Acting Innocent? Acting Guilty?

[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

bob
you know better than that.

I referred to the IG report. I believe the fbi covered their butts with Martz on the OJ case. There is no way the fbi would expose whatever Martz may have done wrong on that case.

What i am saying is that the IG found the fbi lab to be in pretty bad shape
and falsly testing and putting out fase test results which caused some prosecutors to drop cases. so i don't think they were screwing up on most other cases and all of a sudden did every thing correct on the oj case.
see the ig report above.

martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
you know better than that.

I referred to the IG report. I believe the fbi covered their butts with Martz on the OJ case. There is no way the fbi would expose whatever Martz may have done wrong on that case.

What i am saying is that the IG found the fbi lab to be in pretty bad shape
and falsly testing and putting out fase test results which caused some prosecutors to drop cases. so i don't think they were screwing up on most other cases and all of a sudden did every thing correct on the oj case.
see the ig report above.

martin II

martin II, the report that I posted a link to is the IG report regarding all the allegations about Martz's testimony in the Simpson case including factual background, analysis of allegations, criticism, and conclusion.

That's why it's titled "ROGER MARTZ'S TESTIMONY IN O.J. SIMPSON CASE."

If you took the time to read the report you would see that it did not praise Martz, but it also didn't find that he did anything wrong regarding the tests he conducted or his conclusions in the Simpson case. The fact is that other evidence later proved the defense claims false that the gate blood and the sock blood were planted. That fact supported Martz's conclusions that neither the gate blood or the sock blood came from preserved blood.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, the report that I posted a link to is the IG report regarding all the allegations about Martz's testimony in the Simpson case including factual background, analysis of allegations, criticism, and conclusion.

That's why it's titled "ROGER MARTZ'S TESTIMONY IN O.J. SIMPSON CASE."

If you took the time to read the report you would see that it did not praise Martz, but it also didn't find that he did anything wrong regarding the tests he conducted or his conclusions in the Simpson case. The fact is that other evidence later proved the defense claims false that the gate blood and the sock blood were planted. That fact supported Martz's conclusions that neither the gate blood or the sock blood came from preserved blood.

bobaugust


bob
other evidence did not prove any such thing. That may be why Martz did not save his paper work on his experiement.
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
other evidence did not prove any such thing. That may be why Martz did not save his paper work on his experiement.
martin II

martin II, seven witnesses testified to seeing blood on the rear gate at Bundy the morning after the murders as well as a crime scene photograph taken the morning after the murders showed Simpson's blood on the rear gate.

Dr. Cotton testified that after comparing the degradation levels of Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock to Nicole's autopsy sample it was impossible for her blood on the sock to have come from her autopsy sample.

This evidence proved the defense claims false that these blood stains were later planted from preserved blood. This evidence also supported Martz's testimony that based on all the tests he conducted he concluded that neither the gate blood or the sock blood came from preserved blood.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bob
other evidence did not prove any such thing. That may be why Martz did not save his paper work on his experiement.
martin II

martin II, wrong. Martz saved all of the graphs that were generated from the digital data. They were presented in court..

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

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

Again, I willl apologize for believing that the verdict only meant that Simpson was liable/responsible for the wrongful deaths and not that he was the killer, nor did the verdict in the civil trial or the evidence prove that he was the killer. My apology was not meant to be self-serving-only rendered in service to my belief to the respect due our legal system.

[William Anthony]

martin II, wrong. Martz saved all of the graphs that were generated from the digital data. They were presented in court..

bobaugust

What I think Martz did not save was the samples used to create the data. Therefore, his results were not able to be duplicated. I might be wrong, but whatever he did not preserve made his experimentation useless, imho.

[martin II]

What I think Martz did not save was the samples used to create the data. Therefore, his results were not able to be duplicated. I might be wrong, but whatever he did not preserve made his experimentation useless, imho.

william

glade to see you here

Martz tested his own blood and did not save any notes as to what process and testing he did so that it could be examined by another scientist as to how he got the results he said he got.
he got a result thar Dr Reiders said was not possible or very irrigular.
imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

william

glade to see you here

Martz tested his own blood and did not save any notes as to what process and testing he did so that it could be examined by another scientist as to how he got the results he said he got.
he got a result thar Dr Reiders said was not possible or very irrigular.
imo
martin II

martin II, post the testimony where Martz did not save notes.

The results Martz obtained were documented by graphs. Rieders was the witness who put his own interpretation on those graphs and referred to false numbers from an irrelevant report for his opinion.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, post the testimony where Martz did not save notes.

The results Martz obtained were documented by graphs. Rieders was the witness who put his own interpretation on those graphs and referred to false numbers from an irrelevant report for his opinion.

bobaugust

bob
this was posted on the weekend so i don't know why you are asking for it . but here it is. second para about his own blood test.

Martz also answered questions by defense counsel concerning his failure to retain digital data underlying his charts. Martz explained that the raw data is stored on a computer with limited storage space. Martz stated that in this case he printed out the appropriate charts, drew his conclusions, and did not need to look at the data again. Therefore, Martz told us that he permitted the data to be erased. Martz added that there is a tape back-up attachment for this instrument, but it is quite complex. Martz testified that at present there is no way to review this raw digital data; however, it was possible to review the charts representing the digital data or re-run the samples to obtain digital data.

Martz made additional noteworthy statements during his testimony. In particular, when the defense counsel asked whether Martz had decided during a break to become more aggressive in answering questions, Martz responded, I think I decided that I had to be more truthful. I was not telling the whole truth with yes and no answers. . . . I decided that I wanted to tell the whole truth. At another point in the testimony, Martz acknowledged that he had performed analyses using his own blood in May and July 1995, but had not made any notes describing how he conducted the analyses.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9704a/07simpso.htm

[tv]

I've said this before, but I think it fits on this thread.... OJ leaving for a golf match, making no attempt to find and get rid of evidence left on the property to me is consciousness of innocence. He had no idea what had been left (planted) on his property.

At 10:00 OJ made a call to his girlfriend. Was he thinking about Paula when he was also thinking about rage killing Nicole? I can't see it.

OJ was calm and happy at the recital. Despite the lying testimony of (I forget her name)-- the video was played in court.... he was calm and happy.

OJ was calm, hungry and tired when he went to McDonalds to eat-- Now, this is supposidly shortly before the kill. Does a person who is homicidal and raged have the desire to eat a burger? I don't think so.

Nicole was no angel. Let's face it, she wasn't. She slept with plenty, yet OJ never rage killed her. Why on June 12? Makes no sense. I don't see a motive.

OJ loves his kids. He would not kill Nicole and leave her for them to find. imoThere's no reason to think that he had planned on killing Nicole that night or was particularly angry with her at the recital or when he went to McDonald's. It's possible that there was a phone call between them or an argument after he got to her house that set the whole thing off. To me his demeanor earlier in the evening proves nothing. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

william

glade to see you here

Martz tested his own blood and did not save any notes as to what process and testing he did so that it could be examined by another scientist as to how he got the results he said he got.
he got a result thar Dr Reiders said was not possible or very irrigular.
imo
martin II

I am having trouble out of my computer and cannot post as much as I would like to. However, with that said, thank you for continuing to be a gentleman and I appreciate your sentiments. Also, before anyone misconstrues my statement about Darden and his willingness to believe Simpson guilty, let me assure them that I was not saying all blond, blue-eyed White females are seeking money-only that I feel Simpson could have found five in the world who were and who resembled Nicole to some extent or he could have paid for cosmetic surgery so that they would. I am almost afraid to post anything, because I seem to be so quickly misunderstood.

[socaldiva]

There's no reason to think that he had planned on killing Nicole that night or was particularly angry with her at the recital or when he went to McDonald's. It's possible that there was a phone call between them or an argument after he got to her house that set the whole thing off. To me his demeanor earlier in the evening proves nothing. :shrug:

I think he went to Kato's room in an effort to form a partial alibi. JMO

[tv]

I think he went to Kato's room in an effort to form a partial alibi. JMO

Hi socaldiva :)

I think that's very possible, also. He may have planned to go over there and harrass or even kill Nicole but I don't think his demeanor earlier in the evening can be used as definitive proof of his intentions. :)

[socaldiva]

Hi socaldiva :)

I think that's very possible, also. He may have planned to go over there and harrass or even kill Nicole but I don't think his demeanor earlier in the evening can be used as definitive proof of his intentions. :)

Hi ya :D

I think by the time he left to go over there, he had already decided to kill her. Otherwise I don't think the cap, knife & gloves wouldn't have been necessary. I think Nicole not saving him a seat & not inviting him to dinner afterwards ticked him off. It seemed to be another signal that she was done with him. I think Darden said it well when he decribed it as "the fuse was burning" or words to that effect, to describe the build up of rage & control in Simpson. JMO

[martin II]

I am having trouble out of my computer and cannot post as much as I would like to. However, with that said, thank you for continuing to be a gentleman and I appreciate your sentiments. Also, before anyone misconstrues my statement about Darden and his willingness to believe Simpson guilty, let me assure them that I was not saying all blond, blue-eyed White females are seeking money-only that I feel Simpson could have found five in the world who were and who resembled Nicole to some extent or he could have paid for cosmetic surgery so that they would. I am almost afraid to post anything, because I seem to be so quickly misunderstood.

william

i do understand your post.
There were many options of women available for men in LA. It has been said that Oj had too many women available to him anyway.Oj had much too much going for him to toss it all away by killing anyone.

Dardens job was to prosecute, all of his statements were meant to support what he was trying to do. get oj convicted.Because he was black and prosecuting a black man does not make his statements any more true than any other prosecutor.

If one wants to say he killed her then one can take any simple action or word
prior to the murders to mean that he did.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

What I think Martz did not save was the samples used to create the data. Therefore, his results were not able to be duplicated. I might be wrong, but whatever he did not preserve made his experimentation useless, imho.

After Martz printed out the appropriate charts from the raw data the raw data was erased off the computer. That in no way rendered his experiments meaningless since all the charts generated from that data could be reviewed. If someone wanted to they could even rerun the same samples or similar samples. There were bloodstains still available at that time if someone wanted to analyze them, they could have.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bob
this was posted on the weekend so i don't know why you are asking for it . but here it is. second para about his own blood test.

Martz also answered questions by defense counsel concerning his failure to retain digital data underlying his charts. Martz explained that the raw data is stored on a computer with limited storage space. Martz stated that in this case he printed out the appropriate charts, drew his conclusions, and did not need to look at the data again. Therefore, Martz told us that he permitted the data to be erased. Martz added that there is a tape back-up attachment for this instrument, but it is quite complex. Martz testified that at present there is no way to review this raw digital data; however, it was possible to review the charts representing the digital data or re-run the samples to obtain digital data.

Martz made additional noteworthy statements during his testimony. In particular, when the defense counsel asked whether Martz had decided during a break to become more aggressive in answering questions, Martz responded, I think I decided that I had to be more truthful. I was not telling the whole truth with yes and no answers. . . . I decided that I wanted to tell the whole truth. At another point in the testimony, Martz acknowledged that he had performed analyses using his own blood in May and July 1995, but had not made any notes describing how he conducted the analyses.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9704a/07simpso.htm


martin II, the DOJ investigation 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."

There was nothing wrong with what Martz said about being more truthful. He was simply pointing out that yes or no answers do not tell the whole truth The excerpt you posted did not refer to notes that Martz did not save but notes he never made. Martz testified that when he did a test on something taking notes depended on the circumstances. If it was something he could readily remember he wouldn't write it down.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, the DOJ investigation 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."

There was nothing wrong with what Martz said about being more truthful. He was simply pointing out that yes or no answers do not tell the whole truth The excerpt you posted did not refer to notes that Martz did not save but notes he never made. Martz testified that when he did a test on something taking notes depended on the circumstances. If it was something he could readily remember he wouldn't write it down.

bobaugust

bob

It seems that it is expected that sceintist that do test make notes for referance as to what he did and so that his test methods can be reviewed by others. Marta wanted people to believe his results but did not want them to know what he did to get those results.
His results are worthless .imo
martin II

[weezer]

bob

It seems that it is expected that sceintist that do test make notes for referance as to what he did and so that his test methods can be reviewed by others. Marta wanted people to believe his results but did not want them to know what he did to get those results.
His results are worthless .imo
martin II

if you honestly believe that, then doesn't that make Rieders' testimony also worthless?

[martin II]

if you honestly believe that, then doesn't that make Rieders' testimony also worthless?

no
martinii

[weezer]

no
martinii

then how do you reconcile this contradiction? If, as you say, Martz's tests were worthless, how in the world could Rieders' reinterpretation not be?

[Kate Sachel]

Again, I willl apologize for believing that the verdict only meant that Simpson was liable/responsible for the wrongful deaths and not that he was the killer, nor did the verdict in the civil trial or the evidence prove that he was the killer. My apology was not meant to be self-serving-only rendered in service to my belief to the respect due our legal system.

As you have made the statement that "nor did the verdict in the civil trial or the evidence prove that he was the killer" I will assume that you have now taken the opportunity to review the civil trial testimonies and all relevant material? The last time we exchanged postings you had yet to read any of it, but promised that you would do so.

I assume you have done so now in order to claim that the evidence in the civil trial did not prove that he was the killer.

Do I assume correctly?

Kate

[socaldiva]

*snip*

There were many options of women available for men in LA. It has been said that Oj had too many women available to him anyway.

IIRC on 6/12/94 he couldn't have either of the women that he wanted. Both had dumped him. :tongue:

[weezer]

IIRC on 6/12/94 he couldn't have either of the women that he wanted. Both had dumped him. :tongue:

LOL -- he couldn't even hook up with the girl Kato called for him. Yep, poor ole orenthal --

[socaldiva]

LOL -- he couldn't even hook up with the girl Kato called for him. Yep, poor ole orenthal --

Yes, I remember that too! LOL

[martin II]

oj simpson was found not guilty of killing/murdering ron and nicole and was set free the day the verdict was read. He has been free to move about and enjoy his life as he sees fit since that verdict day.

people can streatch the civil trial verdict any way they want to satrisfy what they would like to hear but the fact is in the punishment (trial to take ones freedom) he was found Not Guilty and people must either get use to it or continue to squak about nothing. imo
martin II

[martin II]

LOL -- he couldn't even hook up with the girl Kato called for him. Yep, poor ole orenthal --

you can be confusing.

When informed that Oj had been arrested Paula caught the first plane to la and sat buy oj's side for the duration of the trial.

on one hand oj abused nicole with all the extra women in his life and now you believe he could not get ONE.

hahaha

martin II

[weezer]

oj simpson was found not guilty of killing/murdering ron and nicole and was set free the day the verdict was read. He has been free to move about and enjoy his life as he sees fit since that verdict day.

people can streatch the civil trial verdict any way they want to satrisfy what they would like to hear but the fact is in the punishment (trial to take ones freedom) he was found Not Guilty and people must either get use to it or continue to squak about nothing. imo
martin II

good job martin -- when you can't debate the facts, go for the jab. orenthal james simpson was found responsible/liable for the deaths of two human beings: Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman in the trial that uncovered the real evidence of the case.

[weezer]

you can be confusing.

When informed that Oj had been arrested Paula caught the first plane to la and sat buy oj's side for the duration of the trial.

on one hand oj abused nicole with all the extra women in his life and now you believe he could not get ONE.

hahaha

martin II

the facts are: on the night he murdered two people, orenthal had been dissed by Nicole, dumped by Paula and turned down by the 'friend' of Kato.

Surely this was a Fredudian slip on your part: ". . sat buy oj's side." LOL

[martin II]

the facts are: on the night he murdered two people, orenthal had been dissed by Nicole, dumped by Paula and turned down by the 'friend' of Kato.

Surely this was a Fredudian slip on your part: ". . sat buy oj's side." LOL

oj officially dumped Nicole when she received the IRS NOTICE not to use his house for her tax scheme some time before she was murdered. I think she realized as much as that may have been her reason for the moving plans.

One of nicioles complaints was other women and oj. i would think that it took some effort to hold on to her position with oj as there were others offering their services.

martin II

[martin II]

good job martin -- when you can't debate the facts, go for the jab. orenthal james simpson was found responsible/liable for the deaths of two human beings: Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman in the trial that uncovered the real evidence of the case.

i think you mean in the trial that was about HOW MUCH MONEY CAN WE MAKE HIM PAY. or TRY to make him pay. THE MONEY TRIAL.

OJ IS FREE.

martinii

[weezer]

i think you mean in the trial that was about HOW MUCH MONEY CAN WE MAKE HIM PAY. or TRY to make him pay. THE MONEY TRIAL.

OJ IS FREE.

martinii

feel better? the facts are: orenthal james simpson was found in a court of law to be responsible for the deaths of two human beings. orenthal james simpson was ordered to pay monetarily for his murderous acts. the majority of America considers him to be a pariah in our society. IMO

[martin II]

feel better? the facts are: orenthal james simpson was found in a court of law to be responsible for the deaths of two human beings. orenthal james simpson was ordered to pay monetarily for his murderous acts. the majority of America considers him to be a pariah in our society. IMO

the majority of americans think. SO
The majority of americans think what the media tell them to think.
The majority of americans thought it was a good idea for us to go to war, THEN now they know it was a mistake.
The court system that i know is not concerned about what public opinion thinks other than the fact that jurors are selected from the public and that includes LA county.

no one has a right to receive a verdict that they want.even if they are a member of the majority. it does not work that way.

AT any rate oj i assume is living his life and enjoying himself and he must be eating meals at many many resturants without any problem.
imo
martin II

[weezer]

the majority of americans think. SO
The majority of americans think what the media tell them to think.
The majority of americans thought it was a good idea for us to go to war, THEN now they know it was a mistake.
The court system that i know is not concerned about what public opinion thinks other than the fact that jurors are selected from the public and that includes LA county.

no one has a right to receive a verdict that they want.even if they are a member of the majority. it does not work that way.

AT any rate oj i assume is living his life and enjoying himself and he must be eating meals at many many resturants without any problem.
imo
martin II

Evidently I have more faith in my fellow Americans than you do -- and I believe they are capable of figuring things out without the 'media' telling them.

Of course we have a right to the verdict we want -- that's what going to trial is all about.

Trust me, orenthal ain't living the great life. He's been denied his celebrity and his lifestyle. He's considered a double murderer and reviled by most of America if not the world. IMO

[martin II]

Evidently I have more faith in my fellow Americans than you do -- and I believe they are capable of figuring things out without the 'media' telling them.

Of course we have a right to the verdict we want -- that's what going to trial is all about.

Trust me, orenthal ain't living the great life. He's been denied his celebrity and his lifestyle. He's considered a double murderer and reviled by most of America if not the world. IMO

according to our system you have a right to the vierdict the jury gives you.

otherwise the judge would ask you to tell the jury what verdict you have a right to expect.

I cannot trust your opinion of how oj is doing as you have offered no proof that you are in a position to know. All i know is that when i have seen him at various public functions and when he has appeared in the media at functions such as the derby and other events, he does seen to be partrying and having fun with people that like him just like evereyone else. so far i have not seen him begging for anything.
PS obviously he still knows how to make money .

martin II

[socaldiva]

Evidently I have more faith in my fellow Americans than you do -- and I believe they are capable of figuring things out without the 'media' telling them.

Of course we have a right to the verdict we want -- that's what going to trial is all about.

Trust me, orenthal ain't living the great life. He's been denied his celebrity and his lifestyle. He's considered a double murderer and reviled by most of America if not the world. IMO

:beer: :beer:

Unless the NG's claim to have sat in the courtroom for the entire trial, I'd say they got their info from the media as well. See how that works? The information is made available & people make up their minds, which is why the vast marjority, came to the right conclusion: Simpson's a killer. imo ;)

[socaldiva]

*snip*
oj officially dumped Nicole when she received the IRS NOTICE not to use his house for her tax scheme some time before she was murdered.

I think you've got this wrong. As I recall, she dumped him.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
AT any rate oj i assume is living his life and enjoying himself

Like the time he was video taped sitting on a bus stop & the buses were whizzing by because they refused to stop & pick him up?? Yeah, I bet he really "enjoyed" that. :biggrin:

[weezer]

I cannot trust your opinion of how oj is doing as you have offered no proof that you are in a position to know. All i know is that when i have seen him at various public functions and when he has appeared in the media at functions such as the derby and other events, he does seen to be partrying and having fun with people that like him just like evereyone else. so far i have not seen him begging for anything.
PS obviously he still knows how to make money.

you should learn to trust me:

"In two telephone interviews with The A.P. this week from his Florida home, Mr. Simpson declined to say how much of an advance he received for the book but said it was less than the $3.5 million that had been reported. He said the money had already been spent, in part to meet tax obligations.

Mr. Simpson said he was convinced that the book would have been a best seller.

“My kids would have been coming into a lot of money,” he said, adding that he desperately needs the cash because his retirement money is dwindling."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/us/23simpson.html?ex=1181188800&en=3348085c944fd5fa&ei=5070

[martin II]

you should learn to trust me:

"In two telephone interviews with The A.P. this week from his Florida home, Mr. Simpson declined to say how much of an advance he received for the book but said it was less than the $3.5 million that had been reported. He said the money had already been spent, in part to meet tax obligations.

Mr. Simpson said he was convinced that the book would have been a best seller.

“My kids would have been coming into a lot of money,” he said, adding that he desperately needs the cash because his retirement money is dwindling."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/us/23simpson.html?ex=1181188800&en=3348085c944fd5fa&ei=5070

well IF he did need money he made a quick less than 3.5 million by just signing his name and talking about himself and nicole. Easy cash in my book
any way you look at it.IMO

This proves my statement that he knows how to make money.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
This proves my statement that he knows how to make money.



So do prostitutes, but I don't think it's anything to write home about :shrug:

[weezer]

So do prostitutes, but I don't think it's anything to write home about :shrug:

:lol: Now this made me laugh out loud. Thanks!

[weezer]

well IF he did need money he made a quick less than 3.5 million by just signing his name and talking about himself and nicole. Easy cash in my book
any way you look at it.IMO

This proves my statement that he knows how to make money.

martin II

Seems everyone but you understands that he was paid for his confession -- IMO

[martin II]

Seems everyone but you understands that he was paid for his confession -- IMO

does it really matter what you call the book? you can twist the words of the book around to what ever pleases you. it changes nothing imo.

oj made a quick less than $3.5 million for signing his name and talking about his and nicoles relationship.

martin II

[weezer]

does it really matter what you call the book? you can twist the words of the book around to what ever pleases you. it changes nothing imo.

oj made a quick less than $3.5 million for signing his name and talking about his and nicoles relationship.

martin II

orenthal made a quick less than $1 million for his confession about butchering two human beings.

[socaldiva]

orenthal made a quick less than $1 million for his confession about butchering two human beings.

Yep. To say that it was about OJ & Nicole's relationship is "streatching" it. It was about the murder.

[William Anthony]

After Martz printed out the appropriate charts from the raw data the raw data was erased off the computer. That in no way rendered his experiments meaningless since all the charts generated from that data could be reviewed. If someone wanted to they could even rerun the same samples or similar samples. There were bloodstains still available at that time if someone wanted to analyze them, they could have.

bobaugust

bobaugust,

Because I have been away for some time, I feel the need to tell you that I was speaking of the edta results Martz did on his own blood. If I misunderstood the subject matter, then I apologize.

[William Anthony]

As you have made the statement that "nor did the verdict in the civil trial or the evidence prove that he was the killer" I will assume that you have now taken the opportunity to review the civil trial testimonies and all relevant material? The last time we exchanged postings you had yet to read any of it, but promised that you would do so.

I assume you have done so now in order to claim that the evidence in the civil trial did not prove that he was the killer.

Do I assume correctly?

Kate

I have not yet had the time to read the transcripts. However, as you and I both know, there is no need for me to so do, because of the difference in the standars of proof between a civil trial, and, therefore, the evidence standard is insufficent to proof him a killer-only liable for the wrongful deaths.

[bobaugust]

bobaugust,

Because I have been away for some time, I feel the need to tell you that I was speaking of the edta results Martz did on his own blood. If I misunderstood the subject matter, then I apologize.

Thank you. The bottom line is that Martz concluded from all the tests he performed that neither the gate blood or the sock blood came EDTA preserved blood.

Additional evidence later proved the defense blood planting claims regarding the gate blood and the sock blood were false claims.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Thank you. The bottom line is that Martz concluded from all the tests he performed that neither the gate blood or the sock blood came EDTA preserved blood.

Additional evidence later proved the defense blood planting claims regarding the gate blood and the sock blood were false claims.

bobaugust

As I am sure you are aware, there was additional testimony that Martz's numerical results were incorrect as to the amount of edta that could be present in his or any other human's blood. The weight and credibility of any evidence is left to the jury. The fact that as you have claimed "most reasonable and informed people believe" something means little in light that most reasonable and informed believed the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth and that Slavery was correct.

[bobaugust]

As I am sure you are aware, there was additional testimony that Martz's numerical results were incorrect as to the amount of edta that could be present in his or any other human's blood. The weight and credibility of any evidence is left to the jury. The fact that as you have claimed "most reasonable and informed people believe" something means little in light that most reasonable and informed believed the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth and that Slavery was correct.

And reasonable informed people learned why the earth was not flat or the sun revolved around the earth, and that slavery was wrong. Uninformed people continued to believe those things just like some uninformed people who are still unaware of all the evidence in the Simpson case believe or argue that evidence was planted and Simpson is innocent.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The ideas that were controverted began with a small group, who suffered the ridicule and scorn and insults of the majority but did not give up on their beliefs. They went on to prove they were correct. Some of the same so called reasonable and informed people, who were not so obstinate in their false beliefs, changed their opinons based on facts. The fact is that the civil trial and evidence introduced could not make Simpson a killer only liable.

[jotun]

oj simpson was found not guilty of killing/murdering ron and nicole and was set free the day the verdict was read. He has been free to move about and enjoy his life as he sees fit since that verdict day.

people can streatch the civil trial verdict any way they want to satrisfy what they would like to hear but the fact is in the punishment (trial to take ones freedom) he was found Not Guilty and people must either get use to it or continue to squak about nothing. imo
martin II
Martin IMO

ALL:

Murder Trial
"NOT GUILTY"

Money Trial
"LIABLE"

Will be 13 years June 12.
Let's ALL get over it.

IMO

jotun

[martin II]

Thank you. The bottom line is that Martz concluded from all the tests he performed that neither the gate blood or the sock blood came EDTA preserved blood.

Additional evidence later proved the defense blood planting claims regarding the gate blood and the sock blood were false claims.

bobaugust

bob'
the fbi demoted Martz after the IG report indicated that he had not testified in a manner required by the fbi so please stop trying to use him as a truth teller or a qualified expert.
martin Ii

[martin II]

I have not yet had the time to read the transcripts. However, as you and I both know, there is no need for me to so do, because of the difference in the standars of proof between a civil trial, and, therefore, the evidence standard is insufficent to proof him a killer-only liable for the wrongful deaths.

william
thanks
that solves that.
martin ii

[weezer]

bob'
the fbi demoted Martz after the IG report indicated that he had not testified in a manner required by the fbi so please stop trying to use him as a truth teller or a qualified expert.
martin Ii

and Rieders sent a man to prison for five years with his -- shall we say inaccurate test result testimony AND he did not perform his own tests in the simpson trial but relied on Martz's work -- why do you continue to consider him the better expert? Could it be because he testified for the defense?

[weezer]

william
thanks
that solves that.
martin ii

oh good. now can you educate the rest of us? what exactly does liable for the deaths of two human beings mean?

[socaldiva]

william
thanks
that solves that.
martin ii

Liable for murder = killer

[bobaugust]

The ideas that were controverted began with a small group, who suffered the ridicule and scorn and insults of the majority but did not give up on their beliefs. They went on to prove they were correct. Some of the same so called reasonable and informed people, who were not so obstinate in their false beliefs, changed their opinons based on facts. The fact is that the civil trial and evidence introduced could not make Simpson a killer only liable.

Based on the evidence presented and Simpson's testimony the civil trial jurors were convinced that Simpson murdered both Ron and Nicole and they found him responsible for both deaths.

bobaugust

[martin II]

and Rieders sent a man to prison for five years with his -- shall we say inaccurate test result testimony AND he did not perform his own tests in the simpson trial but relied on Martz's work -- why do you continue to consider him the better expert? Could it be because he testified for the defense?

i am waiting on someone to prove Reiders testimony on the normal amount of EDTA expected to be found in a human from eating food wrong.imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

i am waiting on someone to prove Reiders testimony on the normal amount of EDTA expected to be found in a human from eating food wrong.imo
martin II

Eating "food wrong"? :confused:

[weezer]

i am waiting on someone to prove Reiders testimony on the normal amount of EDTA expected to be found in a human from eating food wrong.imo
martin II

you're the one touting Rieders testimony -- I would think you would be the one to substantiate his claims. Besides, I have posted links to the studies done on EDTA that proves Rieders to be wrong.

[tazzybaby]

i am waiting on someone to prove Reiders testimony on the normal amount of EDTA expected to be found in a human from eating food wrong.imo
martin II


Why?

:shrug:

[martin II]

you're the one touting Rieders testimony -- I would think you would be the one to substantiate his claims. Besides, I have posted links to the studies done on EDTA that proves Rieders to be wrong.

I have posted Reiders testimony explaining how he came to the conclusions he did from examining Marts test results. i don't have to prove anything beyond his expert testimony. I believe his testimony.imo

i have not seen any post that proves what the normal amount of EDTA would be expected to be found in a human from eating food. Reiders gave his conclusion on what that amount would be. until you or someone post proof that his estimate is wrong, then i will go with what he testified to.,imo
martin II

[weezer]

I have posted Reiders testimony explaining how he came to the conclusions he did from examining Marts test results. i don't have to prove anything beyond his expert testimony. I believe his testimony.imo

i have not seen any post that proves what the normal amount of EDTA would be expected to be found in a human from eating food. Reiders gave his conclusion on what that amount would be. until you or someone post proof that his estimate is wrong, then i will go with what he testified to.,imo
martin II

Rieders was wrong -- and not for the first time BTW. You've been given information as to human blood and EDTA. The fact that you chose to not inform yourself is your shortcoming -- not mine. IMO

[martin II]

Rieders was wrong -- and not for the first time BTW. You've been given information as to human blood and EDTA. The fact that you chose to not inform yourself is your shortcoming -- not mine. IMO

weezer

when someone post proof that what Reiders testified to about EDTA in humans is not correct, i will be happy to evaluate it against what Dr Reiders testified to. So far, YOU and no one else has posted such proof. Instead fo telling me i have some shortcoming why not YOU post the proof on this specific issue and leave the personal comments about me out of it.imo
martinII

[weezer]

weezer

when someone post proof that what Reiders testified to about EDTA in humans is not correct, i will be happy to evaluate it against what Dr Reiders testified to. So far, YOU and no one else has posted such proof. Instead fo telling me i have some shortcoming why not YOU post the proof on this specific issue and leave the personal comments about me out of it.imo
martinII

then maybe I've misunderstood what you are saying. what exactly did you understand Dr. Rieders testify to?

[William Anthony]

I recall someone testifying that Martz's results were wrong based on a subsequent correction made in a latter article by experts who reviewed the article Martz relied on and the testimony was that, if his results were correct, he would have been dead. As with the other evidence, the jury, which had the chance to view the demeanor and judge credibility, were duty bound to determine the weight and credibility of the evidence presented.

[martin II]

then maybe I've misunderstood what you are saying. what exactly did you understand Dr. Rieders testify to?

i have posted pages of Dr Reiders testimony in the criminal trial on this issue.
I donot need to say what he said as it is all in his testimony for anyone to read.imo

martin II

[weezer]

i have posted pages of Dr Reiders testimony in the criminal trial on this issue.
I donot need to say what he said as it is all in his testimony for anyone to read.imo

martin II

and I have posted testimony by many that dispute Dr. Rieders' testimony.

[William Anthony]

Based on the evidence presented and Simpson's testimony the civil trial jurors were convinced that Simpson murdered both Ron and Nicole and they found him responsible for both deaths.

bobaugust

I am not sure of the jurors' convictions. I am sure that your last statement is somewhat correct in that they found him responsible civilly and not criminally. This is the point that AD was making.

[bobaugust]

I am not sure of the jurors' convictions. I am sure that your last statement is somewhat correct in that they found him responsible civilly and not criminally. This is the point that AD was making.

The civil trial jurors concluded that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole and found him responsible for both murders. They couldn't send Simpson to jail for the murders they believed he committed they could only punish him monetarily and that's what they did.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The civil trial jurors concluded that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole and found him responsible for both murders. They couldn't send Simpson to jail for the murders they believed he committed they could only punish him monetarily and that's what they did.

bobaugust

Correction, to the portion of your post in bold, if I may be so allowed-they found him responsible for both wrongful deaths and did not have the duty or authority to call him a murderer. Please, do not think that I set you up. I was merely speaking from the factual and legal standpoint, as did AD.

[bobaugust]

Correction, to the portion of your post in bold, if I may be so allowed-they found him responsible for both wrongful deaths and did not have the duty or authority to call him a murderer. Please, do not think that I set you up. I was merely speaking from the factual and legal standpoint, as did AD.

No matter how you say it the fact is that the civil trial jury found Simpson responsible for both deaths because they believed he murdered both victims.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No matter how you say it the fact is that the civil trial jury found Simpson responsible for both deaths because they believed he murdered both victims.

bobaugust

I will not speak so authoratatively you on the FACT as to what the jurors believed. However, I will say that you are correct in that the FACT is they found him LIABLE/RESPONSIBLE for the deaths.

[limakey]

Mr. August:

Martz playing the blame game, IMO

RESPONSE BY: FBI SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT ROGER MARTZ , February 4, 1997

Reply to IG report from Roger M. Martz

At times employees of the FBI are called upon to perform duties which are far beyond what are required of them. The majority of the work for which I have been criticized involves cases in which I and others at the FBI went far beyond our normal duties. Throughout my career in the Laboratory, the majority of my performance appraisals, made by several different supervisors, have been exceptional. It is noteworthy that even after the allegations against me, my latest performance appraisal was an exceptional rating.

[martin II]

This Imo is a indictment on Martz work in more than one case.This brings into serious quesiton Martz's work.

Based on our investigation, we conclude that Roger Martz lacks the credibility and judgment that are essential for a unit chief, particularly one who should be substantively evaluating a range of forensic disciplines. We found Martz lacking in credibility because, in matters we have discussed above, he failed to perform adequate analyses to support his conclusions and he did not accurately or persuasively describe his work. We recommend that Martz not hold a supervisory position. The Laboratory should evaluate whether he should continue to serve as an examiner or whether he would better serve the FBI in a position outside the Laboratory. If Martz continues to work as an examiner, we suggest that he be supervised by a scientist qualified to review his work substantively and that he be counseled on the importance of testifying directly, clearly and objectively, on the role of protocols in the Laboratory's forensic work, and on the need for adequate case documentation. Finally, we recommend that another qualified examiner review any analytical work by Martz that is to be used as a basis for future testimony.

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

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=martin II;8872477]This Imo is a indictment on Martz work in more than one case.This brings into serious quesiton Martz's work.

Martin,

This is a very informative post and the FBI's phraseology is interesting in this part.

"The Laboratory should evaluate whether he should continue to serve as an examiner or whether he would better serve the FBI in a position outside the Laboratory. If Martz continues to work as an examiner, we suggest that he be supervised by a scientist qualified to review his work substantively and that he be counseled on the importance of testifying directly, clearly and objectively,...":beer:

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;8872477]This Imo is a indictment on Martz work in more than one case.This brings into serious quesiton Martz's work.

Martin,

This is a very informative post and the FBI's phraseology is interesting in this part.

"The Laboratory should evaluate whether he should continue to serve as an examiner or whether he would better serve the FBI in a position outside the Laboratory. If Martz continues to work as an examiner, we suggest that he be supervised by a scientist qualified to review his work substantively and that he be counseled on the importance of testifying directly, clearly and objectively,...":beer:


william

The report recomended that Martz be demoted and transfered.

martin II

[martin II]

william

more info taken from the IG report by the below listed group.

Daniel S. Alcorn
counsel
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Below is part of the Ig report on the FBI lab and specific critical specific reports on F Martz work in the lab.


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, where there is no arguable federal interest, raises a number of red flags indicating the lab needs vigilant congressional or other significant and neutral oversight, as well as overhauling from top to bottom.

Following are more specific known examples documented by the IG of the systematic damage wreaked by the lab over the years --

Carelessness in Scientific Investigation

In 1992 and 1995, Materials Analysis Unit Chief James Corby was directed to review

all cases in which Terry Rudolph, Frederic Whitehurst's predecessor, worked as an examiner. The first review covered approximately 200 cases and found significant flaws, such as Rudolph's failing to follow his own explosives residue protocol, to form conclusions from valid scientific bases, and to conduct necessary tests. In 1995, Corby found that nearly one-quarter of Rudolph's files did not meet the administrative or technical guidelines at the time the cases were worked. It took FBI management nearly six years to perform the type of comprehensive review that should have occurred in 1989 after Rudolph's performance in the Psinakis case was sharply criticized by the very same Assistant United States Attorney who handled that case.



Chemistry-Toxicology Unit Chief Roger Martz failed to conduct certain tests that were appropriate under the circumstances of the Florida v. George Trepal case, in which the defendant was accused

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, where there is no arguable federal interest, raises a number of red flags indicating the lab needs vigilant congressional or other significant and neutral oversight, as well as overhauling from top to bottom.



Chemistry-Toxicology Unit Chief Roger Martz failed to conduct certain tests that were appropriate under the circumstances of the Florida v. George Trepal case, in which the defendant was accused of adding the poison thallium nitrate to bottles of Coca Cola. Martz' negligent conduct resulted in the death penalty for Trepal.


Managerial Failures

Upon request of the Assistant United States Attorney in the 1989 Psinakis case, Chemistry-Toxicology Unit Chief Roger Martz was assigned to review the files of agent Terry Rudolph, Frederic Whitehurst's predecessor. Martz reviewed 95 files, concluded that Rudolph's analyses supported his results, and reported finding no technical errors. The recent IG investigation showed that Martz's review was seriously deficient, that he failed to engage in the type of technical review that would actually have assessed the competence and sufficiency of the work purportedly performed by Rudolph, and that Martz's written reporting led Laboratory managers to believe that there were no problems with Rudolph's work or his files.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1997_hr/h970513a.htm

[martin II]

william

it is my opinion that Martz was a bum very simular to the other bum Mr Rubin.

the so called "GLOVE EXPERT"
martin II

[martin II]

Demotion and possible transfer for chemistry-toxicology unit chief Roger Martz, who ``lacks the judgment and credibility'' to supervise. Martz testified to an ``opinion stronger than his analytical results would support'' in a Florida trial that resulted in a death sentence for George Trepal for putting poison in Coca-Cola bottles and did a ``seriously deficient'' review of errors by lab examiner Terry Rudolph, the report said.

Unspecified discipline for FBI agent Michael Malone, who is no longer in the lab, for testifying falsely in proceedings that ultimately removed Alcee Hastings from a federal judgeship.

Transfer from the lab for examiner Wallace Higgins for altering Whitehurst's reports.

http://www.oranous.com/innocence/GeorgeTrepal/FBIagents.html


william

see how the agent lied against Alcee Hastings the black judge.

martin II

[martin II]

william /limakey

considering the IG report on just three FBI labs, how does a citizen develop confidence in the fbi labs various testing methods and agent testimony against various citizens in State trials.

It seems that these experts regularly cheated in favor of the prosecution and against various citizens to assist the prosecution in getting convictions.

I think people have a right to expect that a fbi agent will not lie in his testimony. but it seems that this was not the case in too many instances.

if one can not trust the fbi agent to testify honestly, who can one trust.

martin II

[bobaugust]

I will not speak so authoratatively you on the FACT as to what the jurors believed. However, I will say that you are correct in that the FACT is they found him LIABLE/RESPONSIBLE for the deaths.

In this particular case the civil trial jury found Simpson responsible and liable for both deaths because they believed based on the evidence presented and Simpson's testimony that Simpson murdered both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

[martin II]

In this particular case the civil trial jury found Simpson responsible and liable for both deaths because they believed based on the evidence presented and Simpson's testimony that Simpson murdered both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

bob
i think oj did what you claimed many prosecutions witnesses did in the criminal trial, that is adjusted their testimony based on beter recall of events.

I think it is unfail for you to call prosecution witnesses changed testimony MISTAKES and then call ojs changed testimony lies. This shows youR unfair bias against this man.imo
martin ii

[martin II]

The civil trial jurors concluded that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole and found him responsible for both murders. They couldn't send Simpson to jail for the murders they believed he committed they could only punish him monetarily and that's what they did.

bobaugust

BOB
I think that should read 'found him responsible for the "DEATHS"

[martin II]

In this particular case the civil trial jury found Simpson responsible and liable for both deaths because they believed based on the evidence presented and Simpson's testimony that Simpson murdered both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

bob

you are adding your words to the verdict. you need to stick to what the jury was asked.

no place in the jury verdict form is the word MURDERED printed. imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

In this particular case the civil trial jury found Simpson responsible and liable for both deaths because they believed based on the evidence presented and Simpson's testimony that Simpson murdered both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

The verdict was that they found him liable for the wrongful deaths. If they believed the evidence proved something else, they should not have returned that verdict. Are you suggesting that the civil jury acted improperly?

[socaldiva]

BOB
I think that should read 'found him responsible for the "DEATHS"

The manner of death was MURDER.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
i think oj did what you claimed many prosecutions witnesses did in the criminal trial, that is adjusted their testimony based on beter recall of events.


I guess you are not familiar with the extent of Orenthal's lies.

[William Anthony]

No criminal intent.

[bobaugust]

bob
i think oj did what you claimed many prosecutions witnesses did in the criminal trial, that is adjusted their testimony based on beter recall of events.

I think it is unfail for you to call prosecution witnesses changed testimony MISTAKES and then call ojs changed testimony lies. This shows youR unfair bias against this man.imo
martin ii

martin II, unfair? No it's not unfair it's reality. There is a big difference between a witness correcting something they were mistaken about and the defendant outright lying by denying the undeniable.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bob

you are adding your words to the verdict. you need to stick to what the jury was asked.

no place in the jury verdict form is the word MURDERED printed. imo
martin II

martin II, the fact is that in this case the finding of Simpson responsible for the deaths of both victims means he murdered both of them.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The verdict was that they found him liable for the wrongful deaths. If they believed the evidence proved something else, they should not have returned that verdict. Are you suggesting that the civil jury acted improperly?

The fact that the Simpson civil trial jury found Simpson responsible for both deaths of both victims means that Simpson murdered both victims.

bobaugust

[martin II]

The fact that the Simpson civil trial jury found Simpson responsible for both deaths of both victims means that Simpson murdered both victims.

bobaugust

bob

how many people were killed??

i don't think you can change the wording of the civil trial verdict and still be correct in your post.imo
martin II

[martin II]

martin II, the fact is that in this case the finding of Simpson responsible for the deaths of both victims means he murdered both of them.

bobaugust


bob
did you mean to say that is what you THINK it means?? I did not find your words in the civil trial jury verdict. Should we use the verdict form or your opinion.?

imo
martin II

[martin II]

martin II, unfair? No it's not unfair it's reality. There is a big difference between a witness correcting something they were mistaken about and the defendant outright lying by denying the undeniable.

bobaugust

bob
i think that depends on who you have decided you want to believe.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
i think that depends on who you have decided you want to believe.imo
martin II

martin II, no it has to do with being able to tell the difference between a mistake that is corrected and a lie.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bob
did you mean to say that is what you THINK it means?? I did not find your words in the civil trial jury verdict. Should we use the verdict form or your opinion.?

imo
martin II

martin II, I believe the words in the verdict form mean Simpson killed Ron and Nicole. What do you think the words in the verdict form mean Simpson did?

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, no it has to do with being able to tell the difference between a mistake that is corrected and a lie.

bobaugust

bob
if we all have to accept you definition of MISTAKE then those that define it differently would always be wrong and that is not acceptable. imo
martin II

[martin II]

martin II, I believe the words in the verdict form mean Simpson killed Ron and Nicole. What do you think the words in the verdict form mean Simpson did?

bobaugust

the words only mean what the say

found liable

martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
if we all have to accept you definition of MISTAKE then those that define it differently would always be wrong and that is not acceptable. imo
martin II

martin II, witnesses admitted to making a mistake and corrected their mistake. Simpson on the other hand did not admit he was mistaken when he said he wasn't wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes, or when he said he never received Paula's telephone message, or that he wasn't at Bundy the night of the murders, or numerous other lies. He just continued to lie and deny the undeniable.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

the words only mean what the say

found liable

martin II

martin II, what do these words mean to you?

"Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death fo Ronald Goldman."
"Simpson committed battery against Ronald Goldman."
"Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Ronald Goldman."
"Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Ronald Goldman."
"Simpson committed battery against Nicole Brown Simpson"
"Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson"
"Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson"

bobaugust

[Kate Sachel]

I have not yet had the time to read the transcripts. However, as you and I both know, there is no need for me to so do, because of the difference in the standars of proof between a civil trial, and, therefore, the evidence standard is insufficent to proof him a killer-only liable for the wrongful deaths.

Do me a favor and leave me out of the "both you and I know" because both you and I no nothing of the sort.

Quite frankly I think it's assanine to make the statements you insist on making while admitting that you are uneducated in the civil trial. I'd think that an aspiring attorney would be more wise.

The difference of a standard of proof never has to mean that a higher standard wasn't shown, simply that it's unnecessary.

Kate

[martin II]

martin II, what do these words mean to you?

"Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death fo Ronald Goldman."
"Simpson committed battery against Ronald Goldman."
"Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Ronald Goldman."
"Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Ronald Goldman."
"Simpson committed battery against Nicole Brown Simpson"
"Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson"
"Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson"

bobaugust


bob
i am pleased that you finally posted the verdict as it was given to the jury.
those words do not say he murdered anyone they say what they say without
augumentation by anyone.imo

martin II

[weezer]

[QUOTE=martin II;8872477]This Imo is a indictment on Martz work in more than one case.This brings into serious quesiton Martz's work.

Martin,

This is a very informative post and the FBI's phraseology is interesting in this part.

"The Laboratory should evaluate whether he should continue to serve as an examiner or whether he would better serve the FBI in a position outside the Laboratory. If Martz continues to work as an examiner, we suggest that he be supervised by a scientist qualified to review his work substantively and that he be counseled on the importance of testifying directly, clearly and objectively,...":beer:

do you know what the final outcome was?

[weezer]

bob
i am pleased that you finally posted the verdict as it was given to the jury.
those words do not say he murdered anyone they say what they say without
augumentation by anyone.imo

martin II

hmmm -- sooooooooo -- orenthal standing there dripping blood from himself and the victims means what?

[martin II]

hmmm -- sooooooooo -- orenthal standing there dripping blood from himself and the victims means what?

weezer
my conversation with bob was about the language of the civil trial verdict form. he posted the verdict and i agreed that the words in the verdict form speaks for themselves. so i don't know why you feel the need to make your above post as i don't think it adds anything to what i think bob and i have agrred on. that the verdict form does not use the words MURDERED.:shrug:

Where specifically was oj STANDING DRIPPING BLOOD FROM HIMSELF AND THE VICTIMS?
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
my conversation with bob was about the language of the civil trial verdict form. he posted the verdict and i agreed that the words in the verdict form speaks for themselves. so i don't know why you feel the need to make your above post as i don't think it adds anything to what i think bob and i have agrred on. that the verdict form does not use the words MURDERED.:shrug:

Where specifically was oj STANDING DRIPPING BLOOD FROM HIMSELF AND THE VICTIMS?
martin II

and I was asking for your understanding of 'liable'?

at Bundy, the Bronco, and at Rockingham?????????????

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8872490]

do you know what the final outcome was?

weezer this has been posted before.here is the IG RECOMENDATIONS and the action taken.




Based on our investigation, we conclude that Roger Martz lacks the credibility and judgment that are essential for a unit chief, particularly one who should be substantively evaluating a range of forensic disciplines. We found Martz lacking in credibility because, in matters we have discussed above, he failed to perform adequate analyses to support his conclusions and he did not accurately or persuasively describe his work. We recommend that Martz not hold a supervisory position. The Laboratory should evaluate whether he should continue to serve as an examiner or whether he would better serve the FBI in a position outside the Laboratory. If Martz continues to work as an examiner, we suggest that he be supervised by a scientist qualified to review his work substantively and that he be counseled on the importance of testifying directly, clearly and objectively, on the role of protocols in the Laboratory's forensic work, and on the need for adequate case documentation. Finally, we recommend that another qualified examiner review any analytical work by Martz that is to be used as a basis for future testimony.

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


Steve Jones, the attorney for accused Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, took a sworn deposition from Whitehurst in December and plans to call him to testify that evidence was contaminated during the FBI investigation. Meanwhile, the government has withdrawn the planned testimony of three senior FBI lab officials in the case. Roger Martz, David Williams and Tom Thurmond, whom Whitehurst accused of mishandling evidence in the investigation, were transferred from the lab last week.

http://archive.salon.com/news/news970131.html

[martin II]

and I was asking for your understanding of 'liable'?

at Bundy, the Bronco, and at Rockingham?????????????

weezer
you seem to want to drag this issue out for no productive reason in my opinion.

I have already agreed with bob that the language in the civil trial verdict means exactly what the words state. no more and no less. if other words were required they would have been included in the verdict form. that is my last opinion.imo
martin II

[martin II]

and I was asking for your understanding of 'liable'?

at Bundy, the Bronco, and at Rockingham?????????????

is that so?

martin II

[weezer]

is that so?

martin II

yes that is so

[socaldiva]

*snip*
weezer
you seem to want to drag this issue out for no productive reason in my opinion.


I beg to differ. I'd say the ones that are "dragging this issue out" are the ones that argue that the civil trial wording doesn't declare Simpson a killer.

Also, what was your point in post #846 where you ask Bob how many people were killed at Bundy??

[tazzybaby]

Martin,

You keep posting the same report on Martz. But, you seem to ignore anything else related. So, that means that you can't trust the test at all. He was the only one that performed the test. Reiders didn't perform his own test. Why not?

There is more to this story than Martz getting RECOMMENDED for supervision. Please weigh all aspects before you don't trust someone.

:confused:

[martin II]

Martin,

You keep posting the same report on Martz. But, you seem to ignore anything else related. So, that means that you can't trust the test at all. He was the only one that performed the test. Reiders didn't perform his own test. Why not?

There is more to this story than Martz getting RECOMMENDED for supervision. Please weigh all aspects before you don't trust someone.

:confused:

tazzy hi
i reposted that info about Martz because for some reason a poster seem not to have ever read that information when it was posted previously and asked for the results of the IG recomendations from ME.
I an going to reread more on the EDTA and give you what i find.but Reiders was supremely more qualified in this area than martz. i will tell you why the
edta in humans is very important.

Reiders did not test these items. he reviewed Martz test and results. that is why i became conderned when he came out with different results.

however, considering the overall problems as noted in the IG report at the fbi lab and considering the the detail serious attacks on Martz work BY THE IG PERSONALLY,testimony etc etc etc in court cases, i am sure you may have some second thoughts about just believeing martz test, results and testimony 100% without question.

Another Martz issue is why would a scientist create a test that included using his own blood and NOT MAKE ANY NOTES OF THE PROCESS OF THE TEST so that HIS test could be examined by others. i have never heard of such a thing.

martin II

[weezer]

tazzy hi
i reposted that info about Martz because for some reason a poster seem not to have ever read that information when it was posted previously and asked for the results of the IG recomendations from ME.
I an going to reread more on the EDTA and give you what i find.but Reiders was supremely more qualified in this area than martz. i will tell you why the
edta in humans is very important.

Reiders did not test these items. he reviewed Martz test and results. that is why i became conderned when he came out with different results.

however, considering the overall problems as noted in the IG report at the fbi lab and considering the the detail serious attacks on Martz work BY THE IG PERSONALLY,testimony etc etc etc in court cases, i am sure you may have some second thoughts about just believeing martz test, results and testimony 100% without question.

Another Martz issue is why would a scientist create a test that included using his own blood and NOT MAKE ANY NOTES OF THE PROCESS OF THE TEST so that HIS test could be examined by others. i have never heard of such a thing.

martin II

martin, you are still very confused over the EDTA and Martz's testing as well as the DOJ report. I understand what the Commission recommended happen to Martz -- I asked if you knew what actually did happen to him?

And, for the life of me, I do not know why you continue to tout Dr. Rieders as more of an expert on Martz's tests! Rieders did not perform any tests on the blood himself -- although the defense could very well have done that -- he simply reinterpreted a set of tests that had the wrong information in them. Rieders was not infallible; i.e., he sent a man to prison for misidentifying a toxin that was not found in the dead man's body.

[martin II]

martin, you are still very confused over the EDTA and Martz's testing as well as the DOJ report. I understand what the Commission recommended happen to Martz -- I asked if you knew what actually did happen to him?

And, for the life of me, I do not know why you continue to tout Dr. Rieders as more of an expert on Martz's tests! Rieders did not perform any tests on the blood himself -- although the defense could very well have done that -- he simply reinterpreted a set of tests that had the wrong information in them. Rieders was not infallible; i.e., he sent a man to prison for misidentifying a toxin that was not found in the dead man's body.


wezer
i posted what happened to Martz as a result of the IG recomendations above in post 861 i don't know why you are asking for ther same info again.

Also that MARTZ caused a man to get the death panalty as a result of faulty testing testimony by him.

whitehurst and the IG investigation was very critical of Mr Marts work as a department head at the fbi lab. some of it has been posted here so i don't think it is necessary to give a link but i can get one if you don't believe the claim.
Tazzy says i have posted info about Martz too much so i hopew yopu don't have a need to ask me to post what has already been posted again.imo jmo

in a criminal trial the defense is not required to test anything. only to force the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasinable doubt.which the prosecution did not do.

martin II

article:
Steve Jones, the attorney for accused Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, took a sworn deposition from Whitehurst in December and plans to call him to testify that evidence was contaminated during the FBI investigation. Meanwhile, the government has withdrawn the planned testimony of three senior FBI lab officials in the case. Roger Martz, David Williams and Tom Thurmond, whom Whitehurst accused of mishandling evidence in the investigation, were transferred from the lab last week.

http://archive.salon.com/news/news970131.html

[weezer]

i posted what happened to Martz as a result of the IG recomendations above in post 861 i don't know why you are asking for ther same info again.

Also that MARTZ caused a man to get the death panalty as a result of faulty testing testimony by him.

you didn't post what happened to Martz, you posted the recommendation.

Martz didn't cause a man to get the death penalty from faulty testing testimony -- HOWEVER, Rieders DID send a man to prison by inaccurately identifying a toxin that was not in the dead man's body.

[bobaugust]

bob
i am pleased that you finally posted the verdict as it was given to the jury.
those words do not say he murdered anyone they say what they say without
augumentation by anyone.imo

martin II

martin II, if you don't think the words "willfully and wrongfully caused the death" or the words "committed oppression, malice, and battery" on two people who were found dead doesn't mean he murdered them, what do those words mean to you that Simpson did?

bobaugust

[martin II]

you didn't post what happened to Martz, you posted the recommendation.

Martz didn't cause a man to get the death penalty from faulty testing testimony -- HOWEVER, Rieders DID send a man to prison by inaccurately identifying a toxin that was not in the dead man's body.





ALL

Roger Martz, David Williams and Tom Thurmond, whom Whitehurst accused of mishandling evidence in the investigation, were transferred from the lab last week.

http://archive.salon.com/news/news970131.html

[martin II]

martin II, if you don't think the words "willfully and wrongfully caused the death" or the words "committed oppression, malice, and battery" on two people who were found dead doesn't mean he murdered them, what do those words mean to you that Simpson did?

bobaugust

BOB
We are going back and forth on this for nothing.

I am not open to changing the the printed words on the verdict form. I don't think you should either but WTH.

this is a legal matter and i do believe it is always best not to play around
changing the printed words to what you WANT them to say they mean to you when you try to substitute YOUR meaning for the official words put forth by the cjs on the verdict form. imo

The civil trial verdict form words mean exactly what those words state nothing more nothing less. thats the way the law works.
martin II

[weezer]

BOB
We are going back and forth on this for nothing.

I am not open to changing the the printed words on the verdict form. I don't think you should either but WTH.

this is a legal matter and i do believe it is always best not to play around
changing the printed words to what you WANT them to say they mean to you when you try to substitute YOUR meaning for the official words put forth by the cjs on the verdict form. imo

The civil trial verdict form words mean exactly what those words state nothing more nothing less. thats the way the law works.
martin II

good -- then we all agree that the civil verdict is that orenthal james simpson did with malice cause the death of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman and the facts prove that he did it with a knife.

I feel so much better. :tongue:

[bobaugust]

BOB
We are going back and forth on this for nothing.

I am not open to changing the the printed words on the verdict form. I don't think you should either but WTH.

this is a legal matter and i do believe it is always best not to play around
changing the printed words to what you WANT them to say they mean to you when you try to substitute YOUR meaning for the official words put forth by the cjs on the verdict form. imo

The civil trial verdict form words mean exactly what those words state nothing more nothing less. thats the way the law works.
martin II

martin II, we aren't going back and forth on this, you can't and won't answer the question I asked you because you know you're wrong.

Murder, the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

That's what the civil trial jury found Simpson did. He murdered both Ron and Nicole and they punished him to the full extent the law allowed them to. Period. That's what the words in the verdict form say whether you can understand them or not.

bobaugust

[martin II]

ALL

Roger Martz, David Williams and Tom Thurmond, whom Whitehurst accused of mishandling evidence in the investigation, were transferred from the lab last week.

http://archive.salon.com/news/news970131.html
---------------------------------------------------


all

In court papers, the defense also argued for a mistrial because of an investigation into problems in the FBI crime lab and reassignment of a scientist who tested blood samples in the Simpson case.

"It is clear that the announcement of this investigation, as well as the demotion of Roger Martz, was withheld until the jury had commenced deliberations and the defense had closed its case,'' the defense said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns196.htm


martin II

[William Anthony]

Do me a favor and leave me out of the "both you and I know" because both you and I no nothing of the sort.

Quite frankly I think it's assanine to make the statements you insist on making while admitting that you are uneducated in the civil trial. I'd think that an aspiring attorney would be more wise.

The difference of a standard of proof never has to mean that a higher standard wasn't shown, simply that it's unnecessary.

Kate

I am sorry and will definitely leave you out, because the evidence standard in the civil trial is only more likely than not and there are diffefrent evidentiary standards for the different types of evidence admitted in civil and criminal trials. I as an aspiring attorney do know this. It may have been my bad to believe that you did also. I could tell that you had some learning in the law and thought you knew this. However, many may differ on what the evidence showed, as with the civil trial, which, imho, is irrelevant-what is important and germaine is what is necessary to prove and whether the verdict shows that the evidence met the evidentiary standard to support the verdict. The rest is pure speculation and conjecture, imho.

[martin II]

all

what happened to Martz

The famed FBI lab is recently caught fudging reports in the case against Timothy McVeigh to favor the prosecution, and Roger Martz, who testified in the Simpson trial, is reprimanded and demoted. A lab technician in the San Francisco police department is discovered falsifying results in 900 cases

http://www.afrocentricnews.com/html/simpson.htm

[weezer]

all

what happened to Martz

The famed FBI lab is recently caught fudging reports in the case against Timothy McVeigh to favor the prosecution, and Roger Martz, who testified in the Simpson trial, is reprimanded and demoted. A lab technician in the San Francisco police department is discovered falsifying results in 900 cases

http://www.afrocentricnews.com/html/simpson.htm

LOL -- this is your post to back-up your statement? LOL

[martin II]

good -- then we all agree that the civil verdict is that orenthal james simpson did with malice cause the death of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman and the facts prove that he did it with a knife.

I feel so much better. :tongue:


wezer

Please don't make up YOUR statement and then try to post it as if i have agreed with what you have posted. your post are your opinions NOT MINE.

the verdict says what it says in plain english with no augmentaiton required by anyone as to what the words mean.
i don't agree that any facts proved what you are trying insinuate they did.
imo

martin II

[martin II]

LOL -- this is your post to back-up your statement? LOL

all three articles back up my statement.
and i am finished with this issue.
martin II

[socaldiva]

LOL -- this is your post to back-up your statement? LOL

Can you believe that pedophile Roman Polanski is quoted as though he is a crime expert? Also Jay Leno is dragged into the mix? :tongue:



" Leno takes particular pleasure savaging O.J. in his monologues, partially insuring the judgment against him in the civil trial" OMG Jay Leno is "insuring judgment". I didn't realize he's that powerful. LOL

The author is right about one thing, his theories are "unusual". I'd say bonkers, but that's just me :tongue:

[William Anthony]

wezer

Please don't make up YOUR statement and then try to post it as if i have agreed with what you have posted. your post are your opinions NOT MINE.

the verdict says what it says in plain english with no augmentaiton required by anyone as to what the words mean.
i don't agree that any facts proved what you are trying insinuate they did.
imo

martin II

Martin,

The civil verdict is that Simpson was liable for the wrongful deaths. This statement is part of the jury for, "orenthal james simpson did with malice cause the death of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman." This could mean that he wilfully and with evil intent flaunted his bride in front of racists, which he knew would lead to her death and anyone in her presence at the time. The problem is that legal words are open to many interpretations. The fact is that the jury only found, by their verdict, that he was in some way culpable.

[William Anthony]

The jury form also asked, if the jury believed Simpson committed battery not murder, which I did not address in my prior post.

[martin II]

Martin,

The civil verdict is that Simpson was liable for the wrongful deaths. This statement is part of the jury for, "orenthal james simpson did with malice cause the death of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman." This could mean that he wilfully and with evil intent flaunted his bride in front of racists, which he knew would lead to her death and anyone in her presence at the time. The problem is that legal words are open to many interpretations. The fact is that the jury only found, by their verdict, that he was in some way culpable.

william

You make a sound factual statement.
I hope that it is not passed over as if it had never been said.:beer:

martin II

[weezer]

Martin,

The civil verdict is that Simpson was liable for the wrongful deaths. This statement is part of the jury for, "orenthal james simpson did with malice cause the death of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman." This could mean that he wilfully and with evil intent flaunted his bride in front of racists, which he knew would lead to her death and anyone in her presence at the time. The problem is that legal words are open to many interpretations. The fact is that the jury only found, by their verdict, that he was in some way culpable.

nah -- it meant that orenthal james simpson was in rage and out of control and butchered two human beings. ;)

[William Anthony]

It could have meant that Kato shared with the MF his comments about the black dress knowing that Kato would so do and enrage the MF to the point of committing murder. The problem is that we only know what it means and not what it could mean.

[weezer]

It could have meant that Kato shared with the MF his comments about the black dress knowing that Kato would so do and enrage the MF to the point of committing murder. The problem is that we only know what it means and not what it could mean.

nah -- it meant that orenthal james simpson was in rage and out of control and butchered two human beings. :tongue:

[socaldiva]

nah -- it meant that orenthal james simpson was in rage and out of control and butchered two human beings. :tongue:


:beer: :beer: :beer:

[tv]

Martin,

The civil verdict is that Simpson was liable for the wrongful deaths. This statement is part of the jury for, "orenthal james simpson did with malice cause the death of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman." This could mean that he wilfully and with evil intent flaunted his bride in front of racists, which he knew would lead to her death and anyone in her presence at the time. The problem is that legal words are open to many interpretations. The fact is that the jury only found, by their verdict, that he was in some way culpable.
Seriously, are you able to type this with a straight face?

[socaldiva]

Seriously, are you able to type this with a straight face?

:D Sounds like sci-fi to me, only funnier....


Since when was Nicole killed by racists anyway?? Bride?? How about ex-wife??

[tv]

:D Sounds like sci-fi to me, only funnier....


Since when was Nicole killed by racists anyway?? Bride?? How about ex-wife??

socaldiva, you mean you haven't heard about that notorious band of murdering racists? That's why we keep hearing about black celebritities whose white wives are murdered along with whomever is with them at the time. For OJS to know it would lead to her death means it must happen all the time. Why, it's practically an epidemic! :D

[bobaugust]

Martin,

The civil verdict is that Simpson was liable for the wrongful deaths. This statement is part of the jury for, "orenthal james simpson did with malice cause the death of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman." This could mean that he wilfully and with evil intent flaunted his bride in front of racists, which he knew would lead to her death and anyone in her presence at the time. The problem is that legal words are open to many interpretations. The fact is that the jury only found, by their verdict, that he was in some way culpable.

You say the civil trial jury statement that "Simpson did with malice cause the death" could mean that he willfully and with evil intent flaunted his bride in front of racists, which would lead to her death.

First of all Nicole was not Simpson's bride when she was murdered..
Secondly, yes it could possibly mean that to someone who is completely ignorant of the Simpson case and ignorant of what was proved an argued in the civil trial that led the jury to make that statement. Your interpretation is completely ridiculous and has nothing to do with the reality of the Bundy murders.

Based on the evidence presented and Simpson's lies the civil trial jury believed Simpson murdered both Ron and Nicole. That's what their statement meant.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

It could have meant that Kato shared with the MF his comments about the black dress knowing that Kato would so do and enrage the MF to the point of committing murder. The problem is that we only know what it means and not what it could mean.

Your comment regarding Kato, Fuhrman, and a black dress is completely ridiculous.

The problem is you William. You're the one who evidently doesn't know what the civil trial jury statement means, not us. We know what it means because we know what was argued, what the evidence was, and what was proved in the civil trial. You evidently don't. Maybe you should learn about it before you offer your uninformed opinions about it.

bobaugust

[Kate Sachel]

I am sorry and will definitely leave you out, because the evidence standard in the civil trial is only more likely than not and there are diffefrent evidentiary standards for the different types of evidence admitted in civil and criminal trials. I as an aspiring attorney do know this. It may have been my bad to believe that you did also. I could tell that you had some learning in the law and thought you knew this. However, many may differ on what the evidence showed, as with the civil trial, which, imho, is irrelevant-what is important and germaine is what is necessary to prove and whether the verdict shows that the evidence met the evidentiary standard to support the verdict. The rest is pure speculation and conjecture, imho.

You apparently are aspiring to be an attorney who chooses not to comprehend.

The point William, is that the evidence standard of "only more than likely" only means that that is the standard which has to be met in order for a Plaintiff to win his case. It does not mean that a Plaintiff is not capable of presenting a case that exceeds that standard of proof to the point that it leaves no reasonable doubt.

Generally I find that it's only people who don't care to know the truth that claim that evidence in which they are not even educated is irrelevent.

Kate

[William Anthony]

You apparently are aspiring to be an attorney who chooses not to comprehend.

The point William, is that the evidence standard of "only more than likely" only means that that is the standard which has to be met in order for a Plaintiff to win his case. It does not mean that a Plaintiff is not capable of presenting a case that exceeds that standard of proof to the point that it leaves no reasonable doubt.

Generally I find that it's only people who don't care to know the truth that claim that evidence in which they are not even educated is irrelevent.

Kate

Generally, I find that people who know what the verdict means find it irrelevant as to what they believed the evidence proved, because the verdict, statement of truth, and not the evidence is the statement of truth.

[weezer]

Generally, I find that people who know what the verdict means find it irrelevant as to what they believed the evidence proved, because the verdict, statement of truth, and not the evidence is the statement of truth.

WTH???? the evidence IS the statement of truth -- ergo the civil trial.

[William Anthony]

WTH???? the evidence IS the statement of truth -- ergo the civil trial.

I think that you should look up the legal definition for the word verdict. The evidence is the foundation leading to the statement of truth/verdict.

[Kate Sachel]

I think that you should look up the legal definition for the word verdict. The evidence is the foundation leading to the statement of truth/verdict.

Well William, the definition of the word "verdict" in the legal dictionary that I have right at my desk is as follows:

noun 1. Law. the finding or answer of a jury given to the court concerning a matter submitted to their judgment.

Or take Supreme Court case BURR v. FLORIDA , 474 U.S. 879 (1985) in which the opinion of the panel is that "the institutions of criminal justice have been adjusted in recognition that a jury's verdict and truth are not unerringly synonymous. Every jurisdiction provides some mechanism for awarding a convicted defendant a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. If a convicted defendant can produce sufficient indication that the jury's finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was wrong, the institutional need for finality yields to the more compelling concerns of truth and fairness. Thus, the "reasonable doubt" foundation of the adversary method attains neither certainty on the part of the factfinders nor infallibility, and accommodations to that failing are well established in our society."

Kindly,
Kate

[weezer]

Well William, the definition of the word "verdict" in the legal dictionary that I have right at my desk is as follows:

noun 1. Law. the finding or answer of a jury given to the court concerning a matter submitted to their judgment.

Or take Supreme Court case BURR v. FLORIDA , 474 U.S. 879 (1985) in which the opinion of the panel is that "the institutions of criminal justice have been adjusted in recognition that a jury's verdict and truth are not unerringly synonymous. Every jurisdiction provides some mechanism for awarding a convicted defendant a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. If a convicted defendant can produce sufficient indication that the jury's finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was wrong, the institutional need for finality yields to the more compelling concerns of truth and fairness. Thus, the "reasonable doubt" foundation of the adversary method attains neither certainty on the part of the factfinders nor infallibility, and accommodations to that failing are well established in our society."

Kindly,
Kate


you rock Kate!

[William Anthony]

Well William, the definition of the word "verdict" in the legal dictionary that I have right at my desk is as follows:

noun 1. Law. the finding or answer of a jury given to the court concerning a matter submitted to their judgment.

Or take Supreme Court case BURR v. FLORIDA , 474 U.S. 879 (1985) in which the opinion of the panel is that "the institutions of criminal justice have been adjusted in recognition that a jury's verdict and truth are not unerringly synonymous. Every jurisdiction provides some mechanism for awarding a convicted defendant a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. If a convicted defendant can produce sufficient indication that the jury's finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was wrong, the institutional need for finality yields to the more compelling concerns of truth and fairness. Thus, the "reasonable doubt" foundation of the adversary method attains neither certainty on the part of the factfinders nor infallibility, and accommodations to that failing are well established in our society."

Kindly,
Kate

I see that the dictionary you use is comporable to the generally accepted one-Black's Law Dictionary. The Black's Law Dictionary that I have gives an identical definition. However, it inculdes a preceeding sentence, which is "From the Latin, "verdictum" a true declaration."

I will not disagree with the statement you have cited from the case law, but I will say that the cited section is irrelevant and immaterial, since it is speaking of a defendant being found guilty. There is no provision, or at least that I know of, with exception of the Carr case, that some here have objected to making mention, which provides that the concept of double jeopardy can be overidden with a finding of new evidence. I am of the belief that the law is so structured to prevent the innocent from being found guilty even if it means letting the guilty go free.

The fact of the matter is that the jury spoke a truth (verdictum), which is that the verdict is that, until the law changes, Simpson can never be legally labled a criminal for the murders, because the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty as charged. Some may choose to believe he is, but the fact remains that he had his day in court and the verdictum of the verdict was that he should not be punished, re-tried, incarcerated for, and referred to as the defendant on trial for committing double murder, and he can never be proven guilty by a court of law as a murderer, until the law changes.

B'sLD-Abriged Sixth Edition, West Publishing Company 1991 pg. 1080

[bobaugust]

I see that the dictionary you use is comporable to the generally accepted one-Black's Law Dictionary. The Black's Law Dictionary that I have gives an identical definition. However, it inculdes a preceeding sentence, which is "From the Latin, "verdictum" a true declaration."

I will not disagree with the statement you have cited from the case law, but I will say that the cited section is irrelevant and immaterial, since it is speaking of a defendant being found guilty. There is no provision, or at least that I know of, with exception of the Carr case, that some here have objected to making mention, which provides that the concept of double jeopardy can be overidden with a finding of new evidence. I am of the belief that the law is so structured to prevent the innocent from being found guilty even if it means letting the guilty go free.

The fact of the matter is that the jury spoke a truth (verdictum), which is that the verdict is that, until the law changes, Simpson can never be legally labled a criminal for the murders, because the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty as charged. Some may choose to believe he is, but the fact remains that he had his day in court and the verdictum of the verdict was that he should not be punished, re-tried, incarcerated for, and referred to as the defendant on trial for committing double murder, and he can never be proven guilty by a court of law as a murderer, until the law changes.

B'sLD-Abriged Sixth Edition, West Publishing Company 1991 pg. 1080

Simpson also had another day in court where new evidence was presented and he had to testify. Even though the civil trial jury found him responsible for both deaths that doesn't change the fact that he will never again be criminally prosecuted for the murders. But that fact doesn't change the reality of the lies he told under oath or the reality of the evidence that proved he murdered both Ron and Nicole.

Not too many people can say they got away with murder and actually have it be literally true. But Simpson can. It's his greatest achievement.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Simpson also had another day in court where new evidence was presented and he had to testify. Even though the civil trial jury found him responsible for both deaths that doesn't change the fact that he will never again be criminally prosecuted for the murders. But that fact doesn't change the reality of the lies he told under oath or the reality of the evidence that proved he murdered both Ron and Nicole.

Not too many people can say they got away with murder and actually have it be literally true. But Simpson can. It's his greatest achievement.

bobaugust

The reality of the evidence proved him liable for the wrongful deaths as the verdictum of the jury verdict and nothing else. Inho, the reality of the lies told by LE and other witnesses proved the evidence was insufficient to ever prove him guilty of murder. Other than the fact that Simpson took the stand, what other new evidence was presented. Imho, if you are speaking of the evidence of the woman who allegedly saw Simpson driving away from Bundy, the prosecution did not believe she could withstand the evidentiary standard for evidence in a criminal trial or the cross of the dream team. Imho, what is more important is the evidence that was excluded in the civil trial, which reinforces my opinion that the civil trial was a stagged political production.

[bobaugust]

The reality of the evidence proved him liable for the wrongful deaths as the verdictum of the jury verdict and nothing else. Inho, the reality of the lies told by LE and other witnesses proved the evidence was insufficient to ever prove him guilty of murder. Other than the fact that Simpson took the stand, what other new evidence was presented. Imho, if you are speaking of the evidence of the woman who allegedly saw Simpson driving away from Bundy, the prosecution did not believe she could withstand the evidentiary standard for evidence in a criminal trial or the cross of the dream team. Imho, what is more important is the evidence that was excluded in the civil trial, which reinforces my opinion that the civil trial was a stagged political production.

The reality is that the reason the civil trial jury found Simpson liable for the wrongful deaths of both victims is because they believed he murdered both victims.

Mark Fuhrman was the only LE officer found to have lied in the criminal trial. A lie that was completely meaningless to Simpson's guilt or innocence. Some of the new evidence presented in the civil trial was over thirty authenticated photographs taken by two different photographers nine months before the murders showing Simpson wearing the exact kind of shoes that were consistent with leaving the bloody shoe prints at Bundy and in his Bronco.

As well as evidence that Paula Barbieri left a dear john message the morning of the murders ending her relationship with Simpson. A fact that the criminal defense hid from the criminal trial jury.

As well as Dr. Cotton's testimony that based on her testing of the degradation levels of Nicole's blood found on Simpson's sock and the degradation levels of her autopsy sample it was impossible for Nicole's blood on the sock to have come from her autopsy sample. That fact proved the defense blood planting claim false.

The reason Marcia Clark dropped Jill Shively had nothing to do with Shively's testimony regarding her encounter with Simpson the night of the murders.

There was no legitimate evidence excluded from the civil trial. Any legitimate evidence the defense could support was allowed. Once again you offer your uninformed opinion.

bobaugust

[Kate Sachel]

I see that the dictionary you use is comporable to the generally accepted one-Black's Law Dictionary. The Black's Law Dictionary that I have gives an identical definition. However, it inculdes a preceeding sentence, which is "From the Latin, "verdictum" a true declaration."

I will not disagree with the statement you have cited from the case law, but I will say that the cited section is irrelevant and immaterial, since it is speaking of a defendant being found guilty. There is no provision, or at least that I know of, with exception of the Carr case, that some here have objected to making mention, which provides that the concept of double jeopardy can be overidden with a finding of new evidence. I am of the belief that the law is so structured to prevent the innocent from being found guilty even if it means letting the guilty go free.

The fact of the matter is that the jury spoke a truth (verdictum), which is that the verdict is that, until the law changes, Simpson can never be legally labled a criminal for the murders, because the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty as charged. Some may choose to believe he is, but the fact remains that he had his day in court and the verdictum of the verdict was that he should not be punished, re-tried, incarcerated for, and referred to as the defendant on trial for committing double murder, and he can never be proven guilty by a court of law as a murderer, until the law changes.

B'sLD-Abriged Sixth Edition, West Publishing Company 1991 pg. 1080

It's not irrelevant.

It doesn't matter whether you're speaking of a guilty or not guilty verdict, the fact of the matter is that the decision of the panel refers to the fact that a veridcy - any verdict! - and truth are not synonomous. The issue is not whether the defendant OJ Simpson can ever be retried for murder, the issue is the fact that the jury doesn't always always render a verdict that speaks to the truth. If they did, we wouldn't have men being released from prison today based on new evidence that exonerates those individuals. Clearly the jury verdict wasn't the truth in those cases.

Just as new evidence comes to light to show innocence, new evidence is just as capable of coming to light to show guilt, the only difference being that the guilty can never again be tried.

Excellent effort on your argument though.

Kate

[William Anthony]

It's not irrelevant.

It doesn't matter whether you're speaking of a guilty or not guilty verdict, the fact of the matter is that the decision of the panel refers to the fact that a veridcy - any verdict! - and truth are not synonomous. The issue is not whether the defendant OJ Simpson can ever be retried for murder, the issue is the fact that the jury doesn't always always render a verdict that speaks to the truth. If they did, we wouldn't have men being released from prison today based on new evidence that exonerates those individuals. Clearly the jury verdict wasn't the truth in those cases.

Just as new evidence comes to light to show innocence, new evidence is just as capable of coming to light to show guilt, the only difference being that the guilty can never again be tried.

Excellent effort on your argument though.

Kate

I think that you should look up the latin for verdictum, which will say to speak the truth. The verdict/truth is what the jury determined based upon the evidence presented. Since the evidence must be "new evidence", it is obvious that the jury did not have that evidence at hand when they spoke the truth of what the evidence proved.

New evidence can never be admitted in a cout of law to show guilt, because as you somewhat correctly state "the guilty can never again be tried.", the acquitted defendant can never be retried, where the new evidence is put to the test of legal sufficiency.

Excellent effort on your argument though.

[bobaugust]

I think that you should look up the latin for verdictum, which will say to speak the truth. The verdict/truth is what the jury determined based upon the evidence presented. Since the evidence must be "new evidence", it is obvious that the jury did not have that evidence at hand when they spoke the truth of what the evidence proved.

New evidence can never be admitted in a cout of law to show guilt, because as you somewhat correctly state "the guilty can never again be tried.", the acquitted defendant can never be retried, where the new evidence is put to the test of legal sufficiency.

Excellent effort on your argument though.

New evidence was presented in the civil trial as well as Simpson testified in the civil trial. The new evidence along with the evidence from the criminal trial as well as Simpson's lying testimony convinced the civil trial jury that Simpson murdered both Ron and Nicole. That's what their verdict means.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The reality is that the reason the civil trial jury found Simpson liable for the wrongful deaths of both victims is because they believed he murdered both victims.

Mark Fuhrman was the only LE officer found to have lied in the criminal trial. A lie that was completely meaningless to Simpson's guilt or innocence. Some of the new evidence presented in the civil trial was over thirty authenticated photographs taken by two different photographers nine months before the murders showing Simpson wearing the exact kind of shoes that were consistent with leaving the bloody shoe prints at Bundy and in his Bronco.

As well as evidence that Paula Barbieri left a dear john message the morning of the murders ending her relationship with Simpson. A fact that the criminal defense hid from the criminal trial jury.

As well as Dr. Cotton's testimony that based on her testing of the degradation levels of Nicole's blood found on Simpson's sock and the degradation levels of her autopsy sample it was impossible for Nicole's blood on the sock to have come from her autopsy sample. That fact proved the defense blood planting claim false.

The reason Marcia Clark dropped Jill Shively had nothing to do with Shively's testimony regarding her encounter with Simpson the night of the murders.

There was no legitimate evidence excluded from the civil trial. Any legitimate evidence the defense could support was allowed. Once again you offer your uninformed opinion.

bobaugust

I will not engage in a lengthy debate with you on the admissibility of evidence, but will say that a witness' proclivity for not telling the truth is always admissible. Imho, this would include the MF's claim to have found the glove behind Kato's quarters.

The reason the prosecution dropped Jill in regard to her alleged encounter with Simpson was because the pale in which she carried the testimony would not hold water, imho.

The dear John letter is irrelevant and immaterial and should not have been admitted, imho, since Paula supported Simpson after writing it, proving that every goodbye is not gone.

I do not believe that Dr. Cotton's evidence was new. However, I will reserve comment on that until I review her testimony from the criminal trial.

On the shoe issue, I believe Simpson testified he did not own a pair of those ugly shoes. However, I am not certain. The fact that he wore similar shoes at games while broadcasting, does not mean he owned a pair he wore on the night of the murders, imho. Show me the link/testimony of some one placing those shoes on his feet on that night.

[William Anthony]

Not too many people can say they got away with murder and actually have it be literally true. But Simpson can. It's his greatest achievement.

bobaugust

Simpson's greatestt achievement was in exposing the corruption, mistakes, false results and sloppiness in LE, as well as weaknesses in the prosecution's case, imho.

[bobaugust]

Simpson's greatestt achievement was in exposing the corruption, mistakes, false results and sloppiness in LE, as well as weaknesses in the prosecution's case, imho.

The only thing Simpson did in court was lie under oath.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The only thing Simpson did in court was lie under oath.

bobaugust

I thought you understood that Simpson spoke through his defense.

[William Anthony]

New evidence was presented in the civil trial as well as Simpson testified in the civil trial. The new evidence along with the evidence from the criminal trial as well as Simpson's lying testimony convinced the civil trial jury that Simpson murdered both Ron and Nicole. That's what their verdict means.

bobaugust

The new evidence and Simpson's testimony was found by the civil jury to mean that Simpson was liable for the wrongful deaths and nothing more. The evidence presented in the criminal trial should not have been considered by the civil jury. Are you saying that Simpson did not receive a fair trial, because the civil jury improperly considered this evidence?

[martin II]

I will not engage in a lengthy debate with you on the admissibility of evidence, but will say that a witness' proclivity for not telling the truth is always admissible. Imho, this would include the MF's claim to have found the glove behind Kato's quarters.

The reason the prosecution dropped Jill in regard to her alleged encounter with Simpson was because the pale in which she carried the testimony would not hold water, imho.

The dear John letter is irrelevant and immaterial and should not have been admitted, imho, since Paula supported Simpson after writing it, proving that every goodbye is not gone.

I do not believe that Dr. Cotton's evidence was new. However, I will reserve comment on that until I review her testimony from the criminal trial.

On the shoe issue, I believe Simpson testified he did not own a pair of those ugly shoes. However, I am not certain. The fact that he wore similar shoes at games while broadcasting, does not mean he owned a pair he wore on the night of the murders, imho. Show me the link/testimony of some one placing those shoes on his feet on that night.


wiliam
"every goodbye is not gone" i like that and Paula did prove that to be true.

martin II

[weezer]

wiliam
"every goodbye is not gone" i like that and Paula did prove that to be true.

martin II

LOL -- but not for long!

[bobaugust]

I will not engage in a lengthy debate with you on the admissibility of evidence, but will say that a witness' proclivity for not telling the truth is always admissible. Imho, this would include the MF's claim to have found the glove behind Kato's quarters.

The reason the prosecution dropped Jill in regard to her alleged encounter with Simpson was because the pale in which she carried the testimony would not hold water, imho.

The dear John letter is irrelevant and immaterial and should not have been admitted, imho, since Paula supported Simpson after writing it, proving that every goodbye is not gone.

I do not believe that Dr. Cotton's evidence was new. However, I will reserve comment on that until I review her testimony from the criminal trial.

On the shoe issue, I believe Simpson testified he did not own a pair of those ugly shoes. However, I am not certain. The fact that he wore similar shoes at games while broadcasting, does not mean he owned a pair he wore on the night of the murders, imho. Show me the link/testimony of some one placing those shoes on his feet on that night.

Mark Fuhrman's one minor irrelevant lie did not constitute a proclivity for not telling the truth.

Your reason why you think the prosecution dropped Shively is wrong.

Simpson never called Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes ugly shoes. Over thirty authenticated photographs taken by two different photographers show Simpson wearing shoes with the exact same sole pattern that made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. When confronted with these photographs Simpson blatantly lied claiming that he wasn't wearing the shoes all the photographs show him wearing.

A dear John letter? What dear John letter? The fact is that in Paula's deposition she disclosed that she had left a long message on Simpson's cell phone message center the morning of the murders ending their relationship. A message that Simpson denied under oath he ever heard even when his telephone records documented the times he called his message center and listened to it and even when Dr. Lenore Walker's notes were read where Simpson told her about that message. Why would Simpson blatantly lie about this? Because he knew how incriminating it was and that Johnnie Cochran had lied to the criminal trial jury to hide it.

Triumph of Justice.
"Johnnie Cochran had emphasized Paula's relationship with Simpson in the criminal trial. Simpson, he told the jury, had no motive to kill Nicole because he was deeply involved with Paula at the time of the murders. They were back
together, he said, Simpson had even called an interior decorator to design a bedroom at the Rockingham estate to Paula's tastes. They had attended a fancy party Saturday night, June 11, and witnesses saw Simpson and Paula there, happy as lovebirds. They were embarking on a life together, perhaps even looking toward marriage. So, according to Cochran, why kill Nicole? Simpson wasn't obsessed with Nicole, he had Paula.
*
I probed Paula's relationship with Simpson's family, his children Sydney, Justin, Jason, and Arnelle. Paula and Simpson I found did not exhibit the characteristics of two people who were in love and close to being married. They didn't do things as a family. Paula didn't spend time with the children, they didn't go shopping, they didn't go to church together, she was not part of their lives. There was family, and then there was Paula. This confirmed everything I had read and seen in preparing for this deposition. Paula was a sex object. Paula was an armpiece. She was the person Simpson would summon during interruptions in his relationship with Nicole, or even on the side. but it was clear she would never be Mrs. Simpson, because he truly loved Nicole. If he didn't love Nicole, he would not have killed her. He killed her in anger, in retaliation, in rage. Throughout the criminal trial and now in the civil case, Simpson sought to diffuse and conceal this motive by trying to create the impression that he had a life with Paula, that they had a future, that Nicole was out of the picture. and Paula was the one for him. As I spoke with the woman, it became increasingly clear that was not true.


Cochran lied to the criminal trial jury in his closing statement
September 27, 1995
"Let me just make a comment about Paula Barbieri. One of the most outrageous things I heard yesterday was this wild speculation that O.J. Simpson had some kind of falling out with Paula Barbieri on that Sunday. Where is the evidence of that? That is preposterous."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The new evidence and Simpson's testimony was found by the civil jury to mean that Simpson was liable for the wrongful deaths and nothing more. The evidence presented in the criminal trial should not have been considered by the civil jury. Are you saying that Simpson did not receive a fair trial, because the civil jury improperly considered this evidence?

The new evidence tied Simpson to the murders and when he was confronted with it he lied. The same witnesses who testified about the evidence in the criminal trial testified about the same evidence in the civil trial. The defense even showed the video of the criminal trial glove demonstration to the jury. Do you claim that was also improper?

The reason the civil trial jury found Simpson responsible for both deaths is because they believed he murdered both victims. If they hadn't believed that they wouldn't have found him responsible.

bobaugust

[weezer]

*SNIPPED*. . . Cochran lied to the criminal trial jury in his closing statement September 27, 1995, "Let me just make a comment about Paula Barbieri. One of the most outrageous things I heard yesterday was this wild speculation that O.J. Simpson had some kind of falling out with Paula Barbieri on that Sunday. Where is the evidence of that? That is preposterous."

I've always felt it spoke volumes about Paula's character that she allowed that lie -- and, of course, we know cochran's character for what it was so it is not a surprise that he had no qualms about telling this blatant lie to the court. imo

[Kate Sachel]

I think that you should look up the latin for verdictum, which will say to speak the truth. The verdict/truth is what the jury determined based upon the evidence presented. Since the evidence must be "new evidence", it is obvious that the jury did not have that evidence at hand when they spoke the truth of what the evidence proved.

New evidence can never be admitted in a cout of law to show guilt, because as you somewhat correctly state "the guilty can never again be tried.", the acquitted defendant can never be retried, where the new evidence is put to the test of legal sufficiency.

Excellent effort on your argument though.

Yes, my argument was excellent, thank you.

I think I'll stick with the opinion of actual Supreme Court judges versus what I percieve to be your tunnel vision though.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Yes, my argument was excellent, thank you.

I think I'll stick with the opinion of actual Supreme Court judges versus what I percieve to be your tunnel vision though.

Kate

You may perceive my vision as tunnel vision. However, the Supreme Court Justices did not speak to a defendant that had been acquitted in the dicta you cited. Ergo, the cited dicta is irrelevant and immaterial to the facts in the Simpson case. Your agrument was excellent, even though it was off-point, imho. I was also speaking to the dicta you used, which, imho, was improper. You stated the guilty can never be tried again (which indicates that you agree with my argument, as you say, that a verdict of not guilty is a finality or a statement of truth) but the proper wording is that a defendant that has been acquitted can never be tried again. Hence, we will never know, if any additional evidence would have been legally admissible or withstood the rigors of cross-examination. Therefore, although my vision may be perceived by you as being tunnel vision, I hope that you may share my vision so that you can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

[William Anthony]

The new evidence tied Simpson to the murders and when he was confronted with it he lied. The same witnesses who testified about the evidence in the criminal trial testified about the same evidence in the civil trial. The defense even showed the video of the criminal trial glove demonstration to the jury. Do you claim that was also improper?

The reason the civil trial jury found Simpson responsible for both deaths is because they believed he murdered both victims. If they hadn't believed that they wouldn't have found him responsible.

bobaugust

As I have admitted to you I did not follow what I considered to be a political production. However, with that said, here is the statement from your previous post.

"The new evidence along with the evidence from the criminal trial as well as Simpson's lying testimony convinced the civil trial jury that Simpson murdered both Ron and Nicole."

Your post is dubious as to its meaning, in that you did not clarify whether or not evidence from the criminal trial was presented in the civil trial.

I will continue to tell you that I do not know what they believed-I only know what the verdict meant.

[William Anthony]

Mark Fuhrman's one minor irrelevant lie did not constitute a proclivity for not telling the truth.

Your reason why you think the prosecution dropped Shively is wrong.

Simpson never called Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes ugly shoes. Over thirty authenticated photographs taken by two different photographers show Simpson wearing shoes with the exact same sole pattern that made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. When confronted with these photographs Simpson blatantly lied claiming that he wasn't wearing the shoes all the photographs show him wearing.

A dear John letter? What dear John letter? The fact is that in Paula's deposition she disclosed that she had left a long message on Simpson's cell phone message center the morning of the murders ending their relationship. A message that Simpson denied under oath he ever heard even when his telephone records documented the times he called his message center and listened to it and even when Dr. Lenore Walker's notes were read where Simpson told her about that message. Why would Simpson blatantly lie about this? Because he knew how incriminating it was and that Johnnie Cochran had lied to the criminal trial jury to hide it.

Triumph of Justice.
"Johnnie Cochran had emphasized Paula's relationship with Simpson in the criminal trial. Simpson, he told the jury, had no motive to kill Nicole because he was deeply involved with Paula at the time of the murders. They were back
together, he said, Simpson had even called an interior decorator to design a bedroom at the Rockingham estate to Paula's tastes. They had attended a fancy party Saturday night, June 11, and witnesses saw Simpson and Paula there, happy as lovebirds. They were embarking on a life together, perhaps even looking toward marriage. So, according to Cochran, why kill Nicole? Simpson wasn't obsessed with Nicole, he had Paula.
*
I probed Paula's relationship with Simpson's family, his children Sydney, Justin, Jason, and Arnelle. Paula and Simpson I found did not exhibit the characteristics of two people who were in love and close to being married. They didn't do things as a family. Paula didn't spend time with the children, they didn't go shopping, they didn't go to church together, she was not part of their lives. There was family, and then there was Paula. This confirmed everything I had read and seen in preparing for this deposition. Paula was a sex object. Paula was an armpiece. She was the person Simpson would summon during interruptions in his relationship with Nicole, or even on the side. but it was clear she would never be Mrs. Simpson, because he truly loved Nicole. If he didn't love Nicole, he would not have killed her. He killed her in anger, in retaliation, in rage. Throughout the criminal trial and now in the civil case, Simpson sought to diffuse and conceal this motive by trying to create the impression that he had a life with Paula, that they had a future, that Nicole was out of the picture. and Paula was the one for him. As I spoke with the woman, it became increasingly clear that was not true.


Cochran lied to the criminal trial jury in his closing statement
September 27, 1995
"Let me just make a comment about Paula Barbieri. One of the most outrageous things I heard yesterday was this wild speculation that O.J. Simpson had some kind of falling out with Paula Barbieri on that Sunday. Where is the evidence of that? That is preposterous."

bobaugust

I will say that the MF was not the only person I think who lied on the stand for the prosecution.

I will address the last paragraph of your quote about JC. If what you say is true that Paula left the Dear John message/letter (slang for when a woman breaks up with a man), then JC did not lie-Paula had the falling out with Simpson and there is no evidence that Simpson ever fell out with her. In fact, the evidence supports the position that, despite any emotions she felt, she loved and stood by her man. I will agree that this shows Paula's excellent character traits.

[William Anthony]

Seriously, are you able to type this with a straight face?

Yes, because they only found him liable for the wrongful deaths. Whatever else we believe the verdict meant is pure speculation and conjecture. Please, allow me to speculate and conjure, smile.

[William Anthony]

socaldiva, you mean you haven't heard about that notorious band of murdering racists? That's why we keep hearing about black celebritities whose white wives are murdered along with whomever is with them at the time. For OJS to know it would lead to her death means it must happen all the time. Why, it's practically an epidemic! :D


The jury only had to believe that it was more likely than not he knew it would happen this time.

[bobaugust]

I will say that the MF was not the only person I think who lied on the stand for the prosecution.

I will address the last paragraph of your quote about JC. If what you say is true that Paula left the Dear John message/letter (slang for when a woman breaks up with a man), then JC did not lie-Paula had the falling out with Simpson and there is no evidence that Simpson ever fell out with her. In fact, the evidence supports the position that, despite any emotions she felt, she loved and stood by her man. I will agree that this shows Paula's excellent character traits.

What you think and what the facts are concerning lies are two different things.

* Paula left a long message on Simpson's cell phone message center at 7:00 A.M. the morning of the day of the murders ending her relationship with Simpson.
* Simpson called his message center from his house phone at 6:56 P.M. the evening of the day the murders and call Paula's message and listened to it.
* Simpson called Gretchen Stockdale at 7:32 P.M. and left a message on her answering machine that he was "unattached" for the first time in a long time.
* Simpson called his message center again from his house phone at 8:55 P.M. and again call forwarded Paula's message and listened to it.
* Simpson called Paula and left a message on her answering machine referring to the message she had left him.
* Dr. Lenore Walker spent some 60 hours talking with Simpson in his jail cell. She took contemporaneous notes of her sessions. Her notes document that Simpson told her he call forwarded a message Paula left on his car phone and some of the details of that message.
* Paul Barbieri revealed the fact about the message she left Simpson that Sunday morning in her deposition. She also testified that based on the message Simpson later left on her answering machine she believed he had picked up her message and was responding to it.

* Johnnie Cochran hid these facts and lied to the criminal trial jury when he told them "Let me just make a comment about Paula Barbieri. One of the most outrageous things I heard yesterday was this wild speculation that O.J. Simpson had some kind of falling out with Paula Barbieri on that Sunday. Where is the evidence of that? That is preposterous."

bobaugust

[weezer]

The jury only had to believe that it was more likely than not he knew it would happen this time.

evidence proved that he knew it did happen 'this' time -- two butchered bodies. Facts, evidence and testimony proved orenthal james simpson to be the Butcher of Brentwood. imo

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Paul Barbieri revealed the fact about the message she left Simpson that Sunday morning in her deposition. She also testified that based on the message Simpson later left on her answering machine she believed he had picked up her message and was responding to it.


She sure did & if it were of no consequence, Cochran & Simpson wouldn't have lied about it.

IIRC someone posted today something to the effect that it was Paula breaking up with Simpson, but he didn't have a problem with her. What difference does that make?? While it takes 2 to build a relationship, it only takes one to severe it ;)

[William Anthony]

A careful reading of what the post said he said will show that he did not lie. As I read it, it was not a denial that Paula fell out with Simpson, only a denial that Simpson fell out with Paula. One should be careful about placing labels on others.

[William Anthony]

evidence proved that he knew it did happen 'this' time -- two butchered bodies. Facts, evidence and testimony proved orenthal james simpson to be the Butcher of Brentwood. imo

That is your opinion and 12 people on the jury disagreed.

[weezer]

That is your opinion and 12 people on the jury disagreed.

you're right -- me and most of America. ;)

[socaldiva]

you're right -- me and most of America. ;)

:beer: :beer: :beer:

[William Anthony]

you're right -- me and most of America. ;)

You are right and the only opinion that matters is that of the 12.

[weezer]

You are right and the only opinion that matters is that of the 12.

orenthal doesn't agree with you:

". . .So why do I end up like this? I can't go on. No matter what the outcome, people will look and point. I can't take that. . ."

[William Anthony]

orenthal doesn't agree with you:

". . .So why do I end up like this? I can't go on. No matter what the outcome, people will look and point. I can't take that. . ."

I cannot speak to what he feels that he can take, only to the fact that he can't be taken to prison due to the verdict. Since your quote is incomplete, I cannot authoratatively speak to what he cannot take. Maybe, he cant take that people can not accept he had his day in court and was set free.

[socaldiva]

orenthal doesn't agree with you:

". . .So why do I end up like this? I can't go on. No matter what the outcome, people will look and point. I can't take that. . ."

I guess some don't know when this statement was made. Most people know precisely what he was talking about. ;)

[weezer]

I cannot speak to what he feels that he can take, only to the fact that he can't be taken to prison due to the verdict. Since your quote is incomplete, I cannot authoratatively speak to what he cannot take. Maybe, he cant take that people can not accept he had his day in court and was set free.

nope -- wrong again. This is from his 'suicide' note so your suppositions don't work.

[William Anthony]

nope -- wrong again. This is from his 'suicide' note so your suppositions don't work.

Then this is irrelevant and immaterial and could be called baiting, since he was proven not guilty in a court of law after he had written the suicide note. Since the verdict, he has continued his life and relied on the opinion of the 12who counted, imho. I will not say that you baited me and only believe that you, like me, have become sleepy. Good night and I have enjoyed the discussion.

[tv]

Yes, because they only found him liable for the wrongful deaths. Whatever else we believe the verdict meant is pure speculation and conjecture. Please, allow me to speculate and conjure, smile.Liable means responsible. The jury verdict meant that OJS was directly responsible for killing Ron and Nicole. They based their decision on the evidence and facts of the case as presented during the trial. Thanks for acknowledging that your theories are pure speculation and conjecture with no basis in reality. :)

[William Anthony]

Liable means responsible. The jury verdict meant that OJS was directly responsible for killing Ron and Nicole. They based their decision on the evidence and facts of the case as presented during the trial. Thanks for acknowledging that your theories are pure speculation and conjecture with no basis in reality. :)

I was only seaking equality in being allowed the same privilege as others on this board who have engaged in speculation and conjecture as tp what the civil jury believed and what the evidence proved, without having been there to personally observe and judge the demeanor/credibility of the evidence. The reality is that the verdict could and only meant he was forund liable/responsible for the wrongful deaths not murder.

[bobaugust]

I was only seaking equality in being allowed the same privilege as others on this board who have engaged in speculation and conjecture as tp what the civil jury believed and what the evidence proved, without having been there to personally observe and judge the demeanor/credibility of the evidence. The reality is that the verdict could and only meant he was forund liable/responsible for the wrongful deaths not murder.

The question why was Simpson found responsible for the deaths? Because based on the evidence and Simpson's lying testimony the civil trial jury believed Simpson killed both victims.
The question what does found responsible for the deaths mean? It means the civil trial jury believed Simpson killed both victims.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The question why was Simpson found responsible for the deaths? Because based on the evidence and Simpson's lying testimony the civil trial jury believed Simpson killed both victims.
The question what does found responsible for the deaths mean? It means the civil trial jury believed Simpson killed both victims.

bobaugust

How does it feel to have to reinforce your opinion by you? You asked a question in this post and answered it. Do you not want others of opposite viewpoints to engage in discussions with you? Are you alright?

[bobaugust]

How does it feel to have to reinforce your opinion by you? You asked a question in this post and answered it. Do you not want others of opposite viewpoints to engage in discussions with you? Are you alright?

My post was an attempt to explain to you what the civll trial verdict meant as simply as possible since you're having such a hard time understanding it. Yes I'm fine thank you, I'm just trying to help you William.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

My post was an attempt to explain to you what the civll trial verdict meant as simply as possible since you're having such a hard time understanding it. Yes I'm fine thank you, I'm just trying to help you William.

bobaugust

I understand that you were trying to explain to me what the verdict meant to you. However, all the college instuctors and legal practitioners that I have known and spoke with on the subject agree with the meaning in the post quoting AD. Therefore, I will continue to accept their meaning and reject yours, although I do appreciate your attempt to help me.

[bobaugust]

I understand that you were trying to explain to me what the verdict meant to you. However, all the college instuctors and legal practitioners that I have known and spoke with on the subject agree with the meaning in the post quoting AD. Therefore, I will continue to accept their meaning and reject yours, although I do appreciate your attempt to help me.

We only know what you think you're college instructors and legal practitioners explained to you, but the fact that you can't seem to grasp the simple fact that the civil trial jury verdict means the jurors believed Simpson killed both victims tells us you're having a lot of trouble understanding this reality.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

We only know what you think you're college instructors and legal practitioners explained to you, but the fact that you can't seem to grasp the simple fact that the civil trial jury verdict means the jurors believed Simpson killed both victims tells us you're having a lot of trouble understanding this reality.

bobaugust

I am having trouble helping you to understand the reality of what the verdict meant. Obviously, AD's college instuctors and other legal practitioners explained the exact same definition as I have to AD, which means that the reality of the verdict's meaning has been the meaning for quite some time.

[bobaugust]

I am having trouble helping you to understand the reality of what the verdict meant. Obviously, AD's college instuctors and other legal practitioners explained the exact same definition as I have to AD, which means that the reality of the verdict's meaning has been the meaning for quite some time.

The civil trial jury "found by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death."

I'm sorry William but based on your postings it's evident you don't know what the civil trial jury verdict means if you can't understand that it means Simpson killed both victims.


bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The civil trial jury "found by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death."

I'm sorry William but based on your postings it's evident you don't know what the civil trial jury verdict means if you can't understand that it means Simpson killed both victims.


bobaugust

I am sorry bobaugust but based on your posting it is evident that you do not understand that willfully and wrongfully causing the death is not the same as murdering or killling as you are now trying to change your wording.

[bobaugust]

I am sorry bobaugust but based on your posting it is evident that you do not understand that willfully and wrongfully causing the death is not the same as murdering or killling as you are now trying to change your wording.

In the Simpson civil trial committing battery, oppression, and malice, willfully and wrongfully causing the death is the same thing as murdering or killing. That's what the plaintiffs argued, that's what the jury believed, and that's what their verdict means.

Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

In the Simpson civil trial committing battery, oppression, and malice, willfully and wrongfully causing the death is the same thing as murdering or killing. That's what the plaintiffs argued, that's what the jury believed, and that's what their verdict means.

Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

bobaugust

I think you have it, the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. Battery and oppression with malice is a civil wrong. They can never be the same, despite your apparent displeasure at that fact.

[bobaugust]

I think you have it, the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. Battery and oppression with malice is a civil wrong. They can never be the same, despite your apparent displeasure at that fact.

The fact is that Simpson killed two people. That makes him a killer. A killer who got away with murder.

The civil trial was about providing some justice for the victims families from the person who killed their family members. If the civil trial jurors didn't believe Simpson killed both victims the verdict would have been different. The fact is that that based on the evidence presented and Simpson's lying testimony they did believe he killed both victims. That's what their verdict meant and that's why they awarded the victims families $33.5 million in damages.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The fact is that Simpson killed two people. That makes him a killer. A killer who got away with murder.

The civil trial was about providing some justice for the victims families from the person who killed their family members. If the civil trial jurors didn't believe Simpson killed both victims the verdict would have been different. The fact is that that based on the evidence presented and Simpson's lying testimony they did believe he killed both victims. That's what their verdict meant and that's why they awarded the victims families $33.5 million in damages.

bobaugust

The fact is that he was proven not guilty. However, as it has been posted, most perceive that he got away with murder. The movie Hollywood comes to mind, which is why I think the civil trial was a political production. In the movie that was based on true incidents, many went to great lengths, including mudering and wipping out an entire Black community, because a Black was accused of injuring a White woman, even though many did not believe it. This is why I call the civil trial a political production, because it was made to sooth the anger caused by the perception of most that Simpson, with the aid of JC got away with murder. I will not call the award unfair, as I have yet to review anything in the civil case. However, most seem satisfied with the amount awarded. I personally think that no amount of money would compensate me for the death of my son.

[bobaugust]

The fact is that he was proven not guilty. However, as it has been posted, most perceive that he got away with murder. The movie Hollywood comes to mind, which is why I think the civil trial was a political production. In the movie that was based on true incidents, many went to great lengths, including mudering and wipping out an entire Black community, because a Black was accused of injuring a White woman, even though many did not believe it. This is why I call the civil trial a political production, because it was made to sooth the anger caused by the perception of most that Simpson, with the aid of JC got away with murder. I will not call the award unfair, as I have yet to review anything in the civil case. However, most seem satisfied with the amount awarded. I personally think that no amount of money would compensate me for the death of my son.

You can call the civil trial any name you wish just as others call the criminal trial other names but it doesn't change the reality that in the civil trial incriminating evidence was presented that the defendant blatantly lied about because he had no credible explanation to dispute it. The fact that the criminal trial jury acquitted Simpson does not mean he wasn't the killer. In the ciivl trial the evidence presented and Simpson's lies made it very clear he was.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You can call the civil trial any name you wish just as others call the criminal trial other names but it doesn't change the reality that in the civil trial incriminating evidence was presented that the defendant blatantly lied about because he had no credible explanation to dispute it. The fact that the criminal trial jury acquitted Simpson does not mean he wasn't the killer. In the ciivl trial the evidence presented and Simpson's lies made it very clear he was.

bobaugust

When I paint a house, I try to keep my brush strokes even. If LE and other prosecution witnesses made mistakes and human errors, it is only even to say that Simpson made mistakes and human errors, instead of blatant lies. I have not called the civil trial anything. I said I think and gave my reasons why I think so. The fact that he was acquitted means the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty of the crime and a civil trial cannot find him guilty of a crime, which committing murder by battery and oppression with malice aforethought would be. Thus, you may want to believe the evidence found him guilty but the verdict says the evidence was sufficient to find him liable for the wrongful deaths. To state what the jury believed may be wishful thinking, inho, but I am sure it is speculation and conjecture. To state what you believe, as your opinion, is your right, as I have a right to mine.

[bobaugust]

When I paint a house, I try to keep my brush strokes even. If LE and other prosecution witnesses made mistakes and human errors, it is only even to say that Simpson made mistakes and human errors, instead of blatant lies. I have not called the civil trial anything. I said I think and gave my reasons why I think so. The fact that he was acquitted means the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty of the crime and a civil trial cannot find him guilty of a crime, which committing murder by battery and oppression with malice aforethought would be. Thus, you may want to believe the evidence found him guilty but the verdict says the evidence was sufficient to find him liable for the wrongful deaths. To state what the jury believed may be wishful thinking, inho, but I am sure it is speculation and conjecture. To state what you believe, as your opinion, is your right, as I have a right to mine.

There is no comparison between mistakes made and corrected by witnesses and the defendants outright lies when confronted with indisputable incriminating evidence.

The fact that Simpson was acquitted has to do with the criminal trial jurors inability to tell the difference between fact and fiction. No one is claiming that Simpson was found guilty in the civil trial, he was found to be a liar and a killer responsible for the deaths of both victims.

bobaugust

[Kate Sachel]

You may perceive my vision as tunnel vision. However, the Supreme Court Justices did not speak to a defendant that had been acquitted in the dicta you cited. Ergo, the cited dicta is irrelevant and immaterial to the facts in the Simpson case. Your agrument was excellent, even though it was off-point, imho. I was also speaking to the dicta you used, which, imho, was improper. You stated the guilty can never be tried again (which indicates that you agree with my argument, as you say, that a verdict of not guilty is a finality or a statement of truth) but the proper wording is that a defendant that has been acquitted can never be tried again. Hence, we will never know, if any additional evidence would have been legally admissible or withstood the rigors of cross-examination. Therefore, although my vision may be perceived by you as being tunnel vision, I hope that you may share my vision so that you can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

I figured I didn't need to correct the fact that I didn't include the "not" in my statement of " ... guilty can never be ..." but I see that it is in fact necessary.

I think that you may want to consider firther courses in law William because it seems to evade you that, regardless of the circumstance in the case I cited, most judges recognize the fact that a verdict and truth are not synonomous.

As a matter of fact, I engaged in this very conversation with Judge Weissbrodt of the Ninth Circuit on Friday. His opinion mirrored mine, with an added mention of the fact that this area of law is the one that frustrates most judges he has known throughout his years in the system as they struggle with both the definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" and the fact that a person aquitted can never be retried.

Kindly,

Kate

Kate

[tv]

William Anthony, do you believe in your heart that OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole? Not if you feel it was proven or not proven but if believe he held a knife in his hand and killed them? I'm curious to know what you really think. :)

[William Anthony]

I figured I didn't need to correct the fact that I didn't include the "not" in my statement of " ... guilty can never be ..." but I see that it is in fact necessary.

I think that you may want to consider firther courses in law William because it seems to evade you that, regardless of the circumstance in the case I cited, most judges recognize the fact that a verdict and truth are not synonomous.

As a matter of fact, I engaged in this very conversation with Judge Weissbrodt of the Ninth Circuit on Friday. His opinion mirrored mine, with an added mention of the fact that this area of law is the one that frustrates most judges he has known throughout his years in the system as they struggle with both the definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" and the fact that a person aquitted can never be retried.

Kindly,

Kate

Kate

I can appreciate the Judge's sentiments, but, unitl the law changes a verdict of not guilty stands as a truth. The verdict only speaks to the trial in which it was rendered. Ergo, I would disagree with the more learned judge and you. The finding of new evidence may lead to a new trial. The verdict in the new trial[B]would be a statment of truth in that trial and not a statement of truth to the other. I think you maybe mixing the concept of finality, res judicata, with a verdict. I intend to further my education with different and additional courses in law. However, I think I have had enough courses to understand the difference between finality and truth as to whether or not a prosecution or plaintiff met it's required standard of proof by the verdict, which is the statement of truth to that particular trial. However, with that said, this highlights another difference between a civil and criminal trial. [B]I think that there is a time limit to take an appeal in a civil trial and there is no corresponding time limit in a criminal. Perhaps, you may want to talk with the judge on this issue as well as to the verdict being a statement of truth to a particular trial.

Kindly,

William

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, do you believe in your heart that OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole? Not if you feel it was proven or not proven but if believe he held a knife in his hand and killed them? I'm curious to know what you really think. :)

I will answer you as honestly as I can. I think if you are asking me do I believe that it is more likely than not that he was involved in their killings, then I would say yes. If you are asking me if I believe he wielded the knife that killed them, then I would say probably not. If you are asking me whether I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then I would say no. I will say that I have conducted some depositions, which have been admitted in courts of law. I have learned that you should not think with your heart but with your head. The law, about which I am passionate, is not about what one believes, but what one can prove or discredit. This is not to say that the law leaves no room for passion-only that the passion must be persuasive. I know of no other way to answer your question.

[William Anthony]

No one is claiming that Simpson was found guilty in the civil trial, he was found to be a liar and a killer responsible for the deaths of both victims.

bobaugust

Here is your post, but before I post it I must tell you that there is a difference between a killer and a murderer. A trial of murder calls for a finding of guilty or not guilty.

"The fact that the Simpson civil trial jury found Simpson responsible for both deaths of both victims means that Simpson murdered both victims.

bobaugust"

Hece, reading your post Liable/responsible would mean guilty/murder. So, as you see "one" is indeed claiming Simpson was found guilty in the civil trial.

[weezer]

Here is your post, but before I post it I must tell you that there is a difference between a killer and a murderer. A trial of murder calls for a finding of guilty or not guilty.

"The fact that the Simpson civil trial jury found Simpson responsible for both deaths of both victims means that Simpson murdered both victims.

bobaugust"

Hece, reading your post Liable/responsible would mean guilty/murder. So, as you see "one" is indeed claiming Simpson was found guilty in the civil trial.

william, I don't know why you keep beating this drum -- the fact is, MOST reasonable thinking people understand that the finding of liable in the civil trial is interpreted to mean orenthal james simpson murdered two human beings. Your opinions on what does or does not constitute guilt and/or liability and its import is irrelevent in this case. imo

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Again, this is where Petrocelli goes over the line. There have been pictures of OJ with Paula and the kids. Both OJ and Nicole drew the line with their dates when it came to family functions. They are not the only divorce people who have this rule.

And what if OJ's kids didn't like Paula and she didn't like them? Is there some sort of rule where children must like their father's or mother's friends? No they wouldn't go to church together because the OJ's youngest children were Catholic and went to church with their mother.

Since when does not going to church together mean couples aren't seriously considering marriage? Do you think Nicole was "cool" with OJ's relationship with Paula and she would have encouraged Justin and Sydney to "go shopping" or whatever with her?

Again, where is your proof that Simpson and Paula had a falling out? Didn't Simpson tell Kato earilier that night that he didn't think Paula was the one? That there was an issue with the kids?

Do you think that Simpson thought if he killed Nicole, Paula would get their love?

There is no evidence they have a falling out. Paula left a message, there is no evidence that OJ and Paula even talked to one another. There is no proof that Simpson even listened to the whole message. There is nothing there.

Petrocelli was grasping at straws for a motive. In fact, even from Paula's own book, she appeared to have more of motive to want Nicole dead, in fact, didn't she say that? Of course she regretted her words after the murders, but it seems to me that Paula hated Nicole and Nicole hated Paula.

There is nothing there. The fact that there were "rumours" that OJ and Paula has a falling out just proves the fact that the DA's and the cops knew OJ and Paula played telephone tag and had an idea about what it was about. Don't forget, Paula didn't need to talk to the police or the DA's--they had Kato.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

There is no evidence they have a falling out. Paula left a message, there is no evidence that OJ and Paula even talked to one another. There is no proof that Simpson even listened to the whole message. There is nothing there.



Yes, there was evidence of a falling out. IIRC, It is supported by Orenthal's telephone records that showed he called the message center. It was also supported by Paula, who said that based on the message he left for her, she understood that he had listened to her call. Orenthal lied about having heard any of the message. The only reason for that is that he knew it was a damaging part of the puzzle. IMO

[tv]

I will answer you as honestly as I can. I think if you are asking me do I believe that it is more likely than not that he was involved in their killings, then I would say yes. If you are asking me if I believe he wielded the knife that killed them, then I would say probably not. If you are asking me whether I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then I would say no. I will say that I have conducted some depositions, which have been admitted in courts of law. I have learned that you should not think with your heart but with your head. The law, about which I am passionate, is not about what one believes, but what one can prove or discredit. This is not to say that the law leaves no room for passion-only that the passion must be persuasive. I know of no other way to answer your question.The way I understand your personal position is that OJS was involved with the murders but didn't directly kill the victims; however, you're not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that this is what happened. I understand this is your personal opinion not your legal opinion.

Thanks for answering my question. :)

[William Anthony]

The way I understand your personal position is that OJS was involved with the murders but didn't directly kill the victims; however, you're not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that this is what happened. I understand this is your personal opinion not your legal opinion.

Thanks for answering my question. :)

Yes, I think you did understand my personal position, with the fuirther explanation that I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was or was not the killer. I have previously stated that, if the standard in the criminal trial was by a preponderance of the evidence, then the verdict, imho, should have been guilty. However, since it was not, then this becomes my personal opinion.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Again, this is where Petrocelli goes over the line. There have been pictures of OJ with Paula and the kids. Both OJ and Nicole drew the line with their dates when it came to family functions. They are not the only divorce people who have this rule.

And what if OJ's kids didn't like Paula and she didn't like them? Is there some sort of rule where children must like their father's or mother's friends? No they wouldn't go to church together because the OJ's youngest children were Catholic and went to church with their mother.

Since when does not going to church together mean couples aren't seriously considering marriage? Do you think Nicole was "cool" with OJ's relationship with Paula and she would have encouraged Justin and Sydney to "go shopping" or whatever with her?

Again, where is your proof that Simpson and Paula had a falling out? Didn't Simpson tell Kato earilier that night that he didn't think Paula was the one? That there was an issue with the kids?

Do you think that Simpson thought if he killed Nicole, Paula would get their love?

There is no evidence they have a falling out. Paula left a message, there is no evidence that OJ and Paula even talked to one another. There is no proof that Simpson even listened to the whole message. There is nothing there.

Petrocelli was grasping at straws for a motive. In fact, even from Paula's own book, she appeared to have more of motive to want Nicole dead, in fact, didn't she say that? Of course she regretted her words after the murders, but it seems to me that Paula hated Nicole and Nicole hated Paula.

There is nothing there. The fact that there were "rumours" that OJ and Paula has a falling out just proves the fact that the DA's and the cops knew OJ and Paula played telephone tag and had an idea about what it was about. Don't forget, Paula didn't need to talk to the police or the DA's--they had Kato.

limakey, I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp the reality that Paula ended her relationship with Simpson in a telephone message she left on his car phone early that Sunday morning. I'm sorry you can't grasp the reality that Simpson called his message center from his home after he returned from his daughter's recital and listened to that message, twice. I'm sorry you can't grasp the realty that Simpson told Dr. Walker about listening to Paula's message. I'm sorry you can't grasp the reality that Simpson then lied under oath continually denying he ever heard Paula's message. I'm sorry you you can't grasp the realty that Johnnie Cochran lied to the criminal trial jury telling them that the whole thing was nothing but wild speculation and preposterous.

bobaugust

[martin II]

limakey, I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp the reality that Paula ended her relationship with Simpson in a telephone message she left on his car phone early that Sunday morning. I'm sorry you can't grasp the reality that Simpson called his message center from his home after he returned from his daughter's recital and listened to that message, twice. I'm sorry you can't grasp the realty that Simpson told Dr. Walker about listening to Paula's message. I'm sorry you can't grasp the reality that Simpson then lied under oath continually denying he ever heard Paula's message. I'm sorry you you can't grasp the realty that Johnnie Cochran lied to the criminal trial jury telling them that the whole thing was nothing but wild speculation and preposterous.

bobaugust

bob
can you realize that paula did not dump oj or that she changed her mind immediately and ran to his rescue or to confort him or to take back her short term dumping?
martin II

[weezer]

bob
can you realize that paula did not dump oj or that she changed her mind immediately and ran to his rescue or to confort him or to take back her short term dumping?
martin II

and can you realize that Paula and orenthal have both stated that she broke off the relationship(her in her deposition and him to the therapist). It was arnelle helping daddy out who called and begged paula to return to LA. I'm not saying paula didn't do it because she wanted to, I'm simply saying that your post in factually incorrect. imo

[martin II]

and can you realize that Paula and orenthal have both stated that she broke off the relationship(her in her deposition and him to the therapist). It was arnelle helping daddy out who called and begged paula to return to LA. I'm not saying paula didn't do it because she wanted to, I'm simply saying that your post in factually incorrect. imo

it is factually correct that when oj was jailed paula was there to see him
the next day or at least very quickly after that.
so that what ever she did on 6/12 she quickly changed her mind and ran to oj to give him confort. some have said she understood that with Nicole dead her competition was out of the way. i don't know what was in her mind
on 6/12 but i do understand that when she ran to visit and stay by oj's side durning the trial she was not "dumping" anyone.imo
martin II

[martin II]

and can you realize that Paula and orenthal have both stated that she broke off the relationship(her in her deposition and him to the therapist). It was arnelle helping daddy out who called and begged paula to return to LA. I'm not saying paula didn't do it because she wanted to, I'm simply saying that your post in factually incorrect. imo

i gave 4 options that could describe Paulas actions so you can pick either one that satisfies you.imo
martin II

[martin II]

i gave 4 options that could describe Paulas actions so you can pick either one that satisfies you.imo
martin II

looking at all listed trial depositions i have not found PAULAS DEPOSITION that you referred to..
can you direct me to paulas deposition? or give me a link?

martin II

[martin II]

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

paulas deposition not listed here that i can see
so it must be listed another place.

[weezer]

it is factually correct that when oj was jailed paula was there to see him
the next day or at least very quickly after that.
so that what ever she did on 6/12 she quickly changed her mind and ran to oj to give him confort. some have said she understood that with Nicole dead her competition was out of the way. i don't know what was in her mind
on 6/12 but i do understand that when she ran to visit and stay by oj's side durning the trial she was not "dumping" anyone.imo
martin II

how about 'days' after he was jailed and after 'many' pleading calls from arnelle begging her to help. I'm not sure why she helped orenthal out by not telling the truth -- I guess that is her cross to bear -- but it seems that the folks people who have personal dealings with orenthal have a tendency to lose character/principles. imo

[martin II]

weezre
i found the deposition

martin II

[weezer]

weezre
i found the deposition

martin II

cool -- I looked but didn't find a link. how about sharing?

[martin II]

how about 'days' after he was jailed and after 'many' pleading calls from arnelle begging her to help. I'm not sure why she helped orenthal out by not telling the truth -- I guess that is her cross to bear -- but it seems that the folks people who have personal dealings with orenthal have a tendency to lose character/principles. imo

weezer
i think that Paula is the best person to know what and why she did whatever she did. what is odd if that you seem to have negative comments about ANYONE that has not had very bad things to say about oj.
how do you know what ever she said was not the truth??
imo

martin II

[weezer]

cool -- I looked but didn't find a link. how about sharing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin II
weezre
i found the deposition

martin II

"cool -- I looked but didn't find a link. how about sharing?"

[weezer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin II
weezre
i found the deposition

martin II

"cool -- I looked but didn't find a link. how about sharing?"

Yoo-Hoo, martin -- are you going to share the link to Paula's deposition?

[bobaugust]

bob
can you realize that paula did not dump oj or that she changed her mind immediately and ran to his rescue or to confort him or to take back her short term dumping?
martin II

martin II, can you not realize that Paula didn't change her mind until after learning about Simpson's problems after the murders? Not Paula and Simpson's relationship the day before the murders or the day after the murders but their relationship on the night of the murders. That's the relevant point that was hid and Johnnie Cochran lied about to the criminal trial jury.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Yoo-Hoo, martin -- are you going to share the link to Paula's deposition?

weezer

you made a claim and stated that what paula did/said was in her deposition.
i asked for a link and you said you do not have it and you want me to look back through info and find it for you?

martin II

[weezer]

weezer

you made a claim and stated that what paula did/said was in her deposition.
i asked for a link and you said you do not have it and you want me to look back through info and find it for you?

martin II

WTH :confused:

[martin II]

this is your claim about what Paula stated.

"and can you realize that Paula and orenthal have both stated that she broke off the relationship(her in her deposition and him to the therapist). It was arnelle helping daddy out who called and begged paula to return to LA. I'm not saying paula didn't do it because she wanted to, I'm simply saying that your post in factually incorrect. imo"

is there a link to this ?

martin II

[martin II]

martin II, can you not realize that Paula didn't change her mind until after learning about Simpson's problems after the murders? Not Paula and Simpson's relationship the day before the murders or the day after the murders but their relationship on the night of the murders. That's the relevant point that was hid and Johnnie Cochran lied about to the criminal trial jury.

bobaugust

bob
from your post i am assumming that you have never had the misfortune of having a girlfriend get really pissed at you for a night or two. Only to be found
giving you flowers and maby a hug the next day. That may be why you don't understand Paulas actions. I don't know. just a guess based on your comments. imo
martin II

[weezer]

this is your claim about what Paula stated.

"and can you realize that Paula and orenthal have both stated that she broke off the relationship(her in her deposition and him to the therapist). It was arnelle helping daddy out who called and begged paula to return to LA. I'm not saying paula didn't do it because she wanted to, I'm simply saying that your post in factually incorrect. imo"

is there a link to this ?

martin II

look -- you posted that you'd found Paula's deposition. . . .does this mean you are not sharing the link?

[William Anthony]

how about 'days' after he was jailed and after 'many' pleading calls from arnelle begging her to help. I'm not sure why she helped orenthal out by not telling the truth -- I guess that is her cross to bear -- but it seems that the folks people who have personal dealings with orenthal have a tendency to lose character/principles. imo

Could it be that she gained character and decided to tell the truth that despite her alleged words she had no iintetion of leaving Simpson?

[martin II]

look -- you posted that you'd found Paula's deposition. . . .does this mean you are not sharing the link?

it means that i did not save the page and believe that since you made the first declarative statement about what paula said and where her statement could be found, it should be you that post the link to back up your claim.imo
martin II

[weezer]

it means that i did not save the page and believe that since you made the first declarative statement about what paula said and where her statement could be found, it should be you that post the link to back up your claim.imo
martin II

actually, you were the one to bring up Paula:

"martin II Quote:
bob
can you realize that paula did not dump oj or that she changed her mind immediately and ran to his rescue or to confort him or to take back her short term dumping?
martin II"

[William Anthony]

actually, you were the one to bring up Paula:

"martin II Quote:
bob
can you realize that paula did not dump oj or that she changed her mind immediately and ran to his rescue or to confort him or to take back her short term dumping?
martin II"

I point to this post only to show how easily words are misinterpreted. It is easy to see that Martin was responding to what Bob posted, showing bob had a prior post about Paula.

[bobaugust]

bob
from your post i am assumming that you have never had the misfortune of having a girlfriend get really pissed at you for a night or two. Only to be found
giving you flowers and maby a hug the next day. That may be why you don't understand Paulas actions. I don't know. just a guess based on your comments. imo
martin II

martin II, your assumption has nothing to do with the reality of what happened that Sunday. Your the one who can't understand Paula's actions or Simpson's actions, not me. The last time Simpson spoke with Paula before the murders was on Saturday night June 11. On Sunday June 12 Simpson unsuccessfully tried to get hold of Paula throughout the entire day calling her eight times from his cell phone. After Simpson heard Paula's message ending their relationship he again unsuccessfully tried to talk to her calling her at 10:03 P.M. and left a message on her answering machine. That was what the situation was that Sunday night before Simpson went to Bundy dressed in all dark clothing and carrying a knife. That was the falling out they had on that Sunday.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Could it be that she gained character and decided to tell the truth that despite her alleged words she had no iintetion of leaving Simpson?

Paula never said she had no intention of leaving Simpson. The fact is that Simpson listened to Paula's message ending their relationship and later he again unsuccessfully tired to talk to her calling her at 10:03 P.M. leaving her a message on her answering machine before he went to Bundy.

bobaugust

[weezer]

this is your claim about what Paula stated.

"and can you realize that Paula and orenthal have both stated that she broke off the relationship(her in her deposition and him to the therapist). It was arnelle helping daddy out who called and begged paula to return to LA. I'm not saying paula didn't do it because she wanted to, I'm simply saying that your post in factually incorrect. imo"

is there a link to this ?

martin II

MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:)
Q. Now, in response to some questions by Mr. Baker about the messages you -- that Mr. -- that you left Mr. Simpson on the morning of June 12 at 7:00 o'clock a.m. message. "Do you remember that message?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I think Mr. Baker asked you if you knew if Mr. Simpson had ever picked that message up. "Do you remember that question?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you responded that you didn't know. Do you remember your answer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you testified earlier today, did you not, that by Mr. Simpson's three messages to you, you could tell he had picked up your earlier message. Correct?
A. I believe I said I assumed.
Q. You assumed it because Mr. Simpson said in words or in substance, 'What happened now? Last night we were talking about a house full of kids.' Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So it's your belief that he had picked up your earlier message of 7 o'clock. Correct?
A. I assume.
Q. That's your belief?
A. Yes, sir."

[martin II]

MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:)
Q. Now, in response to some questions by Mr. Baker about the messages you -- that Mr. -- that you left Mr. Simpson on the morning of June 12 at 7:00 o'clock a.m. message. "Do you remember that message?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I think Mr. Baker asked you if you knew if Mr. Simpson had ever picked that message up. "Do you remember that question?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you responded that you didn't know. Do you remember your answer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you testified earlier today, did you not, that by Mr. Simpson's three messages to you, you could tell he had picked up your earlier message. Correct?
A. I believe I said I assumed.
Q. You assumed it because Mr. Simpson said in words or in substance, 'What happened now? Last night we were talking about a house full of kids.' Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So it's your belief that he had picked up your earlier message of 7 o'clock. Correct?
A. I assume.
Q. That's your belief?
A. Yes, sir."


Paula never said she knew for sure he did only that she assumed he did.
thanks
'martin II

[bobaugust]

Paula never said she knew for sure he did only that she assumed he did.
thanks
'martin II

martin II, Paula testified she believed Simpson had picked up her message. Simpson's telephone records document someone called Simpson's message center from his house when Simpson testified he was home, call forwarded Paula's message, and listened to it, twice. Considering the fact that about a half hour after the first time he listened to the message he called Gretchen Stockdale and left her a message that for the first time in a long time he was free. And considering the fact that Simpson told Dr. Lenore Walker when she interviewed him in jail that he called his message center, call forwarded Paula's message and listened to it, it's not very difficult to understand that Simpson's denial was a lie.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, Paula testified she believed Simpson had picked up her message. Simpson's telephone records document someone called Simpson's message center from his house when Simpson testified he was home, call forwarded Paula's message, and listened to it, twice. Considering the fact that about a half hour after the first time he listened to the message he called Gretchen Stockdale and left her a message that for the first time in a long time he was free. And considering the fact that Simpson told Dr. Lenore Walker when she interviewed him in jail that he called his message center, call forwarded Paula's message and listened to it, it's not very difficult to understand that Simpson's denial was a lie.

bobaugust

bob
IF oj got the message and then called Gretchen sp it certainly seems like paulas call did not mean that much. Seems like he felt that he could move on to someone that he had in mind previously. not that HE started SHAKING, PRANCING BACK AND FORTH, TALKING TO HIMSELF , RAN TO THE KITCHEN and GRABBED A KINFE and FLEW TO BUNDY.
This call proves nothing other then Paula tossed some kind of anger fit for a night. happens in many relationships.
martin II

[martin II]

"Q. All right. Now. In the entire time that you had been with Mr. Simpson as a friend or a girlfriend or whatever, had you ever seen Mr. Simpson exhibit any signs of violence?

"A. No.

"Q. Did you ever believe he was a violent man?

"A. No.

"Q. Did he ever indicate in the entire time that you and he had a relationship, albeit '93 or '94 that -- was he critical of Nicole in any way, shape or form?

"A. We didn't talk about Nicole.

"Q. And so he had never said anything to your knowledge that was critical of her. Correct?

"A. No.

---------------

"Q. Okay. Now, I want to go to that call that you made on June 12, 1994, and you suggested that you indicated to the message of the cell phone that it wasn't working and it was over, words to that effect?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And you don't have, even as you sit here today, any knowledge whether he picked that message up, do you?

"A. No, sir."



http://walraven.org/simpson/dec04-96.html

martin ii

[weezer]

"Q. All right. Now. In the entire time that you had been with Mr. Simpson as a friend or a girlfriend or whatever, had you ever seen Mr. Simpson exhibit any signs of violence?

"A. No.

"Q. Did you ever believe he was a violent man?

"A. No.

"Q. Did he ever indicate in the entire time that you and he had a relationship, albeit '93 or '94 that -- was he critical of Nicole in any way, shape or form?

"A. We didn't talk about Nicole.

"Q. And so he had never said anything to your knowledge that was critical of her. Correct?

"A. No.

---------------

"Q. Okay. Now, I want to go to that call that you made on June 12, 1994, and you suggested that you indicated to the message of the cell phone that it wasn't working and it was over, words to that effect?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And you don't have, even as you sit here today, any knowledge whether he picked that message up, do you?

"A. No, sir."



http://walraven.org/simpson/dec04-96.html

martin ii

"Q. But you testified earlier today, did you not, that by Mr. Simpson's three messages to you, you could tell he had picked up your earlier message. Correct?
A. I believe I said I assumed.
Q. You assumed it because Mr. Simpson said in words or in substance, 'What happened now? Last night we were talking about a house full of kids.' Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So it's your belief that he had picked up your earlier message of 7 o'clock. Correct?
A. I assume.
Q. That's your belief?
A. Yes, sir."

[martin II]

"Q. But you testified earlier today, did you not, that by Mr. Simpson's three messages to you, you could tell he had picked up your earlier message. Correct?
A. I believe I said I assumed.
Q. You assumed it because Mr. Simpson said in words or in substance, 'What happened now? Last night we were talking about a house full of kids.' Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So it's your belief that he had picked up your earlier message of 7 o'clock. Correct?
A. I assume.
Q. That's your belief?
A. Yes, sir."


Paulas responses.;
" NO I DO NOT KNOW IF HE PICKED UP THE MESSAGE"
" I ASSUMED HE PICKED UP THE MESSAGE"

At any rate she seemed to have come to her senses quite quickly when she found out that Nicole was no longer a competitor for her in her relationship with oj.
At any rate it seems that her call. IF HE GOT IT, did nothing but motivate him to GO TO HIS BLACK BOOK and call Gretchen. A great choice if you ask me. imo

martin II

PS you did notice that she testified that she had never seen oj act violent during their long relationship.imo

[weezer]

PS you did notice that she testified that she had never seen oj act violent during their long relationship.imo

you need to keep reading her deposition -- you'd see that there was an incident (IIRC) where he knocked a phone from her hands, hurting her.

[Kate Sachel]

SNIPPED

At any rate she seemed to have come to her senses quite quickly when she found out that Nicole was no longer a competitor for her in her relationship with oj.



Well now this is just a sick thing to say.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I think it worthy to note that in her book Paula Barbieri states the following:

1.) She dumped OJ.
2.) She knew OJ had picked up her "dumping" message.
3.) She has witnessed OJ losing his temper.
4.) She did not want to, nor have plans to, come back and support OJ until she was advised that he was on the verge of suicide.
5.) That it occurred to her that OJ had killed Ron and Nicole and that she told her friend "he killed them, didn't he" but then put that thought to the back of her mind because it was too painful to confront.

Kate

[weezer]

Well now this is just a sick thing to say.

Kate

some posters have no shame when it comes to defending orenthal. imo

[martin II]

you need to keep reading her deposition -- you'd see that there was an incident (IIRC) where he knocked a phone from her hands, hurting her.

Knocked a phone from her hands. Right.
She says no violence from him.
martin II