see your question here, so I would suggest sending a PM
c-ya :)

[limakey]

Mr. August,

In an trial, there are many "truths" that are involved. In order to get to the truth of any matter, you have to also have the truth of every aspect of the matter. In any case, the "truth" of the evidence must always be considered. And to consider the truth of the evidence, you must consider the integrity of the LE officers and detectives involved in the investigation. You must also only allow one answer to be the truth, you can't have three different reasons why the blood drop on the back gate was not collected. We have been given at least 3 or four reasons for this "oversight".

Either Fung was told to collect the blood on the back gate, or he wasn't.

Either Fung went to the back gate and did see the blood drop or he did go to the back gate and didn't see the blood drop.

Either Fung was told about the blood on the backgate and was ordered not to collect it or he wasn't.

The truth in regards to the nurse and how much blood he drew, is that he doesn't know how much blood he drew--that is per Hank Goldberg.

The truth is that Mr. Simpson may have cut his finger as he said he did and is not lying about it, which does not mean that he did not kill them.

The truth is that there was never ever a fiber comparison--there was no evidence or scientific testimony that even suggested the blue-black fibers came from a sweat suit.

The truth in regards to the alarm to Simpson's home is that the Westec Rep knew the code and every reason, with sound legal back up to give it to the police. The truth is also that these alarms are monitored---the supporting company knows when they are turned off and when they are turned on.

The truth in the Simpson case will never be known because those who should have been trusted to be truthful and honest and to have integrity that is beyond reproach---didn't and no amount of smoke and mirrors by the DA's and the media is ever going to change that.

It may be your truth that Mr. Simpson killed Mrs. Simpson and Mr. Goldman, but it is the truth of our legal system that prevailed. The truth of the Simpson case is that there was and always will be tons of reasonable doubt. IMO.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

In an trial, there are many "truths" that are involved.

"many truths"??? I don't think so. There is only one truth & one murderer: OJ Simpson. IMO

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

In an trial, there are many "truths" that are involved. In order to get to the truth of any matter, you have to also have the truth of every aspect of the matter. In any case, the "truth" of the evidence must always be considered. And to consider the truth of the evidence, you must consider the integrity of the LE officers and detectives involved in the investigation. You must also only allow one answer to be the truth, you can't have three different reasons why the blood drop on the back gate was not collected. We have been given at least 3 or four reasons for this "oversight".

Either Fung was told to collect the blood on the back gate, or he wasn't.

Either Fung went to the back gate and did see the blood drop or he did go to the back gate and didn't see the blood drop.

Either Fung was told about the blood on the backgate and was ordered not to collect it or he wasn't.

The truth in regards to the nurse and how much blood he drew, is that he doesn't know how much blood he drew--that is per Hank Goldberg.

The truth is that Mr. Simpson may have cut his finger as he said he did and is not lying about it, which does not mean that he did not kill them.

The truth is that there was never ever a fiber comparison--there was no evidence or scientific testimony that even suggested the blue-black fibers came from a sweat suit.

The truth in regards to the alarm to Simpson's home is that the Westec Rep knew the code and every reason, with sound legal back up to give it to the police. The truth is also that these alarms are monitored---the supporting company knows when they are turned off and when they are turned on.

The truth in the Simpson case will never be known because those who should have been trusted to be truthful and honest and to have integrity that is beyond reproach---didn't and no amount of smoke and mirrors by the DA's and the media is ever going to change that.

It may be your truth that Mr. Simpson killed Mrs. Simpson and Mr. Goldman, but it is the truth of our legal system that prevailed. The truth of the Simpson case is that there was and always will be tons of reasonable doubt. IMO.

limakey, once again you offer your opinions based only on what you learned in the criminal trial without any knowledge of what became known after the criminal trial. The civil trial was the real search for the truth, not the criminal trial, and the truth was found.

The reasons you list about why the blood on the rear gate wasn't collected is meaningless. The fact is that the blood on the rear gate was identified as Simpson's blood the same as the other blood drops along the walkway at Bundy were. All of that blood as well as the blood found in Simpson's Bronco and at his home tells us the truth that Simpson was at Bundy during these murders.

The amount of blood the nurse drew from Simpson is also meaningless. No collected blood was ever found to contain EDTA preserved blood as well as the fact that other evidence proved every claim of blood planting to be completely false. The truth is there isn't one shred of evidence that any blood was ever planted in this case. Only smoke and mirrors.

The fact that the blue black cotton fibers were not matched to any sweatsuit is also meaningless. 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. That's additional incriminating evidence that ties Simpson to the murders.

No alarm company knows when a house alarm is turned on or off only when a house alarm is activated.

I'm sorry to say that you will never know the truth of these murders because you have limited your knowledge of this case to only what was known at the time of the criminal trial. If you ever decide to learn about all the new information, new evidence, and new testimony that became known after the criminal trial you might just realize how wrong you are and why we who have learned about these things know the truth of these murders beyond any reasonable doubt.

bobaugust

[Red Sox Fan]

This is a little OT for this thread, but I wanted to point out that I met OJ on two different occassions and he is one of the most charismatic people I have ever met in my life. Once, at the airport (years ago before the murders), he signed my Grandfather's cast and posed for pictures. My Grand Dad was in a wheel chair at the time and had always been a huge OJ fan. Meeting OJ-especially when he was so nice and accomodating was a high point in his life. He talked about it until he died (before the murders).

I later met him after the murders when I drove to his house on Rockingham during a visit to LA. It was right after he was acquited so there were lots of gawkers taking pictures of the house and the streets were blocked off so you had to take the side roads to get there. Lots of people in the neighborhood had signs in there yard that said Media GO AWAY. Anyway as I sat there taking pictures of the house, OJ walked right out and greeted everyone and thanked them for their support. lol. I certainly wasn't there to support him, as I am sure he did it, but again his charisma was amazing. Even though I KNEW I was looking at a killer, I was in awe of him. Everyone always says, OH if I were to see him out in public I would give him apiece of my mind!! But meeting him in person is another story. And again I am sure he is guilty.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

The civil trial was not a search for the truth because the jurors were not presented with the same case. There was no "new" information in the civil trial for the plaintiffs. The "new" evidence was evidence that was rejected by the DA's and the plaintiffs, having the majority of the country and the media behind them, could have called Gumby and Pokey to the stand and you would have believed in their testimony a 1000 percent.

While you focus on "new" old evidence, why not focus on the really knew evidence---the evidence of another blood trail toward the front of the condo? The fact that all three blood samples were checked out at the same time---something the defense never even knew about?

The judge in the civil trial said the jurors were to accept the evidence as face valued. They were not permitted to consider the obvious pattern of errors and evidence that aged better then a fine wine. That is not their fault, but that was the way it was. The plaintiffs had a jury that was openly hostile to Simpson, to include a very, angry gay man. What do you think his reactions was going to be when he the story of OJ's alleged reaction to an arguement he had with Nicole?

You are intensely blinded by your own arguements. How many posts have you made that the nurse did not draw the amount of blood he said he drew, therefore making it impossible for any blood to be missing? How times have you posted that Kato's testimony on what he thought Simpson was wearing that night was the link to the blue black fibers---yet there has been no scientific evidence to support this. Never did any expert say these fibers were compared to fibers from a sweat suit and they could have come from one.

EDTA was found in the blood. Ask Bill Hodgeman---and how many times did you post it could have come from a Big Mac?

The civil trial produced a sweat suit, yet it wasn't even the same color of the sweat suit the alleged fibers were to have come from.

Yes, it does make a difference what the reason was on why the blood on the back gate was not collected. Someone is lying and that person has put another cloud over the evidence. BTW, it was Lange and Vanatter's book who floated that Fung and Company were ordered not to collect it. Goldberg said that Fung was told but didn't see it and I think Fung's testimony was that he can't recall being told by Lange, when Lange testified he speciafically told him about the blood on the back gate and the blood on Nicole's back.

Sorry Mr. August, your arguements on these issues are meaningless because you demand that all evidence be accepted, no questions asked. That is not how our system works.

The civil trial was about money, as is every civil trial. It is not a search for the truth because if it was, the same evidence would be presented as well as the defense being able to present the same defense. IMO.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

The civil trial was not a search for the truth because the jurors were not presented with the same case. There was no "new" information in the civil trial for the plaintiffs. The "new" evidence was evidence that was rejected by the DA's and the plaintiffs, having the majority of the country and the media behind them, could have called Gumby and Pokey to the stand and you would have believed in their testimony a 1000 percent.

While you focus on "new" old evidence, why not focus on the really knew evidence---the evidence of another blood trail toward the front of the condo? The fact that all three blood samples were checked out at the same time---something the defense never even knew about?

The judge in the civil trial said the jurors were to accept the evidence as face valued. They were not permitted to consider the obvious pattern of errors and evidence that aged better then a fine wine. That is not their fault, but that was the way it was. The plaintiffs had a jury that was openly hostile to Simpson, to include a very, angry gay man. What do you think his reactions was going to be when he the story of OJ's alleged reaction to an arguement he had with Nicole?

You are intensely blinded by your own arguements. How many posts have you made that the nurse did not draw the amount of blood he said he drew, therefore making it impossible for any blood to be missing? How times have you posted that Kato's testimony on what he thought Simpson was wearing that night was the link to the blue black fibers---yet there has been no scientific evidence to support this. Never did any expert say these fibers were compared to fibers from a sweat suit and they could have come from one.

EDTA was found in the blood. Ask Bill Hodgeman---and how many times did you post it could have come from a Big Mac?

The civil trial produced a sweat suit, yet it wasn't even the same color of the sweat suit the alleged fibers were to have come from.

Yes, it does make a difference what the reason was on why the blood on the back gate was not collected. Someone is lying and that person has put another cloud over the evidence. BTW, it was Lange and Vanatter's book who floated that Fung and Company were ordered not to collect it. Goldberg said that Fung was told but didn't see it and I think Fung's testimony was that he can't recall being told by Lange, when Lange testified he speciafically told him about the blood on the back gate and the blood on Nicole's back.

Sorry Mr. August, your arguements on these issues are meaningless because you demand that all evidence be accepted, no questions asked. That is not how our system works.

The civil trial was about money, as is every civil trial. It is not a search for the truth because if it was, the same evidence would be presented as well as the defense being able to present the same defense. IMO.

limakey, the civil trial jurors were presented with all of the same physical evidence that was presented in the criminal trial as well as new evidence. New evidence that showed Cochran lied when he told the criminal trial jury about Simpson's relationship with Paula Barbieri at the time of the murders. New evidence of over thirty authenticated photographs taken by two different photographers, all showing Simpson wearing the exact same kind of shoes that were consistent with leaving the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. New evidence that proved Nicole's blood was not planted on Simpson's sock.

The biggest difference between the civil trial and the criminal trial was Simpson's lying testimony.

There was no blood trail toward the front of the condo, only additional blood drops that either splattered from the killer's knife or possibly dripped from Nicole's dog. There weren't three blood samples checked out at the same time. After the autopsy was completed, Vannatter personally signed for Goldman and Nicole's blood samples and took them to Piper Tech, the location of the serology unit where he signed in about five minutes after leaving the coroner's office keeping the documented chain of custody intact.

Yes I have posted that Peratis didn't know exactly how much blood he drew and that the defense claim that blood blood was missing was based on nothing but imagination and mistaken estimates.

The dark colored cotton sweat that Kaelin testified Simpson was wearing the night of the murders is consistent with the blue black cotton fibers that were found on his socks. The same blue black cotton fibers that were also found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the killer's right hand glove. That fact directly links Simpson to the murders.

There was only a slight indication of EDTA found in the tested samples of gate blood and sock blood. The same slight indication was also found in Martz's own blood. Martz testified that both Simpson and Nicole's EDTA preserved blood samples contained about a hundred times more EDTA. Martz testified that the slight indication could have come from some contamination in the testing equipment. Martz's testified he was able to determine on the first day that EDTA was not present on those particular stains and those stains did not come from preserved blood. His conclusion was proven correct when other evidence was later presented that conclusively proved the gate blood and the sock were not planted.

No one lied about why the blood was not collected from the back gate. Lange believed he told Fung to collect the blood. Fung didn't remember that and both he and Mazzola testified they never checked the rear gate for blood. Your argument is completely meaningless since it was conclusively proved by the testimony from seven police officers and photographic evidence that blood was on the rear gate the morning after the murders.

The civil trial was about Simpson's involvement in these murders. Simpson's defense was able to make any argument as long as they could support their argument with evidence, not simply imagination. After Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer, money was the only way the jury had available to punish him for his crimes. And that's exactly what they did.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Again you have lied to your self. There is not one shred of evidence that OJ and Paula, even if they had broken up, triggered a murdeous rage. You are basing your lame theory on Paula's testimony in the civil trial. Testimony after she was publically humilated by the testimony of Kalin and at least one other woman. You have the testimony of a woman who basically told Simpson he had a choice - his kids or her and she got pissed when he chose his kids. And your forget Mr. August, the cops knew all about the phone calls between Paula and Simpson. It was they who came up and floated this theory and the defense tore it apart. Also, after the trial, Paula and Simpson did get back together but broke up after a few weeks, so what does this tell you about Paula? That she suddenly decided that after over a year, he was a killer? Or do you think her redneck daddy and brother who were bilking her for money had anything to do with this?

As for shoe photographs. They were not new, the DA's knew about them and each of them made sure in their books they explained in their round about way why they didn't use them.

No, they were never proven to "originals". I don't remember any one from the English side of the ocean testifying about the pictures. But I do remember the plaintiff's expert testify that it was only his opinon they were not doctored and he testified that with the right amount of motiviation and the right amount money, any picture could be doctored that could pass as real.

To even suggest from a black and white photograph from a news paper that you could determine the type of shoe, the color of the shoe and the sole pattern is beyond belief. Also, your desperation on these photos is just as pathic now as it always been---do you honestly believe these 2 men were the only 2 men on the face of the planet who just didn't bother to look at their photos of Simpson? That all those other men in that picture never looked at their own copies and passed it on to the DA's? Are you really that desperate? Not even a kid would believe these guys! "I just happended to be looking.........after the trial....and I just happened to sell these photos rather then give them to the authorties.... and I just happened to have them verified in London. NY is the home of RPI----what they weren't good enough to verify the picture? What this guy knew they were going to be questioned so he couldn't trust American verifier---only until the civil trial?

Timing is everything Mr. August - the fact that all the questions that the DA's were pummled for in criminal trial were half assed approached in the civil trial doesn't mean they answered. It is just blind people like you who are so desperate not to be wrong, who use words such as "meaningless" when your arguements are massively and totally destroyed by myself and other NG's.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Again you have lied to your self. There is not one shred of evidence that OJ and Paula, even if they had broken up, triggered a murdeous rage. You are basing your lame theory on Paula's testimony in the civil trial. Testimony after she was publically humilated by the testimony of Kalin and at least one other woman. You have the testimony of a woman who basically told Simpson he had a choice - his kids or her and she got pissed when he chose his kids. And your forget Mr. August, the cops knew all about the phone calls between Paula and Simpson. It was they who came up and floated this theory and the defense tore it apart. Also, after the trial, Paula and Simpson did get back together but broke up after a few weeks, so what does this tell you about Paula? That she suddenly decided that after over a year, he was a killer? Or do you think her redneck daddy and brother who were bilking her for money had anything to do with this?

As for shoe photographs. They were not new, the DA's knew about them and each of them made sure in their books they explained in their round about way why they didn't use them.

No, they were never proven to "originals". I don't remember any one from the English side of the ocean testifying about the pictures. But I do remember the plaintiff's expert testify that it was only his opinon they were not doctored and he testified that with the right amount of motiviation and the right amount money, any picture could be doctored that could pass as real.

To even suggest from a black and white photograph from a news paper that you could determine the type of shoe, the color of the shoe and the sole pattern is beyond belief. Also, your desperation on these photos is just as pathic now as it always been---do you honestly believe these 2 men were the only 2 men on the face of the planet who just didn't bother to look at their photos of Simpson? That all those other men in that picture never looked at their own copies and passed it on to the DA's? Are you really that desperate? Not even a kid would believe these guys! "I just happended to be looking.........after the trial....and I just happened to sell these photos rather then give them to the authorties.... and I just happened to have them verified in London. NY is the home of RPI----what they weren't good enough to verify the picture? What this guy knew they were going to be questioned so he couldn't trust American verifier---only until the civil trial?

Timing is everything Mr. August - the fact that all the questions that the DA's were pummled for in criminal trial were half assed approached in the civil trial doesn't mean they answered. It is just blind people like you who are so desperate not to be wrong, who use words such as "meaningless" when your arguements are massively and totally destroyed by myself and other NG's.


limakey, Kaelin first testified in the criminal trial that Simpson had told him that Paula was upset because she wanted to go to the recital but Simpson wanted to go on his own. The prosecutors didn't know anything about the telephone message Paula left for Simpson that Sunday morning and Simpson's defense never disclosed it. It wasn't until Paula's deposition in preparation for the civil trial that this information came out when Paula made the astonishing revelation admitting that her relationship with Simpson ended on the same day he killed Nicole and Ron.

In the civil trial Simpson's telephone records were produced documenting Simpson called his message center after returning from his daughter's recital and listened to Paula's message. Despite this documented evidence and Dr. Lenore Walker's notes that Simpson had told her he had done that, Simpson lied on the witness stand and would not admit that he had ever heard Paula's message. Simpson knew how incriminating it was and the lies Cochran told the criminal trial jury.

The over thirty Flammer photographs were not known to the prosecutors at the time of the criminal trial. It wasn't until after Simpson first testified that Petrocelli had been flooded with photos and videos from people all over the country, all showing Simpson wearing shoes. It was also at that time that one of the plaintiffs lawyers received a tip and met with the Buffalo Bills sports information director who then put him in touch with a photographer E. J. Flammer, who put him in touch with his son, E. J. Flammer Jr. who showed him the pictures. Thirty photographs taken in September 1993 at a football game honoring Simpson for his record run. Thirty photographs all showing Simpson posing with different members of the Monday Morning Quarterback Club and dignitaries from the Buffalo Bills. All showing Simpson wearing the same clothing and the same Bruno Magli shoes that were consistent with making the bloody shoe prints at Bundy that the Scull photographs showed. One of Flammer's photographs was published in monthly publication in November 1993.

The Scull photograph became public when it was published in the National Enquirer after the criminal trial. The Scull photographs and negatives and the Flammer photographs and negatives were all authenticated by experts. It's obvious from your comments that you really don't know anything about them or the testimony and supporting evidence that proved they were authentic or the blatant lies Simpson told under oath in the civil trial regarding them.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Keep dreaming and when did the English guys testify?

[weezer]

You have the testimony of a woman who basically told Simpson he had a choice - his kids or her and she got pissed when he chose his kids.

when do you think she told him this? I mean, you believe orenthal's statements that he and paula had not broken up, so, when do you think she give him the ultimatum?

And if he chose his children over her, do you find it odd that he didn't have any contact with his small children for days and days after the murders? Do you find it odd that he was willing/ready to kill himself over Nicole's death and leave those children he chose over paula orphans?

[weezer]

. . .the cops knew all about the phone calls between Paula and Simpson. It was they who came up and floated this theory and the defense tore it apart.

I don't believe you have your facts right.

[weezer]

Timing is everything Mr. August - the fact that all the questions that the DA's were pummled for in criminal trial were half assed approached in the civil trial doesn't mean they answered. It is just blind people like you who are so desperate not to be wrong, who use words such as "meaningless" when your arguements are massively and totally destroyed by myself and other NG's.

you are fooling yourself if you think your fantasy theories and unsubstatiated posts destroy facts, you are massively and totally wrong. IMOO

[weezer]

Mr. August,

Keep dreaming and when did the English guys testify?

WTH???????????????

[socaldiva]

Mr. August,

Keep dreaming and when did the English guys testify?

Bob isn't dreaming, his posts are based on facts & testimony from the case. As for the "English guys", I have no idea what you are talking about :shrug:

[jotun]

Please, I ALSO ASKED YOU TO NOT INCLUDE ME AS "ALL" IN YOUR POSTS. I am not the least bit interested in what you have to say or post. Thus, maybe you could say, "ALL, except 2L8 4A D8!" would be a start! Thanks!

JMO and MOO!!

2

IMO
Since my reply and martin's thanks plus my WHY have been DELETED. Will try again.
If you are "not the least bit interested' in my posts. Don't read them.
Place jotun on ignore.

As for asking me not to include you in ALL, you are NOT included.
ALL is for ALL interested.
No, I won't post ALL except 2.

You are very welcome.

IMO IMO IMO

jotun

[limakey]

Taz,

I never said that Kato was lying about this. I agree with you that he had no reason to lie about this. I also agree with you that Arnelle had no reason to lie about this. However, since there are no "records" to confirm either account, we will never know.

BTW, even if there were records to confirm this, it doesn't mean either one of them were lying.

[martin II]

when do you think she told him this? I mean, you believe orenthal's statements that he and paula had not broken up, so, when do you think she give him the ultimatum?

And if he chose his children over her, do you find it odd that he didn't have any contact with his small children for days and days after the murders? Do you find it odd that he was willing/ready to kill himself over Nicole's death and leave those children he chose over paula orphans?

wezer
It has been reported that Paula and Oj were at some big fundraiser on saturday night acting like a perfect couple. It is my belief that Paula told oj that she wanted to go to the sunday recital either that night or sunday morning and this is when oj told her NO which led her to become angry and do what she did. all of this is my opinion.

martin II

[PeterPaul]

wezer
It has been reported that Paula and Oj were at some big fundraiser on saturday night acting like a perfect couple. It is my belief that Paula told oj that she wanted to go to the sunday recital either that night or sunday morning and this is when oj told her NO which led her to become angry and do what she did. all of this is my opinion.

martin II

I have kind of the same understanding. In the civil trial there was a guy and I can't remember his name that said that OJ and Paula got into a big fight that night and I think it's probably because Paula got mad at OJ for not being able to go to the recital.

Do you think that OJ was still in love with Nicole? see, I think he was even though he knew they couldn't be together. I think OJ was always gonna love Nicole and that she was always gonna love him.

[martin II]

Mr. August,

Again you have lied to your self. There is not one shred of evidence that OJ and Paula, even if they had broken up, triggered a murdeous rage. You are basing your lame theory on Paula's testimony in the civil trial. Testimony after she was publically humilated by the testimony of Kalin and at least one other woman. You have the testimony of a woman who basically told Simpson he had a choice - his kids or her and she got pissed when he chose his kids. And your forget Mr. August, the cops knew all about the phone calls between Paula and Simpson. It was they who came up and floated this theory and the defense tore it apart. Also, after the trial, Paula and Simpson did get back together but broke up after a few weeks, so what does this tell you about Paula? That she suddenly decided that after over a year, he was a killer? Or do you think her redneck daddy and brother who were bilking her for money had anything to do with this?

As for shoe photographs. They were not new, the DA's knew about them and each of them made sure in their books they explained in their round about way why they didn't use them.

No, they were never proven to "originals". I don't remember any one from the English side of the ocean testifying about the pictures. But I do remember the plaintiff's expert testify that it was only his opinon they were not doctored and he testified that with the right amount of motiviation and the right amount money, any picture could be doctored that could pass as real.

To even suggest from a black and white photograph from a news paper that you could determine the type of shoe, the color of the shoe and the sole pattern is beyond belief. Also, your desperation on these photos is just as pathic now as it always been---do you honestly believe these 2 men were the only 2 men on the face of the planet who just didn't bother to look at their photos of Simpson? That all those other men in that picture never looked at their own copies and passed it on to the DA's? Are you really that desperate? Not even a kid would believe these guys! "I just happended to be looking.........after the trial....and I just happened to sell these photos rather then give them to the authorties.... and I just happened to have them verified in London. NY is the home of RPI----what they weren't good enough to verify the picture? What this guy knew they were going to be questioned so he couldn't trust American verifier---only until the civil trial?

Timing is everything Mr. August - the fact that all the questions that the DA's were pummled for in criminal trial were half assed approached in the civil trial doesn't mean they answered. It is just blind people like you who are so desperate not to be wrong, who use words such as "meaningless" when your arguements are massively and totally destroyed by myself and other NG's.

limakey
thanks again for a very good post.
There was never any photo of a complete shoe sole on any shoes oj wore in any picture.
SO it was never possible to match that sole with any shoe prints found at bundy. ONLY suggestions.

martin II

[martin II]

I have kind of the same understanding. In the civil trial there was a guy and I can't remember his name that said that OJ and Paula got into a big fight that night and I think it's probably because Paula got mad at OJ for not being able to go to the recital.

Do you think that OJ was still in love with Nicole? see, I think he was even though he knew they couldn't be together. I think OJ was always gonna love Nicole and that she was always gonna love him.

peter paul
I agree with your post.

I think that oj and nicole both loved each other
but i also believe that nicole had decided to have her freedom for some time longer before asking oj to allow her to return again. But i also believe that oj had moved on with his life and had decided that it did not have to include nicole. I also belive that in their own ways both of them were controlling of each other by their actions and nicole definately knew how to push oj's buttons.jmoo

The letter from Oj's lawyer advising Nicole not to use oj'S house on her IRS sceme was proof to me that Oj was finished with Nicole or at least teling her she could not have her way any longer. jmoo

[bobaugust]

limakey
thanks again for a very good post.
There was never any photo of a complete shoe sole on any shoes oj wore in any picture.
SO it was never possible to match that sole with any shoe prints found at bundy. ONLY suggestions.

martin II

martin II, the testimony was that all Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes had Silga soles specifically made for them. Over thirty authenticated photographs taken by two different photographs show Simpson wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. One of those photographs shows enough of the upper sole of one of the shoes he was wearing to positively identify the pattern of the sole as the same Silga sole consistent with making the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, the testimony was that all Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes had Silga soles specifically made for them. Over thirty authenticated photographs taken by two different photographs show Simpson wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. One of those photographs shows enough of the upper sole of one of the shoes he was wearing to positively identify the pattern of the sole as the same Silga sole consistent with making the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

bobaugust

bob
you lost me

'UPPER SOLE'?

I assume from your post that you do agree that there was never any
picture of a complete sole of any shoe on oj in any picture.

martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
you lost me

'UPPER SOLE'?

I assume from your post that you do agree that there was never any
picture of a complete sole of any shoe on oj in any picture.

martin II

martin II, upper part of the sole. That's correct there wasn't a photograph of the complete sole but that wasn't necessary for Bodziak to identify the Silga sole in the photograph since all Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes had this particular Silga sole. Bodziak had a pair of Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes with Silga soles that he compared the photograph to. The same Silga sole that was consistent with making the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, upper part of the sole. That's correct there wasn't a photograph of the complete sole but that wasn't necessary for Bodziak to identify the Silga sole in the photograph since all Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes had this particular Silga sole. Bodziak had a pair of Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes with Silga soles that he compared the photograph to. The same Silga sole that was consistent with making the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

bobaugust

bob
do you mean upper thickness of the sole the part that is glued to the uppers?? or do you mean front part of the sole (toe area)

From what i remember of the picture Oj is standing on two feet he makes a small stride and a few inches of the fromt part of one sole can be seen in the distance but never even half of the sole for id purposes.

martin II

[martin II]

martin II, the testimony was that all Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes had Silga soles specifically made for them. Over thirty authenticated photographs taken by two different photographs show Simpson wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. One of those photographs shows enough of the upper sole of one of the shoes he was wearing to positively identify the pattern of the sole as the same Silga sole consistent with making the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

bobaugust

bob
don't forget the LORDS line of shoes that used the same Silga sole and sold around the world.
martin II

[socaldiva]

bob
don't forget the LORDS line of shoes that used the same Silga sole and sold around the world.
martin II

This has been posted SO MANY times before. Orenthal was photographed in the BM shoes. The Silga print at Bundy was in his size & reflected that he is pidgeon toed IIRC. Are you really going to say that all of these factors are merely a coincidence?

[bobaugust]

bob
don't forget the LORDS line of shoes that used the same Silga sole and sold around the world.
martin II

martin II, that fact that some other shoes distributed outside this county also had Silga soles doesn't change the fact that Simpson owned and wore the exact kind of shoes that were consistent with leaving the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. Shoes that Simpson later lied about wearing. That fact as well as the fact that all of the other physical evidence the killer left at Bundy all points only to Simpson including Simpson's fresh blood being at the murder scene is additional proof that Simpson was the killer.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bob
do you mean upper thickness of the sole the part that is glued to the uppers?? or do you mean front part of the sole (toe area)

From what i remember of the picture Oj is standing on two feet he makes a small stride and a few inches of the fromt part of one sole can be seen in the distance but never even half of the sole for id purposes.

martin II

martin II, Bodziak conclusively determined that the bloody shoe prints were consistent with having been made by Silga soles. The same Silga soles that were used exclusively in the manufacturing of Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. Bodziak also conclusively determined that the Scull and the Flammer photographs show Simpson wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes.

Triumph of Justice,
"Scull had taken a marvelous picture of Simpson. In a phenomenal stroke of good luck for us and rotten luck for Simpson the print in the end zone reflected up from the ground and revealed the pattern on the sole of the right shoe. After receiving permission from the FBI we gave the print to Bill Bodziak. Using high resolution photography
techniques Bodziak was able to blow up the photo and actually see the Silga sole treads, the same pattern as the bloody shoeprints leading down the footpath away from Nicole's and Ron's bodies."

bobaugust

[limakey]

Martin,

Something interesting about the shoes---the only country who had those shoes in their data base was Japan---Hank Goldberg's book.

There is no proof that Simpson ever owned those shoes.

[socaldiva]

Martin,

Something interesting about the shoes---the only country who had those shoes in their data base was Japan---Hank Goldberg's book.

There is no proof that Simpson ever owned those shoes.

I read Goldberg's book & I don't recall reading this.....


Simpson was photographed wearing the shoes & we have the prints left at Bundy. I'd say that was powerful evidence of his wearing/owning the shoes.

[martin II]

Martin,

Something interesting about the shoes---the only country who had those shoes in their data base was Japan---Hank Goldberg's book.

There is no proof that Simpson ever owned those shoes.

limakey
i agree

oj was never seen or photpgraphed in the shoes that made the prints at bundy. It was a clever trick attenpted by the prosecution but it falied.
It did fool some people but not all by any means.
jmoo
martinII

[socaldiva]

*snip*

oj was never seen or photpgraphed in the shoes that made the prints at bundy. It was a clever trick attenpted by the prosecution but it falied.


Of course OJ was photographed in those shoes, as evidenced in the civil trial. The photos hadn't yet surfaced during the criminal trial, so there was "no clever trick" by the prosecution. I don't think they have prosecutors in the civil trial. ;) Orenthal was found liable in the civil case, so I don't classify that as "failure".

[martin II]

MR. GOLDBERG: And when was the last time, if you can give us an estimate, that you would have sold shoes to the Defendant?

MR. Poser: I believe it was--I believe it was early `92, but that is--you know, in the wintertime of `92, I believe.

MR. GOLDBERG: And over this period of time that you say that the shoes were generally dress casual shoes?

MR. Poser: Yes.





MR. BAILEY: Did he ask you whether or not the boot that you had told him about was similar to the shoe he was showing you?

MR. Poser: Yes, he did.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And did you tell him, no, it was not?

MR. Poser: I said I did not--

MR. GOLDBERG: Still calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. Poser: I told him that I did not recall selling the Lorenzo boot to Mr. Simpson. I also said that for the use in buffalo, I probably would not have sold Mr. Simpson the Lorenzo boot for the climatic conditions that were there.

MR. BAILEY: Exactly. It would not do well in slush, snow and mud, would it?

MR. Poser: Correct.

MR. BAILEY: Now, you mentioned the size of Mr. Simpson's shoes. Do you know if he always bought the same size or whether it varied from manufacturer to manufacturer?

MR. Poser: As far as I know he bought the same--he bought the same size. I remember it to be a 12.

MR. BAILEY: On how many different occasions did you fit him with new shoes?

MR. Poser: About four or five as he came



http://walraven.org/simpson/jun20.html

[socaldiva]

*snip*

MR. Poser: I told him that I did not recall selling the Lorenzo boot to Mr. Simpson. I also said that for the use in buffalo, I probably would not have sold Mr. Simpson the Lorenzo boot for the climatic conditions that were there.



So he doesn't recall. That's not a definitive answer in my book. :shrug:

As for him "probably not " selling Simpson that shoe because of the climatic conditions, Orenthal lived in Los Angeles at that time IIRC.

[martin II]

MR. GOLDBERG: And shortly after you started, let's say, around the winter season in 1990, did you see a Mr. Orenthal Simpson come into the store in the New York Bloomingdales?

MR. Poser: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you first saw him, did you recognize him?

MR. Poser: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: As being Mr. Simpson?

MR. Poser: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And do you see him in court today?

MR. Poser: Yes, I do.

MR. Poser: Certainly. At one time he came in, he was about to do a broadcast for a bills game in buffalo and he needed a boot to wear for the bills game and I remember selling that--assisting in the sale, selling it to him.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And other than that, do you have any other specific recollections in terms of the types of shoes?

MR. Poser: Umm, he bought--he liked to buy dress casual shoes, not shoes to wear with jeans and so on.

http://walraven.org/simpson/jun20.html

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
MR. Poser: Umm, he bought--he liked to buy dress casual shoes, not shoes to wear with jeans and so on.


I fail to see what this proves. In the photos of him wearing what is believed to be BM shoes, he is not wearing jeans IIRC, he is wearing slacks & a sports coat. I would classify BM as a "dress casual shoe". jmo

[weezer]

I have kind of the same understanding. In the civil trial there was a guy and I can't remember his name that said that OJ and Paula got into a big fight that night and I think it's probably because Paula got mad at OJ for not being able to go to the recital.

Do you think that OJ was still in love with Nicole? see, I think he was even though he knew they couldn't be together. I think OJ was always gonna love Nicole and that she was always gonna love him.

if that is what happened between orenthal and paula, wonder why he lied about it?

orenthal didn't love Nicole. You don't butcher someone you love. orenthal was obsessed with possession and he believed Nicole was his possession. Nicole didn't love orenthal -- she was terrified of him.

All of this is my understanding and opinion.

[limakey]

PeterPaul,

There was no evidence that OJ and Paula had a big fight that night. The DA's went at this angle in a very strange way. They wanted the jury to believe that OJ was so enraged when Paula didn't answer his phone call, that he decided to kill Nicole.

I believe OJ did love Nicole and I believe Nicole loved OJ. However, OJ could never give Nicole back what she needed most in a relationship and that was trust and being faithful. I think Nicole was always going to love OJ no matter how hard she tried not to.

There were hard feelings between OJ and Paula about his relationship with Nicole and the kids. Didn't OJ tell Kato that day that Paula wanted to go to the dance, OJ said no and that he didn't think Paula "was the one?".

People forget that Paula took the break up very badly when OJ went back to Nicole. I would think that she would want more of a committment the second time around. I think she gave Simpson an "either/or" and left town.

I would think that when she heard the testimony in the criminal trial that she felt all that great. IMO.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

There was no evidence that OJ and Paula had a big fight that night. The DA's went at this angle in a very strange way. They wanted the jury to believe that OJ was so enraged when Paula didn't answer his phone call, that he decided to kill Nicole.


There was evidence that Paula left a message dumping Orenthal & he heard it & lied about, saying he never heard it.

The DA's did not claim that OJ killed Nicole because Paula didn't answer his call.

[Heyes]

I have kind of the same understanding. In the civil trial there was a guy and I can't remember his name that said that OJ and Paula got into a big fight that night and I think it's probably because Paula got mad at OJ for not being able to go to the recital.

Do you think that OJ was still in love with Nicole? see, I think he was even though he knew they couldn't be together. I think OJ was always gonna love Nicole and that she was always gonna love him.

Interesting.... I always though oranthal felt he possessed Nicole.

[Heyes]

limakey
i agree

oj was never seen or photpgraphed in the shoes that made the prints at bundy. It was a clever trick attenpted by the prosecution but it falied.
It did fool some people but not all by any means.
jmoo
martinII

If I remember correctly those pictures were published before the murders. Hence he was nailed and he did own and wore the ugly ***** shoes.

[limakey]

Heyes,

In order to believe that the DA's didn't know about the pictures is to believe that no one who ever had his picture taken with OJ Simpson did not go back and look at them and did not give copies to the DA's.
I think it was in Chris Darden's book where he said they sent people to Buffalo to look at every picture that was taken of him in the area. I haven't read his book for a long time but I think that was pretty much it. I think he also said you had to be careful with photos. Again, I don't have his book to look this up.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I think he also said you had to be careful with photos.


I read Chris Darden's book & I don't recall him saying any such thing, unless you've taken it out of context. JMO

[Kate Sachel]

PeterPaul,

There was no evidence that OJ and Paula had a big fight that night. The DA's went at this angle in a very strange way. They wanted the jury to believe that OJ was so enraged when Paula didn't answer his phone call, that he decided to kill Nicole.

I believe OJ did love Nicole and I believe Nicole loved OJ. However, OJ could never give Nicole back what she needed most in a relationship and that was trust and being faithful. I think Nicole was always going to love OJ no matter how hard she tried not to.

There were hard feelings between OJ and Paula about his relationship with Nicole and the kids. Didn't OJ tell Kato that day that Paula wanted to go to the dance, OJ said no and that he didn't think Paula "was the one?".

People forget that Paula took the break up very badly when OJ went back to Nicole. I would think that she would want more of a committment the second time around. I think she gave Simpson an "either/or" and left town.

I would think that when she heard the testimony in the criminal trial that she felt all that great. IMO.

There was evidence. I believe that two people testified to it during depositions with Dan Petrocelli in the civil trial.

I don't think that the phone call from Paula was the one and only thing that set OJ off enough to kill that night, I think it was a culmination of variables that were happening throughout the weeks prior to the murders.

It is obvious in my opinion, and has been proven, that OJ Simpson had quite a temper and had displayed rageful behavior on numerous occassions. Given this, I find it interesting that there are individuals who find it difficult to believe that a chain of events that were unfavorable to OJ might actually set him off.

Kate

[weezer]

Heyes,

In order to believe that the DA's didn't know about the pictures is to believe that no one who ever had his picture taken with OJ Simpson did not go back and look at them and did not give copies to the DA's.
I think it was in Chris Darden's book where he said they sent people to Buffalo to look at every picture that was taken of him in the area. I haven't read his book for a long time but I think that was pretty much it. I think he also said you had to be careful with photos. Again, I don't have his book to look this up.

the fact of the matter is, the 30+ authenticated photos of orenthal wearing the BM's months before the murders did surface and did prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he owned and wore the same model and size that left his bloody footprints on the night he murdered two human beings.

[martin II]

the fact of the matter is, the 30+ authenticated photos of orenthal wearing the BM's months before the murders did surface and did prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he owned and wore the same model and size that left his bloody footprints on the night he murdered two human beings.

weezer
if this is a fact can you please give a link to the 30 photographs.
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
if this is a fact can you please give a link to the 30 photographs.
martin II

http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/06/simpson/

[martin II]

http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/06/simpson/

weezer

when you said 30 photographs i assumed that is what you had a link to and that these links would show the complete botton of the shoe sole for comparison. i cannot see the bottom of the shoe sole in your picture for comparison.
martin II

[socaldiva]

weezer

when you said 30 photographs i assumed that is what you had a link to and that these links would show the complete botton of the shoe sole for comparison. i cannot see the bottom of the shoe sole in your picture for comparison.
martin II

You would expect to see the "complete bottom of the shoe" in a photograph of him walking in the shoes? :confused:

[bobaugust]

weezer

when you said 30 photographs i assumed that is what you had a link to and that these links would show the complete botton of the shoe sole for comparison. i cannot see the bottom of the shoe sole in your picture for comparison.
martin II

martin II, The over thirty Flammer photographs show Simpson wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. All Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes were manufactured specifically with Silga soles. The same exact kind of soles that made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

None of the Flammer photographs showed the bottom of the shoe sole, only one of Scull's photographs showed that.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, The over thirty Flammer photographs show Simpson wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. All Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes were manufactured specifically with Silga soles. The same exact kind of soles that made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

None of the Flammer photographs showed the bottom of the shoe sole, only one of Scull's photographs showed that.

bobaugust

bob
what i have been trying to find is oj standing as he was in the picture, with both feet on the ground and the bottom of the shoe sole is clearly seen for comparison. I don't believe a comparison of the murder soles can be made if there is no clear picture showing the complete sole of the shoe oj had on at buffalo standing on both feet.
imo
martin II

[weezer]

bob
what i have been trying to find is oj standing as he was in the picture, with both feet on the ground and the bottom of the shoe sole is clearly seen for comparison. I don't believe a comparison of the murder soles can be made if there is no clear picture showing the complete sole of the shoe oj had on at buffalo standing on both feet.
imo
martin II

IF you find a picture of orenthal standing with both feet on the ground and the bottom of the shoe sole clearly seen, I hope you will let us all know. ;)

[martin II]

IF you find a picture of orenthal standing with both feet on the ground and the bottom of the shoe sole clearly seen, I hope you will let us all know. ;)

if there is one, then a comparison to the footprints made at bundy can be made. if not then someone is just guessing about what the sole of the shoe in the picture you gave me
looked like.imo

martin II

[socaldiva]

if there is one, then a comparison to the footprints made at bundy can be made. if not then someone is just guessing about what the sole of the shoe in the picture you gave me
looked like.imo

martin II

There was a photgraph with the top portion of the shoe showing & that was used for comparison by the shoe expert. Have you forgotten this?

[weezer]

if there is one, then a comparison to the footprints made at bundy can be made. if not then someone is just guessing about what the sole of the shoe in the picture you gave me
looked like.imo

martin II

what do you think the chances are that it was someone else wearing the exact size shoe orenthal wears (slightly pigeon-toed), wearing the model shoe orenthal was pictured wearing months before, and dripping orenthal's blood from the left hand was there instead of orenthal?

[weezer]

if there is one, then a comparison to the footprints made at bundy can be made. if not then someone is just guessing about what the sole of the shoe in the picture you gave me
looked like.imo

martin II

didn't have to guess -- it was a fact. orenthal was wearing BM's on the night he murdered two human beings.

[martin II]

what do you think the chances are that it was someone else wearing the exact size shoe orenthal wears (slightly pigeon-toed), wearing the model shoe orenthal was pictured wearing months before, and dripping orenthal's blood from the left hand was there instead of orenthal?

weezer

The problem is that after a intense search at the store where oj baught his shoes was made by lapd. The shoe department manager, oj's regular shoe sales person could not verify that oj ever baught the lorenzo shoe from him and stated that he would never have suggested oj buy that shoe for the job he was going on in Buffalo n.y. I posted Mr posners testimony in a link a page or two above if you need to read it.

no sales slip no poof at all. Just prosecution suggestions.

martin II

[weezer]

weezer

The problem is that after a intense search at the store where oj baught his shoes was made by lapd. The shoe department manager, oj's regular shoe sales person could not verify that oj ever baught the lorenzo shoe from him and stated that he would never have suggested oj buy that shoe for the job he was going on in Buffalo n.y. I posted Mr posners testimony in a link a page or two above if you need to read it.

no sales slip no poof at all. Just prosecution suggestions.

martin II

did you know that Nicole had bought BM's for herself?

[martin II]

did you know that Nicole had bought BM's for herself?

is this an attempt to streatch . hahaha

i gues j.cochran, f.l. Bailey and Arnell each baught a pair.

martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
what i have been trying to find is oj standing as he was in the picture, with both feet on the ground and the bottom of the shoe sole is clearly seen for comparison. I don't believe a comparison of the murder soles can be made if there is no clear picture showing the complete sole of the shoe oj had on at buffalo standing on both feet.
imo
martin II

martin II, all Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes were manufactured with Silga soles. The exact kind of Silga soles that made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. That's what Bodziak's investigation concluded when he used the pattern of the bloody shoe prints to track down the soles and the shoes those soles were manufactured for.

Bodziak made comparisons of the shoes and the sole of the shoe Simpson was shown to be wearing in the Scull photograph and he conclusively identified them as Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes with Silga soles. The same pattern soles that left the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. Bodziak also made comparisons of the shoes Simpson was shown to be wearing in the Flammer photographs and found them to be the same shoes as shown in the Scull photographs. In the civil trial Simpson's defense stipulated to this fact.

I will be happy to post Bodziak's detailed comparison for you if you wish.

January 16, 1997
THE COURT: Is there some difference between the two shoes that are in the photographs?
MR. PETROCELLI: No.
THE COURT: Then why are we going through the same motion twice?
MR. MEDVENE: We believe there is not, sir. And if Mr. Simpson's side is willing to agree that Bruno Magli shoes are depicted in the Flammer photos, there will be no need to go through this.
MR. LEONARD: Stipulate.
MS. BLUESTEIN: Stipulate.
MR. PETROCELLI: They stipulate.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MEDVENE: So the defense stipulates that the shoes in the Flammer photos are Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes, the same shoes that are shown in the Scull photo as being worn by Mr. Simpson?
MR. LEONARD: Same style shoes, Your Honor.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

weezer

The problem is that after a intense search at the store where oj baught his shoes was made by lapd. The shoe department manager, oj's regular shoe sales person could not verify that oj ever baught the lorenzo shoe from him and stated that he would never have suggested oj buy that shoe for the job he was going on in Buffalo n.y. I posted Mr posners testimony in a link a page or two above if you need to read it.

no sales slip no poof at all. Just prosecution suggestions.

martin II

martin II, It's not necessary to know exactly when, where, or how Simpson obtained Bruno Magli shoes to understand the reality that over thirty authenticated photographs document him wearing those kind of shoes.

The important fact learned from Posner's testimony is that Simpson wore size 12 shoes and would have worn size 12 Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes. The same size shoes that left the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

bobaugust

[weezer]

is this an attempt to streatch . hahaha

i gues j.cochran, f.l. Bailey and Arnell each baught a pair.

martin II

Lange/Vannatter; Evidence Dismissed; p215-216: "Without knowing which pair of Bruno Maglis has made the bloody shoe prints - or any mention of their significance to the Simpson case - Dominique points to a black low-cut pair of shoes on the display, saying that she had seen Simpson wearing them around Easter 1994. It is the right choice, according to the FBI's analysis.

After making that selection, Dominique continues to examine the photo display and points to the official Bruno Magli logo, saying, 'I've seen that before too. Nicole owned a pair of Bruno Magli pumps.'

Lange is unaware that Bruno Magli makes women's shoes. When he expresses some skepticism about this, Dominique replies, 'Sure, they do. I have those shoes. In fact, I'm wearing Nicole's shoes.' When Dominique sees the surprise on Lange's face, she takes off one of her shoes and hands it to him, showing him the Bruno Magli logo that she has just seen in the photo display. 'Nicole,' she adds, 'bought them in New York.'"

wonder if she bought orenthal a pair too?

[martin II]

Lange/Vannatter; Evidence Dismissed; p215-216: "Without knowing which pair of Bruno Maglis has made the bloody shoe prints - or any mention of their significance to the Simpson case - Dominique points to a black low-cut pair of shoes on the display, saying that she had seen Simpson wearing them around Easter 1994. It is the right choice, according to the FBI's analysis.

After making that selection, Dominique continues to examine the photo display and points to the official Bruno Magli logo, saying, 'I've seen that before too. Nicole owned a pair of Bruno Magli pumps.'

Lange is unaware that Bruno Magli makes women's shoes. When he expresses some skepticism about this, Dominique replies, 'Sure, they do. I have those shoes. In fact, I'm wearing Nicole's shoes.' When Dominique sees the surprise on Lange's face, she takes off one of her shoes and hands it to him, showing him the Bruno Magli logo that she has just seen in the photo display. 'Nicole,' she adds, 'bought them in New York.'"

wonder if she bought orenthal a pair too?


weezer
i am pleased that you added WONDER to your statement. Remember the store manager said he always sold oj his shoes in new york not his wife or sister inlaw.imo
martin II

martin II

[weezer]

weezer
i am pleased that you added WONDER to your statement. Remember the store manager said he always sold oj his shoes in new york not his wife or sister inlaw.imo
martin II

martin II

what he actually said was that he'd sold orenthal shoes 4-5 times, they were always a size 12, and that he wouldn't have recommended them for Buffalo. And he wasn't asked about selling shoes to Nicole but obviously she had bought a pair for herself.

I'm just wondering if Nicole bought the shoes since she was the one to buy the gloves.

[martin II]

Lange/Vannatter; Evidence Dismissed; p215-216: "Without knowing which pair of Bruno Maglis has made the bloody shoe prints - or any mention of their significance to the Simpson case - Dominique points to a black low-cut pair of shoes on the display, saying that she had seen Simpson wearing them around Easter 1994. It is the right choice, according to the FBI's analysis.

After making that selection, Dominique continues to examine the photo display and points to the official Bruno Magli logo, saying, 'I've seen that before too. Nicole owned a pair of Bruno Magli pumps.'

Lange is unaware that Bruno Magli makes women's shoes. When he expresses some skepticism about this, Dominique replies, 'Sure, they do. I have those shoes. In fact, I'm wearing Nicole's shoes.' When Dominique sees the surprise on Lange's face, she takes off one of her shoes and hands it to him, showing him the Bruno Magli logo that she has just seen in the photo display. 'Nicole,' she adds, 'bought them in New York.'"

wonder if she bought orenthal a pair too?

weezer
before you put too much faith in the FBI lab expertes testimony or work product, you may want to review the report of the IG investigation of the FBI lab.
see below.

FBI LAB

The Inspector General stresses that he only looked at 3 out of the lab's 23 lab units. Yet the types of problems he found suggest a rampant "culture" of substandard work and deliberate deception, where poorly-trained FBI agents would testify wrapped in a mantle of near-infallibility. Among the IG's most troubling findings are the following types of folly and wrongdoing.(11)

Scientifically flawed and inaccurate testimony.

Testimony beyond the examiner's expertise.

Outright fabrication of test results.

Tampering with lab reports.

Inadequate or nonexistent record-keeping and test result documentation. Unqualified examiners, with little training and little or no formal education in

their assigned areas of expertise.

Failure by management to resolve serious and credible allegations of incompetence.

Already we know that FBI Lab incompetence and bias have forced prosecutors to forgo use of what could have been important evidence in a number of high-profile cases. For example, Robert Cleary, the lead prosecutor in United States v. Kaczynski, the so-called "Unabomb case," has been forced to repudiate work done by the lab in that case and has asked for new explosive experts from outside the FBI to re-examine the evidence.(12) What has been identified as incredibly shoddy work performed by FBI examiner David R. Williams and his supervisor J. Thomas Thurman has forced prosecutors in the Oklahoma City cases to do the same.(13)

More disturbing still, the IG's investigation indicates that misconduct and incompetent testimony occurs not just in high-profile cases, where there is bound to be the most pressure from prosecutors. The lab's culture of deception is apparently so pervasive that even the "little cases" are corrupted, involving the far greater number of ordinary Americans. For example, FBI examiner Roger Martz, of the FBI's Chemistry and Toxicology Unit, testified under oath in State v. Trepal that Coca Cola found in the murder victim's home had been laced with the rat poison thallium nitrate, and that a quantity of thallium nitrate had been found in defendant George Trepal's garage. But the IG's investigation proved that Martz did not perform the tests needed to conclude the soft drink contained thallium nitrate.(14) Such misconduct in a state prosecution

[weezer]

weezer
before you put too much faith in the FBI lab expertes testimony or work product, you may want to review the report of the IG investigation of the FBI lab.
see below.

FBI LAB

The Inspector General stresses that he only looked at 3 out of the lab's 23 lab units. Yet the types of problems he found suggest a rampant "culture" of substandard work and deliberate deception, where poorly-trained FBI agents would testify wrapped in a mantle of near-infallibility. Among the IG's most troubling findings are the following types of folly and wrongdoing.(11)

Scientifically flawed and inaccurate testimony.

Testimony beyond the examiner's expertise.

Outright fabrication of test results.

Tampering with lab reports.

Inadequate or nonexistent record-keeping and test result documentation. Unqualified examiners, with little training and little or no formal education in

their assigned areas of expertise.

Failure by management to resolve serious and credible allegations of incompetence.

Already we know that FBI Lab incompetence and bias have forced prosecutors to forgo use of what could have been important evidence in a number of high-profile cases. For example, Robert Cleary, the lead prosecutor in United States v. Kaczynski, the so-called "Unabomb case," has been forced to repudiate work done by the lab in that case and has asked for new explosive experts from outside the FBI to re-examine the evidence.(12) What has been identified as incredibly shoddy work performed by FBI examiner David R. Williams and his supervisor J. Thomas Thurman has forced prosecutors in the Oklahoma City cases to do the same.(13)

More disturbing still, the IG's investigation indicates that misconduct and incompetent testimony occurs not just in high-profile cases, where there is bound to be the most pressure from prosecutors. The lab's culture of deception is apparently so pervasive that even the "little cases" are corrupted, involving the far greater number of ordinary Americans. For example, FBI examiner Roger Martz, of the FBI's Chemistry and Toxicology Unit, testified under oath in State v. Trepal that Coca Cola found in the murder victim's home had been laced with the rat poison thallium nitrate, and that a quantity of thallium nitrate had been found in defendant George Trepal's garage. But the IG's investigation proved that Martz did not perform the tests needed to conclude the soft drink contained thallium nitrate.(14) Such misconduct in a state prosecution

I don't see anything in that report that says his testimony in the simpson trial was wrong. Do you?

what do you think the odds are that the expert would testify that the prints were made by BM shoes in a size 12, orenthal denies owning any shoes like that, and then, BAM, 30+ authenticated photos of orenthal wearing BM's?

[weezer]

weezer
before you put too much faith in the FBI lab expertes testimony or work product, you may want to review the report of the IG investigation of the FBI lab.
see below.

FBI LAB

The Inspector General stresses that he only looked at 3 out of the lab's 23 lab units. Yet the types of problems he found suggest a rampant "culture" of substandard work and deliberate deception, where poorly-trained FBI agents would testify wrapped in a mantle of near-infallibility. Among the IG's most troubling findings are the following types of folly and wrongdoing.(11)

Scientifically flawed and inaccurate testimony.

Testimony beyond the examiner's expertise.

Outright fabrication of test results.

Tampering with lab reports.

Inadequate or nonexistent record-keeping and test result documentation. Unqualified examiners, with little training and little or no formal education in

their assigned areas of expertise.

Failure by management to resolve serious and credible allegations of incompetence.

Already we know that FBI Lab incompetence and bias have forced prosecutors to forgo use of what could have been important evidence in a number of high-profile cases. For example, Robert Cleary, the lead prosecutor in United States v. Kaczynski, the so-called "Unabomb case," has been forced to repudiate work done by the lab in that case and has asked for new explosive experts from outside the FBI to re-examine the evidence.(12) What has been identified as incredibly shoddy work performed by FBI examiner David R. Williams and his supervisor J. Thomas Thurman has forced prosecutors in the Oklahoma City cases to do the same.(13)

More disturbing still, the IG's investigation indicates that misconduct and incompetent testimony occurs not just in high-profile cases, where there is bound to be the most pressure from prosecutors. The lab's culture of deception is apparently so pervasive that even the "little cases" are corrupted, involving the far greater number of ordinary Americans. For example, FBI examiner Roger Martz, of the FBI's Chemistry and Toxicology Unit, testified under oath in State v. Trepal that Coca Cola found in the murder victim's home had been laced with the rat poison thallium nitrate, and that a quantity of thallium nitrate had been found in defendant George Trepal's garage. But the IG's investigation proved that Martz did not perform the tests needed to conclude the soft drink contained thallium nitrate.(14) Such misconduct in a state prosecution

you do know that it wasn't Martz who testified about the shoes don't you?

[martin II]

weezer
Here is exactlly part of what Poser testified to.in case you need to review.


MR. GOLDBERG: And when was the last time, if you can give us an estimate, that you would have sold shoes to the Defendant?

MR. Poser: I believe it was--I believe it was early `92, but that is--you know, in the wintertime of `92, I believe.

MR. GOLDBERG: And over this period of time that you say that the shoes were generally dress casual shoes?

MR. Poser: Yes.
-----------------------
Here bailey is talking about question of le investigator asked mR Posner.

MR. BAILEY: Did he ask you whether or not the boot that you had told him about was similar to the shoe he was showing you?

MR. Poser: Yes, he did.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And did you tell him, no, it was not?

MR. Poser: I said I did not--

MR. GOLDBERG: Still calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. Poser: I told him that I did not recall selling the Lorenzo boot to Mr. Simpson. I also said that for the use in buffalo, I probably would not have sold Mr. Simpson the Lorenzo boot for the climatic conditions that were there.

MR. BAILEY: Exactly. It would not do well in slush, snow and mud, would it?

MR. Poser: Correct.

MR. BAILEY: Now, you mentioned the size of Mr. Simpson's shoes. Do you know if he always bought the same size or whether it varied from manufacturer to manufacturer?

MR. Poser: As far as I know he bought the same--he bought the same size. I remember it to be a 12.

MR. BAILEY: On how many different occasions did you fit him with new shoes?

MR. Poser: About four or five as he came



http://walraven.org/simpson/jun20.html

[weezer]

weezer
Here is exactlly part of what Poser testified to.in case you need to review.


MR. GOLDBERG: And when was the last time, if you can give us an estimate, that you would have sold shoes to the Defendant?

MR. Poser: I believe it was--I believe it was early `92, but that is--you know, in the wintertime of `92, I believe.

MR. GOLDBERG: And over this period of time that you say that the shoes were generally dress casual shoes?

MR. Poser: Yes.
-----------------------
Here bailey is talking about question of le investigator asked mR Posner.

MR. BAILEY: Did he ask you whether or not the boot that you had told him about was similar to the shoe he was showing you?

MR. Poser: Yes, he did.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And did you tell him, no, it was not?

MR. Poser: I said I did not--

MR. GOLDBERG: Still calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. Poser: I told him that I did not recall selling the Lorenzo boot to Mr. Simpson. I also said that for the use in buffalo, I probably would not have sold Mr. Simpson the Lorenzo boot for the climatic conditions that were there.

MR. BAILEY: Exactly. It would not do well in slush, snow and mud, would it?

MR. Poser: Correct.

MR. BAILEY: Now, you mentioned the size of Mr. Simpson's shoes. Do you know if he always bought the same size or whether it varied from manufacturer to manufacturer?

MR. Poser: As far as I know he bought the same--he bought the same size. I remember it to be a 12.

MR. BAILEY: On how many different occasions did you fit him with new shoes?

MR. Poser: About four or five as he came



http://walraven.org/simpson/jun20.html

not sure what your point was -- you simply used up bandwidth to post what I'd already stated.

[martin II]

you do know that it wasn't Martz who testified about the shoes don't you?

weezer

seems like you missed my point.
i know who testified about the shoes and i have posted his testimnony.
I posted the information from the IG report of the investigaiton of the FBI lab
to show that that lab was not operating on a first class reliable basis as many peopl thought and to show what the investigaiton found about Mr Martz , the guy whoes EDTA testimony was brought into serious quesiton by Dr Reiders.

[martin II]

I don't see anything in that report that says his testimony in the simpson trial was wrong. Do you?

what do you think the odds are that the expert would testify that the prints were made by BM shoes in a size 12, orenthal denies owning any shoes like that, and then, BAM, 30+ authenticated photos of orenthal wearing BM's?

weezer
considering the ig report of the FBI lab. everything is suspect. at lease it was for the IG. unless you think the IG lied on the FBI lab and Martz.
martinii

[weezer]

weezer

seems like you missed my point.
i know who testified about the shoes and i have posted his testimnony.
I posted the information from the IG report of the investigaiton of the FBI lab
to show that that lab was not operating on a first class reliable basis as many peopl thought and to show what the investigaiton found about Mr Martz , the guy whoes EDTA testimony was brought into serious quesiton by Dr Reiders.

and that has what to do with the fact that the shoes were identified as BM's, size 12 and there are authenticated pictures of orenthal wearing size 12 BM's?

can you grasp how meaningless your post is when you consider that the identification of the shoes as being size 12 BM was proven to be just that?

[weezer]

weezer
considering the ig report of the FBI lab. everything is suspect. at lease it was for the IG. unless you think the IG lied on the FBI lab and Martz.
martinii

you didn't answer the question. what do you think the odds are that the expert would testify that the prints were made by BM shoes in a size 12, orenthal denies owning any shoes like that, and then, BAM, 30+ authenticated photos of orenthal wearing BM's?

[martin II]

I don't see anything in that report that says his testimony in the simpson trial was wrong. Do you?

what do you think the odds are that the expert would testify that the prints were made by BM shoes in a size 12, orenthal denies owning any shoes like that, and then, BAM, 30+ authenticated photos of orenthal wearing BM's?

wezzer
again.
here is what the IG report stated about some FBI witness testimony. you decide for your self.

Scientifically flawed and inaccurate testimony.

Testimony beyond the examiner's expertise.

Outright fabrication of test results.

Tampering with lab reports.

[William Anthony]

In your example the person who was driving the car that killed someone would be responsible for their death.

Simpson was found responsible for both deaths because the jury believed he murdered both victims. Their belief was based on the evidence that proved Simpson was the killer and Simpson's lies that confirmed his guilt.

bobaugust

Bobaugust and all those that may have been annoyed,


2L8 4A D8
Criime Library Supreme Member Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NANCY GRACELAND
Posts: 9,653


Quote:
Originally Posted by socaldiva
I think it's humorous too that a poster would offer up a legal riddle that has no bearing on the Simpson case, in an effort to deflect Simpson's guilt.

Yes, and as usual, we just need to consider the source! LOL!



My only point was that, contrary to all the statements otherwise, the civil verdict can never find Simpson guilty of murder, since he remains unicarcerated. I was not trying to set anyone up, just pointing out the legal truth of the matter. I am sorry if legal truths annoy some but that is the marrow of the American system of jurispurdence. Again, I apologize for my belief in our system.

[weezer]

wezzer
again.
here is what the IG report stated about some FBI witness testimony. you decide for your self.

Scientifically flawed and inaccurate testimony.

Testimony beyond the examiner's expertise.

Outright fabrication of test results.

Tampering with lab reports.

unless you have evidence that contradicts Bodziak's testimony regarding the shoe testimony or Martz's testimony regarding the blood evidence in the simpson trial, your post is meaningless.

[martin II]

unless you have evidence that contradicts Bodziak's testimony regarding the shoe testimony or Martz's testimony regarding the blood evidence in the simpson trial, your post is meaningless.

i have already posted Dr Reiders testimony on EDTA. Maby you did not understand that he said.i don't know but i certainly believe he proved what was in the blood from the sock and the back gate.EDTA in high concentrations.
imo
martin II

[weezer]

i have already posted Dr Reiders testimony on EDTA. Maby you did not understand that he said.i don't know but i certainly believe he proved what was in the blood from the sock and the back gate.EDTA in high concentrations.
imo
martin II

I don't know what you think his testimony was but the facts are: no blood was planted in the simpson case.

[martin II]

I don't know what you think his testimony was but the facts are: no blood was planted in the simpson case.

weezer
it is not what i think Dr Reiders testimnony was. I have posted it word for word. "the sock and gate blood samples had 1,000 times more EDT in them than what could possibly have come from a human bleeding". no way to twist and streatch that into something else. Plain english is Plain english imo
blood on sock and back gate PLANTED.IMO
MARTIN ii

[bobaugust]

weezer
it is not what i think Dr Reiders testimnony was. I have posted it word for word. "the sock and gate blood samples had 1,000 times more EDT in them than what could possibly have come from a human bleeding". no way to twist and streatch that into something else. Plain english is Plain english imo
blood on sock and back gate PLANTED.IMO
MARTIN ii

martin II, plain english, Dr. Rieders referred to incorrect information when he testified.

Plain english, Witness testimony and photographic evidence prove that both the gate blood and the sock blood were not planted.

July 25, 1995
MS. CLARK: Now, you recall that Dr. Rieders testified that he felt that based on the EPA study concerning the maximum tolerance for EDTA in the blood based on an experiment with fish extrapolated from that that the normal amount or the maximum amount you would find in people would be in parts per billion. Do you recall that testimony?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: In your expert opinion, sir, is it--was it appropriate for him to use that EPA study to form a conclusion as to what would be the normal amount of EDTA you would expect to find in an average person?

MR. MARTZ: I don't believe so. When I first got that study, which was I believe two nights ago, maybe it was Sunday night, I received that study, and the first thing in looking at it, it appeared to be out of place. They were talking about toxic clean-up of EDTA and they had a lot of things that were mentioned, and all of a sudden, out of nowhere came the fact that it said one part per billion would be normally expected in a human or considered to be the normal level. And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there. So what I did was, the next morning, I called back to the laboratory and had them search the same reference. And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million. Evidently when it was printed out without good resolution--I really don't have the explanation now. In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood. It had absolutely nothing at all what to do with the amount that would be expected in a person or could be toxic to a person. It was completely out of context and it was wrong.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

weezer
considering the ig report of the FBI lab. everything is suspect. at lease it was for the IG. unless you think the IG lied on the FBI lab and Martz.
martinii

martin II, and I posted the link to the DOJ report that concluded,

"We find no basis to conclude that Martz committed perjury or misled the trier of facts or defense in the Simpson case. Nor do we conclude that Martz improperly erased digital data underlying his results."

The FBI Laboratory" An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and
Alleged Misconduct in Explosives Related and Other Cases
(April, 1997)
Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/fbilab1/07simpso.htm

[bobaugust]

Bobaugust and all those that may have been annoyed,


2L8 4A D8
Criime Library Supreme Member Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NANCY GRACELAND
Posts: 9,653


Quote:
Originally Posted by socaldiva
I think it's humorous too that a poster would offer up a legal riddle that has no bearing on the Simpson case, in an effort to deflect Simpson's guilt.

Yes, and as usual, we just need to consider the source! LOL!



My only point was that, contrary to all the statements otherwise, the civil verdict can never find Simpson guilty of murder, since he remains unicarcerated. I was not trying to set anyone up, just pointing out the legal truth of the matter. I am sorry if legal truths annoy some but that is the marrow of the American system of jurispurdence. Again, I apologize for my belief in our system.

Your apology isn't an apology at all William, it's a self serving statement.

No one here is claiming that the civil trial found Simpson "guilty of murder." The civil trial jury found him responsible for the murders. They did that because they believed he murdered both victims. Their belief was based on the evidence that proved Simpson was the killer and Simpson's lies that confirmed that belief.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, and I posted the link to the DOJ report that concluded,

"We find no basis to conclude that Martz committed perjury or misled the trier of facts or defense in the Simpson case. Nor do we conclude that Martz improperly erased digital data underlying his results."

The FBI Laboratory" An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and
Alleged Misconduct in Explosives Related and Other Cases
(April, 1997)
Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/fbilab1/07simpso.htm

I think that is self serving cover your aZZ statement by the FBI.
IF MARTZ never broke any rules and performed his duties corectly.WHY WAS HE DEMOTED.
MARTIN ii

[bobaugust]

I think that is self serving cover your aZZ statement by the FBI.
IF MARTZ never broke any rules and performed his duties corectly.WHY WAS HE DEMOTED.
MARTIN ii

martin II, you're the one who continually refers to the investigation the DOJ conducted now you are claiming that their conclusion was a self serving cover statement?

Martz wasn't demoted for the EDTA testing he did in the Simpson case.

bobaugust