Evidence that Places OJ Simpson at the Crime Scene

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by tazzybaby
Big Ben,

Are you just dismissing the Mezzaluna employees who testified what time the phone call came in and what time Ron left? That proves the time of the phone call was not 11:00.

:shrug:

Absolutely! Tazzy.

From a subjective view point the demeanor of the employees during that particular area of testimony appeared quite strained and thus very strange in my opinion, after continuous watching of that particular day in question.

However, Ron's timecard alleged a punch out time of 9:33 PM, but the waitress Karen Crawford had initially stated in previous deposing that the management never made the one hour forward adjustment from standard time to daylight savings time on the time clock, thus the time of Ron's departure was probably 10:33 PM.

The reason that I believe it was not changed is because none of the other important time pieces, relative to customer service, were functioning properly. Management never corrected the disparate time and date function associated with the portable waitress order calculators, nor did management bother to assure that the electronic cash register issued a proper time and date when a patron received their receipt for purchase for cash or credit card. The Brown, party of 10, spent well over $200.00 for that evening's informal celebration of Sydney's school recital. That's probably enough to justify the correction of a misunderstanding.

Yet if a customer was required to show a cash receipt with the time and date of a disputed occurance within the Mezzaluna restaurant, he could not affirm his point in dispute due to malfunctioning time pieces, and that is quite strange to me.

Since the management appeared to be too lazy to have the cash register provide proper time and date when dealing with money from patrons, why should one believe that they in fact cared about or corrected the time on the time clock from standard to daylight savings time.

As long as the boss and I had a clear understanding, up dating the time clock would seem to be meaningless.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben


Absolutely! Tazzy.

From a subjective view point the demeanor of the employees during that particular area of testimony appeared quite strained and thus very strange in my opinion, after continuous watching of that particular day in question.

However, Ron's timecard alleged a punch out time of 9:33 PM, but the waitress Karen Crawford had initially stated in previous deposing that the management never made the one hour forward adjustment from standard time to daylight savings time on the time clock, thus the time of Ron's departure was probably 10:33 PM.

Since the management appeared to be too lazy to have the cash register provide proper time and date when dealing with money from patrons, why should one believe that they in fact cared about or corrected the time on the time clock from standard to daylight savings time.

As long as the boss and I had a clear understanding, up dating the time clock would seem to be meaningless.


Big Ben, once again your opinion is based on false information.

Your opinion as to why you think the time clock was not set properly is not only contradicted by the testimony it tells us you evidently have little experience with a business where employees are paid based on punching in and out of work using a time clock.

The time clock had the correct time. John Debello testified to that fact.

Both Karen Crawford and Tia Gavin testified the only machine at the Mezzaluna restaurant that had the wrong time on it was the NCR machine that printed out the dinner checks.


June 21, 1994 John Debello
Q And did Ronald Goldman punch out that night?
A Yes, he did.
Q What time?
A 9:33, and I initialed his time card.
*
Q What type of clock device do you have, to record the times that an employee clocks out?
A It's an electric clock that is normal in most factories or restaurants. We just put the time card in, and it punches out the time. That's it, it's very simple.
*
Q Do you know when the last time that time clock was checked for accuracy?
A Well, I changed it when the time -- when we changed the time, when it was daylight savings time. So, I pretty much have the clock within a minute or two, I would say, of accurate time.


February 7, 1995 Tia Gavin
Q WITH RESPECT TO THE TIME CLOCK, DO YOU RECALL RESOLVING THAT QUESTION IN YOUR MIND, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS OFF DUE TO DAYLIGHT SAVINGS?
A OH, YES.
Q AND WHAT DID YOU DISCOVER?
A THAT IT WAS NOT OFF AND THAT THERE WAS CONFUSION OF WHETHER WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE TIME ON THE NCR MACHINE OR THE TIME ON THE TIME CLOCK.
Q BY MS. CLARK: WHEN YOU SAY THE NCR MACHINE, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT?
A I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT'S CALLED. I THINK THAT'S THE COMPANY THAT MAKES THE COMPUTER. IT'S THE COMPUTER THAT YOU PUT ALL YOUR ORDERS INTO WHEN YOU'RE MAKING ORDERS AND PRINTS THE CHECKS THAT YOU DELIVER TO THE TABLE.
Q KIND OF LIKE THE CASH REGISTER?
A YES.
Q ONLY FANCIER WORD?
A EXCEPT, YEAH, IT DOESN'T HAVE CASH IN IT.
Q SO THAT WAS THE -- THAT WAS THE MACHINE THAT WAS OFF IN TERMS OF TIME?
A YES.
Q SO THE RECEIPTS THAT ARE PRINTED OUT FOR CREDIT PURCHASES OR I GUESS CASH PURCHASES TOO WILL SHOW A TIME FOR THE CUSTOMER THAT IS INCORRECT?
A IT COULD, YEAH. I MEAN IT HAS BEEN OFF QUITE A LOT. I DON'T KNOW WHO REGULATES THAT, BUT --
Q SO IF A CUSTOMER PAYS WITH A CREDIT CARD, THAT MACHINE IS GOING TO PRINT OUT A TIME ON IT THAT IS NOT RELIABLE?
A WHETHER THEY PAY BY CREDIT CARD OR NOT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT RELATED TO THE CREDIT CARD MACHINE, WHICH IS A SEPARATE MACHINE ALTOGETHER. IT IS THE CHECK THAT YOU DELIVER TO THE TABLE. SO IF THEY KEPT A RECEIPT, IF THEY PAID BY CREDIT CARD, IT MIGHT BE THE CREDIT CARD RECEIPT. IF THEY KEPT THEIR CHECK, THEN THAT WOULD HAVE A TIME ON IT AND THAT WOULD MOST LIKELY NOT BE RIGHT, BUT IT COULD BE.
Q ON THE OTHER HAND, THE TIME CARD CLOCK, THE TIME CLOCK THAT YOU PUNCH IN AND OUT OF, THE EMPLOYEES PUNCH IN AND OUT OF, THAT WAS ACCURATE?
A YES.
Q SO THE TIMES THAT YOU'VE JUST TOLD US ABOUT WHEN YOU PUNCH IN AND OUT OF, YOUR TIME CARD, THOSE ARE CORRECT?
A YES.


February 7, 1995 Karen Crawford
Q CAN YOU TELL BY THIS DOCUMENT WHO WAS THE SERVER THAT NIGHT?
A YES, TIA WAS THE SERVER.
Q OKAY. IT INDICATES A NUMBER OF GUESTS AS NINE?
A YES.
Q CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT? IS THAT AN ACCURATE AND -- NECESSARILY AN ACCURATE NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE PRESENT IN THAT PARTY?
A NOT ALWAYS. IF THERE ARE A LOT OF CHILDREN IN THE PARTY THEY MAY COUNT TWO CHILDREN AS ONE GUEST.
Q AND WHY IS THAT?
A BECAUSE THEY TEND TO EAT LESS.
Q NOW, YOU CAN SEE ON THAT PIECE OF PAPER THAT IT SAYS, "JUNE 13 AT 7:04 A.M."?
A YES.
Q IS THAT ACCURATE?
A NO, THAT IS INCORRECT.
Q IS THAT TIME OF DAY STAMP ALWAYS INCORRECT?
A AS FAR AS I KNOW AS LONG AS I HAVE WORKED THERE, YES.
*
Q BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. 7:04 A.M.
OKAY. WE ARE SHOWING YOU THE OTHER SIDE OF IT NOW. AT THE TOP OF THIS OTHER SIDE IT SHOWS THE TIME OF 8:18 A.M. ON JUNE 12?
A YES.
Q THAT IS OF COURSE STILL INCORRECT?
A THAT IS STILL INCORRECT, YES.
Q BUT CAN YOU TELL FROM THIS APPROXIMATELY WHEN THE CHECK WAS OPENED AND WHEN IT WAS CLOSED IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN THE TIME THE ORDER WAS PLACED AND THE TIME THAT THE CHECK WAS PAID?
A YEAH. THAT WOULD BE A CORRECT LAPSE OF TIME.
Q SO IT IS AN HOUR AND 14 MINUTES FROM THE TIME THAT THE ORDER WAS PLACED TO THE TIME THAT THE CHECK WAS PAID?
A YES.
Q AND THEN THAT DOESN'T INDICATE THAT THE PARTY NECESSARILY LEFT, DOES IT?
A NO, IT DOESN'T. IT JUST INDICATES WHEN THE CHECK WAS CLOSED OUT BY THE SERVER.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, an estimated time given by someone not concerned with what the Brown's did doesn't tell us when the Brown's started their drive back home.

Bob, Why wouldn't the young waitress who waited on their $200.00 table, or the general manager watching everything in his small restaurant, including a celebrity's former wife, not be aware of the time of departure of a party of 10.

Juditha Brown had no reason to lie about anything in this case. It was 8:30 PM....not 8:45 PM.

To many formal statements about departure and arrival times to the contrary, Bob! A perfect justification to submit the telephone records to the jury.

If the defense had any suspicions that the times on the Brown's records were not correct they would never have stipulated to them. That's reality.

I'm afraid not Bob. There is historical precedent for this type of fraudulent malfeasance.

A few English lawyers, representing British insurance companies, would connivingly enter unscrupulous alliances with adverse lawyers to litigate a fatal accident onboard whaling ships on the high seas. The iniating lawyer would tell the other, lets stipulate to something that we know is not true, i.e. when the time of death occurred, so that we may bypass the jury, and thus enrich ourselves at the expense of the insurance company.

They were able to enrich themselves until the courts caught up to their tricks. Both English and American Courts have addressed the issue and have determined that such stipulations that attempt to deprive the jury of its' lawful obligation to act exclusively in regard to evidence is a trespass into the domain of the trier of fact and is to be considered unlawful.

The fact is that there never was an 11:00 PM telephone call

You have no knowledge of that! The estimated time to travel between point (a) Brentwood and point (b) Dana Point by all credible time measuring agencies supports an 11:00 PM telephone call for the night of that year 06/12/1994.

Simpson's attorneys understood this but you still can't seem to admit it.

It is not apparent that Simpson's attorneys did understand what you allege. Certainly anyone who has seen the "Serpents Rising" webclip of Johnny Cochran's prejudicial argument to not show the bloody photographs to the jury, would be confused by your assertions when they hear Johnnie state, afterall we're not going to show the jury other evidence in the trial we're not going to show them the telephone records. (You can see it for free on YouTube, Bob.)

Evidently you believe the investment in your website and any possible monetary gain you receive is more important than the truth

On the contrary, Bob, nothing is more important to us than the truth, that is why we continue to attempt to reveal it.

Our website, the free webclips, and the full documentary are simply a meager response to the powerful media companies that control most of the American broadcast airways, and attempt to deny us. They appear to be afraid, just like you, from having the fraudulent propaganda they've promulgated to the American public be exposed as a major fraud.
What an embarrassment that would be! I again invite you to www.ojcoverup.com or www.serpentsrising.com, buy something other than the fiction you continue to embrace, Bob.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben


Bob, Why wouldn't the young waitress who waited on their $200.00 table, or the general manager watching everything in his small restaurant, including a celebrity's former wife, not be aware of the time of departure of a party of 10.

To many formal statements about departure and arrival times to the contrary, Bob! A perfect justification to submit the telephone records to the jury.

I'm afraid not Bob. There is historical precedent for this type of fraudulent malfeasance.

A few English lawyers, representing British insurance companies, would connivingly enter unscrupulous alliances with adverse lawyers to litigate a fatal accident onboard whaling ships on the high seas. The iniating lawyer would tell the other, lets stipulate to something that we know is not true, i.e. when the time of death occurred, so that we may bypass the jury, and thus enrich ourselves at the expense of the insurance company.

They were able to enrich themselves until the courts caught up to their tricks. Both English and American Courts have addressed the issue and have determined that such stipulations that attempt to deprive the jury of its' lawful obligation to act exclusively in regard to evidence is a trespass into the domain of the trier of fact and is to be considered unlawful.

You have no knowledge of that! The estimated time to travel between point (a) Brentwood and point (b) Dana Point by all credible time measuring agencies supports an 11:00 PM telephone call for the night of that year 06/12/1994.

On the contrary, Bob, nothing is more important to us than the truth, that is why we continue to attempt to reveal it.




Big Ben, I offer facts that prove your claims false. You offer nothing legitimate, only opinions.

Tia Gavin didn't testify as to what time she thought the Brown's left the restaurant but she did testify as to what time they arrived. She said it was about 6:45 PM. Karen Crawford testified that although the times on the dinner check were incorrect the time lapse between the opening and closing times on the check was correct. One hour fourteen minutes. Even if that check wasn't opened until 7:00 PM it would have been closed at 8:14 PM. further supporting Juditha Brown's testimony that it was 8:30 PM when they started their drive back home.

Too many statements of their departure? No only different time estimates by employees who were not concerned with the exact time the Brown's left the restaurant. One person who was concerned and actually checked the time was Juditha Brown. It's very telling that you dismiss this key witness because her testimony contradicts your fantasy.

You've been wrong about every claim you've made. Your claims are based on false and misinformation

The fact is that many people have questioned that drive time but instead of using information based on posted speed limits like you did, they actually made the drive at the speeds that normal traffic travels. The fact that this was a Sunday night would also mean less traffic than on a weekday. If you still can't understand this I suggest you can go to the following web page, it's free, were someone who investigated this case for many years documented that fact.

Time to Drive the 405 Freeway
http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/405.htm

Your historical precedent for fraudulent malfeasance has nothing to do with the Simpson case or Simpson's attorneys. Simpson's attorneys had nothing to gain by agreeing to the truth of the time telephone calls were made and documented on the Brown's telephone records. If there was any validity to a possible 11:00 PM telephone call that would have been to their advantage to exploit it anyway they could. That is what would prove Simpson innocent and that is what would enrich them. It never happened because there was no 11:00 telephone call to Nicole. Both Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown were dead before 11:00 PM. That's an established fact.

Simpson's attorneys had all the same information you have but they understood Ratcliffe's report, which you evidently don't, and they realized the 11:00 PM estimated time given by Lou Brown was a mistaken time estimate. You're the one who still can't seem to comprehend that reality.

If you really care about the truth then maybe you should rethink what you're claiming, since every claim you've made so far has been shown to be false

bobaugust

[weezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by Big Ben
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust
Certainly anyone who has seen the "Serpents Rising" webclip ...

Our website, the free webclips, and the full documentary are simply a meager response to the powerful media companies that control most of the American broadcast airways, and attempt to deny us. They appear to be afraid, just like you, from having the fraudulent propaganda they've promulgated to the American public be exposed as a major [B]fraud.
What an embarrassment that would be! I again invite you to www.ojcoverup.com or www.serpentsrising.com, buy something other than the fiction you continue to embrace, Bob. This is not the forum for you to **** your website -- I'm surprised the moderator is letting you get by with it.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, once again your opinion is based on false information.
Your opinion as to why you think the time clock was not set properly is not only contradicted by the testimony.....
The time clock had the correct time. John Debello testified to that fact.[

Bob, you continue to play a game of verbal gymnastics.

Of course I know what Debello testified to in regard to the time clock, but it doesn't help the integrity or creditibility of this trial, for him to have to come back and correct Tia Gavin who stated that she felt that the time clock had not been changed. This was important in regard to its' relationship to the alleged 11:00 PM phone call.

Debello initally told Vannatter and Lang on 06/13/94 that the Brown Family departed the Mezzaluna at 9:00 PM then he had to come back and state the departure was about 8:40-8:45ish.

Lou Brown initially told the coroner's investigator on 06/13/94, that his wife Juditha talked to Nicole at 11:00 PM, then he had to come back a week later on 06/20/94 and say that they talked between 9:30 and 10:00 PM.

Steven Schwab initially told the police detectives at 5:00 AM 06/13/94, that he saw Nicole's Akita dog at around 11:15 PM the night she was killed, he had to come back later and recollect that he saw the dog at 10:45 PM.

Robert Shapiro offered a stipulation to Marcia Clark, based upon the phone redords that she had given him on 06/30/94 in open court, in Judge Kathleen Kennedy Powell's chamber on 07/08/94. He offered to stipulate to the Juditha- Nicole telephone call at 10:17 PM. He later came back and agreed to stipulate to 9:37 PM as the time of the call.

Faye Resnick stated on the Maury Povich show that she had spoke to Nicole at 10:45 PM, when Maury said to her you mean 9:45 PM don't you, she had to come back and say, yeh! you're right it was 9:45.....

This is another reason that the jury should have been allowed to examine the telephone records. Too much of the come back disease here, Bob.


P.S. Before I forget, Bob... Apparently you are of the opinion that misinformation regarding time and date on the receipt of one's consistent clientele is of lesser significance than an accurate time clock.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, I offer facts that prove your claims false. You offer nothing legitimate, only opinions.

Facts in question are truly not facts at all, Bob, until one can establish the universality of its' truthfulness. You are attempting to do so using the integrity of shady people. You mean no harm, but you harm your appearance and become just simply a pathetic individual trying to sell buttons to the passersby. Poor fellow!

By the way I took time to read the late Dick Wagner piece about the commute. Pure fantasy, Bob. Not because I simply say so, but because of the facts facing the Browns on 06/12/94.

Apparently you just simply dismissed the remarks that I previously made in terms of CalTrans providing us with documentation that the I-405 was under construction in 1994. And guess what they were building? That HOV lane that old Dick and Rose claimed to have been driving down.

As far as doing 50 MPH on Crown Valley Pkwy. Get outta here! That is a downhill freefall with 14 stop lights from the I-5 to the PCH, that are not synchronized. 50 MPH! I doubt it very much, Why would they??? That would be a scary ride, and dangerous to one's driving record with the cops along through that stretch. Old Dickie boy was attempting to dampen Dr. Johnson and staffs challenge of the drive time that made it into the L.A. Times who also considered the Brown's alleged drive to be a serious stretch of the imagination.

I think that who ever wrote that inclusion in Wagners diary had just roled up some ganga, lit it, and laid back to imagine a glorious Sunday drive. I think they may have given you a hit too, bobaugust.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* This is not the forum for you to **** your website -- I'm surprised the moderator is letting you get by with it.

....Weezer, that's quite appropriate.....
Yep! Weezer. That is undoubetedly appropriate. I hear you ...weezer, my bad I'll try to do better.......

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben


Of course I know what Debello testified to in regard to the time clock, but it doesn't help the integrity or creditibility of this trial, for him to have to come back and correct Tia Gavin who stated that she felt that the time clock had not been changed. This was important in regard to its' relationship to the alleged 11:00 PM phone call.

Debello initally told Vannatter and Lang on 06/13/94 that the Brown Family departed the Mezzaluna at 9:00 PM then he had to come back and state the departure was about 8:40-8:45ish.

Lou Brown initially told the coroner's investigator on 06/13/94, that his wife Juditha talked to Nicole at 11:00 PM, then he had to come back a week later on 06/20/94 and say that they talked between 9:30 and 10:00 PM.

Steven Schwab initially told the police detectives at 5:00 AM 06/13/94, that he saw Nicole's Akita dog at around 11:15 PM the night she was killed, he had to come back later and recollect that he saw the dog at 10:45 PM.

Robert Shapiro offered a stipulation to Marcia Clark, based upon the phone redords that she had given him on 06/30/94 in open court, in Judge Kathleen Kennedy Powell's chamber on 07/08/94. He offered to stipulate to the Juditha- Nicole telephone call at 10:17 PM. He later came back and agreed to stipulate to 9:37 PM as the time of the call.

Faye Resnick stated on the Maury Povich show that she had spoke to Nicole at 10:45 PM, when Maury said to her you mean 9:45 PM don't you, she had to ]come back] and say, yeh! you're right it was 9:45.....

This is another reason that the jury should have been allowed to examine the telephone records. Too much of the come back disease here, Bob.

P.S. Before I forget, Bob... Apparently you are of the opinion that misinformation regarding time and date on the receipt of one's consistent clientele is of lesser significance than an accurate time clock.


Big Ben, yes people make mistakes, mistakes based on different reasons when not under oath and mistakes made when they are under oath. That's the inherent problem of direct evidence Human error.

Estimated times are not real times. They do not tell us when an event happened. It's the order of events that tell us what happened, not estimated times. The only real times we know in this case are times supported by telephone records.

Debello didn't make a mistake about the time clock, he testified that it was correct.

Tia Gavin testified that she was confused about what clock she was originally asked about, she corrected herself in her criminal trial testimony explaining and clarifying that the NCR machine clock, not the time clock, was incorrect. Karen Crawford substantiated that fact in her testimony.

Debello never knew exactly what time the Brown's left the restaurant. After speaking to the police he evidently realized his first estimate was not correct so he changed it when he testified. All of the Mezzaluna restaurant employees gave only estimated times regarding when the Brown's left, not supported real times.

Lou Brown was mistaken about the estimated time he told Claudine Ratcliffe his wife last talked to Nicole. The 11:00 PM estimate was incorrect but he told Ratcliffe what that telephone conversation was about. That's how we know his estimated time was a mistake. We know Juditha had that conversation with Nicole at 9:40 PM, not 11:00 PM.

Steven Schwab was awaken at 5:00 in the morning by the police. Schwab said he was confused, scared and shocked when he was asked questions by the detectives. He testified when asked about what time he got home he first mentioned 11:30 and then said no, it was must have been around 11:00. He testified that he was trying to get a fix on it vaguely. He said their was a lot of crossing and talking going on between his two neighbors and his wife. After the brief interview he went back to bed and when he later awoke he remembered the sequence of events more clearly. He immediately called the police and told them he had given them an incorrect statement.

Shapiro was either trying to pull a fast one on Clark or he was simply mistaken about what the time of calls he remembered. There was a 10 something PM call to Nicole on June 11, not June 12. Shapiro did not come back and agree to a stipulation regarding 9:37 PM, he offered the stipulation and the prosecution agreed.

Faye Resnick evidently misspoke in a television interview.

These were mistakes, not a disease. Every witness makes mistakes or is mistaken. All people make mistakes.

I'm not sure what you're saying about "one's consistent clientele" but if you're referring to the time on the customer checks in the restaurant compared to the time of day on the time clock, yes the time clock is far more significant. The time clock is what documents the hours employees work and how much they get paid. The time on the meal checks is insignificant except for the possible analysis for management of the restaurant.

bobaugust.

[sweet pea 15]

Martin was discussing this with me.

I don't know how anyone can think that there wasn't any evidence that Jason was the murderer or that O.J. was the "only" killer when the police never looked anywhere else!!! It was a beeline for O.J. from the moment they found out that Nicole Brown Simpson was one of the victims. Your first clue was that it took FOUR detectives to notify O.J. that his EX-WIFE had been murdered.

The fact that Dr. Henry Lee is promoting Mr. Dear's theory should tell you something. He was on O.J.'s defense team. He knows a lot of things that went on behind closed doors. It does give Mr. Dear credibility. I'll tell you two extra things that were not in his book.
I saw two pictures. One was a picture of Jason with a knit cap on. One was a picture with Jason's time card for the night of the murders. All his times for the night were punched EXCEPT for the time he left for the night. That time was written in.

Back to the "evidence" at Bundy... how much was there and never collected? Or tested? Like the blood drops on Nicole's back? And the more important BLOOD TRAIL leading out of the FRONT of Bundy?(Thank you WLSP3) Can't collect and test that, can we? How can there be a blood trail going out of the front of Bundy when we have degraded O.J. blood drops and Bruno Magli shoe prints going out towards the back alley?

Or was it collected and tested but someone didn't like the answers they came up with?

JMO

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by sweet pea 15
Martin was discussing this with me.

I don't know how anyone can think that there wasn't any evidence that Jason was the murderer or that O.J. was the "only" killer when the police never looked anywhere else!!! It was a beeline for O.J. from the moment they found out that Nicole Brown Simpson was one of the victims. Your first clue was that it took FOUR detectives to notify O.J. that his EX-WIFE had been murdered.

The fact that Dr. Henry Lee is promoting Mr. Dear's theory should tell you something. He was on O.J.'s defense team. He knows a lot of things that went on behind closed doors. It does give Mr. Dear credibility. I'll tell you two extra things that were not in his book.
I saw two pictures. One was a picture of Jason with a knit cap on. One was a picture with Jason's time card for the night of the murders. All his times for the night were punched EXCEPT for the time he left for the night. That time was written in.

Back to the "evidence" at Bundy... how much was there and never collected? Or tested? Like the blood drops on Nicole's back? And the more important BLOOD TRAIL leading out of the FRONT of Bundy?(Thank you WLSP3) Can't collect and test that, can we? How can there be a blood trail going out of the front of Bundy when we have degraded O.J. blood drops and Bruno Magli shoe prints going out towards the back alley?

Or was it collected and tested but someone didn't like the answers they came up with?

JMO


sweet pea, the supposed blood trail near the front may or may not have been a blood trail. It could have simply been blood splatters from Goldman or from Simpson's knife. Or it could have possibly been blood dripped from the Akita.

If Jason was involved in these murders not only is there not one shred of evidence that points to him but it wasn't the way Dear imagined it. Dear's scenario is not only contradicted by all the known evidence it makes absolutely no sense.

bobaugust

[rovaan]

Originally posted by Big Ben


- snipped-
By the way I took time to read the late Dick Wagner piece about the commute. Pure fantasy, Bob. Not because I simply say so, but because of the facts facing the Browns on 06/12/94.

Apparently you just simply dismissed the remarks that I previously made in terms of CalTrans providing us with documentation that the I-405 was under construction in 1994. And guess what they were building? That HOV lane that old Dick and Rose claimed to have been driving down.

As far as doing 50 MPH on Crown Valley Pkwy. Get outta here! That is a downhill freefall with 14 stop lights from the I-5 to the PCH, that are not synchronized. 50 MPH! I doubt it very much, Why would they??? That would be a scary ride, and dangerous to one's driving record with the cops along through that stretch. Old Dickie boy was attempting to dampen Dr. Johnson and staffs challenge of the drive time that made it into the L.A. Times who also considered the Brown's alleged drive to be a serious stretch of the imagination.

I think that who ever wrote that inclusion in Wagners diary had just roled up some ganga, lit it, and laid back to imagine a glorious Sunday drive. I think they may have given you a hit too, bobaugust. [/B]

You may think that but you would be wrong...very wrong. I rode with Dick, traveling from the Mezzaluna to Dana Point as indicated in his article. It was not difficult to do 50 miles per hour on the Crown Valley Parkway which had light traffic zooming along with us if not going faster. Given we did not know the area, the ride was a little scary but would have been easy for someone familar with the roads. I recall Dick only using the HOV lane for a very short period of time while we traveled and later research indicated that that part of the HOV was there in June of 1994. I still have a record of the time and miles traveled at major exits along the way.

I do not believe OJ comitted the murders and by focusing on a call around 11:00pm, you and others allow the real killer to remain hidden and unknown. If you are interested, go to www.smartfellowspress.com to the current discussion board. If you listen and look around at the site, you might learn some thing.

rovaan

[sweet pea 15]

Originally posted by bobaugust



sweet pea, the supposed blood trail near the front may or may not have been a blood trail. It could have simply been blood splatters from Goldman or from Simpson's knife. Or it could have possibly been blood dripped from the Akita.

If Jason was involved in these murders not only is there not one shred of evidence that points to him but it wasn't the way Dear imagined it. Dear's scenario is not only contradicted by all the known evidence it makes absolutely no sense.

bobaugust

We've already been through this bob. We don't know what the blood drops are from OR who they belong to because they were never collected or tested (that we know of). Which is precisely my point.

And you know darn well I'm not talking about Dear's scenerio. Everyone who has a scenerio of what happened that night has it wrong. Because no one has Rocky Bateman dumping the missing bag in a lake. Or Rocky Bateman leaving Rockingham with two bags in his hand. On camera. Etc. etc..

I'm talking about Jason's rage disorder.

Pulling a knife on his boss. Throwing his girlfriend into a bathtub. Almost choking his girlfriend to death because he was so overcome with rage.

And always carrying his set of chef's knives with him.

Let's see. Rage disorder/chef's knives/victims killed by multiple stab wounds.

You can't say there was not "one shred of evidence" that Jason was the murderer. Just like you can't say "nothing points to anyone else" when you point out O.J.'s guilt. Not when ALL the evidence that was there wasn't collected and tested and was washed away the very next day.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben

Facts in question are truly not facts at all, Bob, until one can establish the universality of its' truthfulness. You are attempting to do so using the integrity of shady people. You mean no harm, but you harm your appearance and become just simply a pathetic individual trying to sell buttons to the passersby. Poor fellow!




Big Ben, If you're referring to the Mezzaluna restaurant employees, you're wrong again. I don't believe Karen Crawford or Tina Gavin were shady people.

Or maybe you think Juditha Brown was shady since she testified to facts that destroy your fantasy, right?

Oh, lets not forget Simpson's attorneys, it's obvious you think they're all shady too or at least Shapiro and Cochran since they offered and agreed to stipulations that destroy your fantasy, right?

I'm sorry to say you're the poor fellow. You're so lost in your fantasy that you can't comprehend simple reality. Not only do you imagine conspiracies everywhere but you're so naive and gullible you blame the attorneys, you blame the witnesses, you blame everyone except the real criminal, Orenthal James Simpson.

Your fantasy has blinded you to the truth of these murders and it's obvious no amount of facts or evidence is going to change your mind.

Good job,

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by sweet pea 15


We've already been through this bob. We don't know what the blood drops are from OR who they belong to because they were never collected or tested (that we know of). Which is precisely my point.

I'm talking about Jason's rage disorder.

Pulling a knife on his boss. Throwing his girlfriend into a bathtub. Almost choking his girlfriend to death because he was so overcome with rage.

And always carrying his set of chef's knives with him.

Let's see. Rage disorder/chef's knives/victims killed by multiple stab wounds.

You can't say there was not "one shred of evidence" that Jason was the murderer. Just like you can't say "nothing points to anyone else" when you point out O.J.'s guilt. Not when ALL the evidence that was there wasn't collected and tested and was washed away the very next day.


Sweet pea, I disagree. Of course we can say Jason wasn't the killer since there is no evidence that points to him.

Your argument that since all of the blood evidence that covered the murder scene wasn't collected is not a realistic argument. No police department that I know of would have collected all that blood. It was obvious that the majority of the blood came from both victims. Other blood that may have not been from the victims was collected, the small drops that were on the walkway, near the bloody shoe prints, and on the rear gate. A blood drop on the bottom of Ron's shoe, blood on the tree, blood on the fence, blood on the rail, blood on the curb, blood on the front gate. No one knew whose blood that was.

All of the other physical evidence was collected. The glove, the hat, the envelope with eyeglasses, the pager, the keys, as well as other evidence that was later found not be connected to the murders. The glove and the hat as well as the victims clothing were all checked for fiber and hair evidence. There was a huge amount of physical evidence collected in this case and no one knew who that evidence would point to.

Just because Jason Simpson had knives and some behavior problems does not make him a killer. There has to be evidence that points to him for that claim to be credible. There was none. All of the relevant physical evidence in this case points only to Simpson. None of it points to anyone else. Nothing eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rovaan


You would be wrong...very wrong. I rode with Dick, traveling from the Mezzaluna to Dana Point. It was not difficult to do 50 miles per hour on the Crown Valley Parkway... the ride was a little scary .... but would have been easy for someone familar with the roads.

"A little scary"....Damn scary! To think a 70 year old Grandfather and Grandmother would subject their two infant grand babies to a cheap thrill flying down that road. Jeopardizing not only their lives but the lives of their grandchildren, whether they were familiar with the road or not.

Why??? Why would they do something like that? I don't care what thrill seeking you and old adventurous Dick were enjoying. Common sense tells me otherwise or any other rational thinking person to think that Mr. and Mrs. Brown would drive like that with infant children in the car.

As far as your drive along the I-405 was concerned, it took place after which all of the construction work was completed on the I-405. CalTrans had added an addidtional lane that did not exist in 1994, whether HOV or not. We were told by CalTrans that the I-405 highway project to build the north/south HOV lanes was a 5 year project starting in 1993. And 15 miles of the I- 405 between, I believe, the I-110 and the I-605 reduced average speeds in that 15 mile section on virtually any given day to 29 MPH or less. The Browns had no choice, they had to pass through that zone or go a slower route, i.e. the PCH. Again, don't know you, but your claims sound quite preposterous to say the least.

By the way, I've appreciated smartfellows in the past, and we'll take another look. But remember, unlike crotchity bobaugust we haven't been afraid to go to court and demand certain hidden records be produced, and not just quote authors filled with puffery and citing some subjective theory. The paranoia created after we told Simpson to pursue those hidden telephone records is a good indicator of our claims of serious malfeasance regarding this matter, rovaan.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

Tia Gavin didn't testify as to what time she thought the Brown's left the restaurant but she did testify as to what time they arrived. She said it was about 6:45 PM.

Bob, a part of me felt somewhat ashamed by calling you out of your name when you chided me for doing it.

However, when I hear you attempt to deny a very important fact regarding the crucial essence of time, relative to the subject matter of which we debate. You are either game playing, or actually feeble minded. I'm beginning to believe that it is more of the latter.

Tia Gavin, the waitress who waited on the Brown party of 10, testified that she saw them leave the Mezzaluna Restaurant "between 8:30 and 9:00, 8:45ish" . What's the matter with you man? If you're going to continue this dialogue start taking some genkoba, I don't have time to keep digging in boxes to rebutt your simple faux pas.

You continue to treat the family gathering as if the Browns went to McDonalds. Tia testified that it took time to seat them, and whether she or Ron would serve them. The purchase receipt indicates that they ordered expensive wines, and different exquisite types of pasta dishes, they spent over $217.00. When you dine for that kind of doe, you don't eat and run, bob. You take a couple of hours, you talk, and enjoy being the patriarch of your adorable family. To make your point you always want to suggest that 10 people ate and ran. I simply don't buy it.

[limakey]

Did Claudine Radicliff (sp?), the woman from the corner's officer ever testify in either trial?

Two things to consider about the Browns, their trip home and the phone calls.

It is very possible that a phone call was made from the Browns' home at that time--however, it didn't have to be Mrs. Brown who made it. Only Denise and Domnique went to watch Sydney, so where was Tonya Brown that night? Was she home? Could she have called Nicole's home?

The Browns live in a gated community. Which means that they either had to enter a code to access the community or their had to be someone on duty to let them in. Does anyone know anything about this?

[rovaan]

Originally posted by Big Ben
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rovaan
[B]
-sniped-
Again, don't know you, but your claims sound quite preposterous to say the least.

By the way, I've appreciated smartfellows in the past, and we'll take another look. But remember, unlike crotchity bobaugust we haven't been afraid to go to court and demand certain hidden records be produced, and not just quote authors filled with puffery and citing some subjective theory. The paranoia created after we told Simpson to pursue those hidden telephone records is a good indicator of our claims of serious malfeasance regarding this matter, rovaan.

Even if you were to prove an 11:00pm call, you would have difficulty proving who made the call and who answered on the other end. But the most serious result of finding such a call would be the new charge the LAPD would file against OJ for "consiracy to commit murder" in their quickly devised plan to save face by following the known murder for hire clues- Mario, Wasz, Bateman, etc. You might succeed in getting OJ jailed and the truth of these crimes would still not come out. No one tries to frame a person for a crime during a time he has a solid alibi. You have to ask yourself if you think someone deliberately tried to frame OJ. did they have a back-up plan if he managed to have an alibi. Then ask yourself what the LA district attorney's office would do if they thought they could pin a murder for hire plot on OJ now. Your one track course could lead him to prison. Look at the whole picture not just the quick "he was in the limo and could not have done it" scenario. Don't be surprise if an 11:00pm call suddenly surfaces to re-open the investigation. Getting OJ on a murder for hire plot would work for many people with too much already invested in him being guilty.

rovaan

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by Big Ben
*snip*
they spent over $217.00. When you dine for that kind of doe, you don't eat and run, bob. You take a couple of hours, you talk, and enjoy being the patriarch of your adorable family. To make your point you always want to suggest that 10 people ate and ran. I simply don't buy it.

I don't consider $217.00 for 10 people to be a lot of "doe". Nor do I think most people with small children sit & eat for 2 hrs at the end of a long day.

[limakey]

Rovaan,

The police knew where OJ was, they knew when he left, and more importantly, they knew he saw Nicole that night.

There also were other critical timeline witnesses who never took the stand, while I have always believed that Sydney was the most important time line witness--I have to put her at the second most important timeline witness.

The first timeline witness should have been the lady who was standing by her car looking at Nicole and when she was asked to call the police, she did nothing and left. I don't think this witness has ever been identified to the public.

Anyone who wanted to be the hero cop or detective in this case knew they were in a win-win situation. This was the time to finally get the recognition for being a great detective that has been denied to them in promotions. IMO.

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*
Anyone who wanted to be the hero cop or detective in this case knew they were in a win-win situation. This was the time to finally get the recognition for being a great detective that has been denied to them in promotions. IMO.

So tell me, which cop or detective in this case ended up getting the "recognition for being a great detective"?

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by limakey
Rovaan,

The police knew where OJ was, they knew when he left, and more importantly, they knew he saw Nicole that night.

<snipped>

IMO.

I am just baffled. Absolutely baffled. I am not going to ask where you got this information because I don't want a 3-page dissertation. Man oh man!

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben

Bob, a part of me felt somewhat ashamed by calling you out of your name when you chided me for doing it.

However, when I hear you attempt to deny a very important fact regarding the crucial essence of time, relative to the subject matter of which we debate. You are either game playing, or actually feeble minded. I'm beginning to believe that it is more of the latter.

Tia Gavin, the waitress who waited on the Brown party of 10, testified that she saw them leave the Mezzaluna Restaurant "between 8:30 and 9:00, 8:45ish" . What's the matter with you man? If you're going to continue this dialogue start taking some genkoba, I don't have time to keep digging in boxes to rebutt your simple faux pas.

You continue to treat the family gathering as if the Browns went to McDonalds. Tia testified that it took time to seat them, and whether she or Ron would serve them. The purchase receipt indicates that they ordered expensive wines, and different exquisite types of pasta dishes, they spent over $217.00. When you dine for that kind of doe, you don't eat and run, bob. You take a couple of hours, you talk, and enjoy being the patriarch of your adorable family. To make your point you always want to suggest that 10 people ate and ran. I simply don't buy it.


Big Ben, I have no idea where you got your information from about Tina Gavin testifying that the Brown's left the restaurant "between 8:30 and 9:00, 8:45 ish."

You have quotation marks around that. Where did it come from?

The fact is that Tina Gavin only testified in the criminal trial on February 7, 1995. She was asked by Clark about the time stamp on the credit card receipt that Nicole signed. The machine stamped the incorrect time of 7:12 PM. Gavin answered referring to the time the Brown's arrived at the restaurant. She was never asked what time the Brown's left the restaurant.

February 7, 1995 Tia Gavin
Q DO YOU SEE THE TIME STAMP THERE, 7:12 P.M.?
A YES.
Q IS THAT IN FACT WHEN NICOLE AND HER PARTY LEFT OR PAID?
A NO, THEY COULDN'T HAVE. THEY ARRIVED AT 6:45'ISH, SO --
Q SO THIS TIME IS ALSO INACCURATE?
A YES.

So tell us Big Ben where did you get the quote that you posted? Either you're mistaken or you're tying to pull a fast one on us.


Where did you get your information that the Brown's spent over $217.00?

Q I'M SHOWING YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S -- I'M GOING TO PUT IT ON THE MONITOR. IT IS EASIER -- PEOPLE'S 34.
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT?
A YES, I DO. IT IS A CREDIT CARD RECEIPT FROM OUR RESTAURANT.
Q DO YOU SEE THE AMOUNT OF 179.95?
A YES.
Q THAT WAS THE SAME AMOUNT ON PEOPLE'S 33 THAT YOU JUST SAW?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q SO DOES REFLECT THE METHOD OF ACTUAL PAYMENT FOR THE BILL BY NICOLE BROWN?
A YES, IT WOULD.
Q WHAT WAS THE METHOD OF PAYMENT?
A CREDIT CARD AND AMERICAN EXPRESS.
Q AND THE SIGNATURE APPEARS TO BE THAT OF NICOLE BROWN?
A IT SAYS "NICOLE BROWN," YES.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Did Claudine Radicliff (sp?), the woman from the corner's officer ever testify in either trial?

Two things to consider about the Browns, their trip home and the phone calls.

It is very possible that a phone call was made from the Browns' home at that time--however, it didn't have to be Mrs. Brown who made it. Only Denise and Domnique went to watch Sydney, so where was Tonya Brown that night? Was she home? Could she have called Nicole's home?

The Browns live in a gated community. Which means that they either had to enter a code to access the community or their had to be someone on duty to let them in. Does anyone know anything about this?



limakey, maybe you should inform yourself about a topic before you offer us your uninformed opinion about it.

There was no 11:00 PM telephone call on the Brown's telephone records for June 12, 1994.

Claudine Ratcliffe never testified in either trial or in the grand jury, or in the preliminary hearing.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey

The first timeline witness should have been the lady who was standing by her car looking at Nicole and when she was asked to call the police, she did nothing and left. I don't think this witness has ever been identified to the public.




limkey, Where did you get the information that a woman was standing by her car looking at Nicole?

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by limakey
Did Claudine Radicliff (sp?), the woman from the corner's officer ever testify in either trial?

To my knowledge, she did not. Her entries were clear within the autopsy report:

What Lou Brown told her when she called the Browns on the morning of 06/13/94.

and

What Lou Brown told her when he re-thought his initial remarks on 06/20/94.


It is very possible that a phone call was made from the Brown's home at that time--however, it didn't have to be Mrs. Brown who made it.

Juditha stated in her deposition that she, Juditha Brown, made the phone call back to Brentwood's Mezzaluna when she arrived at her residence, from the family's home telephone.


The Browns lived in a gated community, which means that they either had to enter a code to access the community or their had to be someone on duty to let them in.

Wish we had thought of that in 1998, regarding time records at the gate. The gate was manned by a human being, who lifted the gate and lowered the spikes in the roadway. The thought of asking that question, subpoenaing any records at the gate, would have been the thing to do. I will definitely bring it to the attention of the investigative group, it may be too little too late, at this time though.

The driver and I were so shocked as we flew down Crown Valley Pkwy, and reached the busy intersection of Crown Valley and the PCH, and saw the gate and spikes across the entry.

Dumbfounded upon arrival, we recreated a scenario of the Browns making what amounts to a hair raising journey that night, that included flying down the 1-405, Crown Valley Pkwy, across that busy PCH intersection.

The guard seeing them coming through the PCH intersection, had to immediately lift the gate, as the Brown vehicle flew across the spiked roadway, while possibly tipping their hats to the guard as they flew by, coming to a screeching halt in front of the door, with Juditha jumping out and running into the house, not to use the bathroom, but to make a call back to the Mezzaluna Restaurant in order to support bobaugust's absurdly strained timeline of 9:37 PM. Whew!!!

[weezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by Big Ben
in order to support bobaugust's absurdly strained timeline of 9:37 PM. Whew!!! [/B] the testimony and evidence in the trials supports the timeline for the arrival, departure and subsequent telephone calls.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, I have no idea where you got your information from about Tina Gavin testifying that the Brown's left the restaurant "between 8:30 and 9:00, 8:45 ish." You have quotation marks around that. Where did it come from?

She was never asked what time the Brown's left the restaurant.

So tell us Big Ben where did you get the quote that you posted? Either you're mistaken or you're tying to pull a fast one on us.

Bob, just for you, I've pulled the video tape no. 21 from the OMIG tape archive, representing the full day of testimony for Feb. 7, 1995.

Marcia Clark: Do you recall what Nicole was wearing?
Tia Gavin: A black dress, with a black blazer.

Marcia: A black halter dress?
Tia Gavin: Yes!

Marcia Clark: Do you remember whether she had a date or an escort?
Tia Gavin: The only gentleman there was her father...........

Marcia Clark: Do you recall what time Nicole and her party left?
Tia Gavin: "Between 8:30 and 9:00, 8:45 ish"

Marcia Clark: I'm showing you Peoples Exhibit 29. Can you tell us if you can recognize the person in the photograph.
Tia Gavin: Yes! It's Nicole Simpson.

Marcia Clark: Nicole Brown?
Tia Gavin: Yes.

Marcia Clark: Now you said that they left between 8:30 and 9:00. Did you offer them dessert?
Tia Gavin: Yes, but she said that they were taking the children out for ice cream.

Where did you get your information that the Brown's spent over $217.00?

It's been a few years, so the video tape helped jog my memory too, Bob. You're right the print out of the credit card receipt indicates the actual purchase was for $179.00, however, the video tape shows that underneath the $179.00, Nicole wrote in by hand a$34.00 tip, sorry, my assertion was off by $3.05.

However, that written tip is for almost 20% of the total, and thus is one of the things, in my mind, that continues to defy your logic of the family eating as if they were at a fast food joint.

Another thing that troubles me, is when Nicole said that "we are taking the children out for ice cream". It has always stuck in my mind that it would have been quite cruel to make that announcement in front of her sisters' two young children, but they not be allowed to enjoy ice cream with their cousins. Instead, following this insane time scenario that you seem so desperate to defend, force the other two children to get into the car immediately upon departing the restaurant for the long ride home, while the Ben and Jerry's is staring them in the face. Very, very cruel, Bob!

Bob, I'm beginning to see the problem, they apparently don't allow you to touch the electronic equipment out at the home.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* the testimony and evidence in the trials supports the timeline for the arrival, departure and subsequent telephone calls.

Weezer, go back to sleep. We'll call you when Captain Kangaroo or something of that nature comes on!

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I don't consider $217.00 for 10 people to be a lot of "doe". Nor do I think most people with small children sit & eat for 2 hrs at the end of a long day.

Socaldiva, do you have any children, or more importantly grandchildren?

This was there grandchild's day of excellence, after a wonderful recital on another glorious, sunny, warm, California Sunday afteroon and evening. They were celebrating that day with Nicole's child and the other grandchildren.

Sometimes, if you care, you just suck it up, for the sake of your children. You say to yourself sometimes, I would rather be fishing or doing something else, but today I'm going to just role with it, and enjoy my grandchildren, my children, my family, and try to enjoy and make it a wonderful day.

Besides that, we have the testimony of Tia Gavin who stated that they arrived late for their reservation by about 15-20 minutes late and came into the restaurant at approximately 6:45 -6:50 PM and "left at between 8:30-9:00, 8:45 ish." That's approximately 2 hours, socaldiva..........

If everybody is in a rush why not Mickey Dee's, it sure would have been a lot less expensive than all the unusual items found on the Mezzaluna receipt. Had they done that, there would be no question whatsoever about their intent to make it a fast food stop for the sake of time, and the receipt would have probably said $40.00 instead of $213.95 with a 20% tip included.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rovaan


Even if you were to prove an 11:00pm call, you would have difficulty proving who made the call and who answered on the other end.

Its irrelevant to us as to who answered on the other end. The point in trial, had it been raised, is that it creates reasonable doubt, and 11:00 PM is more consistent with what Lou Brown first told the coroner's investigator of when his wife last spoke to her daughter, Nicole. 11:00 PM is more realistic than the implausible time of a 9:37 PM phone call, if they left the restaurant as Tia Gavin testified at approx. 8:45 PM.


Don't be surprised if an 11:00 PM call suddenly surfaces to re-open the investigation. Getting OJ on a murder for hire plot would work for many people with too much already invested in him being guilty...

I'm not surprised about anything that California or U.S. officials tell the American public anymore to justify an objective. My objective is to succeed in forcing it to come out.

If they, or we, could prove murder conspiracy on OJ Simpson, I'd be standing beside the hangman to make sure that the rope was strong enough and the trap door works....But for me that goes for anyone of these seditious participants, I don't care about their race, creed or color. If OMIG found Simpson involved in conspiracy he'd have to go.

We tried to give Johnnie a chance to come clean, but he became the first cell phone tumor victim that I've known according to what they say.......

[weezer]

Originally posted by Big Ben


Weezer, go back to sleep. We'll call you when Captain Kangaroo or something of that nature comes on! And your attack on me was for what?

[weezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by Big Ben
[BTo think a 70 year old Grandfather and Grandmother would subject their two infant grand babies to a cheap thrill flying down that road. [/B] now there are two 'infant' grandbabies in the car? The fact remains, the timeline on the telephone calls were supported by testimony and evidence.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben


Bob, just for you, I've pulled the video tape no. 21 from the OMIG tape archive, representing the full day of testimony for Feb. 7, 1995.

Marcia Clark: Do you recall what time Nicole and her party left?
Tia Gavin: "Between 8:30 and 9:00, 8:45 ish"




Big Ben, you're correct, I was mistaken. Tia Gavin did testify that the Brown's left "between 8:30 and 9:00, 8:45 ish"

For some reason I missed that when I re read the transcripts but now I see it. Thank you.

Regardless, Tia Gavin's time was only an estimated time, not a real time. This comes down to what witnesses said not only about when the the Brown's left the restaurant but about what they said happened an hour later.

Juditha Brown had no reason to lie about this and she was the one who noted the time they started their drive home.

If you want to talk about the estimated times the Brown's left the restaurant then you should also talk about the estimated times when Juditha and Nicole called the restaurant about the eyeglasses. It's obvious both estimates can't be correct. So which one is right and which was is wrong? The estimated times that the Brown's left the restaurant are not supported by anything except memory. The estimated times that Juditha and Nicole called the restaurant are supported by the Brown's telephone records. Those are the correct times.

Karen Crawford testified that Juditha Brown called the restaurant about 9:30, 9:35. Shapiro than offered a stipulation regarding the Brown's telephone records, that the time of that call was actually 9:37 PM.

Juditha Brown testified that after Karen Crawford found her eyeglasses she told Crawford that she was going to call her daughter to pick them up. Juditha then called Nicole and told her about her eyeglasses. That telephone call was made at 9:40 PM. Cochran agreed to that in a stipulation Clark made. That was the telephone call that Lou Brown told Claudine Ratcliffe about and mistakenly estimated the time as about 11:00 PM.

Crawford testified that about five minutes after speaking with Juditha Brown, Nicole called the restaurant about the eyeglasses and spoke with Ron Goldman. Ron Goldman asked Crawford for the eyeglasses and she saw him leave the restaurant shortly before 10:00 PM.

There was no 11:00 PM telephone call on the Brown's telephone records on June 12, 1994. Only a call at 9:37 PM to the Mezzaluna restaurant and a call to Nicole at 9:40 PM. That was the last time Juditha Brown ever spoke with Nicole.

These facts prove your claims false about when the Brown's started their drive home and the last time Juditha Brown spoke with Nicole.



December 6, 1996 Juditha Brown
Q. Now, did you get in the car, then, and head down towards your house?
A. Yes. I -- we looked for my glasses, still, I know, because I didn't have the glasses in the restaurant. So we looked in the jeep and we didn't see them. And it was 8:30 by that time and the children had to go to bed, so we said, well, let's go; I'll call.
Q. And did you get in the car and head down to Orange County?
A. We drove home. And on the way home, a terrible depression came over me, something I have never experienced. My whole body got really heavy. And I haven't had it before and I haven't had it afterwards. It was --
it was a whole feeling. And as we arrived at home, I shook myself, and I thought, "God, I have to buy a pair of new glasses again." And I went on the phone and I called Mezzaluna.
*
Q. Now, after you got home, you -- I'm sorry -- do you recall who you spoke to at Mezzaluna?
A. It was a woman. No, I don't remember her name.
Q. Do you recall the substance of the conversation?
A. Yes. I said can you -- I know I left my glasses somewhere; could you please check outside. Because I had Justin on my lap, and as I got out of the car, I said, maybe they had fallen out, and there was a puddle in front where we got out. So I said, could you just check there and see if you find my glasses. And she returned and she says, "Yes, I have them." I said, "What luck."
Q. And anything else in that conversation?
A. And I said, "Well I'm going to call my daughter and tell her to pick up the glasses in the morning."
Q. Did you then call Nicole?
A. Then I called Nicole and I said, "You know, I found my glasses over there. Would you please pick them up in the morning.
Q. Okay. Anything else in the conversation?
A. And then she said good night, and "I love you." And I said, "I love you." And those were the last words.


Claudine Ratcliffe's Report.
The decedent 94-05136 was last known to be alive at 2300 Hrs. speaking to her mother on the telephone. Her mother left her eyeglasses at a restaurant that evening and the decedent reportedly advised her mother that she would ask if an employee could bring them to her residence.
Claudine Ratcliffe


February 7, 1995 Karen Crawford.
Q SHORTLY AFTER YOU SAW RON GO TO THE AREA WHERE THE TIME CLOCK IS KEPT THAT EVENING, SHORTLY AFTER THAT, DID YOU GET A PHONE CALL?
A YES, I DID.
Q DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT TIME, APPROXIMATELY, THAT YOU GOT THAT PHONE CALL?
A IT WAS ABOUT 9:30, 9:35.
*

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, IN THE INTERESTS OF SAVING TIME, SINCE I DON'T THINK THIS WITNESS CAN AUTHENTICATE THOSE PHONE RECORDS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS WITNESS' TESTIMONY, WE WOULD STIPULATE THAT THE RECORDS ARE ACCURATE AND DEPICT THE TIME THAT THE CALL CAME INTO THE RESTAURANT.


MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
Q: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE PHONE NUMBER ON THE FIRST LINE THERE WHERE IT SAYS "JUNE THE 12TH, 9:37 P.M., WEST LOS ANGELES" AND THEN THERE IS A PHONE NUMBER, "310 447-8667"?
A: YES, I DO.
Q: AND WHAT PHONE NUMBER IS THAT?
A: THAT IS THE PHONE NUMBER TO MEZZALUNA.
Q: AND THE TIME THAT YOU RECEIVED THAT CALL, THE 9:37, DOES THAT SEEM TO BE ACCURATE, BASED ON YOUR MEMORY?
A: YEAH, IT DOES.
*

Q: DID YOU ASK HER -- DID YOU ASK MS. BROWN WHAT SHE WANTED DONE WITH THOSE GLASSES?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: WHAT DID SHE TELL YOU?
A: SHE TOLD ME THAT SHE COULD NOT PICK THEM UP, SHE LIVED TOO FAR AWAY, AND THAT SHE WOULD HAVE HER DAUGHTER PICK THEM UP.
Q: AND WAS IT AFTER THAT POINT THAT YOU SEALED UP THE GLASSES?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU AGREE TO HOLD THEM THERE FOR HER?
A: YES. I TOLD HER I WOULD HAVE THEM BEHIND THE BAR IN OUR LOST AND FOUND AREA.
*

<>AT CONVERSATION WITH MRS. BROWN AND YOU PLACED THE ENVELOPE BEHIND YOU AT THE BAR, DID YOU GET ANOTHER PHONE CALL?
A: YES.
Q: ABOUT HO LONG AFTER THE FIRST PHONE CALL DID YOU GET THE SECOND PHONE CALL?
A: ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
Q: OKAY. WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THEN ABOUT 9:45?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU RECOGNIZE THE PERSON WHO CALLED YOU?
A: UMM, YES, I DID.
Q: WHO WAS THAT?
A: IT WAS NICOLE.
*

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AFTER HE HUNG UP THE PHONE, DID RON SAY SOMETHING TO YOU?
A: YEAH. HE TOLD ME HE WAS GOING TO DROP THE GLASSES OFF AT NICOLE'S.
Q: SO DID YOU GIVE HIM THE ENVELOPE WITH THE GLASSES?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU SEE HIM LEAVE THE RESTAURANT AT SOME POINT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DO YOU RECALL ABOUT WHAT TIME IT WAS?
A: HE LEFT AT ABOUT TEN MINUTES TO 10:00.

July 6, 1995
MS. CLARK: First stipulation, counsel, with respect to the testimony of Juditha Brown: May it be stipulated that Juditha Brown was called as a witness, duly sworn and testified as follows:

at approximately 940 P.M., Juditha Brown telephoned her daughter, Nicole Brown Simpson, reaching her at her daughter's residence located at 875 south Bundy drive in the city of Los Angeles; Juditha Brown conversed with Nicole Brown Simpson for approximately 2 minutes; Nicole Brown Simpson stated that she would arrange for the retrieval of Juditha Brown's eyeglasses; this was the last time that Juditha Brown spoke to her daughter, Nicole Brown Simpson?

Counsel, may it be so stipulated?
MR. COCHRAN: So stipulated, your Honor.

bobaugust

[martin II]

one thing is for sure, the mamagement at mazzaluna(sp) didn't care very much about correc times for anything.imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by martin II
one thing is for sure, the mamagement at mazzaluna(sp) didn't care very much about correc times for anything.imo
martin II

Gee whiz, I doubt they expected to have to help provide a time line relative to a double murder.

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by Big Ben


Socaldiva, do you have any children, or more importantly grandchildren?

This was there grandchild's day of excellence, after a wonderful recital on another glorious, sunny, warm, California Sunday afteroon and evening. They were celebrating that day with Nicole's child and the other grandchildren.

Sometimes, if you care, you just suck it up, for the sake of your children. You say to yourself sometimes, I would rather be fishing or doing something else, but today I'm going to just role with it, and enjoy my grandchildren, my children, my family, and try to enjoy and make it a wonderful day.

Besides that, we have the testimony of Tia Gavin who stated that they arrived late for their reservation by about 15-20 minutes late and came into the restaurant at approximately 6:45 -6:50 PM and "left at between 8:30-9:00, 8:45 ish." That's approximately 2 hours, socaldiva..........

If everybody is in a rush why not Mickey Dee's, it sure would have been a lot less expensive than all the unusual items found on the Mezzaluna receipt. Had they done that, there would be no question whatsoever about their intent to make it a fast food stop for the sake of time, and the receipt would have probably said $40.00 instead of $213.95 with a 20% tip included.

I wasn't talking about the needs/desires of the adults. I was talking about the children being tired. Typically children of that age can't sit at a restaurant for 2 hrs. especially at the end of a long day & most caring adults would understand that. imo & my post was in response to someone posting that they were lingering over their expensive wines etc.

Who said anything about them being in a rush? that they could have gone to Mickey Dee's? obviously they wanted a nice meal, but that doesn't mean they sit there until the end of time.

I wasn't the poster making a big deal out of the bill. I specifically said I don't think $215.00 for 10 people is a lot of money. To the contrary, I don't think it was a fancy restaurant. Not Mickey Dee's, but certainly not a big deal.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Either it was the gentleman or his wife who actually found the bodies testified they saw a woman standing at her car. I believe you did answer this question a long time ago and dismissed it as a woman being in shock at what she saw. If it wasn't you, maybe Wukong?

The Browns' telephone record was entered into court, but how many records did the Browns' household generate?

And as I posted before, the Browns' telephone records were not the only important ones in this case. What if Nicole called her mother back about the glasses?

Did any one think to ask if the Browns or anyone in their group that night had a cell phone?

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*
Did any one think to ask if the Browns or anyone in their group that night had a cell phone?

Cell phones were not used at that time the way they are today, why would they be using cell phones when both parties were home?

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* now there are two 'infant' grandbabies in the car? The fact remains, the timeline on the telephone calls were supported by testimony and evidence.
.

That "facts" are now under serious scrutiny and those who have promulgated accusations of guilt based upon such questionable damning accusations are now under suspicion.

Whose credibility are you trying to depend on in regard to evidence and testimony, Weezer? Hopefully not that of those same L.A. officials whose atrocious conduct has now allowed 3 thousand innocent men to walk free from California Prisons in the year 2000 due to fraud and malfeasance under the color of authority.

Those same officials now have strapped the California taxpayers with billions of dollars in potential lawsuits as a result of these revelations. These innocent men, some sentenced to from 8-26 years in prison, freed because of revelations like those we've uncovered in the Simpson case.

They were freed because of "testimony and evidence" provided by police officers of the L.A.P.D.'s Rampart Precinct proven to be based upon pure lies and planted evidence. Denzell Washington received an Oscar in 2001 for portraying the conduct of certain officers of the Ramparts Precint in "Training Days".

Yep! Ramparts, the precinct that had officers milling around O.J.'s house on Rockingham the night the bloody glove was discovered. As the L.A. Times Newspaper's 2000 article titled:
"O.J. Simpson says from Ramparts to Rockingham"

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by Big Ben
*snip*
.
Yep! Ramparts, the precinct that had officers milling around O.J.'s house on Rockingham the night the bloody glove was discovered. [/B]

I think you are WAY off on this one. Rampart would not have been at Bundy or Rockingham :no:

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I think you are WAY off on this one. Rampart would not have been at Bundy or Rockingham :no:

My understanding from the L.A. Times article is that some of them may have been there, whether officially or unofficially. However, as far as I was concerned, seeing the article as it came east to my office, made little difference to me whether they were or not. OJ said that they were and the LA Times wrote a big graphic article about OJ's allegation of police suppression and planting of evidence.

I wasn't then and I'm not now, going to argue over the minutia of whether they were or were not there. We were happy that they were exposed for planting evidence on a big time basis, that would make the lawsuit in pursuit of the telephone records more cogent at the right time.

What was most important is when the police officer Raphael Perez got caught with the drugs from the LAPD and started singing about major malfeasance, planting of evidence, purgery on the witness stand, in terms of officers from his precinct, it was the right time to expose the telephone malfeasance in the courts of California.

The Texas judges and heretofore California judges were previously afraid to entertain the subject matter, but when the police debacle started in the news papers about Ramparts, it was what we needed. I'm glad that it took place in L.A. because without it the information that I've shared with you over the last few weeks would have no anchor of creditibilty for debate. Ramparts gave credence to previous allegations of police misconduct in regard to a hand in destroying innocent people.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I wasn't talking about the needs/desires of the adults. I was talking about the children being tired. Typically children of that age can't sit at a restaurant for 2 hrs. especially at the end of a long day.............

Socaldiva, The significance of your post actually seemed to be centered around time, and therefore I should have made my answer short and sweet.

The waitress and general manager put them in the restaurant from approximately 6:45 PM until 8:45 PM. Now you do the math!

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, you're correct, I was mistaken. Tia Gavin did testify that the Brown's left "between 8:30 and 9:00, 8:45 ish"

For some reason I missed that when I re read the transcripts but now I see it. Thank you............................................... .........
.................................................. .......
...............................................

Look Uncle Bob! A simple thank you is enough, if you are addressing me there is no need for you to rewrite the whole transcript of the trial. It's like you're writing the Declaration of Independence. Remember, for 10 years I've been looking at both written and video transcripts of this trial.

You don't change my mind with your brand of Chinese water torture, i.e. bombardment with an over kill of words. Convince yourself that what I'm saying to you is not plausible. Stop writing me so many words, that's a sign of someone not convinced of his own argument.

Lock your doors when I finish talking to you, because I'm afraid that you become so dumbfounded that you might wander out in the street in front of oncoming traffic.

Stop writing so much, go lay down, and think about how these people have undermined the essence of what you have believed in all of your life.

[Charms]

Y'all still chatting about OJ?
Oh well, I guess that's what he wants.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Either it was the gentleman or his wife who actually found the bodies testified they saw a woman standing at her car. I believe you did answer this question a long time ago and dismissed it as a woman being in shock at what she saw. If it wasn't you, maybe Wukong?

The Browns' telephone record was entered into court, but how many records did the Browns' household generate?

And as I posted before, the Browns' telephone records were not the only important ones in this case. What if Nicole called her mother back about the glasses?

Did any one think to ask if the Browns or anyone in their group that night had a cell phone?


limakey, there is no evidence that Nicole owned a cell phone. No one that I know of has ever said or written anything that even suggested it.

Juditha Brown testified that when she called Nicole at 9:40 PM that was the last time she ever spoke with her.

I never said any such thing about the woman Sukru Boztep saw on Bundy after he and Bettina Rasmussen saw Nicole's body.

February 8, 1995
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND WHAT DID YOU DO TO TRY TO CALL 911?
A WE CROSS THE STREET, RAN TO A HOUSE, KNOCKED AT DOOR, RANG THE BELL AND THERE WAS NOBODY THERE AND THERE WAS NO ANSWER. AND THEN WE DECIDE TO GO TO THE NEXT HOUSE, WHICH IS -- I BELIEVE IT'S THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. AND WHEN WE WERE GOING THERE, WE HAD SEEN A LADY. WE TRIED -- WE STOPPED HER AND THEN SAID THAT THERE WAS A PERSON LAYING DOWN THERE AND SHE SHOULD CALL 911, AND SHE SAID, OKAY, SHE WOULD DO THAT AND SHE JUST LEFT BY HER CAR. AND THEN I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T TRUST HER, THAT SHE WOULD CALL THEM. AND WE WENT TO THE OTHER HOUSE AND WE MADE THE MAN, KIND OF OLD MAN CALL 911.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben
[B]

Look Uncle Bob! A simple thank you is enough, if you are addressing me there is no need for you to rewrite the whole transcript of the trial. It's like you're writing the Declaration of Independence. Remember, for 10 years I've been looking at both written and video transcripts of this trial.




Big Ben, I post testimony to support what I say. It's not only for your benefit but for the benefit of other posters and readers who follow these discussions. You may not be able to comprehend what I said but others do.

Your arguments are based on picking and choosing estimated times that fit your fantasy and you ignore other estimated times that contradict your fantasy. Estimated times are not real times and are not reliable unless they're supported by other evidence or the best support possible, telephone records.

The different estimated times as to when the Brown's left the restaurant are not supported by any evidence or any telephone records. They're not real times and they're not reliable times.

The estimated times that were testified to as to when Juditha Brown and Nicole called the restaurant about the eyeglasses are supported. Karen Crawford's estimated times of those telephone calls are supported by the Brown's telephone records.

The fact is that Juditha Brown called the Mezzaluna restaurant at 9:37 PM from her home. That fact confirms Juditha Brown's estimate that they started their drive back home about 8:30 PM.

The fact is that after her conversation with Karen Crawford, Juditha Brown called Nicole and told her about her conversation with Crawford and that the eyeglasses were being held for Nicole to pick up. That call was made at 9:40 PM. Juditha Brown testified that was the last time she ever spoke with Nicole. That was the telephone call that Lou Brown told Claudine Ratcliffe about.

That is the evidence in this case. Evidence that both the prosecutors and both of Simpson's defense team's attorneys understood and agreed to. The evidence that proves an 11:00 PM telephone call false. It never happened. It's only a bad fantasy.

bobaugust

[rovaan]

Originally posted by Big Ben
[
-snipped-
"A little scary"....Damn scary! To think a 70 year old Grandfather and Grandmother would subject their two infant grand babies to a cheap thrill flying down that road. Jeopardizing not only their lives but the lives of their grandchildren, whether they were familiar with the road or not.

[/B]

Judith Brown was 62 in 1994. Lou Brown is older but I do not know his age. However, it was Dominque's vehicle they were riding in and she was driving as indicated by Denise's testimony regarding the video showing OJ after the recital. She indicated that both Nicole and Dominique pulled up in their vehicle while the video was being taken of OJ and Lou Brown and OJ kissing Juditha.

From Feburary 6-
Q AND THAT VEHICLE WOULD HAVE BEEN DRIVEN BY YOUR SISTER, DOMINIQUE?
A RIGHT.
Q SO THE SECOND THEN WOULD BE THE ONE DRIVEN BY YOUR SISTER NICOLE?
A RIGHT.

It appears it was not Lou Brown driving that night.

rovaan

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by Big Ben
*snip*

OJ said that they were and the LA Times wrote a big graphic article about OJ's allegation of police suppression and planting of evidence.

I wasn't then and I'm not now, going to argue over the minutia of whether they were or were not there.

Hate to tell you this, but OJ says a lot of things that are flat out lies. He's not the least bit credible.

You posted that Rampart was there, as though it was fact. I don't consider that statement to be "minutia". Either they were there or not. If you have something other than OJ's word, please post it.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by rovaan


Judith Brown was 62 in 1994. Lou Brown is older but I do not know his age. However, it was Dominque's vehicle they were riding in and she was driving as indicated by Denise's testimony regarding the video showing OJ after the recital. She indicated that both Nicole and Dominique pulled up in their vehicle while the video was being taken of OJ and Lou Brown and OJ kissing Juditha.

From Feburary 6-
Q AND THAT VEHICLE WOULD HAVE BEEN DRIVEN BY YOUR SISTER, DOMINIQUE?
A RIGHT.
Q SO THE SECOND THEN WOULD BE THE ONE DRIVEN BY YOUR SISTER NICOLE?
A RIGHT.

It appears it was not Lou Brown driving that night.

rovaan

What are you offering, rovaan, an insurance policy or something?

Do you think that death would have been a little kinder had their daughter flipped the SUV they were riding in?

That death maybe would give Lou and Juditha Brown and their two grandchildren a pass, simply because you have pointed out my failure to specify that Dominique might have been driving like a fool down the Crown Valley Pkwy like you claim you and old Dick were doing????

Again, I don't care who was behind the wheel, if they were doing 50 MPH down that parkway, in my opinion, they were driving like a fool. That's my point! You all will invent anything to get Juditha in the house by 9:36 and-a-half to make a phone call.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by socaldiva


Hate to tell you this, but OJ says a lot of things that are flat out lies. He's not the least bit credible.

You posted that Rampart was there, as though it was fact. I don't consider that statement to be "minutia". Either they were there or not. If you have something other than OJ's word, please post it.

I have no direct evidence, nor any direct knowledge of whether the LA Times had determined that it was so or OJ had simply alleged that it was so in newspaper.

When the L.A. Times wrote the large graphic headlines and the TV news cameras began to roll, pointing their lenses at Rampart police officers planting evidence on innocent men and sending them away for unwarranted years to some of the most violent prisons in the state of California, that was the time of movement for us.

The images of hundreds of innocent men, allegedly framed by LAPD officers of the Ramparts Precinct, being allowed to walk free out the front gates of San Quentin, far surpassed whatever interests or uses that our public relations team could get from investigating the truth of the LA Times story. The truth whether explicity true for Simpson's house or not was manifesting what he had always claimed right before the public's eyes on KCAL TV NEWS, or CNN, etc.

The truth was the the U.S. Justice Dept. did something that is very rare in the U.S. and that is to come in and take over the daily oversight of the L.A.P.D. and that far overshadowed any requirements that I felt were necessary to prove about OJ's house.

Ramparts at that point along with OJ himself virtually became "minutia" compared to the BIG picture, that allegations of rampant malfeasance within the L.A.P.D. appeared to be more than just words. And maybe the tapes of Det. Mark Furhman alleging the smell of Black men beaten to death in the basement of L.A.'s police precincts was probably true afterall.
Publicizing the hidden phone records was our main focus and the publicity of the Ramparts malfeasance assisted that effort. Therefore from my south central U.S. purch, an investigation of Ramparts and their presence at OJs house were minutia for me.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben,

Your arguments are based on picking and choosing estimated times that fit your fantasy and you ignore other estimated times that contradict your fantasy. Estimated times are not real times and are not reliable unless they're supported by other evidence or the best support possible, telephone records.


Well, Bob, OJ Simpson asked the Courts to order the telephone company to produce the records. We had him ask the U.S. Dist. Court in San Angelo, TX where the California GTE hard drive had been spirited off to in the wake of the criminal trial. Answer: No.

We asked the U.S. Dist. Court in Los Angeles, they said maybe, but first go back to the California trial court.

The California judge said no.

The Brown famiily initially said yes to the offer, then after 4 days to decide they said no.


You have nothing that has not already been vigorously contradicted. To think that you would condone the behavior of these law enforcement officials to remove these records from his criminal file without ever giving him an audience or considerable courtesy that they were being removed.

[goatgirl]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rovaan
*Snip*



:seeya: Hi Rovann ........its nice to see you posting

~~GoatGirl~~

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben
[
Well, Bob, OJ Simpson asked the Courts to order the telephone company to produce the records. We had him ask the U.S. Dist. Court in San Angelo, TX where the California GTE hard drive had been spirited off to in the wake of the criminal trial. Answer: No.

We asked the U.S. Dist. Court in Los Angeles, they said maybe, but first go back to the California trial court.

The California judge said no.

The Brown famiily initially said yes to the offer, then after 4 days to decide they said no.


You have nothing that has not already been vigorously contradicted. To think that you would condone the behavior of these law enforcement officials to remove these records from his criminal file without ever giving him an audience or considerable courtesy that they were being removed.


Big Ben, Based on Simpson's actions regarding the judgment against him, I doubt if he deserves any courtesy from anyone pertaining to the Brown's telephone records.

It's up to the Brown's and I understand why they don't wish to dignify this ridiculous false claim by releasing their telephone records to anyone. If you wish to see them, all you have to do is look at the prosecution's exhibit of an enlarged photocopy of the Brown's telephone bill showing all of the times and phone numbers for the long distance calls made on June 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th.

If you've never seen it I will be more than happy to put the copy I have of it on my web site for you to download. But since you evidently have the criminal trial taped you should be able to see it yourself.

Isn't it amazing that not one of Simpson's attorneys for either trial has ever gotten involved in this request or even supported it. That alone should tell you what a sham this is.

You say I have nothing that hasn't already been contradicted. You haven't contradicted any of the evidence I presented with anything except your opinions.

bobaugust.

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by Big Ben
*snip*
Therefore from my south central U.S. purch, an investigation of Ramparts and their presence at OJs house were minutia for me. [/B]

You are using this as an opportunity to rant again the Rampart Division. Problem is, they had no involvement in the double murders being discussed here. IMO

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, Based on Simpson's actions regarding the judgment against him, I doubt if he deserves any courtesy from anyone pertaining to the Brown's telephone records.

Well, I think that he has been extremely generous to his in-laws. He allegedly helped them to get a Hertz franchise down in Newport Beach, helped buy their property down at Monarch Bay, didn't gripe about old Lou collecting allegedly $20, 000 a month to take care of his children. So all in all I feel that he's been quite honorable in regard to them. They communicate with one another. The rest is for public consumption for the wannabee, know-it -all- gawkers, like yourself.

It's up to the Brown's and I understand why they don't wish to dignify this ridiculous false claim by releasing their telephone records to anyone

If I were them, I'd authorize the request to allow GTE to release them so that I could prove that Simpson and his investigators were in fact foolishly "ridiculous".

But on the other hand, I wouldn't if I thought that my ass might wind up doing the rest of my life in the state penitentiary. Lou may be old, but he aint crazy.

Isn't it amazing that not one of Simpson's attorneys for either trial has gotten involved in this request or even supported it. That alone should tell you what a sham it is.

Well tell me, Bob, which of the principals at Enron that helped defraud the employees and loot their pension fund, do you remember driving down to the U.S. Attorney General's office to tell him how pleased he was that an Enron whistle blower had performed admirably in revealing his malfeasance.

Ben, you haven't contradicted any of the evidence I presented with anything except your opinions.

I see your feisty intellectual capacity is starting to return. Yesterday, when I posted Tia Gavin telling you in deed about the Brown's 8:45 PM departure, I thought that you were going to walk out in the street and get hit by a car, you appeared so dumbfounded. You came back though, and started in like a mad fiend writing the Preamble to the United States Constitution.

Amnesia is a sign, however, of the return to normalcy for you, I guess.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by socaldiva


You are using this as an opportunity to rant again the Rampart Division. Problem is, they had no involvement in the double murders being discussed here. IMO

Oh! You got inside information?

[limakey]

Mr. August,

The Browns' have no excuse not to release those phone records, they along with Simpsond are in a "win win" situation.

If the phone records prove Nicole was alive at 11:00 p.m. then this means that the man they have loved for years is not guilty of this crime. It means that, at least for the sake of their grandchildren, their father did not kill their mother.

If those phone records only confirm what has been said, then they have even more proof and could have used this in their custody hearings.

[limakey]

Big Ben,

There is another way to confirm what time Browns' left Mezzaluna. The receipt for the ice cream that Nicole bought that night.

Was their register off as well?

IMO, the receipt from the ice cream store is much more valuable for the Browns' departure then the Mezzaluna's. IMO, of course!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben

Well tell me, Bob, which of the principals at Enron that helped defraud the employees and loot their pension fund, do you remember driving down to the U.S. Attorney General's office to tell him how pleased he was that an Enron whistle blower had performed admirably in revealing his malfeasance.

I see your feisty intellectual capacity is starting to return. Yesterday, when I posted Tia Gavin telling you in deed about the Brown's 8:45 PM departure, I thought that you were going to walk out in the street and get hit by a car, you appeared so dumbfounded. You came back though, and started in like a mad fiend writing the Preamble to the United States Constitution.




Big Ben, your opinions do not change the evidence that proves Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

Your comments regarding why not one of Simpson's attorneys were never involved in the sham you're promoting are meaningless. Enron had nothing to do with the Simpson case.

No, I wasn't dumbfounded about Tia Gavin's time estimate as to when the Brown's left the restaurant, I was concerned how I missed it when reading the transcripts. After you posted what Gavin said I re read the transcript for February 7, 1995 and saw how I made my mistake. That day started with discussions by the attorneys and then Tia Gavin was called to testify. After her testimony Stuart Tanner testified and then Karen Crawford testified. Then Tia Gavin was called again and gave more testimony. When I first scanned the transcripts to find Gavin's testimony I missed her first testimony and read only her second testimony.

Tia Gavin's unsupported time estimate doesn't change Karen Crawford's time estimate as to when Juditha Brown called the Mezzaluna restaurant from her home. That telephone call not only proves there was no 11:00 PM telephone call it proves your claims and beliefs false about when the Brown's started their drive home

bobaugust.

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*
IMO, the receipt from the ice cream store is much more valuable

I doubt there was a receipt for the ice cream. It was probably cash.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Your claims are very weak regarding no 11:00 p.m. phone call. You have based your nonsense on the unbreakable rule that if there was an 11:00 p.m. phone call, it had to be from the Brown home to Nicole's. If Nicole called the Browns' home at 11:00 p.m., of course this call would not be reflected on the Browns' telephone record.

We have two witnesses who said they called Nicole after she got home that night, what time did they call? Faye had to use a public telephone call, did she call collect? What is in Nicole's phone records, not just on that day but what about before or after the murders? What about other cell phone users in the area?

Again, you made the same mistake you always make, you like to cut and paste the testimony that matches your unfounded claims.

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*
What about other cell phone users in the area?



:confused:

[martin II]

Originally posted by limakey
Big Ben,

There is another way to confirm what time Browns' left Mezzaluna. The receipt for the ice cream that Nicole bought that night.

Was their register off as well?

IMO, the receipt from the ice cream store is much more valuable for the Browns' departure then the Mezzaluna's. IMO, of course!

limakey

Nicole left the resturant with her two children and Sydneys friend(little girl) the father picked the girl up sometimes after nicole and the children were home. i have not been able to find any testimony or quotes from him as to what time he picked his child up.
martinii

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Your claims are very weak regarding no 11:00 p.m. phone call. You have based your nonsense on the unbreakable rule that if there was an 11:00 p.m. phone call, it had to be from the Brown home to Nicole's. If Nicole called the Browns' home at 11:00 p.m., of course this call would not be reflected on the Browns' telephone record.

We have two witnesses who said they called Nicole after she got home that night, what time did they call? Faye had to use a public telephone call, did she call collect? What is in Nicole's phone records, not just on that day but what about before or after the murders? What about other cell phone users in the area?

Again, you made the same mistake you always make, you like to cut and paste the testimony that matches your unfounded claims.



limakey, no my arguments are not weak your inability to comprehend them is weak.

What part of the Brown's telephone records document when Juditha made the calls she testified to making can't you understand? The fact that other people may have called Nicole is completely meaningless to this issue. Nicole's telephone records are completely meaningless to this issue.

No one has ever claimed Nicole called the Brown's home at 11:00 PM. Not even Dr. Johnson and Big Ben are that dense. Maybe you believe in ghosts, since both Ron and Nicole were dead before 11:00 PM.

Your "cutting and pasting" comment is funny. Dumb but funny.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


limakey

Nicole left the resturant with her two children and Sydneys friend(little girl) the father picked the girl up sometimes after nicole and the children were home. i have not been able to find any testimony or quotes from him as to what time he picked his child up.
martinii


martin II, according to Lange and Vannatter's book, Nicole, her two children, and Sydney's friend arrived at Nicole's home about 9:00 PM. Soon after, the friend's mother picked up her daughter.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Your ignorance is simply over whelming. You are more stubborn then 20 mules. I love the fact that each and every time you post your moronic statements about what is relevant in this case and what isn't. Mr. August, your statements have no credibility. Your arguements are so weak they have no credibility that even your fellow G's can't defend unless it is the G's who only make cruel and snide comments. Like you, they add nothing to this board.

Nicole's telephone records don't matter. The fact that two people who claimed to speak with her within two hours of her death, don't matter. Nothing matters as long as you have OJ Simpson being the killer. You are pathic, racially and credibility challenged individual. You refuse to see just how the DA's and media turned people like you into mindless robots just throwing up everything they said and did. Pathic, truly pathic.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Your ignorance is simply over whelming. You are more stubborn then 20 mules. I love the fact that each and every time you post your moronic statements about what is relevant in this case and what isn't. Mr. August, your statements have no credibility. Your arguements are so weak they have no credibility that even your fellow G's can't defend unless it is the G's who only make cruel and snide comments. Like you, they add nothing to this board.

Nicole's telephone records don't matter. The fact that two people who claimed to speak with her within two hours of her death, don't matter. Nothing matters as long as you have OJ Simpson being the killer. You are pathic, racially and credibility challenged individual. You refuse to see just how the DA's and media turned people like you into mindless robots just throwing up everything they said and did. Pathic, truly pathic.


limakey, nice rant. It's funny how you call me names when it's evident you don't know the evidence in this case.

The fact that some people spoke to Nicole sometime before she was killed has nothing to do with the evidence that tells us when she was killed or who killed her.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

What's really ironic Limakey is that you just put up a post filled with anger & name calling after you put just about every "G" on ignore, for far less. Why don't you knock off the personal attacks & stick with the topic?

[weezer]

Snipped*Originally posted by Big Ben
[BWell, Bob, OJ Simpson asked the Courts to order the telephone company to produce the records. We had him ask the U.S. Dist. Court in San Angelo, TX where the California GTE hard drive had been spirited off to in the wake of the criminal trial. Answer: No.

We asked the U.S. Dist. Court in Los Angeles, they said maybe, but first go back to the California trial court.

The California judge said no.

The Brown famiily initially said yes to the offer, then after 4 days to decide they said no.
[/B] Why didn't he ask his 'dream team' for their copy of the phone records they stipulated to?

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by bobaugust

martin II, according to Lange and Vannatter's book, Nicole, her two children, and Sydney's friend arrived at Nicole's home about 9:00 PM. Soon after, the friend's mother picked up her daughter.

bobaugust

I am confused now Bob. I thought that it was the little girl's father who picked her up, not her mother?

I also would like to know that if the little girl was going to spend the night, why was she then picked up? Never got an answer for that question.

[limakey]

2Late,

The little girl's name was Rachel. Apparently her parents' had a change of plans for the next day. I think both parents went to pick her up and Nicole did spend some time talking with them.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by limakey

Mr. August,

Your ignorance is simply over whelming. You are more stubborn then 20 mules. I love the fact that each and every time you post your moronic statements about what is relevant in this case and what isn't. Mr. August, your statements have no credibility. Your arguements are so weak they have no credibility that even your fellow G's can't defend unless it is the G's who only make cruel and snide comments. Like you, they add nothing to this board.

Nicole's telephone records don't matter. The fact that two people who claimed to speak with her within two hours of her death, don't matter. Nothing matters as long as you have OJ Simpson being the killer. You are pathic, racially and credibility challenged individual. You refuse to see just how the DA's and media turned people like you into mindless robots just throwing up everything they said and did. Pathic, truly pathic.

I didn't think that you would EVER stoop so low as your other NG comrades, but you finally have. This is absolutely the most hateful post that I have ever seen or read on this Board.

And various posters on here say that I DON'T ADD ANYTHING TO THIS BOARD! You've just surpassed me Limakey!

JMO and MOO!!

[limakey]

2Late,

I don't understand your last post. You have posted many times on how I have no credibility, so I'm not sure where you are coming from.

As for my fellow NG's, I don't think they have ever "stooped" to any level at all. They have had the patience to explain over and over again what their issues have been with this case. We even disagree with each other on several issues---which is only fair because we are of different races and genders.

However, none of us have ever stooped to the low of the G's to say, "I don't know how he did it, he just did it!". We have never stooped to the level of saying that everything that doesn't point to OJ Simpson is irrevelant. We have never just accepted any "fact" because they saw it in a photo, read it in a book and last but not least, it was the state experts testified too.

Why are you even bothering to post to a person who has no credibility--unless it is to protect the side that truly has no credibility?

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by limakey

2Late,

I don't understand your last post. You have posted many times on how I have no credibility, so I'm not sure where you are coming from.

As for my fellow NG's, I don't think they have ever "stooped" to any level at all. They have had the patience to explain over and over again what their issues have been with this case. We even disagree with each other on several issues---which is only fair because we are of different races and genders.

However, none of us have ever stooped to the low of the G's to say, "I don't know how he did it, he just did it!". We have never stooped to the level of saying that everything that doesn't point to OJ Simpson is irrevelant. We have never just accepted any "fact" because they saw it in a photo, read it in a book and last but not least, it was the state experts testified too.

Why are you even bothering to post to a person who has no credibility--unless it is to protect the side that truly has no credibility?

Good Gawd help us all! :rolleyes:

The above has nothing whatsoever to do with my previous post to you. My post was in response to your post to Bob.

Unfortunately, if I bothered NOT to post to a person who has NO credibility, I'd only be posting to the G's!

JMO and MOO!!

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Snipped* Why didn't he ask his 'dream team' for their copy of the phone records they stipulated to?

Everybody palyed stupid when we put the "Where are they?" question to everyone.

We got tired of fooling around with OJ continuing to diplomatically ask for them from the "DreamTeam!".

**** the "Dream Team!" File for the records and let the chips fall as the may. OJ finally gave the Okay, signed our agreement, we hired a new attorney to file, since the "Dream Team!" continued to procrastinate, OJ left town and hid for 2 weeks until the media heat cooled down.

When he returned the other DTcowards got Johnnie C. to cuss him out for allowing us to pursue them. However, it's out here now and here, is where we want it to be to let you know how your government officials and defense lawyers play fast and loose with rules of evidence..........

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by limakey
Big Ben,

There is another way to confirm what time Browns' left Mezzaluna. The receipt for the ice cream that Nicole bought that night.

Was their register off as well?

IMO, the receipt from the ice cream store is much more valuable for the Browns' departure then the Mezzaluna's. IMO, of course!

Darn it limakey! Where was your behind 7 years ago when we needed you?

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*
However, none of us have ever stooped to the low of the G's to say, "I don't know how he did it, he just did it!".

It looks like you are confused. When/where have you even seen a G post this?

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, your opinions do not change the evidence that proves Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

Bob, only because judges have been to cowardly to grant motions to compel production. Never-the-less, we have certainly raised a great deal of legitimate curiosity in several critical locales. People are watching this, Bob, and just think you are truly probably one of the few valiant fighters continuing to keep your finger in the dike. I applaud you, even if your are a madman.

Your comments regarding why not one of Simpson's attorneys were never involved in the sham you're promoting are meaningless. Enron had nothing to do with the Simpson case.

Well Roberto, I would disagree. I think the analogy between the fraud perpetrated by Enron officials to undermine the public trust is quite similiar to lawyers in the Simpson case that too have, in my opinion, undermined the public trust.


No, I wasn't dumbfounded about Tia Gavin's time estimate ....

You weren't? Oh well, you seemed like you were.

Tia Gavin's unsupported time estimate doesn't change Karen Crawford's time estimate as to when Juditha Brown called the Mezzaluna restaurant from her home.

It certainly raises serious questions though, based upon the correspondences we recieve. Lou Brown, called our office one day, after the issue first hit Fox News, and told us that all of the people in Orange County where he lived were pissed off with him for telling that 9:37 PM lie.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by limakey
[B]Big Ben,

limakey, I don't know if they well let you see it or not but the YouTube video clip of Johnnie C. talking about concealing those Juditha Brown phone records in our documentary Serpents Rising is very thought provoking.

www.youtube.com/watch/v=oZfbCRZvoyo

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by limakey
Big Ben,

There is another way to confirm what time Browns' left Mezzaluna. The receipt for the ice cream that Nicole bought that night.

Was their register off as well?

IMO, the receipt from the ice cream store is much more valuable for the Browns' departure then the Mezzaluna's. IMO, of course!

You are so grasping for straws!

What kind of ice cream stores do you frequent? I've never in my life received a receipt for ice cream ~ NEVER! And who in the hail would ever charge ice cream on a credit card? You must want ice cream pretty bad if you have do that because you don't have enough cash! Geez!

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben


Bob, only because judges have been to cowardly to grant motions to compel production. Never-the-less, we have certainly raised a great deal of legitimate curiosity in several critical locales. People are watching this, Bob, and just think you are truly probably one of the few valiant fighters continuing to keep your finger in the dike. I applaud you, even if your are a madman.



Big Ben, I agree you may have raised legitimate curiosity with your phony claims. There are a lot of gullible people who can be easily deceived by a con artist like you.

The fact is that you can't legitimately dispute the evidence that proves that Nicole was killed before 11:00. You can't legitimately dispute the evidence that proves Simpson and only Simpson killed Ron and Nicole. You can't legitimately dispute the fact that Simpson's lies were impeached. So you simply ignore these realities.

Your claim that Juditha Brown called and spoke with Nicole at 11:00 PM is a complete sham. It never happened and the real evidence in this case proves it never happened.

bobaugust

[weezer]

Originally posted by Big Ben


Darn it limakey! Where was your behind 7 years ago when we needed you? I'm becoming a little disheartened by your "Uh-oh" moments: First the "We never thought of cameras/logs at the security gate the Browns would have entered when they got to their neighborhood" and now "We didn't think of a receipt from the ice cream parlor" --

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by limakey

As for my fellow NG's, I don't think they have ever "stooped" to any level at all. They have had the patience to explain over and over again what their issues have been with this case. We even disagree with each other on several issues---which is only fair because we are of different races and genders.


I really do have to speak on this point. I am adamantly not trying to begin an argument but it is a necessary point;

Do you recall the postings that got rayraytwo banned? In case you do not, I will remind you that he posted that kayleighjo deserved the beatings that she recieved from her husband because of her big mouth.

Now honestly state again that your fellow NGs have never stooped to any level. The truth of the matter is that each "side" has delivered low blows at times and the only thing that an individual has to do in order to confirm the truth of that is to go back and read the old threads where it all remains in black and white.

Kate

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I'm becoming a little disheartened by your "Uh-oh" moments: First the "We never thought of cameras/logs at the security gate the Browns would have entered when they got to their neighborhood" and now "We didn't think of a receipt from the ice cream parlor" --

fbg

Baskin & Robbins gives receipts where i live. A purchase for three kids and a adult can add up to a small sum.

Most upscale gated communities do have security cameras or a log if there is a guard at the gate.imo
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg

Baskin & Robbins gives receipts where i live. A purchase for three kids and a adult can add up to a small sum.

Most upscale gated communities do have security cameras or a log if there is a guard at the gate.imo
martin II I was simply pointing out that big ben's exhaustive investigation seemed to fall a little short.

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


I really do have to speak on this point. I am adamantly not trying to begin an argument but it is a necessary point;

Do you recall the postings that got rayraytwo banned? In case you do not, I will remind you that he posted that kayleighjo deserved the beatings that she recieved from her husband because of her big mouth.

Now honestly state again that your fellow NGs have never stooped to any level. The truth of the matter is that each "side" has delivered low blows at times and the only thing that an individual has to do in order to confirm the truth of that is to go back and read the old threads where it all remains in black and white.

Kate

kate
then you must remember when kay suggested that my wife could be looking for satisfaction outside of our relationship and bob added his insults to her comments.imo
you can find that in black and white too wherever that thread is.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


kate
then you must remember when kay suggested that my wife could be looking for satisfaction outside of our relationship and bob added his insults to her comments.imo
you can find that in black and white too wherever that thread is.imo
martin II


martin II, I don't recall any insults I ever made about your wife's comments. I don't even know what your wife's comments were. It sounds like you're again attributing something to me that never happened. Post them please.

bobaugust

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


kate
then you must remember when kay suggested that my wife could be looking for satisfaction outside of our relationship and bob added his insults to her comments.imo
you can find that in black and white too wherever that thread is.imo
martin II

So you are finally admitting that you and rayraytwo are one and the same person after denying it several times.

Thank You.

Kate

Note: Again, you are barking up the wrong tree in your argument here because if you re-read my post then you will see where I posted that each side has delivered low blows.

Another Note: Bob never entered into the fray of that particular incident.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I'm becoming a little disheartened by your "Uh-oh" moments: First the "We never thought of cameras/logs at the security gate the Browns would have entered when they got to their neighborhood" and now "We didn't think of a receipt from the ice cream parlor" --


Weezer, I think that all you might possibly conclude is that a small staff, with very limited resources, spread them as well as they could, in directions that proved to be highly unusual at the least.

However, you're here debating it Weezer, and if you feel that any portion of the investigation was/is inadequate then have at it. I'm certain outsiders would appreciate it.

Though it is easy to criticize than truly go where certain people don't want you to go and stick your hand in the lion's mouth. And Weez, believe me, that will certainly be what you'll be doing if you truly have the guts to try.

Here's a test: Go out to the Malibu Municipal Courthouse and demand to look at Ron Goldman's criminal file, the one that's protected under the confidential informant's statute.

We might find some of you left out there.

"Here lies the Weezer, a good old soul!"

[weezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by Big Ben
Though it is easy to criticize than truly go where certain people don't want you to go and stick your hand in the lion's mouth. And Weez, believe me, that will certainly be what you'll be doing if you truly have the guts to try. Yah, always easier to criticize when you're looking back and from the outside. I have no questions as to who the murderer was -- There is no credible evidence that anyone other than three people were at Bundy the night of the muders: Nicole, Ron and their murderer - orenthal james simpson.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust


Big Ben, I agree you may have raised legitimate curiosity with your phony claims. There are a lot of gullible people who can be easily deceived by a con artist like you.

Thank you, Bob. Comig from your frugal behind a reasonable person should be happy to receive that much.

The fact is that you can't legitimately dispute the evidence that proves that Nicole was killed before 11:00.

I truly don't know how legitimate your "legitimately(s)" are, Bob. There are many people who have been willing to pass certain information to us who work in those places where your legitimate dispute could be impeached if their curiosity finally gets the better of them.

Several have been threatened with dismissal for triggering security alarms that guard the entrance to certain specific information, i.e. the phone records

Your claim that Juditha Brown called and spoke with Nicole at 11:00 PM is a complete sham.

We've been over this before, you can stop repeating it. It's not going to get any better and you're not going to sleep easier by continually repeating it. If I were you, I'd get on the band wagon and call for GTE/Verizon to produce those records so that you can get some sleep, Bob. Or spend your nights posting with voracity how much of a fool I am, right now we got you over a barrel, too many people truly want to know. Did they or didn't they?

I don't think you will though, it's less brave to not call for them and continue to be the provocateur based upon the rapidly growing anemic evidence that you continue to flaunt.

[weezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by Big Ben
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust
[B]If I were you, I'd get on the band wagon and call for GTE/Verizon to produce those records so that you can get some sleep, Bob. Why can't you use the records that were introduced during the trial? Why doesn't orenthal/you tell the dream team he/you want a copy?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben

Thank you, Bob. Comig from your frugal behind a reasonable person should be happy to receive that much.




Big Ben, You're welcome. Your beliefs are far from being reasonable, they're pure fantasy.

If your want to so desperately see a copy of the Brown's telephone records for June 13, 1994 all you have to do is look at the tape you say you have for February 7, 1995. The Prosecution exhibit (PEO'S 35 FOR ID = BOARD/JUDITHA BRN PHONE RCDS) was introduced into evidence when Karen Crawford testified.

If you haven't got that tape, as I previously offered I'll be happy to put a photo of the exhibit on the net for you.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


So you are finally admitting that you and rayraytwo are one and the same person after denying it several times.

Thank You.

Kate

Note: Again, you are barking up the wrong tree in your argument here because if you re-read my post then you will see where I posted that each side has delivered low blows.

Another Note: Bob never entered into the fray of that particular incident.

kate


I have not said anything about the poster ray raytwo. i posted about kays comments to martin II. I know you can read so stop trying to twist my post.

your post.
"So you are finally admitting that you and rayraytwo are one and the same person after denying it several times. "

martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, I don't recall any insults I ever made about your wife's comments. I don't even know what your wife's comments were. It sounds like you're again attributing something to me that never happened. Post them please.

bobaugust

bob
you know as well as i do that those threads were deleted long ago.imo
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


kate


I have not said anything about the poster ray raytwo. i posted about kays comments to martin II. I know you can read so stop trying to twist my post.

your post.
"So you are finally admitting that you and rayraytwo are one and the same person after denying it several times. "

martin II

I posted that rayraytwo made the comments to kayleighjo and you replied that you only made those comments to kayleighjo after she posted something unfavorable about your relationship with your wife, thus admitting that you are the same person as rayraytwo. Martin II's nickname did not exists at the time of this exchange.

I made no reference to martin II in my post ... please go back and review.

It's crystal clear.

Kate

[martin II]

kate
unless you have some other motive for your accusations, you can clearly see that it was martin II talking in my post below. the way you can tell is that it is signed. martin II

martin II


kate
then you must remember when kay suggested that my wife could be looking for satisfaction outside of our relationship and bob added his insults to her comments.imo
you can find that in black and white too wherever that thread is.imo
martin II

[martin II]

kate
show me in my post where i said what you claim below.i never replied anysuch thing in my post.
martin II

your post
"and you replied that you only made those comments to kayleighjo after she posted something unfavorable about your relationship with your wife"

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II
kate
unless you have some other motive for your accusations, you can clearly see that it was martin II talking in my post below. the way you can tell is that it is signed. martin II

martin II


kate
then you must remember when kay suggested that my wife could be looking for satisfaction outside of our relationship and bob added his insults to her comments.imo
you can find that in black and white too wherever that thread is.imo
martin II

You have so clearly missed the boat on this one.

I will attempt one last time to explain; kayleighjo's comments about "looking for satisfaction outside ..." were made to rayraytwo. The comments that went back and forth are what resulted in rayraytwo being banned.

Shortly after rayraytwo was banned, martin II appeared. You claim that the comments made to kayleighjo regarding deserving the beatings recieved from her husband occurred after she insulted your marriage. Since it is rayraytwo that made those comments to kayleighjo after kayleighjo insulted rayraytwo's marriage we can be certain that rayraytwo and martin II are one and the same.

I'm sorry that you feel that you must so desperately attempt to cover your error in revealing who you are, but again it is crystal clear.

Kate

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


You have so clearly missed the boat on this one.

I will attempt one last time to explain; kayleighjo's comments about "looking for satisfaction outside ..." were made to rayraytwo. The comments that went back and forth are what resulted in rayraytwo being banned.

Shortly after rayraytwo was banned, martin II appeared. You claim that the comments made to kayleighjo regarding deserving the beatings recieved from her husband occurred after she insulted your marriage. Since it is rayraytwo that made those comments to kayleighjo after kayleighjo insulted rayraytwo's marriage we can be certain that rayraytwo and martin II are one and the same.

I'm sorry that you feel that you must so desperately attempt to cover your error in revealing who you are, but again it is crystal clear.

Kate

you are mistaken, comments about my wife were made to me .
martin II .
maby you can refrest my memory by posting all of those post
if it means that much to you.
martin II

[martin II]

kate
show me in my post where i said what you claim below.i never replied anysuch thing in my post.
martin II

your post
"and you replied that you only made those comments to kayleighjo after she posted something unfavorable about your relationship with your wife"

kate
i am waiting.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II
kate
show me in my post where i said what you claim below.i never replied anysuch thing in my post.
martin II

your post
"and you replied that you only made those comments to kayleighjo after she posted something unfavorable about your relationship with your wife"

kate
i am waiting.
martin II Quit embarrassing yourself!

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Quit embarrassing yourself!


weezer

maby you can answer for kate since you seem to be interested.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
you know as well as i do that those threads were deleted long ago.imo
martin II


martin II, I don't believe I ever made any comment at all regarding this. I don't post responses to personal posts unless something false is said regarding the evidence in this case or something false is said pertaining to me.

Forget posting the actual words, tell me what you think you remember I said that was insulting.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg

Baskin & Robbins gives receipts where i live. A purchase for three kids and a adult can add up to a small sum.

Most upscale gated communities do have security cameras or a log if there is a guard at the gate.imo
martin II

Of course B&R gives receipts, the question is WTH keeps them?

Nicole did not live in a gated community.

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, I don't believe I ever made any comment at all regarding this. I don't post responses to personal posts unless something false is said regarding the evidence in this case or something false is said pertaining to me.

Forget posting the actual words, tell me what you think you remember I said that was insulting.

bobaugust

bob
this incident happened sometimes in april. none of the threads are available and i have no interest in rehashing it. imo
martinii

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
this incident happened sometimes in april. none of the threads are available and i have no interest in rehashing it. imo
martinii


martin II, I reviewed every posting I made in April 2006.

I never made any posting to martin II, only to rayraytwo.

Every posting I made to rayraytwo was regarding the evidence in this case. I never made any response about the subject your claiming that I insulted you about.

Your accusation is false. Just another example of your poor memory. This isn't the first time you've mistakenly attributed something to me that I never said. I suggest in the future you check your source before you make your accusations. Your false accusations are what's insulting.

bobaugust

[goatgirl]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust
[B]

snip-

limakey, there is no evidence that Nicole owned a cell phone. No one that I know of has ever said or written anything that even suggested it.



in Faye's first book, she made reference of Nicole having a car phone.

is that considered a cell phone?

~~Thanks Goatgirl~~
:)

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by goatgirl



in Faye's first book, she made reference of Nicole having a car phone.

is that considered a cell phone?

~~Thanks Goatgirl~~
:)


goatgirl, yes it is. Thanks.

bobaugust

[goatgirl]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


I am confused now Bob. I thought that it was the little girl's father who picked her up, not her mother?

I also would like to know that if the little girl was going to spend the night, why was she then picked up? Never got an answer for that question.


My understanding is the father picked up the daughter.

I wonder the same thing too....what happened before 9:30 that made these plans change....

I havent heard much about it myself :shrug:

~~GoatGirl ~~

[goatgirl]

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

The little girl's name was Rachel. Apparently her parents' had a change of plans for the next day. I think both parents went to pick her up and Nicole did spend some time talking with them.

I find it interesting that the father/ parents werent called as a witness to discuss Nicole's state of mind,

They would have been the last person to see Nicole alive...

I am sure this insight would have been helpful for the time line :shrug:

~~GoatGirl ~~
:)

[goatgirl]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Big Ben
[B]

snip-

Here's a test: Go out to the Malibu Municipal Courthouse and demand to look at Ron Goldman's criminal file, the one that's protected under the confidential informant's statute.


Hi BB

Can you really just access information like that :shrug:

~~~~Thxs GoatGirl~~

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by goatgirl



My understanding is the father picked up the daughter.

I wonder the same thing too....what happened before 9:30 that made these plans change....

I havent heard much about it myself :shrug:

~~GoatGirl ~~


goatgirl, there have been previous discussions that it was the father who picked up his daughter. I'm not sure who contributed that but I do remember another poster speculating that the father had coffee with Nicole based on a photograph in Lange and Vannatter's book that supposedly showed two coffee mugs on the counter in Nicole's kitchen.

I obtained a hard cover copy of Lange and Vannatter's book and there is a photograph of Nicole's kitchen. On one counter a knife is shown and on another counter there are other items shown but only one coffee mug, not two.

The only reference about who picked up Sydney's friend that I've seen is in that book as I quoted it on this thread that the girl's mother picked her up.

bobaugust

[goatgirl]

Originally posted by bobaugust



goatgirl, there have been previous discussions that it was the father who picked up his daughter. I'm not sure who contributed that but I do remember another poster speculating that the father had coffee with Nicole based on a photograph in Lange and Vannatter's book that supposedly showed two coffee mugs on the counter in Nicole's kitchen.

I obtained a hard cover copy of Lange and Vannatter's book and there is a photograph of Nicole's kitchen. On one counter a knife is shown and on another counter there are other items shown but only one coffee mug, not two.

The only reference about who picked up Sydney's friend that I've seen is in that book as I quoted it on this thread that the girl's mother picked her up.

bobaugust

Hi Bob,

I think I mentioned the mug before??

and yes it was confirmed not to be 2 mugs..

I know I read somewhere, that the father picked the daughter up... its to late to go searching but I will get back to you with a link if & when I find one....;)

~~Cheers GoatGirl~~

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, You're welcome. Your beliefs are far from being reasonable, they're pure fantasy.

If your want to so desperately see a copy of the Brown's telephone records for June 13, 1994 all you have to do is look at the tape you say you have for February 7, 1995. The Prosecution exhibit (PEO'S 35 FOR ID = BOARD/JUDITHA BRN PHONE RCDS) was introduced into evidence when Karen Crawford testified.

If you haven't got that tape, as I previously offered I'll be happy to put a photo of the exhibit on the net for you.

bobaugust

Bob, Take your time now, it's June 12,1994 not June 13, 1994.

Unlike all other telephone record exhibits entered, i.e. (GTE PHONE RECORDS FOR TELEPHONE NUMBER 310-476-4619), there were 6 or 7 entered in the above manner.
Peoples Exhibit 35 was never submitted to the custodian of records as Juditha Brown's telephone record. Strangely, only the blue bulletin board that was created by the prosecution's graphic arts department was entered and logged as Exhibit 35, "POSTERBOARD ENTITLED JUDITHA BROWN PHONE RECORDS".

As I've previously told you, the specific times in question on the document that Brown finally provided in Dec. 1999, has serious font discrepancies as well as other issues of manipulation.

You appear to be hard of hearing or have a problem in comprehending, I've shared much of this with you before.

I'll tell you what, when you get on the bus tomorrow, take the photo you have with you for show and tell, and don't forget to wear your helmet.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by goatgirl
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Big Ben
[B]

snip-

Here's a test: Go out to the Malibu Municipal Courthouse and demand to look at Ron Goldman's criminal file, the one that's protected under the confidential informant's statute.


Hi BB

Can you really just access information like that :shrug: ~~~~Thxs GoatGirl~~

What do you mean? Can you ask if someone has a criminal record? My answer is under normal circumstances criminal records are public. Certainly if you were going to hire someone like Bob August, and you had a day-care center, you'd want to know that he's got a clean record.

The only criminal records that are off limits in any state are those of criminals who have agreed to cooperate and work for law enforcement agencies as confidential informants. Their records are flagged and public review is denied as it was in the case of Goldman. I got my hands on all 6 inches of it, after the clerks office staff tried to hide it, but a swift assistant snatched it out of my hand and caused a scene that attracted two gruesome looking sherriff's deputies. So I backed up from arguing and pushing my demands, but subsequently they've acknowledged the records and the law that prevents access to them.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Why can't you use the records that were introduced during the trial? Why doesn't orenthal/you tell the dream team he/you want a copy?

They were removed from Simpson's criminal file, behind closed doors, and given to DDA Hodgman, without anyone's knowlege, as his personal property by Judge John Reid in April 1998 in an ex parte hearing.

We asked Simpson's attorneys from both trials to give Simpson a copy, they made promises but never delivered.

After all of the unusual game playing, we felt that all parties had unclean hands and it would be better if GTE simply provide another copy from their hard disk archive in San Angelo, TX. Initially the Brown's were going to allow us access, but after a few days the California phantoms must have gotten to them because they then reneged and started talking about getting a copy from Hodgman. They finally pressured Hodgman into providing a copy, but as I've said previously the document has serious problems with it. So we need, as we originally told Brown, an official copy from GTE.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Yah, always easier to criticize when you're looking back and from the outside. I have no questions as to who the murderer was -- There is no credible evidence that anyone other than three people were at Bundy the night of the muders: Nicole, Ron and their murderer - orenthal james simpson.

I only get the meaning of a portion of your cowardly statement, Weezer. I can see you're either too lazy to do what you criticized or just blinded by hate and rage. Since many of the others have doubt beyond you and ole Bob, I'd thought you'd jump at the chance to contact the gate keepers at Monarch Bay. That would have been an easy task and maybe affirm your intent to call me a fool, but I'm use to cowardly people who talk big and throw rocks from behind crowds, you aren't nothing new, Weezer. Believe me on that!

[jotun]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Big Ben
[QUOTE][i]

If I were them, I'd authorize the request to allow GTE to release them so that I could prove that Simpson and his investigators were in fact foolishly "ridiculous".

But on the other hand, I wouldn't if I thought that my ass might wind up doing the rest of my life in the state penitentiary. Lou may be old, but he aint crazy.

[/QUO TE]

Big Ben,

Me too.WHY won't they prove us all wrong. IFFFF we are.My husband has always said from early on that they were killed AFTER 11. Because of the blood "flowing like a river."

Don't leave us hanging.
What does Lou have to HIDE???? I know it's something. WHAT might put him in the state pen????

jotun

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben


Bob, Take your time now, it's June 12,1994 not June 13, 1994.

Unlike all other telephone record exhibits entered, i.e. (GTE PHONE RECORDS FOR TELEPHONE NUMBER 310-476-4619), there were 6 or 7 entered in the above manner.
Peoples Exhibit 35 was never submitted to the custodian of records as Juditha Brown's telephone record. Strangely, only the blue bulletin board that was created by the prosecution's graphic arts department was entered and logged as Exhibit 35, "POSTERBOARD ENTITLED JUDITHA BROWN PHONE RECORDS".

As I've previously told you, the specific times in question on the document that Brown finally provided in Dec. 1999, has serious font discrepancies as well as other issues of manipulation.




Big Ben the prosecution exhibit of an enlarged photo copy of the Brown's telephone bill showed all the long distance calls made on June 9th through June 13th.

I have no idea what the Brown family supposedly provided in Dec. 1999. To be honest with you, I don't believe much of what you say unless you can document it. Your track record for credibility isn't very good. As to your claim that this supposed document had serious font discrepancies what does that have to do with the prosecution exhibit? You keep trying to avoid the main issue here by changing the subject.

The prosecution exhibit was an enlarged photocopy of the Brown's telephone records. That's what you keep claiming you haven't been able to obtain yet you refuse to even look at it. It's obvious you will ignore anything that contradicts your fantasy.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben the prosecution exhibit of an enlarged photo copy of the Brown's telephone bill showed all the long distance calls made on June 9th through June 13th.

I have no idea what the Brown family supposedly provided in Dec. 1999. To be honest with you, I don't believe much of what you say unless you can document it. Your track record for credibility isn't very good. As to your claim that this supposed document had serious font discrepancies what does that have to do with the prosecution exhibit? You keep trying to avoid the main issue here by changing the subject.

The prosecution exhibit was an enlarged photocopy of the Brown's telephone records. That's what you keep claiming you haven't been able to obtain yet you refuse to even look at it. It's obvious you will ignore anything that contradicts your fantasy.

bobaugust

You pompous retarded****. You hear what you want to hear. I haven't posted anything that you couldn't go and check for yourself, if you got any gonads. I told you exactly what the exhibit manifest said that was deposited regarding Ex. 35. Now you don't believe I have a copy, then go check there yourself.

You don't believe that Ron Goldman has a criminal record protected under the confidential informants law, go check for yourself.

I know and you know that the actual telephone records were never given to the jury, so whatever was posted on that board is irrelevant until it has been examined for its' authenticity by the jury. And if you don't believe it then listen to what Jophnnie C. has to say in court about them, if you're not afraid to do so. And if you are afraid, pull up your panties and go to bed: www.youtube.com/watch/v=oZfbCFRvoyo

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by jotun


Big Ben,

Me too.WHY won't they prove us all wrong. IFFFF we are.My husband has always said from early on that they were killed AFTER 11. Because of the blood "flowing like a river."

Don't leave us hanging.
What does Lou have to HIDE???? I know it's something. WHAT might put him in the state pen????

jotun [/B][/QUOTE]

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON! But Lou is caught up in the middle of it, whatever IT is. It's no use for me to tell you how he has spoken when he has spoken to me because fools like bobaugust and his peers will say you can't prove it. Even if I had tapes of the conversation, I couldn't use it, without it being illegal. So suffice it to say that he is in the midst of something that is stranger than strange. The easy way for these people to bow out of it is to proclaim, as that fool Dominnick Dunne has that Simpson was Othello and Nicole his desdemona and lustfully infatuated with her he killed her!

Problem is that Simpson was probably in the back seat of a chaufeur driven limo at 11:00 PM while his wife was still alive talking to her mother at the same time. And no one can account for the missing telephone records, and they fight Simpson tooth and nail when he has gone to court to ask that GTE provide a copy for examination. It's very strange to say the least.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben


You pompous retarded****. You hear what you want to hear. I haven't posted anything that you couldn't go and check for yourself, if you got any gonads. I told you exactly what the exhibit manifest said that was deposited regarding Ex. 35. Now you don't believe I have a copy, then go check there yourself.

I know and you know that the actual telephone records were never given to the jury, so whatever was posted on that board is irrelevant until it has been examined for its' authenticity by the jury.
www.youtube.com/watch/v=oZfbCFRvoyo


Big Ben, try to control yourself.

It doesn't matter what the exhibit manifest says. The prosecution exhibit that was entered into evidence in the criminal trial during Karen Crawford's testimony is an enlarged copy of the Brown's actual telephone bill. It shows the long distance calls by time and telephone numbers made on the night of the murders.

Karen Crawford originally estimated the time that Juditha and Nicole called the restaurant when she testified in the grand jury and the preliminary hearing. The Brown's telephone records confirm and document her estimated times. In the criminal trial during her testimony Shapiro offered a stipulation that the records shown on the prosecution exhibit were accurate and depict the time the call came into the restaurant. From that point on Juditha's call to the Mezzaluna restaurant that she made from her house as soon as she arrived home from the restaurant was always referred to by it's documented time, 9:37 PM.

That's reality. Your claims are pure fantasy.

If there was any question as to the authenticity of the records Simpson's defense would have raised them. Cochran and company were not as stupid as you seem to think they were and neither were Baker and company. The jury didn't have to be given the telephone records. They were instructed by the court and rightly so that in a situation where the attorneys stipulate and agree to a certain fact, they were to accept that as evidence in the case.

By the way the link you posted doesn't work.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben

Problem is that Simpson was probably in the back seat of a chaufeur driven limo at 11:00 PM while his wife was still alive talking to her mother at the same time. And no one can account for the missing telephone records, and they fight Simpson tooth and nail when he has gone to court to ask that GTE provide a copy for examination. It's very strange to say the least.


Big Ben, I see you're as uninformed as Dr. Johnson about when Simpson left for the airport. Or maybe you're the one who provided false information to Dr. Johnson, right?

Simpson couldn't have been in the back seat of the limousine at 11:00 PM. He didn't even come downstairs to load the limousine until after 11:00 PM. The limousine left for the airport about 11:15 PM.

Both Ron and Nicole were dead well before 11:00 PM.

Learn the facts.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

fbg

Baskin & Robbins gives receipts where i live. A purchase for three kids and a adult can add up to a small sum.

Most upscale gated communities do have security cameras or a log if there is a guard at the gate.imo
martin II

You can say anything, but you would have to prove it to me that B&R gives you a receipt for ice cream. The ice cream bill for 3 kids and an 1 adult would probably run approximately $12 or so. Yeah, that's definitely a small sum! LOL!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

kate

I have not said anything about the poster ray raytwo. i posted about kays comments to martin II. I know you can read so stop trying to twist my post.

your post.
"So you are finally admitting that you and rayraytwo are one and the same person after denying it several times. "

martin II

Everybody and their brother knows that you are the reincarnated rayraytwo!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

bob
this incident happened sometimes in april. none of the threads are available and i have no interest in rehashing it. imo
martinii

Then why did you even bring it up? If you can't back up what you're posting whether it be through links or previous posts ~ then don't POST IT!! We're not mind readers and we've got better things to do than do your research for you!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by goatgirl

My understanding is the father picked up the daughter.

I wonder the same thing too....what happened before 9:30 that made these plans change....

I havent heard much about it myself :shrug:

~~GoatGirl ~~

GG: This is just a theory that I have. I think that when Nicole found out that Ron was going to be delivering her Mom's glasses, she had ulterior motives in mind, i.e., a sexual romp, maybe. That's why she started the bath and lit all of the candles ~ getting ready for her romantic interlude with Ron.

I think it was then that Nicole called up the little girl's parents and made some excuse to them to come and pick up their daughter. We ALL know the ending to this theory!

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


GG: This is just a theory that I have. I think that when Nicole found out that Ron was going to be delivering her Mom's glasses, she had ulterior motives in mind, i.e., a sexual romp, maybe. That's why she started the bath and lit all of the candles ~ getting ready for her romantic interlude with Ron.

I think it was then that Nicole called up the little girl's parents and made some excuse to them to come and pick up their daughter. We ALL know the ending to this theory!

JMO and MOO!!


2L8 4A D8, the problem with that theory is that Sydney's friend was picked up at about 9:00 PM. Nicole never spoke to Ron until about 9:45 PM.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by bobaugust

2L8 4A D8, the problem with that theory is that Sydney's friend was picked up at about 9:00 PM. Nicole never spoke to Ron until about 9:45 PM.

bobaugust

Ooops! 9:00 p.m. was a very busy time at Nicole's condo. That is supposedly the time given for when Faye called her from rehab; when OJ called to talk to Sydney; and when Nicole was found crying on the phone by Sydney. Correct?

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Ooops! 9:00 p.m. was a very busy time at Nicole's condo. That is supposedly the time given for when Faye called her from rehab; when OJ called to talk to Sydney; and when Nicole was found crying on the phone by Sydney. Correct?

JMO and MOO!!


2L8 4A D8, supposedly.

Faye Resnick testified that she last spoke with Nicole at 9:00 PM in a telephone conversation the night of murders.

Simpson testified that he called Nicole about 9:00 that night and talked with Sydney.

I don't know where the story came from that Sydney heard Nicole crying on the phone.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by bobaugust

2L8 4A D8, supposedly.

Faye Resnick testified that she last spoke with Nicole at 9:00 PM in a telephone conversation the night of murders.

Simpson testified that he called Nicole about 9:00 that night and talked with Sydney.

I don't know where the story came from that Sydney heard Nicole crying on the phone.

bobaugust

Bob: I think that it was Limakey who brought this up because supposedly Nicole told Sydney that it was her friend on the phone. Limakey assumed that it was Faye and said that Nicole was giggling, not crying.

However, IIRC, it was OJ on the phone and this was the explanation that Nicole always gave to the kids. She didn't want the kids to know that it was their Daddy who was making her cry.

If I am wrong, I will stand corrected.

JMO and MOO!!

[weezer]

Originally posted by Big Ben


I only get the meaning of a portion of your cowardly statement, Weezer. I can see you're either too lazy to do what you criticized or just blinded by hate and rage. Since many of the others have doubt beyond you and ole Bob, I'd thought you'd jump at the chance to contact the gate keepers at Monarch Bay. That would have been an easy task and maybe affirm your intent to call me a fool, but I'm use to cowardly people who talk big and throw rocks from behind crowds, you aren't nothing new, Weezer. Believe me on that! You need to back off on your comments to me. I've done nothing to you that would warrant your verbal attacks.

YOU are the one posting about your investigation of the case -- I've only wondered why YOUR investigation didn't include the ice cream shop receipt and the information from the guard gate.

[weezer]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Big Ben
You pompous retarded****. You hear what you want to hear. I haven't posted anything that you couldn't go and check for yourself, if you got any gonads. I told you exactly what the exhibit manifest said that was deposited regarding Ex. 35. Now you don't believe I have a copy, then go check there yourself.

You don't believe that Ron Goldman has a criminal record protected under the confidential informants law, go check for yourself.

I know and you know that the actual telephone records were never given to the jury, so whatever was posted on that board is irrelevant until it has been examined for its' authenticity by the jury. And if you don't believe it then listen to what Jophnnie C. has to say in court about them, if you're not afraid to do so. And if you are afraid, pull up your panties and go to bed: www.youtube.com/watch/v=oZfbCFRvoyo [/QUOTE]You continue to berate other posters on this board while you p*mp your website.

The jury had access to all of the exhibits for their examination. The blame for them not looking at them lies with the jury.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


you are mistaken, comments about my wife were made to me .
martin II .
maby you can refrest my memory by posting all of those post
if it means that much to you.
martin II

The comments in question were made on April 24, 2006 with a clock stamp of 9:29 PM. In checking your profile, martin II did not even register on Court TV until April 26, 2006 ... so now tell me how the comments were directed to martin II and not rayraytwo ... though I suppose that technically they were since you are one and the same person.

Originally posted by kayleighjo

Considering that he refers to his wife as having a big trap one might assume that he's lacking a little in some necessary areas of his marriage that require some upkeeping from outside individuals if ya know what I mean.

There it is for you martin II. If you doubt the accuracy, I suggest that you contact the Moderator of the forum for verification. In fact I insist, so that once and for all this argument can be dropped as it will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am correct.

Kate

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel
*snip*

There it is for you martin II. If you doubt the accuracy, I suggest that you contact the Moderator of the forum for verification. In fact I insist, so that once and for all this argument can be dropped as it will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am correct.



Good job Kate. It looks like Martin agrees, as he is here & hasn't disputed your post. Hopefully, this will be the end of this one.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by sassylassy


hopefully.because no one else really cares to here about it

Martin II requested that I provide the information ... not once but twice. I supplied him with the information that he assumed I could not get.

As for not caring, you care enough to obviously post twice regarding the topic. I am sorry if it offends you, but simply don't jump into the fray because I have to supply the information that is requested of me.

I will not allow someone to attempt to paint me as a liar.

Kate

[bobaugust]

Big Ben, I went to YouTube and watched your video of what Cochran said as you suggested.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oZfbCRZvoyo

What a crock of crap. This video is a good example of how you select something someone says and then take it out of context to try and distort it's meaning. You edited the tape so that it shows Cochran repeating his words over and over again, and never shows what he said after those words.

On July 6, 1995 Clark and Cochran were speaking to Judge Ito regarding their agreement to three stipulations Clark was going to make to the jury.

The first stipulation is concerning the testimony of Juditha Brown.
The second would be stipulation concerning the admissibility of telephone records. These concern the phone bills
for the home telephone of the Defendant and for Juditha Brown.
And the third stipulation concerns the photographs contained in People's 354, 358-B and 359 which I propose, when I read them to the jury, I want to be able to show the exhibits to the jury so they know what we are talking about.


The conversation on the Serpents Rising tape is about crime scene photographs showing Nicole' body.

MR. COCHRAN: 354, again, with regard to these photographs--and the Court will see those depicted there. People's 354 shows various photographs of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's body, including the condition of her right and left hands. The jury has seen this before. And again, I wanted to renew our 352 objection. Again, these photographs are--the prejudicial effect of these photographs is outweighed by the probative value and they're not necessary further at this point. I would ask also that--given the 352 nature of it, I wanted to again reiterate that. I also would object further--I don't think the jury needs to see these again. They've seen these photographs before. I see no reason for that at this point. We're not going to show them any of the other exhibits at this point and we didn't show them the--we're not going to show them anything with regard to the telephone bills or whatever. So I think at this point of the case, we're now wrapping the case up, we expect the People to rest, and so I would submit it.

The Serpents Rising tape was edited to repeat Cochran's words, "we're not going to show them anything with regard to the telephone bills or whatever" two more times and then the Serpents Rising tape ends.

Here is what was said after that video ended.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. With respect to showing the jury the photographs we stipulate to, how are they going to understand what the stipulations mean or refer to if we don't? With respect to telephone records, that's self explanatory. Photographs is a different matter. And if we can't show them to the jury and we're entering a dry stipulation, when it comes time for them to look at the exhibits, they're not going to have any recollection at all to the fact that--to what is descriptive in the stipulation concerning the change in circumstances with respect to one and the condition that is specifically referred to in these photographs, which is the key point of this stipulation in the other. So--

Cochran continued to argue that the photographs not be shown and a compromise was agreed to where they would be shown but only for five seconds. It was then discussed how to time the five seconds and Clark said that Cochran has offered to use his wristwatch and some humorous remarks were made. Judge Ito than asked Cochran this.

THE COURT: All right. Let's get back to serious matters, counsel. My understanding is that you've discussed these stipulations with your client and they're acceptable to him, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. I have discussed them with Mr. Simpson and it's--he understands these stipulations and it's agreeable to him at this point, and he appreciates that we will be reserving his rights under the stipulation regarding the phone records until a later time.

So tell us Big Ben, what do you find so sinister in what Cochran said or supports your fantasy about an 11:00 PM telephone call?

bobaugust

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by sassylassy
Who cares if martin is recycled?
their have been many others guilty & not guilty that were banned & came back with new posters names.
so who cares? Lets drop it & stay on topic here?!
:flamemad: :rolleyes:

Hi Sassylassy,

I know a G that was taunted when she came back with a new nic. Where were you when that was going on? You seem to be the only one who is so upset. Kate has proven her point. It is over. Simmer down now.

:D

[tazzybaby]

Hi Sassylassy,

Now.......we can discuss....

Four years ago, here in Toronto. I did a small stupid little movie for television. I wasn't a skater. I had to wear skates. I was a priest and I had to marry a hockey player and a girl on the ice. That was my role. Anyway, like O.J. Simpson's glove — and I really should have been at that trial because I could have (shed) light on that glove — figure skates are also made of leather. If you don't wear the boots for six months or a year, you don't get your foot in. Leather shrinks if it isn't worn, so my skates had shrunk to such an extent that I had to take them off every 15 minutes. That was the last time I skated and I realized I could never skate again because I couldn't stand the pain.


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...id=968332188492


Well, it has to do with the fact that leather does shrink over time. And, the "acting" that Simpson did to try and make like the gloves didn't fit.

And, just for the record.....He was still skating professionally in 1992.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by sassylassy


may- bee you two should pm this stuff to each other then?

**sigh** I do understand your point sassylassy and I am sincere in stating that I'm sorry if it did indeed offend you. My only point was to correct a blatant lie that was thrown out on the public forum against me. In order to rectify the situation and bring the truth to light I felt in the moment that it was necessary to put the information out there.

I felt it necessary to call someone to task for stating, in essence, that I was being less than truthful and had some sort of agenda behind my statement.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by sassylassy


a leather skate and a leather glove are not the same thing you cant even compare the too

The effects of what happends to leather are the same, regarldess of the format being a skate or a glove.

Kate

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by sassylassy


a leather skate and a leather glove are not the same thing you cant even compare the too

They are both leather. That's a similarity. So, you CAN compare the two. But, here....

The best way to wash your gloves depends on the type you have. Some can be machine-washed; others will shrink and bleed. Fine leather gloves demand special treatment. To clean them, gently scrub with a pumice-based soap, such as Lava. Rinse, apply a leather protector, and then hang the gloves on the line to dry. Before they dry completely, put them on to restore their shape. Questions? Read the directions! Almost all gloves come with them.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3676/is_200311/ai_n9328845

[martin II]

Originally posted by sassylassy


i under stand leather is leather is leather, but the leather they use with gloves is soft- the leather for boot/skates is hard leather not the same

sassy

tazzy

The leather that you skates were made of was most likely RAW HIDE. For skates it would normanl be about1/4 " +- thick and very stable in shape to give support.

Fine gloves would be about 1/16 or 1/32 " thick and very flexable.

If you stored your skates for a while where they did not have the benefit of the moisture from your feet/ankles and had not been flexed as in when you skate, then i would agree that there would be some tightening of the leather.especially Raw Hide.

moisture makes leather first expand a little as the water finds its way into the center of the leather and the leather becomes soft.

If they were not worn for a while there is some tightening of the leather (gloves made of nappa leather) but they easily give way to expand back when a hand is put into them.Especially thin fine gloves.

so i am not sure that leatrher is leather and that all leather is the same. Leather skates would perform differently than fine leatrher gloves. imo
martin II

[martin II]

tazzy hi

When one wears fine nappa leather gloves for a time, the gloves take the shape of the persons hand. little pockets for the kuckles are formed and the fingers(glove) streatch lengthwise to accomodate the fingers. With off and on wear say over a year or so the gloves will get larger and will be very easy to slip on.

If the gloves were the correct size in the beginning they would fit after 6 mo 12 mo 24 months with ease.

quesiton; why didn;t you just buy a larger size skate and continue your career?

martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
tazzy hi

When one wears fine nappa leather gloves for a time, the gloves take the shape of the persons hand. little pockets for the kuckles are formed and the fingers(glove) streatch lengthwise to accomodate the fingers. With off and on wear say over a year or so the gloves will get larger and will be very easy to slip on.

If the gloves were the correct size in the beginning they would fit after 6 mo 12 mo 24 months with ease.

martin II


martin II, when someone wears expensive thin leather skin tight dress gloves and they get wet, when they dry they shrink and have to be stretched out to fit properly again. The older the gloves the greater the problem of getting them back to normal. If the gloves were a little small to start with the older they get the greater the problem.

bobaugust

[Holly]

Originally posted by martin II


martin II Hi Martin; your PMs are full to overflowing and so I cannot reply.

Send me a PM when you are able to receive.

Thanks

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, when someone wears expensive thin leather skin tight dress gloves and they get wet, when they dry they shrink and have to be stretched out to fit properly again. The older the gloves the greater the problem of getting them back to normal. If the gloves were a little small to start with the older they get the greater the problem.

bobaugust

bob
if one has a pair of fine nappa leather gloves and one washes them in water they will get smaller when they dry unless you do as the instrucitons sassy posted suggest. put your hand in them to give them shape ,let then dry and they will fit.

In the case of the glove in the oj case there are several issue to consider if the gloves were the correct size in the beginning.

1. oj had owned these gloves for a long period of time and if he had worn them they would be the shape of his hands and easy to put on.

2. In the oj case the gloves were not washed in water but had some blood drops on them. not nearly enough imo to cause them to shrink beyonf his ability to slip them on easily. imo

3. i agree that if one leaves a pair of fine nappa leather gloves in a closed inviroment(a box in a closet or drawer) not exposed to air and normal humidity in the air(there is a lot in la) then the gloves will have a very small amount of shrinkage. but not enough to prevent them from being slipped on easily imo
But once you put them on they will streatch to the shape of the hand.imo

martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by Holly
Hi Martin; your PMs are full to overflowing and so I cannot reply.

Send me a PM when you are able to receive.

Thanks

holly

the message said my box is empty. i sent you a pm try again
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
if one has a pair of fine nappa leather gloves and one washes them in water they will get smaller when they dry unless you do as the instrucitons sassy posted suggest. put your hand in them to give them shape ,let then dry and they will fit.

In the case of the glove in the oj case there are several issue to consider if the gloves were the correct size in the beginning.

1. oj had owned these gloves for a long period of time and if he had worn them they would be the shape of his hands and easy to put on.

2. In the oj case the gloves were not washed in water but had some blood drops on them. not nearly enough imo to cause them to shrink beyonf his ability to slip them on easily. imo

3. i agree that if one leaves a pair of fine nappa leather gloves in a closed inviroment(a box in a closet or drawer) not exposed to air and normal humidity in the air(there is a lot in la) then the gloves will have a very small amount of shrinkage. but not enough to prevent them from being slipped on easily imo
But once you put them on they will streatch to the shape of the hand.imo

martin II



martin II, who are you trying to fool? Yourself.

Men's Aris Leather Lights are thin leather dress gloves, not Nappa gloves.

The Aris Isotoner gloves Simpson wore at Bundy were old gloves, not new gloves. Not only did they get wet with blood, they most likely got moist inside of them from sweat. When Simpson tried those gloves on they had been lying crumbled up for about a year.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by martin II


holly

the message said my box is empty. i sent you a pm try again
martin II

holly

i emptied my inbox and the folders a few days ago. seems like my receive option is not working for some reason. got any suggestions.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, who are you trying to fool? Yourself.

Men's Aris Leather Lights are thin leather dress gloves, not Nappa gloves.

The Aris Isotoner gloves Simpson wore at Bundy were old gloves, not new gloves. Not only did they get wet with blood, they most likely got moist inside of them from sweat. When Simpson tried those gloves on they had been lying crumbled up for about a year.

bobaugust

bob
what grade of leather were the Aris gloves made of if not thin nappa or carbretta. take you pick
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

Not only did they get wet with blood, they most likely got moist inside of them from sweat. When Simpson tried those gloves on they had been lying crumbled up for about a year.


bob

exactly how many blood drops were found on the gloves to make them "WET"

i don't think that the killers hand could sweat so much, WITH A CLOTH LINNING to make the gloves shrink that much. So ' MOST LIKELY" will not work.
martin II

[Holly]

Hi Martin:-

You must not only empty rec'd msgs, but sent msgs, msg tracking, and folders if you have put any msgs in folders.

CourtTV doesn't allow a lot of longterm storage.

Send me a PM when you have done your housecleaning.


:biggrin:

:hat:

:patriot:

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


i don't think that the killers hand could sweat so much, WITH A CLOTH LINNING to make the gloves shrink that much. So ' MOST LIKELY" will not work.
martin II


martin II, the Aris gloves didn't have a cloth lining, they had a cashmere lining.

The fact is that Richard Rubin the real Aris Isotoner glove expert testified that he believed the gloves fit Simpson. with a poor quality of fit, but they fit. Rubin explained why they were a poor fit. As Rubin testified he was allowed to put his hands in the gloves. He refurbished the gloves, warming and stretching the gloves back to close to their original size. Simpson wouldn't go near the gloves after that.

November 6, 1995
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Have you seen those gloves prior to today, Mr. Rubin?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And you saw them over a year ago, actually, in Mr. Simpson's criminal trial; is that correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you have an opportunity at that time to measure the length of those gloves?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You measured those gloves at this time. What was the length of the gloves when you measured them, if you recall?
A. Nine and three-eighths inches long.
Q. Approximately an inch less than the standard length?
A. Approximately.
Q. What percent is smaller than the standard extra large would that have made them at this time?
A. Between 10 and 11 percent.
Q. And what would you attribute, or could you attribute that differential of the 10 or 11 percent to anything?
THE WITNESS: Combination of normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage.
*

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Were you able to -- You actually saw him conduct that demonstration himself, where he did put the gloves on; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And did you form an opinion, yourself, as to whether or not the gloves fit?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what was your opinion on that?
A. They fit with a poor quality of fit, but they fit.
*

Q. And do you have an opinion as to what would have caused them to be that one inch shorter in the wrist?"
Were there any factors you take into consideration?
A. The first factor was that the gloves were actually one inch shorter than standard --
Q. Okay?
A. -- in a north/south position. The second factor was that there was a requirement to utilize latex linings over the hands prior to putting the gloves on.
Q. You mean in simple terms, Mr. Simpson had latex gloves on; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay.
A. And the third issue was that the actual overall condition of the gloves, being crumbled up quite a bit and not straightened out, I would call it refurbished. It's really just they hadn't been used in a long, long time.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust
Big Ben, I went to YouTube and watched your video of what Cochran said as you suggested.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oZfbCRZvoyo

What a crock of crap.
So tell us Big Ben, what do you find so sinister in what Cochran said or supports your fantasy about an 11:00 PM telephone call?

Good I'm glad that you broke out of your mold for a change. I'll tell you what I find to be very sinister.

Bob, you've pointed out below what Johnnie Cochran has said while making a vehement plea to the judge under Sec. 352, Prejudice V. Probative value of certain evidence at trial.

(J.C.) "I wanted to renew our 352 objection.... the prejudicial effect of these photographs is outweighed by the probative value .....
......I don't think the jury needs to see these again"........

"we didn't show them the--we're not going to show them anything with regard to the telephone bills or whatever".

Why not, Bob? Why wouldn't you want to show the telephone records to the jury, if they are as innocent as you claim they are?

Tell me, how does withholding telephone records from the jury come into a Sec. 352 argument?

How does withholding telephone bills become comparable to the sensational bloody photos such that they could prejudice the jury?

I can understand his thinking as to how he feels that the gruesome photographs of Ron and Nicole at the murder site might possibly prejudice the jury.

But how would disclosing the "telephone bills" to the jury, prejudice the jury, Bob?

The only conclusion that I can reach is if the telephone records of (Juditha Brown) did not reflect the 9:37 PM telephone call that you have been aggressively supporting, and in fact was well after the 9:37 PM alleged phone call, as I have claimed. The possibility of that could truly have a prejudicial effect on the jury. The above (J.C.) proclamations are an indication of possible conspiracy to obstruct justice, a very serious charge, about 20-25 years worth of jail time.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by fbgweezer

www.youtube.com/watch/v=oZfbCFRvoyo You continue to berate other posters on this board while you p*mp your website.

The jury had access to all of the exhibits for their examination. The blame for them not looking at them lies with the jury. [/QUOTE]

First of all Weezer, I was responding to what I perceived to be a direct insult and however I responded to it had nothing to do with you. You need to take care of your own business, Weezer. You're not that smart to be trying to take care of the business of others.

As it relates to your 2nd point, the judge admonished the jury, when Ex. 35 was introduced that they could not examine or authenticate the evidence that came in by stipulation, that they must accept it as fact and thus as evidence in the trial, 02/07/95.

My argument: This was a violation of the trier of fact rule. A direct trespass into the domain of the jury.

There were so many statements involving when the telephone call was made that the stipulation could not have been based upon a universally understood fact, i.e. The sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

The time of the call was crucial,
therefore under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Uniform Rules of Evidence the determination to the authenticity of the telephone records should have been exclusively the domain of the jury. They took that right and obligation away from the jury, and once that was done they could create anything they needed to do to give you a "Trial".

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
You need to back off on your comments to me. I've done nothing to you that would warrant your verbal attacks.

YOU are the one posting about your investigation of the case -- I've only wondered why YOUR investigation didn't include the ice cream shop receipt and the information from the guard gate.

Ditto, Go through bob the next time you find a need to talk to me, if you can't come with respect. At least he tries to pretend to be respectful.

[limakey]

2Late,

Faye Resnick came out and said she was the "Best Friend". There is no evidence to support that this is what Nicole always told the kids when she was fighting with OJ. However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Nicole and OJ did have verbal confrontations in front of their children, they would not be the first set of parents who forgot who else was in the room or who hears them.

It was Denise Brown who came out said that was what Nicole always told the kids---but she had to back off it, why?

Because if this is what Nicole always told the children, then it proves that Sydney did in fact hear what she said she heard and went to her mother to ask her about it.

For your sake, lets say that "best friend" was OJ Simpson and what he said so upset Nicole she was crying---what did he say to her? That he was coming over there to slit her throat? If she was so upset by this phone call at 9:00 p.m., that instead of calling the police or a friend to come and sit with her, she lights candles, puts on romantic music and draws a bath--that makes no sense.

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, I see you're as uninformed as Dr. Johnson about when Simpson left for the airport. Or maybe you're the one who provided false information to Dr. Johnson, right?

Simpson couldn't have been in the back seat of the limousine at 11:00 PM. He didn't even come downstairs to load the limousine until after 11:00 PM. The limousine left for the airport about 11:15 PM.

Both Ron and Nicole were dead well before 11:00 PM.

Learn the facts.

Well Bob, for all of your meandering assumptions, you still have Simpson in the company of others and being driven by others at the same time that his wife would have been alive and on the telephone, according to her father's first statement and her mother's initial statements to Shapiro's investigators, according to Shapiro. So what do you gain by this post, we all know your position. But I'll bet you're not getting any sleep due to the 11:00 PM issue!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

Good job Kate. It looks like Martin agrees, as he is here & hasn't disputed your post. Hopefully, this will be the end of this one.

I agree Diva. That's what ALL of the NG's do when they are backed into a corner, or know that what you are saying is the truth. They flat out don't answer your posts and suddenly "disappear!"

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben

Good I'm glad that you broke out of your mold for a change. I'll tell you what I find to be very sinister.

Bob, you've pointed out below what Johnnie Cochran has said while making a vehement plea to the judge under Sec. 352, Prejudice V. Probative value of certain evidence at trial.

Why not, Bob? Why wouldn't you want to show the telephone records to the jury, if they are as innocent as you claim they are?

Tell me, how does withholding telephone records from the jury come into a Sec. 352 argument?

How does withholding telephone bills become comparable to the sensational bloody photos such that they could prejudice the jury?

I can understand his thinking as to how he feels that the gruesome photographs of Ron and Nicole at the murder site might possibly prejudice the jury.

But how would disclosing the "telephone bills" to the jury, prejudice the jury, Bob?

The only conclusion that I can reach is if the telephone records of (Juditha Brown) did not reflect the 9:37 PM telephone call that you have been aggressively supporting, and in fact was well after the 9:37 PM alleged phone call, as I have claimed. The possibility of that could truly have a prejudicial effect on the jury. The above (J.C.) proclamations are an indication of possible conspiracy to obstruct justice, a very serious charge, about 20-25 years worth of jail time.



Big Ben, I disagree with your conclusion. You keep taking what Cochran said out of context. If you really want to understand why Cochran said what he said you have to put things in context. You have to read what was going on at that time, what was said before and what was said after.

The prosecution was wrapping up their case offering three stipulations.

The first stipulation was regarding Juditha Brown's testimony covering everything Juditha Brown testified to including her 9:37 PM call to the restaurant and her 9:40 PM call to Nicole

Cochran had no problem with that.

The second stipulation was regarding the admissibility of telephone records of the phone bills of the home telephone of Simpson and Juditha Brown.

Cochran had no problem with that as long as both sides agreed that phone numbers that weren't relevant to the case would be redacted.

The third stipulation was regarding photographs of the two victims.

Cochran wanted to talk about those saying they were so graphic that the "prejudicial effect far outweighs any probative value." In that discussion is when Cochran spoke the passage you include on your Serpents Rising tape. Cochran didn't want anything shown to the jury at this point let alone photographs of the victims. He wanted the prosecution to rest their case so the defense could start theirs.

He used the telephone records as an example that nothing should be shown to the jury AT THIS POINT. Cochran said,

"I also would object further--I don't think the jury needs to see these again. They've seen these photographs before. I see no reason for that at this point. We're not going to show them any of the other exhibits at this point and we didn't show them there're not going to show them anything with regard to the telephone bills or whatever. So I think at this point of the case, we're now wrapping the case up, we expect the People to rest, and so I would submit it."

There was a compromise made. Judge Ito ruled that the photographs could be shown to the jury but only for five seconds.

Ito than asked Cochran if he discussed these stipulations about to be made, with Simpson.

THE COURT: All right. Let's get back to serious matters, counsel. My understanding is that you've discussed these stipulations with your client and they're acceptable to him, Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. I have discussed them with Mr. Simpson and it's understands these stipulations and it's agreeable to him at this point, and he appreciates that we will be reserving his rights under the stipulation regarding the phone records until a later time.

Cochran told the court Simpson understood them and agreed to them "and he appreciates that we will be reserving his rights under the stipulation regarding the phone records UNTIL A LATER TIME.

The jury was brought back in and Clark then made her stipulations.

The first was regarding Juditha Brown's testimony. Clark outlined everything Juditha testified to. The order that the events happened and the times they happened covering the dance recital, the dinner, her missing eyeglasses, her 9:37 PM call to the restaurant, Crawford finding the eyeglasses, Juditha's call to Nicole at 9:40 PM, the fact that was the last time she spoke with Nicole, as well as her identification of the eyeglasses that were found at Bundy, and the identification of Nicole's signature on the Bloomingdales charge card receipt

Cochran so stipulated

The second stipulation was regarding the telephone records for Simpson and Juditha Brown's GTE telephone bills. Clark used the standard wording that authenticated those bills as the telephone records that "accurately reflect the information contained therein."

Cochran so stipulated

The third stipulation was regarding the the photographs of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown's bodies as they were found.

Cochran so stipulated.

THE COURT: All right. Stipulations will be received by the Court. Counsel, thank you very much. All right. Is there anything further from the People?
MS. CLARK: At this time, subject to the receipt of the People's exhibits into evidence, the People rest.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by limakey

2Late,

Faye Resnick came out and said she was the "Best Friend". There is no evidence to support that this is what Nicole always told the kids when she was fighting with OJ. However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Nicole and OJ did have verbal confrontations in front of their children, they would not be the first set of parents who forgot who else was in the room or who hears them.

I did not dream this up ~ I stand by what I have posted re: Nicole and her "best friend" on the phone!

It was Denise Brown who came out said that was what Nicole always told the kids---but she had to back off it, why?

I am not a mind reader. I haven't the foggiest of "why" Denise "had to back off it." I have never heard that Denise said such a thing. Doesn't mean that she didn't though!

Because if this is what Nicole always told the children, then it proves that Sydney did in fact hear what she said she heard and went to her mother to ask her about it.

So then you believe that there is "evidence" that Nicole told the kids about her "best friend?" You keep on saying that "Sydney did in fact hear what she said she heard and went to her mother to ask her about it."

What on earth are you talking about? This isn't the first time that you have said this.

For your sake, lets say that "best friend" was OJ Simpson and what he said so upset Nicole she was crying---what did he say to her? That he was coming over there to slit her throat? If she was so upset by this phone call at 9:00 p.m., that instead of calling the police or a friend to come and sit with her, she lights candles, puts on romantic music and draws a bath--that makes no sense.

Again, I am not a mind reader. I haven't the foggiest what OJ said to Nicole that was so upsetting. This wasn't the first time that OJ made Nicole cry over the phone. If she called the police or a friend to come and sit with her everytime OJ made her cry over the phone, she'd be having the police and friends with her most of the time!

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

bob

To be more specific cashmere linning is more correct. Many companies use cashmere.

The shell of the gloves in quesiton were sprayed with fat liquor in a effort to help them retain their original shape and size.

The cashmere linning would prevent excessive sweat from reaching the inside leather part of the glove if there was any.

Nappa is a quailty grade used in many leather items. jackets, shoes and gloves. The hide for glove quality is split to present a thin piece for suppleness. usually nappa or carbretta is used in gloves.

considering the few blood of drops that were found on the gloves
it is unreasonable to say the gloves got "WET" as in from a washing or a lot of rainwater.
These gloves were made to last a long time and were of very good quality and priced above the level of most leather gloves.

so it is my opinion that
These gloves did not shrink 15 % from the few drops of blood or being stored for a year. that level of shrinkage would not be acceptable for such a quality glove.

CRIMINAL TRIAL TESTIMONY OF MR RUBIN

MR. RUBIN: What happens when gloves get wet, the water or whatever it is that actually wets the glove absorbs small
amounts of the fat liquor which creates shrinkage. Over time, as the gloves try naturally, the gloves actually can come back very
close to its original shape, but they will never come back to the original size, because once a certain percentage of the fat liquor
disappears, the glove loses a little of it's elasticity.

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

MR. COCHRAN: All right. On occasion, they would become wet; is that right? And with regard to that leather, is that one
reason why the fat liquor is--became a part of the process in preparing these gloves?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And the reason why the fat liquor was used was to diminish the amount of shrinkage; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: It was more so to have the leather retain its memory and create an elastic capability versus the shrinkage.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So elastic capability, which means that it can stretch; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So that if gloves, sir--and these gloves cost a lot of money, didn't they? They were--they were
beyond the $20 average you told us about, leather gloves; is that right?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: So if you bought a pair of gloves in the winter of `90 and they got wet and you put them away, you'd
expect to be able to use those gloves again in the winter of `91; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And your product--you don't make a product that just because they get wet or have some precipitation,
that you throw them away at the end of each use. They're not usable gloves. They're not one time usable gloves, are they?

MR. RUBIN: They are not disposable.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. These gloves are to last a long time. That's one of the things you pride yourself on; isn't that
correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And they're made in such a fashion so they are supposed to be elastic and they come back for use; isn't
that correct, sir?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, are you--as an expert, do you know--assume hypothetically these gloves were purchased in 1989
or in 1990, and let's assume they were worn during the winter, during that time, rain and snow. You can't tell this jury how
much those gloves shrunk during that period of time, can you?

MR. RUBIN: I cannot.

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

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Rubin, just a few more questions. Do you--are you aware of how much 3 cc's of liquid amounts to?

MR. RUBIN: No, I'm not. Excuse me. 3 cc's?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MR. RUBIN: Yes. I'm very familiar with 3 cc's.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you think that--I want you to assume arguendo that 3 cc's of liquid is almost two gloves. Do you
think that amount of liquid would result in your gloves, your very expensive Aris gloves, shrinking 10 to 15 percent?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: 3 cc's of liquid would have no effect whatsoever on those gloves.

MR. COCHRAN: So if there's testimony that's there only 3 cc's of liquid on those gloves, should have no effect at all? They
should be exactly the same size; is that correct?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that right?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

******



MARTIN ii

[martin II]

BOB
What grade of leather do you believe the gloves were made from?


Nappa lambskin
"Soft as silk, nappa lambskin is among the most lightweight and supple of the leathers. Its relaxed look and feel make nappa extremely comfortable and ideal for gloves, jackets "

MATIN ii

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, who are you trying to fool? Yourself.

Men's Aris Leather Lights are thin leather dress gloves, not Nappa gloves.

The Aris Isotoner gloves Simpson wore at Bundy were old gloves, not new gloves. Not only did they get wet with blood, they most likely got moist inside of them from sweat. When Simpson tried those gloves on they had been lying crumbled up for about a year.

bobaugust


bob
i see you have little knowledge of fine leather gloves.

Nappa is a quality grade of fine leather. the hide can be split as thin as desired for softness/suppleness. usually by Italian tanneries.(At least they are the best in this area.)

Nappa can be made from goat, sheep, lamb, pig and other hides.


so i don't understand your statement below.

"Men's Aris Leather Lights are thin leather dress gloves, not Nappa gloves."

gloves made of nappa quality ARE thin leather gloves.


http://zlp.en.alibaba.com/product/10335841/50102372/Gloves/Leather_Gloves_in_Goat_Nappa/showimg.html

matrtin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II



bob
i see you have little knowledge of fine leather gloves.




martin II, you're right I have little knowledge of fine leather gloves, very little. Only my own personal experience having owned many pairs of thin leather dress gloves.

The reality is that when thin leather gets wet and then dries it shrinks. My experience with these kind of gloves goes back to the seventies, the eighties, and into the nineties. I haven't had the need to own any kind of gloves since then except for workout gloves.

The only thing I know about Nappa gloves is what I've seen on the internet. I really don't know what kind of leather Aris Isotoner used, only that I do not remember Rubin ever referring to the name "nappa" when he testified about the Aris Men's Leather lights that the killer used.

I posted Rubin's testimony as to why the gloves fit Simpson poorly. Simpson didn't want them to fit so he made it look like they didn't fit. If Simpson had wanted them to fit, he would have pulled and stretched those old gloves until they fit him perfectly. That reality.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, you're right I have little knowledge of fine leather gloves, very little. Only my own personal experience having owned many pairs of thin leather dress gloves.

The reality is that when thin leather gets wet and then dries it shrinks. My experience with these kind of gloves goes back to the seventies, the eighties, and into the nineties. I haven't had the need to own any kind of gloves since then except for workout gloves.

The only thing I know about Nappa gloves is what I've seen on the internet. I really don't know what kind of leather Aris Isotoner used, only that I do not remember Rubin ever referring to the name "nappa" when he testified about the Aris Men's Leather lights that the killer used.

I posted Rubin's testimony as to why the gloves fit Simpson poorly. Simpson didn't want them to fit so he made it look like they didn't fit. If Simpson had wanted them to fit, he would have pulled and stretched those old gloves until they fit him perfectly. That reality.

bobaugust

bob
i did notice that rubin never gave the grade of leather used in the Aris gloves. I do have some experience with fine Italian leather goods.

Rubin tried his best to tailor his testimony in favor of the prosecution but had to admit certain truths when crossexamined by a experienced lawyer.

Ojs hands were very large. Large enough to palm a football. Actually i am surprised that he was able to get the gloves as far on as he did and don't believe he would have been able to push his fingers to the tip of the gloves even if Darden held the ends.

almost every type of leather can be refinned to different quality levels.


imo
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by limakey

For your sake, lets say that "best friend" was OJ Simpson and what he said so upset Nicole she was crying---what did he say to her? That he was coming over there to slit her throat? If she was so upset by this phone call at 9:00 p.m., that instead of calling the police or a friend to come and sit with her, she lights candles, puts on romantic music and draws a bath--that makes no sense.

Hi limakey,

I can't say for certain, but I would imagine that ugly words were exchanged. He had apparently just recently threatened her, telling her that she was "gonna pay". Perhaps there were more threats.

As far as why she didn't call anyone I would say that from all that I have learned Nicole just wasn't the type to give in to the fear. And she was angry ... very angry apparently that night ... which tends to override fear. I think she was just bound and determined not to take it anymore.

Kate

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
i did notice that rubin never gave the grade of leather used in the Aris gloves. I do have some experience with fine Italian leather goods.

Rubin tried his best to tailor his testimony in favor of the prosecution but had to admit certain truths when crossexamined by a experienced lawyer.

Ojs hands were very large. Large enough to palm a football. Actually i am surprised that he was able to get the gloves as far on as he did and don't believe he would have been able to push his fingers to the tip of the gloves even if Darden held the ends.

almost every type of leather can be refinned to different quality levels.


imo
martin II


martin II, Rubin testified that Simpson "had an extra-wide palm but not long fingers. It was easy for a person with such a hand to make a glove look like it didn't fit, just stretching out the palm and fingers would make putting them on very difficult."

Evidently you never saw all of the photographs showing Simpson previously wearing different pairs of the exact same kind of gloves as the ones the killer wore. They fit him just fine except for being a little short at the wrist. That's probably why he owned so many pairs of that particular glove because they would stretch and fit his unusually wide hands and still look good on him..

You say you have some experience with fine leather goods yet you can't seem to grasp the simple fact that thin leather shrinks when it dries after getting wet. Not only do people who have owned a pair of thin leather dress gloves understand that but anyone who has owned golf gloves understands that.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, Rubin testified that Simpson "had an extra-wide palm but not long fingers. It was easy for a person with such a hand to make a glove look like it didn't fit, just stretching out the palm and fingers would make putting them on very difficult."

Evidently you never saw all of the photographs showing Simpson previously wearing different pairs of the exact same kind of gloves as the ones the killer wore. They fit him just fine except for being a little short at the wrist. That's probably why he owned so many pairs of that particular glove because they would stretch and fit his unusually wide hands and still look good on him..

You say you have some experience with fine leather goods yet you can't seem to grasp the simple fact that thin leather shrinks when it dries after getting wet. Not only do people who have owned a pair of thin leather dress gloves understand that but anyone who has owned golf gloves understands that.

bobaugust

bob

Exactly how many times do i have to tell you this.
Those gloves did not get wet as in wet from rain or washing. They only had a few drops of blood them. Rubin testified that 3 cc
of liquid would have NO effect on the gloves as far as shrinkage is concerned when crossexamined .

Aris could not get by selling a glove that had 15% shrinkage. customers would have returned all of them to the stores.

As far a owning fine leather goods. A family member is a ex Buyer for a major buying house and she purchased AIRIS products by the thousands for their retail customers across the u.s.. i have always had these and other fine Italian gloves for personal use.


The facts on how those gloves would or would not respond to a few drops of blood have been given to you. If you want to continue to use words like GOT WET or OJs HAND MOST LIKELY
sweated the gloves wet or the gloves shrunked 15 -20% then please continue but i think you know that there is no proof that any of it happened or could have happened. imo
martin

[martin II]

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

Faye Resnick came out and said she was the "Best Friend". There is no evidence to support that this is what Nicole always told the kids when she was fighting with OJ. However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Nicole and OJ did have verbal confrontations in front of their children, they would not be the first set of parents who forgot who else was in the room or who hears them.

It was Denise Brown who came out said that was what Nicole always told the kids---but she had to back off it, why?

Because if this is what Nicole always told the children, then it proves that Sydney did in fact hear what she said she heard and went to her mother to ask her about it.

For your sake, lets say that "best friend" was OJ Simpson and what he said so upset Nicole she was crying---what did he say to her? That he was coming over there to slit her throat? If she was so upset by this phone call at 9:00 p.m., that instead of calling the police or a friend to come and sit with her, she lights candles, puts on romantic music and draws a bath--that makes no sense.

limakey
if nicole was so upset with oj, she could have said something to the DR. that picked up his kid at that time.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

Exactly how many times do i have to tell you this.
Those gloves did not get wet as in wet from rain or washing. They only had a few drops of blood them. Rubin testified that 3 cc
of liquid would have NO effect on the gloves as far as shrinkage is concerned when crossexamined .

Aris could not get by selling a glove that had 15% shrinkage. customers would have returned all of them to the stores.

As far a owning fine leather goods. A family member is a ex Buyer for a major buying house and she purchased AIRIS products by the thousands for their retail customers across the u.s.. i have always had these and other fine Italian gloves for personal use.


The facts on how those gloves would or would not respond to a few drops of blood have been given to you. If you want to continue to use words like GOT WET or OJs HAND MOST LIKELY
sweated the gloves wet or the gloves shrunked 15 -20% then please continue but i think you know that there is no proof that any of it happened or could have happened. imo
martin



martin II, what part of old gloves can't you understand?

These were not new but old gloves. Rubin never said the gloves shrunk 15 %. Cochran said that. Rubin testified that when he measured the gloves they were 10% to 11% smaller than standard because of normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage.

The fact that they had gotten wet with blood, possibly sweat, and then lay out all night on the south path, been treated with liquids for the testing of blood, and then lay crumbled up for about a year before the glove demonstration all contributed to the reality that they had to be stretched out to be able to fit properly. Simpson didn't do that when he tried them on over latex gloves. He was very careful not to because he didn't want them to fit.

Come on, use what ever god given common sense you may have. If you have really owned thin leather dress gloves as you claim then stop taking like some gullible fool who can't comprehend the simple fact that thin leather shrinks when it dries after getting wet.

Also try reading what Rubin actually said not what you think he said.

November 6, 1996 Rubin

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Have you seen those gloves prior to today, Mr. Rubin?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And you saw them over a year ago, actually, in Mr. Simpson's criminal trial; is that
correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you have an opportunity at that time to measure the length of those gloves?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You measured those gloves at this time. What was the length of the gloves when you measured them, if you recall?
A. Nine and three-eighths inches long.
Q. Approximately an inch less than the standard length?
A. Approximately.
Q. What percent is smaller than the standard extra large would that have made them at this time?
A. Between 10 and 11 percent.
Q. And what would you attribute, or could you attribute that differential of the 10 or 11 percent to anything?
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. Foundation;
calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Combination of normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob
your words

"These were not new but old gloves. Rubin never said the gloves shrunk 15 %."


Rubins words.

MR. RUBIN: It would appear, based upon my knowledge of what would occur when gloves are subjected to liquid such as
water, that gloves could shrink approximately 15 percent from its original size

so you see you are having a hard time admitting you were trying to talk about something you know very little about.


martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by martin II
bob
your words

"These were not new but old gloves. Rubin never said the gloves shrunk 15 %."


Rubins words.

MR. RUBIN: It would appear, based upon my knowledge of what would occur when gloves are subjected to liquid such as
water, that gloves could shrink approximately 15 percent from its original size

so you see you are having a hard time admitting you were trying to talk about something you know very little about.


martin II

bob
i never said THESE gloves were new. I told you that if oj had owned these gloves for some time , and had worn them, the gloves would have taken the shape of his hand. even if the gloves had been sitting for a year, they would be easy to slip on
IF THEY WERE THE RIGHT SIZE FOR HIS HAND.

First you say the gloves shrunk because they got WET now you suggest that the gloves shrunk because they were old.
Rubin said that these expensive gloves were of a very high quality and were made to last more than one season. "they were not disposable gloves"
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
i never said THESE gloves were new. I told you that if oj had owned these gloves for some time , and had worn them, the gloves would have taken the shape of his hand. even if the gloves had been sitting for a year, they would be easy to slip on
IF THEY WERE THE RIGHT SIZE FOR HIS HAND.

First you say the gloves shrunk because they got WET now you suggest that the gloves shrunk because they were old.
Rubin said that these expensive gloves were of a very high quality and were made to last more than one season. "they were not disposable gloves"
martin II



martin II, you're very confused. You evidently didn't understand what Rubin said.

The gloves were old and they shrunk after getting wet and drying. These skin tight thin leather gloves would not take the shape of Simpson's hands and be easy to slip on. They were more difficult to put on until they were stretched back out.

Did you not comprehend what I explained to you Rubin did to the gloves in the civil trial as he testified? The gloves at that time hadn't been worn since Simpson put them on in the criminal trial. Rubin refurbished them, warming, and stretching them back to close to their original size. That's why Simpson wouldn't go near them.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
your words

"These were not new but old gloves. Rubin never said the gloves shrunk 15 %."


Rubins words.

MR. RUBIN: It would appear, based upon my knowledge of what would occur when gloves are subjected to liquid such as
water, that gloves could shrink approximately 15 percent from its original size




martin II, Rubin never said these gloves had shrunk 15%, he was agreeing that "gloves could shrink approximately 15 percent."

Rubin testified he measured these gloves and they shrunk 10% to 11%.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob
First you say the gloves shrunk because they got WET now you suggest that the gloves shrunk because they were old.
Rubin said that these expensive gloves were of a very high quality and were made to last more than one season. "they were not disposable gloves"
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, you're very confused. You evidently didn't understand what Rubin said.

The gloves were old and they shrunk after getting wet and drying. These skin tight thin leather gloves would not take the shape of Simpson's hands and be easy to slip on. They were more difficult to put on until they were stretched back out.

Did you not comprehend what I explained to you Rubin did to the gloves in the civil trial as he testified? The gloves at that time hadn't been worn since Simpson put them on in the criminal trial. Rubin refurbished them, warming, and stretching them back to close to their original size. That's why Simpson wouldn't go near them.

bobaugust

bob

you are being kinda hard headed.
THE GLOVES NEVER GOT WET. You must be using this to bs your way through this conversation.
Fat liquor (oil) was sprayed on these gloves to oil the leather fibers to make them sofy and supple which would also prevent water from remaining on the gloves.

look all of this is based on a few simple issues

1. The gloves never got WET
2. There was only about 3 cc of blood found on them.imo
3. The gloves were lined with cashmers which prevented the
gloves from getting moist from any possible sweat from a hand.

4. There was nothing that came in contact with these gloves that
would cause them to shrink 10-11 % not liquid not age.
5. If anyone had worn these gloves over a period of time these
thin gloves would have taken the shape of the wearers hand
and been very easy to slip on.

Y

[martin II]

BOB
it is you that don''t understand.

Exact how did the gloves get WET. And please don't say from 3 cc of blood.
martin II

[martin II]

martin II, you're very confused. You evidently didn't understand what Rubin said.

NO I AM NOT CONFUSED ON THIS ISSUE AND YOU. I DON'T KNOW.

The gloves were old and they shrunk after getting wet

THE GLOVES DID NOT GET WET. NOT FROM 3 CC OF BLOOD.

and drying. These skin tight thin leather gloves would not take the shape of Simpson's hands and be easy to slip on.

REMEMBER THE GLOVES WERE SPRAYED WITH FAT LIQUOR TO MAKE THE FIRBER SOFT AND FLEXABLE. NOT HARD AND STIFF.

They were more difficult to put on until they were stretched back out.

Did you not comprehend what I explained to you Rubin did to the gloves in the civil trial as he testified? The gloves at that time hadn't been worn since Simpson put them on in the criminal trial. Rubin refurbished them, warming, and stretching them back to close to their original size. That's why Simpson wouldn't go near them.

RUBINS LITTLE DEMONSTRATION OF PLAYING WITH THE GLOVE IN THE CIVIL TRIAL WAS NO MORE THAN A ATTEMPT TO TRICK THE JURY THAT HE WAS DOING SOMETHING IMPORTANT.IMO

AGAIN WHEN DID THE GLOVES GET WET. WERE THEY WASHED BY SOMEONE DID SOMEONE WEAR THEM IN THE RAIN AND THEN BROUGH THEM TO COURT.

DID YOU COMPREHEND WHEN I TOLD YOU THAT THE GLOVES NEVER GOT WET. THEY THEY WERE FLEXABLE AND WOULD TAKE THE SHAPE OF THE WEARERS HAND. GEES.
MARTIN II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


REMEMBER THE GLOVES WERE SPRAYED WITH FAT LIQUOR TO MAKE THE FIRBER SOFT AND FLEXABLE. NOT HARD AND STIFF.

RUBINS LITTLE DEMONSTRATION OF PLAYING WITH THE GLOVE IN THE CIVIL TRIAL WAS NO MORE THAN A ATTEMPT TO TRICK THE JURY THAT HE WAS DOING SOMETHING IMPORTANT.IMO

AGAIN WHEN DID THE GLOVES GET WET. WERE THEY WASHED BY SOMEONE DID SOMEONE WEAR THEM IN THE RAIN AND THEN BROUGH THEM TO COURT.

DID YOU COMPREHEND WHEN I TOLD YOU THAT THE GLOVES NEVER GOT WET. THEY THEY WERE FLEXABLE AND WOULD TAKE THE SHAPE OF THE WEARERS HAND. GEES.
MARTIN II


martin II, you're still confused.

No, Rubin didn't trick the jury when he refurbished the gloves during his testimony, nor did Rubin lie when he testified he measured the gloves before he put them on and found them to be 10% to 11% smaller than standard.

The only one who was tricked here is you. Cochran tricked you with his questions. It's obvious you didn't understand Rubin's answers. And Simpson tricked you with his act trying to make it look like the gloves didn't fit.

You're very naive and gullible

Your inability to admit to the realty that these kind of gloves shrink when they dry after getting wet tells me you never owned these kind of gloves. But let me first be a little more specific. If skin tight gloves are the correct size and pulled and stretched when they are put on so they are skin tight, if they get wet while being worn and continue to be worn until they dry, they don't noticeably shrink. But if they are still wet when they're taken off as they dry they will shrink. Either way the next time they are put on they still have to be stretched to fit properly. Stretched by pulling them once they are on your fingers. The only time this pulling and stretching would not be necessary is if the gloves are too big for you in the first place, but then they won't fit skin tight.

These facts are from my personal experience having owned and worn many pairs of these kind of gloves, not from learning about it from questions by a tricky defense attorney who fabricated a story about his golf gloves.

bobaugust

[tazzybaby]

Hi Martin,

Didn't Simpson have the same size gloves at his home? The same size as the gloves that "didn't fit"? He wore those gloves even though they were the same size.

[martin II]

Originally posted by tazzybaby
Hi Martin,

Didn't Simpson have the same size gloves at his home? The same size as the gloves that "didn't fit"? He wore those gloves even though they were the same size.

tazzy hi

I have no idea as to how many gloves oj had in his house. companies gave oj wearing apparel and other items FREE in large quantities just for him to wear them in public.
Oj was worth $10,000,000 so i would guess two three dozen pair
would be expected.

what i think is that all of the gloves oj had a t home were much larger in size than the ones Darden asked him to try on. imo
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, you're still confused.

No, Rubin didn't trick the jury when he refurbished the gloves during his testimony, nor did Rubin lie when he testified he measured the gloves before he put them on and found them to be 10% to 11% smaller than standard.

The only one who was tricked here is you. Cochran tricked you with his questions. It's obvious you didn't understand Rubin's answers. And Simpson tricked you with his act trying to make it look like the gloves didn't fit.

You're very naive and gullible

Your inability to admit to the realty that these kind of gloves shrink when they dry after getting wet tells me you never owned these kind of gloves. But let me first be a little more specific. If skin tight gloves are the correct size and pulled and stretched when they are put on so they are skin tight, if they get wet while being worn and continue to be worn until they dry, they don't noticeably shrink. But if they are still wet when they're taken off as they dry they will shrink. Either way the next time they are put on they still have to be stretched to fit properly. Stretched by pulling them once they are on your fingers. The only time this pulling and stretching would not be necessary is if the gloves are too big for you in the first place, but then they won't fit skin tight.

These facts are from my personal experience having owned and worn many pairs of these kind of gloves, not from learning about it from questions by a tricky defense attorney who fabricated a story about his golf gloves.

bobaugust

bob

i have given you a lot of facts about these gloves and you have continued to play dumb. Now you have reverted to calling me your standard names as you always do when your ideas are priven wrong.

this is the last time i willask you this .

WHEN DID THE GLOVES GET WET???

MARTIN ii

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, you're still confused.

No, Rubin didn't trick the jury when he refurbished the gloves during his testimony, nor did Rubin lie when he testified he measured the gloves before he put them on and found them to be 10% to 11% smaller than standard.

The only one who was tricked here is you. Cochran tricked you with his questions. It's obvious you didn't understand Rubin's answers. And Simpson tricked you with his act trying to make it look like the gloves didn't fit.

You're very naive and gullible

Your inability to admit to the realty that these kind of gloves shrink when they dry after getting wet tells me you never owned these kind of gloves. But let me first be a little more specific. If skin tight gloves are the correct size and pulled and stretched when they are put on so they are skin tight, if they get wet while being worn and continue to be worn until they dry, they don't noticeably shrink. But if they are still wet when they're taken off as they dry they will shrink. Either way the next time they are put on they still have to be stretched to fit properly. Stretched by pulling them once they are on your fingers. The only time this pulling and stretching would not be necessary is if the gloves are too big for you in the first place, but then they won't fit skin tight.

These facts are from my personal experience having owned and worn many pairs of these kind of gloves, not from learning about it from questions by a tricky defense attorney who fabricated a story about his golf gloves.

bobaugust

BOB

You are not the only person that has experience with fine leather gloves. i have given you my experience and i guess you ignored that.

unless you can prove when the gloves got wet i am finished trying to help you along.

martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


BOB

You are not the only person that has experience with fine leather gloves. i have given you my experience and i guess you ignored that.

unless you can prove when the gloves got wet i am finished trying to help you along.

martin II


martin II, that's funny.

I've tried talking to you like you have some intelligence and common sense but that doesn't work since you can't seem to understand what I've been explaining to you, let alone what Rubin testified to.

Your continued gullible argument that the killer's gloves didn't fit Simpson and the excuses you use to believe that fantasy are all contradicted by the reality of what Rubin testified to about these gloves as well as the reality of blood and fiber evidence found on them that point only to Simpson as the killer.

I don't believe anything you say about your supposed experience with skin tight leather gloves. I also can't believe that anyone can be as dense as you seem to be so I can only assume you're doing it on purpose, arguing just to argue.

Good job.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Martin,

I just remembered that, wasn't Rachel's dad a dentist?

However, an even better question is why Nicole's and Ron's shrink was concerned enough to call Nicole after she got home that night. According to this doctor, Nicole told her that was going to be the night when OJ was going to get her. So what does the Doctor recommend, that Nicole call a friend to stay with her, and that friend turned out to be another one of her patients?

We all know that there are "yahoos" who love to get involved in big, high profile cases---however, what would motivate a professional to become a "yahoo"?

[goatgirl]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


GG: This is just a theory that I have. I think that when Nicole found out that Ron was going to be delivering her Mom's glasses, she had ulterior motives in mind, i.e., a sexual romp, maybe. That's why she started the bath and lit all of the candles ~ getting ready for her romantic interlude with Ron.

I think it was then that Nicole called up the little girl's parents and made some excuse to them to come and pick up their daughter. We ALL know the ending to this theory!

JMO and MOO!!



Hi 2l8

interesting theory :)

I could be wrong ....but I am not sold on the idea Nicole was romantic w/ Ron ....

I think it would be interesting to know who cancelled the plans for the sleep over, I think it would explain alot more....

~~GoatGirl~~
:seeya:

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, that's funny.

I've tried talking to you like you have some intelligence and common sense but that doesn't work since you can't seem to understand what I've been explaining to you, let alone what Rubin testified to.

Your continued gullible argument that the killer's gloves didn't fit Simpson and the excuses you use to believe that fantasy are all contradicted by the reality of what Rubin testified to about these gloves as well as the reality of blood and fiber evidence found on them that point only to Simpson as the killer.

I don't believe anything you say about your supposed experience with skin tight leather gloves. I also can't believe that anyone can be as dense as you seem to be so I can only assume you're doing it on purpose, arguing just to argue.

Good job.

bobaugust

bob

i know you don't believe anything about my personal experience with leather consumer items including gloves because you only belive the trnash you heve been dunping in your head since the criminal trial. But believe me my experience in this area is far more extensive that yours that is limited to the two pair of raw hide gloves you have owned.

when you tol me that the gloves were thin fine leather and not NAPPA i knew then you didn't now what you were talking about.
Anyone with five minutes of experience with fine gloves would know better to make such a ignorant statement.

i have noticed you have switched to your usual name calling and obfuscating (sp) instead of answering the quesiton you have based your whole argument on.

when did the gloves get wet???
martin II

[limakey]

Kate,

There is no evidence that OJ and Nicole exchanged any angry words that night. When OJ called to speak to Sydney, Nicole and him never exchanged a word, she just gave the phone to Sydney.

I have no doubt that both OJ and Nicole could use ugly words to each other. I think both of them knew how to make the other "pay" and it had nothing to do with physical harm.

Kate, because of Faye and Cora, we know the "best friend" was Faye. Yet, why is Dr. Ameli giving testimony that Nicole was terrified with her on the phone. Faye has Nicole laughing and giggling and totally upbeat about her future without OJ, Dr. Ameli has her terrified for her life, and tells her to call a friend to stay with her and Sydney has her crying and fighting with her best friend.

It wasn't OJ Simpson that had Nicole terrified. IMO, Nicole talked to her mother, made arrangements for the glasses, got at least two very upsetting phone calls, yet still lit candles, ran a bath? It makes no sense.

I can see Nicole letting her guard down, she knew when OJ was leaving for Chicago, she knew his travel routine. Why would she let her guard down, knowing that was the night she knew he was going to make her pay?

It just makes no sense. IMO.

[goatgirl]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Ooops! 9:00 p.m. was a very busy time at Nicole's condo. That is supposedly the time given for when Faye called her from rehab; when OJ called to talk to Sydney; and when Nicole was found crying on the phone by Sydney. Correct?

JMO and MOO!!

I agree 2l8...

it was a very busy at Nicole's condo between 9-9:30

Nicole & the children arrive home around 9:00

Faye said she talked to Nicole from 9 to 9:30

Oj said he spoke to Sydney around 9:00

The little girl was picked up & taken home around 9:00

my guess would be some of these time lines arent correct :shrug:


~~GoatGirl~~

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust


Big Ben, I disagree with your conclusion. You keep taking what Cochran said out of context. In that discussion is when Cochran spoke the passage you include on your Serpents Rising tape. Cochran didn't want anything shown to the jury at this point let alone photographs of the victims. He wanted the prosecution to rest their case so the defense could start theirs.

He used the telephone records as an example that nothing should be shown to the jury AT THIS POINT.


Nice try, Bob. However that is the most ridiculous explanation that anyone has come up with yet for Johnnie Cochran's slip of the tongue.

For the sake of this hypothetical discussion, for which you tend to be a leading participant, Johnnie's remarks heighten the concern as to:

1. Why the phone records were removed from the jury's examination.

2. The extreme irregularities concerning time of departure and time of arrival of the Browns, as it relates to the phone records.

3. The attempt of Robert Shapiro in the closed door session in Judge K.K. Powell's chambers according to certified court transcripts, whereby Shapiro initially offers 10:17 PM as a time for the Brown stipulation, and not 9:37 PM.

4. The written admission of the Custodian of Records of the court that an ex parte (secretive from Simpson) court order was sought and received by a Simpson prosecutor to personally confiscate the Brown phone records from Simpson's case file, heightens the belief that malfeasance was involved.

5. The fact that the entry in the Exhibit Department Log for L.A. County Superior Court does not indicate that Exhibit 35 was deposited with the Custodian as any kind of telephone records also heightens suspicion.

With all of what has gone before, what is left for one to see other than sinister and highly irregular misconduct.

[limakey]

GG,

When Cora was first told the murders, and that there was a male with Nicole, she knew it had to be Ron Goldman or another waiter from another eatery.

Faye told Cora that she spoke to Nicole, she knew Ron was coming over and that Nicole planed to "do him" that night. However, Faye also said that Nicole did see or was going to see Marcus Allen that night and "do" him as well.

The nature of Ron and Nicole's relationship has always been surrounded by smoke and mirrors. The media reports ran the gamet on them. One lady thought Nicole and Ron were at least living together and that they had adopted a black boy.

Others had him driving around in Nicole's car and saying that OJ Simpson would kick his butt if he ever saw them. Apparently they went to the same shrink sessions---yet what was the purpose of these group sessions?

IMO, I think the evidence suggested that this was a crime of passion, so why use another motive that was beyond weak? In most cases, the victim's life is turned upside down and inside and out. While this is beyond painful for the families, the police have to do it to find out everything they can and see where it leads them. This never happened in this case. IMO.

[goatgirl]

Originally posted by Big Ben


What do you mean? Can you ask if someone has a criminal record? My answer is under normal circumstances criminal records are public. Certainly if you were going to hire someone like Bob August, and you had a day-care center, you'd want to know that he's got a clean record.

The only criminal records that are off limits in any state are those of criminals who have agreed to cooperate and work for law enforcement agencies as confidential informants. Their records are flagged and public review is denied as it was in the case of Goldman. I got my hands on all 6 inches of it, after the clerks office staff tried to hide it, but a swift assistant snatched it out of my hand and caused a scene that attracted two gruesome looking sherriff's deputies. So I backed up from arguing and pushing my demands, but subsequently they've acknowledged the records and the law that prevents access to them.

Hi BB

I guess you didnt have a chance to read what was in the file?

are you certain this file belongs to the same Ron Goldman?

Thxs ~~GoatGirl~~

[weezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
when did the gloves get wet???martin II Geez martin! The gloves were old. The pictures of orenthal wearing the same kind of gloves were pictures of him in cold weather. It's not a huge leap to assume that the gloves would have gotten wet from rain and/or snow.

[martin II]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Geez martin! The gloves were old. The pictures of orenthal wearing the same kind of gloves were pictures of him in cold weather. It's not a huge leap to assume that the gloves would have gotten wet from rain and/or snow. [/QUOT

fbg'

maby you need to go to the top of the the thread and read down

martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II



i have noticed you have switched to your usual name calling and obfuscating (sp) instead of answering the quesiton you have based your whole argument on.

when did the gloves get wet???
martin II


martin II, wrong. My whole argument is not based on these gloves getting wet.

The liquid blood and moisture from possible sweating was only one factor that contributed to their reduced size. After blood was taken off the gloves they laid in evidence drying out for about a year until the glove demonstration in the criminal trial. The gloves were smaller based on a "combination of normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage."

When Simpson tried them on they were smaller than they were when new. Even when new they had to be stretched to fit properly. Simpson not only had latex gloves on his hands he never pulled the gloves or attempted to stretch them because he didn't want them to look like they fit.

The gloves sat in evidence again for about another year and half before Rubin got them. They hadn't been stretched, they hadn't been warmed or worn. Rubin measured them. He found the gloves to measure nine and three-eights inches long. Approximately an inch less than the standard length. Between 10 and 11 percent smaller than the standard.

Rubin was given permission to put his bare hands in the gloves. As he testified Rubin continued to work the dried up bloody gloves right there on the witness stand, just sitting there idly refurbishing them. This went on for a while, until he had a pair of nicely warmed and pliable gloves in hand before Baker made him take them off. Gloves that were once again close to their original size. Simpson wasn't going to be wearing them at this trial.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, wrong. My whole argument is not based on these gloves getting wet.

The liquid blood and moisture from possible sweating was only one factor that contributed to their reduced size. After blood was taken off the gloves they laid in evidence drying out for about a year until the glove demonstration in the criminal trial. The gloves were smaller based on a "combination of normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage."

When Simpson tried them on they were smaller than they were when new. Even when new they had to be stretched to fit properly. Simpson not only had latex gloves on his hands he never pulled the gloves or attempted to stretch them because he didn't want them to look like they fit.

The gloves sat in evidence again for about another year and half before Rubin got them. They hadn't been stretched, they hadn't been warmed or worn. Rubin measured them. He found the gloves to measure nine and three-eights inches long. Approximately an inch less than the standard length. Between 10 and 11 percent smaller than the standard.

Rubin was given permission to put his bare hands in the gloves. As he testified Rubin continued to work the dried up bloody gloves right there on the witness stand, just sitting there idly refurbishing them. This went on for a while, until he had a pair of nicely warmed and pliable gloves in hand before Baker made him take them off. Gloves that were once again close to their original size. Simpson wasn't going to be wearing them at this trial.

bobaugust

bob
absent facts , you make up things and then tell me this is what must have happened.

please
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben

Nice try, Bob. However that is the most ridiculous explanation that anyone has come up with yet for Johnnie Cochran's slip of the tongue.

3. The attempt of Robert Shapiro in the closed door session in Judge K.K. Powell's chambers according to certified court transcripts, whereby Shapiro initially offers 10:17 PM as a time for the Brown stipulation, and not 9:37 PM.

With all of what has gone before, what is left for one to see other than sinister and highly irregular misconduct.


Big Ben, thanks, but it wasn't a try it was a reasonable simple explanation why Cochran referred to the prosecution telephone records exhibit. Cochran didn't want the crime scene photographs of Ron and Nicole shown to the jury again. So he argued that nothing should be shown to the jury at that point referring to the telephone records exhibit as an example for another stipulation that wasn't being shown. He argued they were wrapping the case up expecting the people to rest.

Clark answered Cochran's argument saying that she needed to show the jury the photographs so they understood what the stipulation means. She said with respect to the telephone records they were self explanatory. Photographs were a different matter.

What destroys your fantasy even more Big Ben, is what Cochran told the judge before he agreed to Clark's three stipulations. Stipulations regarding the actual times Juditha called the restaurant and called Nicole from her home as well as the admissibility of the Brown's and Simpson's telephone records.

THE COURT: All right. Let's get back to serious matters, counsel. My understanding is that you've discussed these stipulations with your client and they're acceptable to him, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. I have discussed them with Mr. Simpson and it's--he understands these stipulations and it's agreeable to him at this point, and he appreciates that we will be reserving his rights under the stipulation regarding the phone records until a later time.

Cochran then stipulated to Clark's three stipulations.

This all hangs you out to dry, Big Ben. It sounds to me like Simpson owes you an explanation. Either Cochran lied to the court or Simpson is lying to you. If there is anything sinister or highly irregular misconduct going on I suggest it's coming from Simpson, not Cochran. The fact that Simpson is a proven liar and killer I wouldn't be so fast to believe what he says. Just a suggestion.



In the preliminary hearing after Clark gave the Brown's telephone records to Simpson's defense attorneys. Shapiro offered a stipulation regarding a 10:17 PM call from Juditha Brown to Nicole. Clark said "if that's what the records say, there will be no problem with that." Clark told Shapiro she would have to locate it first and make sure.

There was no 10:17 PM call on the Brown's telephone records and that stipulation was never offered again.

July 8, 1994 Preliminary Hearing
MR. SHAPIRO: We're going to ask for a stipulation regarding the phone records that were presented in open court from the phone call from Mrs. Brown to Nicole, which I believe was at 10:17.
THE COURT: And is there -- is there going to be a problem with that?
MS. CLARK: If that's what the records say, there will be no problem with that. But which record?
MR. SHAPIRO: Phone records from the telephone company that you gave us.
MS. CLARK: I'm going to have to locate it. I'll locate it and make sure.
THE COURT: With reference to defense exhibits that were received for purposes of the motion only, do you wish to offer any of those -- or will you be offering any of those with regard to the case?
MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, yes. We'll be offering all of them.
THE COURT: Okay. Let's see if there's anything else.
MS. CLARK: Counsel, just so I can make sure. You're saying it was a phone call from Nicole Brown to her mother or from the mother to Nicole?
MR. SHAPIRO: From the mother to Nicole.
THE COURT: Okay. Then I guess that's it.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*
When OJ called to speak to Sydney, Nicole and him never exchanged a word, she just gave the phone to Sydney.


Says who? OJ? That's funny.:tongue:

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
absent facts , you make up things and then tell me this is what must have happened.

please
martin II


martin II what do you think I made up?

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

bob
absent facts , you make up things and then tell me this is what must have happened.

please
martin II

martin
"absent facts , you make up things and then tell me this is what must have happened."

please
2L8

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II what do you think I made up?

bobaugust

bob
1. Ojs hands must have sweated inside the glove to make it wet.
i told you that the cashmere linning would prevent this.

2. The glove shrunk because they got wet. then the gloves
shrunk because they were old.

3. these were thin fine leather gloves NOT NAPPA leather.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
1. Ojs hands must have sweated inside the glove to make it wet.
i told you that the cashmere linning would prevent this.

2. The glove shrunk because they got wet. then the gloves
shrunk because they were old.

3. these were thin fine leather gloves NOT NAPPA leather.
martin II


martin II, I can't tell you how much possible moisture from sweating hands may have contributed to the smaller than the standard size but probably not a significant amount. The blood on one of the gloves, maybe a little more but also not a significant amount.

Your third point is meaningless. I have no idea what kind of leather Aris Isotoner used in these gloves. Rubin testified that one "very unique characteristic was the lining being extra lightweight. It was a -- one single thread of cashmere yarn knitted on a ten-gauge machine, which made the entire glove very thin and very slender looking. The gauge of the very lightweight leather being 5.5 millimeters."

Rubin explained why the gloves were 10% to 11% smaller than the standard size. It was a combination of normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage. As well as the fact these gloves sat in evidence for long periods of time during which they hadn't been stretched, they hadn't been warmed and hadn't been worn.

Rubin gave three factors that caused the bad fit when Simpson tried them on even though they were the size he wore, extra large.
The first factor was that the gloves were actually one inch shorter than standard.
The second factor was Simpson had latex gloves on.
The third issue was that the actual overall condition of the gloves, being crumbled up quite a bit and not straightened out. They hadn't been used in a long, long time.

Rubin also explained how Simpson controlled the fit.

Triumph of Justice
"Simpson, he said, had an extra-wide palm but not long fingers. It was easy for a person with such a hand to make a glove look like it didn't fit, just stretching out the palm and fingers would make putting them on very difficult. 'Imagine trying to put a pair of pants on a crying infant,' he told us. That, combined with the drag created by the latex gloves Simpson had been wearing, make it almost impossible."

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob
it now seems that you have backed off of your claim that the gloves shrunk because they got WET.

Cochran did a good job of nailing Rubin down on whether 3 cc
of liquid on the outter shell of the gloves would cause the gloves to shrink and Rubin said NO. That has been my position from the start.

The single knit cashmere yarn used to make the linning would make the linning light in weight but the purpose of the linning is to help make the hands warm and to absorbe and sweat from the hands.The fact that he claims that the yars was very thin causes me to belive it was simular to a MICRO FIBER yarn. These small fibers help to make the cloth more flexable than a normal piece of cloth.

Rubin said that the leather was sprayed with FAT LIQUOR to give it more flexability and suppleness and i would agree that is is true
because FAT LIQUOR is a mixture of oil and soap and that this oil
would stay in the gloves for a long time.

Fat liquor- A mixture of oils and soaps which make a leather flexible by lubricating the fibers.

So i do not agree that the oil would dry out unless the gloves were washed in a water bath and there is no proof that this was done.

Also i am assumming that the gloves were stored in a plastic like zip lock bag (by le)which would also keep any moisture in the glove from escapping.

I think the general expected excuse by the prosecution was that the gloves did't fit was because they had shrunk because of the blood found on the glove. However when Rubin had to admit that
the amount of blood on the gloves, about 3 cc, would not cause them to shrink he was left to try to find another reason the gloves did not fit and this is when he tossed out the idea that the gloves were old.

This is nonsense as he had already testified about the quality and durability of the gloves when he agreed with cochran that these gloves were expensive and made to last for more than one season.

I donot believe that Airis would have sold a very high priced glove
that would shrink 10-11% after some wear and i feel sure that Bloomingdales would not have accepted such a inferior product for two reasons
1. The glove would have never passed quality control.
2. Customers would have brought the gloves back to the store.
(That is my experience)

martin II

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by martin II


tazzy hi

I have no idea as to how many gloves oj had in his house. companies gave oj wearing apparel and other items FREE in large quantities just for him to wear them in public.
Oj was worth $10,000,000 so i would guess two three dozen pair
would be expected.

what i think is that all of the gloves oj had a t home were much larger in size than the ones Darden asked him to try on. imo
martin II

Hi Martin,

They had pictures of him wearing other gloves that matched the description of the ones in the house. And, they were a little small. Obviously he liked the tight fit. And, no, the ones at OJ's home were the same size as the one's that Darden asked him to try on.

[martin II]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Hi Martin,

They had pictures of him wearing other gloves that matched the description of the ones in the house. And, they were a little small. Obviously he liked the tight fit. And, no, the ones at OJ's home were the same size as the one's that Darden asked him to try on.

tazzy hi
i was not aware that le took oher gloves from ojs house.

remember
if oj had 5 pair of gloves at his home each made by a different manufacture but all size 12 according to the label . each glove would fit differently in most cases as each manufacture has different specs. for fit.
the label may say 12 but will not fit all 12 hands that is why most people try gloves on before purchasing.

It is like buying shoes. a 9 in one brand is not a 9 in another.
martin II

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by martin II


tazzy hi
i was not aware that le took oher gloves from ojs house.

remember
if oj had 5 pair of gloves at his home each made by a different manufacture but all size 12 according to the label . each glove would fit differently in most cases as each manufacture has different specs. for fit.
the label may say 12 but will not fit all 12 hands that is why most people try gloves on before purchasing.

It is like buying shoes. a 9 in one brand is not a 9 in another.
martin II

Exactly. But, the point is that they are the same size. So, if someone bought the gloves for you.....they would get the size that you wear. The same size that the other gloves are.

[martin II]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Exactly. But, the point is that they are the same size. So, if someone bought the gloves for you.....they would get the size that you wear. The same size that the other gloves are.



Are you saying that all the gloves taken from ojs house were found to all be actually size 12 for oj. i don't know what this means. It is my belief that the Airis glove was different from most other common gloves.

Airis gloves is not that ultra special gloves where i am. they are readily available. The Isotoner made form nylon and leather strrps is popular with people that have arthritis.

I think purchasing gloves as a gift is kinda risky due to the different specs by manufactures. telling a person i wear a size 12 thin fine dress glove is risky

You wopuld have better success when gloves are s m l xl as they are much more loose in their fit.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II




Are you saying that all the gloves taken from ojs house were found to all be actually size 12 for oj. i don't know what this means. It is my belief that the Airis glove was different from most other common gloves.

Airis gloves is not that ultra special gloves where i am. they are readily available. The Isotoner made form nylon and leather strrps is popular with people that have arthritis.

I think purchasing gloves as a gift is kinda risky due to the different specs by manufactures. telling a person i wear a size 12 thin fine dress glove is risky

You wopuld have better success when gloves are s m l xl as they are much more loose in their fit.
martin II



martin II, what does a size 12 glove mean? I never heard of that.

The size of the gloves that the killer wore were extra large.

Rubin testified in his review of Simpson's hands he would wear "between a large in some styles and extra large in other styles."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


Cochran did a good job of nailing Rubin down on whether 3 cc
of liquid on the outter shell of the gloves would cause the gloves to shrink and Rubin said NO. That has been my position from the start.


Rubin said that the leather was sprayed with FAT LIQUOR to give it more flexability and suppleness and i would agree that is is true
because FAT LIQUOR is a mixture of oil and soap and that this oil
would stay in the gloves for a long time.

Fat liquor- A mixture of oils and soaps which make a leather flexible by lubricating the fibers.

So i do not agree that the oil would dry out unless the gloves were washed in a water bath and there is no proof that this was done.

I think the general expected excuse by the prosecution was that the gloves did't fit was because they had shrunk because of the blood found on the glove. However when Rubin had to admit that
the amount of blood on the gloves, about 3 cc, would not cause them to shrink he was left to try to find another reason the gloves did not fit and this is when he tossed out the idea that the gloves were old.

This is nonsense as he had already testified about the quality and durability of the gloves when he agreed with cochran that these gloves were expensive and made to last for more than one season.

martin II



martin II, you may have some experience with gloves, but you have little common sense and can't seem to understand what Rubin said.

The killer's gloves were old gloves. Maybe even the exact gloves that Nicole bought in 1990. Gloves that had been worn many times before. Gloves that most likely had been worn in different inclimate weather probably rain and snow. Gloves that had very likely gotten wet at different times.

Bodziak never agreed that these gloves had only 3 cc's of liquid on them, only that 3 cc's of liquid would not have much of an effect on the gloves. What testimony do you know of that the gloves had only 3 cc's of liquid on them and how that was determined?

Yes Rubin talked about fat liquor. He explained that over time as gloves dry naturally, they can actually come back very close to their original shape, but they will never come back to their original size because once a certain percentage of the fat liquor disappears, the glove loses a little of it's elasticity.

What you martin, can't seem to understand is that gloves do not come back to their original size by simply drying.
After they dry they shrink. They have to be stretched back to come back to their original size or close to their original size.

That's what Rubin did to the gloves in the civil trial.
That's what Simpson DID NOT do to the gloves in the criminal trial.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by bobaugust

After they dry they shrink. They have to be stretched back to come back to their original size or close to their original size.

That's what Rubin did to the gloves in the civil trial.
That's what Simpson DID NOT do to the gloves in the criminal trial.

bobaugust


Correction:

I wrote, "After they dry they shrink."
It should be, "As they dry they shrink."

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, you may have some experience with gloves, but you have little common sense and can't seem to understand what Rubin said.

The killer's gloves were old gloves. Maybe even the exact gloves that Nicole bought in 1990. Gloves that had been worn many times before. Gloves that most likely had been worn in different inclimate weather probably rain and snow. Gloves that had very likely gotten wet at different times.

Bodziak never agreed that these gloves had only 3 cc's of liquid on them, only that 3 cc's of liquid would not have much of an effect on the gloves. What testimony do you know of that the gloves had only 3 cc's of liquid on them and how that was determined?

Yes Rubin talked about fat liquor. He explained that over time as gloves dry naturally, they can actually come back very close to their original shape, but they will never come back to their original size because once a certain percentage of the fat liquor disappears, the glove loses a little of it's elasticity.

What you martin, can't seem to understand is that gloves do not come back to their original size by simply drying.
After they dry they shrink. They have to be stretched back to come back to their original size or close to their original size.

That's what Rubin did to the gloves in the civil trial.
That's what Simpson DID NOT do to the gloves in the criminal trial.

bobaugust

bob

3 cc was a good estimate based on the few droops on the glove.

most anyone would be able to make that estimate from looking
at those few drops.
so no. these drops did not in any way make the glove WET and cause it to shrink, especially since you say oj had worn the gloves
before you think he went to bundy imo

i am sure that i could not have had the sucesses i have had in all my travels without common sense. But then you are only able to recognize common sense when it matches what ever is in your head. imo
martin II

[jotun]

All:
The only thing that really matters. After months of telling us that "these are the killer's gloves".Darden after much broding from the defence,asks to have the 'killer' try them on.But the GLOVES DID'T FIT. That was the turning point of the trial. No EXCUSE, then or now, changes that fact.
THE GLOVES DIDN'T FIT!!!
jotun

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by jotun
All:
The only thing that really matters. After months of telling us that "these are the killer's gloves".Darden after much broding from the defence,asks to have the 'killer' try them on.But the GLOVES DID'T FIT. That was the turning point of the trial. No EXCUSE, then or now, changes that fact.
THE GLOVES DIDN'T FIT!!!
jotun

Get serious! The gloves didn't fit because OJ didn't WANT them to fit! "No EXCUSE, then or now, changes that fact." THE GLOVES DID FIT!

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

Originally posted by jotun
All:
The only thing that really matters. After months of telling us that "these are the killer's gloves".Darden after much broding from the defence,asks to have the 'killer' try them on.But the GLOVES DID'T FIT. That was the turning point of the trial. No EXCUSE, then or now, changes that fact.
THE GLOVES DIDN'T FIT!!!
jotun

jotun

That is the BOTTOM LINE.
THE GLOVE DID NOT FIT IN FRONT OF THE WORLD.

CHECK MATE.

MARTIN ii

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, what does a size 12 glove mean? I never heard of that.

The size of the gloves that the killer wore were extra large.

Rubin testified in his review of Simpson's hands he would wear "between a large in some styles and extra large in other styles."

bobaugust

bob
my mistake x large.
however considering the size of ojs hand(extra wide) he would need a xx large in Aria to fit him. imo
martin II

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust



Big Ben, Cochran didn't want the crime scene photographs of Ron and Nicole shown to the jury again. So he argued that nothing should be shown to the jury at that point referring to the telephone records exhibit as an example for another stipulation that wasn't being shown.

No, Bob. Cochran in spite of his usually cool, urbane manner, had come unglued at this point because of whatever collusion that he and Clark had prior agreed she was now reneging. His voice indicated a sense of outrage that these bloody photos would be shown to the jury.

He was reminding the judge of the quid pro quo sacrafice that the defense had previously made.

Afterall Judge (Ito), we all agreed that we wouldn't show the jury the actual telephone records of Juditha Brown.

In light of all of the irregularities that you want to dismiss as simply coincidences, I believe that the general public, it appears, is becoming more convinced that this was a giant con game on the American people.



MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. I have discussed them with Mr. Simpson and --he understands these stipulations and it's agreeable to him at this point

Truthfully Bob, I've always thought that Simpson looked as if he was utterly drugged-out at the moment that these stipulations were being accepted by his defense counsel. Simpson, was now a man who had capitulated, mentally beaten, knowing full well that he was to be irrevocably, and unreservedly, used completely as a pawn for some major indiscretion unrelated to the death of his wife and her male companion.

Marcia Clark's lapse of memory:

It strikes me as awfully strange that a crucial time and date in a GTE envelope that Marcia Clark waved around on day one of the preliminary hearing in front of the cameras could one week later be forgotten in the judges chambers. Her grandstanding, hyperbolic, conduct became the talk of the news shows during that day & week of 1994. Although Marcia waved the alleged GTE records around in court that day, other than Shapiro, no one else, including the media was given access to them. So I believe that Shapiro saw what he was unwittingly prepared to stipulate to, 10:17 PM.

I believe that initially Shapiro, not unlike Dr. Irwin Golden, was uncomfortable with participating in a conspiracy and it shows in his low keyed inaudible offer of stipulation of the 9:37 PM phone call on Feb. 7, 1995.

[Big Ben]

Originally posted by goatgirl


Hi BB

I guess you didnt have a chance to read what was in the file?


Thxs ~~GoatGirl~~

No, but we were following up on drug allegations concerning drug trafficking at the Cheviot Hills Tennis Club. Many allegations, alleged photos, alleged loss of the tennis instructor's job. However, everyone too afraid to speak on the record. So we asked our court house contacts to check on subjects criminal record.

The criminal docket sheet, before 4 different judges, repeated reckless driving arrests, repeated failure to show in court for arraignment, $16 thousand in arrest warrants for one case over 3 years, open arrest warrants at the time of death, no jail time, are all things to make one curious about reading the actual criminal file.

are you certain this file belongs to the same Ron Goldman?

Same middle name: Lyle

Same birth date as the decedent
Ronald Lyle Goldman

Same Agoura Hills, CA place of residence as the Goldman family

Same blanket gross misdeameanors on docket sheet as alleged in Frederic's deposition.

4 out of 4! I'd be willing to gamble on it!

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by limakey
Kate,

There is no evidence that OJ and Nicole exchanged any angry words that night. When OJ called to speak to Sydney, Nicole and him never exchanged a word, she just gave the phone to Sydney.

I have no doubt that both OJ and Nicole could use ugly words to each other. I think both of them knew how to make the other "pay" and it had nothing to do with physical harm.

Kate, because of Faye and Cora, we know the "best friend" was Faye. Yet, why is Dr. Ameli giving testimony that Nicole was terrified with her on the phone. Faye has Nicole laughing and giggling and totally upbeat about her future without OJ, Dr. Ameli has her terrified for her life, and tells her to call a friend to stay with her and Sydney has her crying and fighting with her best friend.

It wasn't OJ Simpson that had Nicole terrified. IMO, Nicole talked to her mother, made arrangements for the glasses, got at least two very upsetting phone calls, yet still lit candles, ran a bath? It makes no sense.

I can see Nicole letting her guard down, she knew when OJ was leaving for Chicago, she knew his travel routine. Why would she let her guard down, knowing that was the night she knew he was going to make her pay?

It just makes no sense. IMO.

I don't believe she knew that night was the night he was going to "make her pay". I say this based on the fact that several individuals have stated that Nicole had stated many times that OJ would kill her. According to Ncole's diary, OJ has threatened her before. I believe she thought that she was indeed safe that night becuase OJ was leaving town.

Do you know for a fact that OJ and Nicole did not exchange words when he called to speak with Sydney? I am aware that is what OJ says, but I certainly don't take his word as the truth, especially due to the fact that there would be issues if he did indeed state that he exchanged ugly words with his ex-wife the same night she ended up dead. So, do you know for a fact that no words were exchanged?

Kate

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Big Ben
[QUOTE]

No, Bob. Cochran in spite of his usually cool, urbane manner, had come unglued at this point because of whatever collusion that he and Clark had prior agreed she was now reneging. His voice indicated a sense of outrage that these bloody photos would be shown to the jury.

He was reminding the judge of the quid pro quo sacrafice that the defense had previously made.

Afterall Judge (Ito), we all agreed that we wouldn't show the jury the actual telephone records of Juditha Brown.

Truthfully Bob, I've always thought that Simpson looked as if he was utterly drugged-out at the moment that these stipulations were being accepted by his defense counsel. Simpson, was now a man who had capitulated, mentally beaten, knowing full well that he was to be irrevocably, and unreservedly, used completely as a pawn for some major indiscretion unrelated to the death of his wife and her male companion.

It strikes me as awfully strange that a crucial time and date in a GTE envelope that Marcia Clark waved around on day one of the preliminary hearing in front of the cameras could one week later be forgotten in the judges chambers. Her grandstanding, hyperbolic, conduct became the talk of the news shows during that day & week of 1994. Although Marcia waved the alleged GTE records around in court that day, other than Shapiro, no one else, including the media was given access to them. So I believe that Shapiro saw what he was unwittingly prepared to stipulate to, 10:17 PM.

I believe that initially Shapiro, not unlike Dr. Irwin Golden, was uncomfortable with participating in a conspiracy and it shows in his low keyed inaudible offer of stipulation of the 9:37 PM phone call on Feb. 7, 1995.


Big Ben, you imagine conspiracies everywhere. Cochran and Clark conspiring. Judge Ito conspiring.

You wrote, "He (Cochran) was reminding the judge of the quid pro quo sacrifice that the defense had previously made. After all Judge (Ito), we all agreed that we wouldn't show the jury the actual telephone records of Juditha Brown."

Johnnie Cochran didn't say those words. You made them up. This is only your interpretation of what you imagine Cochran's real words meant after you took them out of context in which they were said. Your tactics are not only unethical the results of your distorted interpretation have absolutely no credibility.

Where is the evidence of a quid pro quo sacrifice that you imagine was made? What do you think Cochran or Simpson gained by not showing the the jury the actual telephone records of Juditha Brown? And if Clark reneged on this supposed collusion, why didn't Cochran request the jury be shown the telephone records?

You can't dispute the fact that Simpson agreed so once again you imagine a fantasy about Simpson capitulating to be a pawn in some kind of a conspiracy to hide some sort of a "major indiscretion" unrelated to the murders as an excuse for his agreement. That's so pathetic.

Simpson had no choice but to agree because he and his attorneys all knew that his and the Brown's telephone records were authentic. If Cochran had not agreed to Clark's stipulations the prosecution would have simply taken more court time to call Juditha Brown as well as other witnesses to authenticate the telephone records and the crime scene photographs. Cochran wanted the prosecutors to rest their case so he could start his, not waste and unknown amount of time where he nothing to gain.

It's not so strange that the 10:17 PM time was forgotten since that time was never on the Brown's telephone bill. Shapiro simply made a mistake. Shapiro and Dr. Golden involved in conspiracies? Wow, more paranoid fantasies from you. I hate to tell you Big Ben, but you have some very serious problems regarding reality.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
my mistake x large.
however considering the size of ojs hand(extra wide) he would need a xx large in Aria to fit him. imo
martin II


martin II, your opinion about what size Simpson might wear of some other kind of glove is meaningless.

Rubin the real expert who was responsible for the manufacturing of the killer's gloves testified that he believed Simpson's hand size was between a large and extra large. The killer's gloves were size extra large but Rubin testified that when Simpson tried them on they were closer to a size large than an extra large.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Kate,

I do agree with you that a person's anger can often surpass their fear---but this usually happens with a person they know, they know very well. Yes, I believe that Nicole, like a lot of people, including myself can be so angry that the only thing that comes out is tears. I understand that.

However, IMO, if anyone truly believes that Nicole's tears that night were those of anger against OJ Simpson is making a big mistake. Don't forget, Nicole's shrink said she called Nicole that night, that Nicole was very upset and knew that OJ would not let her get away with what she did to him that night--not inviting him to dinner. It was this doctor, her shrink who totally believed Nicole and then told Nicole to call a friend to sit with her. Does that make sense to you?

I have always believed Sydney was the key witness, for both sides. I couldn't understand why neither side wanted her take the stand when she could have been the "case over" witness. Then it just occurred to me, that if we the public had heard what was reported what Sydney had heard that night, had she testified, even in camera before the judge alone, her testimony still would have been entered into the record somehow. So what does that tell us, if her recollections of that night clear her father of the murders, then the murderers know that they left behind a witness who could put them behind bars--or worse.

It is also clear to me that if the statements that have been written about what Sydney had said and the words people used to say this best friend was OJ Simpson, then IMO, Sydney did go to her mother, she did hear what she thought she heard and it was not her father. If it was her father, then I agree with anyone that the fight that had on the phone could have been the trigger. However, we know it wasn't because of what people have testified to later. So who was Nicole fighting with on the phone? Who was on the other end of the phone when Nicole was crying? Many people assumed that Nicole both cried and was fighting with the best friend---but we know that Nicole got two other phone calls that night. Maybe she was fighting with Faye and crying with Dr. Ameli?

[limakey]

Mr. August,

If you read my post to Kate about Sydney and the telephone debate of that night, even you might see a very good reason on why the Browns', still to this day refuse to let anyone see the phone records.

For the longest time, I couldn't understand how this issue was still an issue when it could so easily answer the question. I couldn't understand why Bill Hodgeman did what he did, why OJ's lawyers didn't go after them----it could have been to protect at least one person---Sydney.

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, your opinion about what size Simpson might wear of some other kind of glove is meaningless.

Rubin the real expert who was responsible for the manufacturing of the killer's gloves testified that he believed Simpson's hand size was between a large and extra large. The killer's gloves were size extra large but Rubin testified that when Simpson tried them on they were closer to a size large than an extra large.

bobaugust

bob
rubin was trying as hard as he could the help the prosecution.
He was either wrong in his estimate or he told a lie.
Remember his focus was making sure he got a invitaiton to the planned prosecution victory party.imo

martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
rubin was trying as hard as he could the help the prosecution.
He was either wrong in his estimate or he told a lie.
Remember his focus was making sure he got a invitaiton to the planned prosecution victory party.imo

martin II


martin II, Rubin answered every question from both sides honestly.

Rubin was not wrong nor did he lie. Rubin measured the gloves and reviewed Simpson's hands. He knew what he was talking about. You didn't do any of those things and you don't know what you're taking about.

Your make false accusations of lying about every witness who testified to facts that contradict your fantasies. Rubin had great credentials and credibility. You have neither.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by limakey

<snipped>

...So who was Nicole fighting with on the phone? Who was on the other end of the phone when Nicole was crying? Many people assumed that Nicole both cried and was fighting with the best friend---but we know that Nicole got two other phone calls that night. Maybe she was fighting with Faye and crying with Dr. Ameli?
I am still of the opinion that it was OJ. You obviously don't want to consider my opinion because it is not the opinion that you want to hear because it doesn't fit in with your unrealistic theory of that infamous telephone call at 9:00 p.m.

Maybe, just maybe, you can get Kate to agree to your opinion that it was someone other than OJ. And that's your perrogative!

JMO and MOO!!

[limakey]

2Late,

I do realize you believe that it was OJ Simpson, however, I don't think you have ever posted on why you think that Faye Resnick is not telling the truth about this?

Why would she say that it was her and Nicole was not crying, she was giggling? And why would Dr. Ameli lie?

I also think that it is very significant that Denise Brown, on the Geraldo show said that Nicole often referred to "the best friend" when she didn't want the kids to know---then later had to say it wasn't Simpson.

There can only be two reasons why she had to back away from this. The first being that Sydney had to be close enough to her mother to hear and/or see her mother's reaction to this phone call and second---she asked her mother about it. And if the answer wasn't OJ Simpson, then who was it?

In a side bar, Johnnie Cochran started to asked Lange about this, then at the bench, Clark said that he couldn't bring that up because it was what Sydney said and heard. Cochran then told he would put Sydney on the stand and Clark said that OJ would never allow you to put her on the stand---she was right.

BTW, I always consider your opinons. I just happen to believe differently and explained why.

[limakey]

How much blood was found on each glove? Was one found laying in a pool of blood? Did the DA's say that the gloves did shrink because of the amount of blood on them?

And weren't these gloves measured? That no one in the CSI thougt to measure them when they were documented in the case files?

And who turned the gloves inside out?

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by limakey

2Late,

I do realize you believe that it was OJ Simpson, however, I don't think you have ever posted on why you think that Faye Resnick is not telling the truth about this?

I don't think that Faye Resnick is credible, even to this day. I see her as a Player, User and Taker, not a Giver. She was supposed to be a good friend of Nicole's, but sold her and their friendship out with her book!

Why would she say that it was her and Nicole was not crying, she was giggling? And why would Dr. Ameli lie?

Nicole and Faye did talk that evening and even though I don't think that Faye is credible, I think she was telling the truth when she said that "Nicole was not crying, she was giggling!"

I have never posted that Dr. Ameli was lying.

I also think that it is very significant that Denise Brown, on the Geraldo show said that Nicole often referred to "the best friend" when she didn't want the kids to know---then later had to say it wasn't Simpson.

I know nothing of this Geraldo show interview. You would have to supply me with a link or something before I would change my opinion. Nicole was astute and I am sure that she tried to keep the problems that she was having with OJ away from the kids. Thus, the reference of "It's Mommie's Best Friend" or however she put it to the kids.

There can only be two reasons why she had to back away from this. The first being that Sydney had to be close enough to her mother to hear and/or see her mother's reaction to this phone call and second---she asked her mother about it. And if the answer wasn't OJ Simpson, then who was it?

Didn't we just go over this in a previous post? I still stand by my answer to this question as I stated in our previous post.

<snipped>
JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, Rubin answered every question from both sides honestly.

Rubin was not wrong nor did he lie. Rubin measured the gloves and reviewed Simpson's hands. He knew what he was talking about. You didn't do any of those things and you don't know what you're taking about.

Your make false accusations of lying about every witness who testified to facts that contradict your fantasies. Rubin had great credentials and credibility. You have neither.

bobaugust

bob

well Rubin said that the estimated amount of blood on thr gloves
, about 3 cc, would NOT cause the gloves to shrink and since there is no proof that the gloves were washed in water. This leads you to make the claim that, well, the gloves were old and they shrunk. imo

Rubin was baught by the prosecution to present a highly unlikely
reason as to why the gloves DID NOT FIT .
oj with his WIDE HANDS, would have needed a xx large in this glove to make it fit, if there was such a thing.imo

It is ironic that the DA'S expirement ,Darden, taking the lead from Rubin turned out to be a major body blow to the prosecution
as darden made a hugh mistake as far as lawyering is concerned.

Never ask a question or conduct a demostration if you are not positive of the answer/results.

martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

well Rubin said that the estimated amount of blood on thr gloves
, about 3 cc, would NOT cause the gloves to shrink and since there is no proof that the gloves were washed in water. This leads you to make the claim that, well, the gloves were old and they shrunk. imo

Rubin was baught by the prosecution to present a highly unlikely
reason as to why the gloves DID NOT FIT .
oj with his WIDE HANDS, would have needed a xx large in this glove to make it fit, if there was such a thing.imo

It is ironic that the DA'S expirement ,Darden, taking the lead from Rubin turned out to be a major body blow to the prosecution
as darden made a hugh mistake as far as lawyering is concerned.

Never ask a question or conduct a demostration if you are not positive of the answer/results.

martin II

bob
correction

it was cochran that asked rubin if 3 cc of blood would make the gloves shrink and rubin said NO
MARTINii

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, the Aris gloves didn't have a cloth lining, they had a cashmere lining.

The fact is that Richard Rubin the real Aris Isotoner glove expert testified that he believed the gloves fit Simpson. with a poor quality of fit, but they fit. Rubin explained why they were a poor fit. As Rubin testified he was allowed to put his hands in the gloves. He refurbished the gloves, warming and stretching the gloves back to close to their original size. Simpson wouldn't go near the gloves after that.

November 6, 1995
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Have you seen those gloves prior to today, Mr. Rubin?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And you saw them over a year ago, actually, in Mr. Simpson's criminal trial; is that correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you have an opportunity at that time to measure the length of those gloves?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You measured those gloves at this time. What was the length of the gloves when you measured them, if you recall?
A. Nine and three-eighths inches long.
Q. Approximately an inch less than the standard length?
A. Approximately.
Q. What percent is smaller than the standard extra large would that have made them at this time?
A. Between 10 and 11 percent.
Q. And what would you attribute, or could you attribute that differential of the 10 or 11 percent to anything?
THE WITNESS: Combination of normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage.
*

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Were you able to -- You actually saw him conduct that demonstration himself, where he did put the gloves on; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And did you form an opinion, yourself, as to whether or not the gloves fit?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what was your opinion on that?
A. They fit with a poor quality of fit, but they fit.
*

Q. And do you have an opinion as to what would have caused them to be that one inch shorter in the wrist?"
Were there any factors you take into consideration?
A. The first factor was that the gloves were actually one inch shorter than standard --
Q. Okay?
A. -- in a north/south position. The second factor was that there was a requirement to utilize latex linings over the hands prior to putting the gloves on.
Q. You mean in simple terms, Mr. Simpson had latex gloves on; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay.
A. And the third issue was that the actual overall condition of the gloves, being crumbled up quite a bit and not straightened out, I would call it refurbished. It's really just they hadn't been used in a long, long time.

bobaugust

Simpson tried the gloves on in the condition that they were allegedly found. Why would he try them after they had been refurbished/manipulated by the prosecution's expert? I do not believe the court would have allowed him to try the fitting experiment again.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Get serious! The gloves didn't fit because OJ didn't WANT them to fit! "No EXCUSE, then or now, changes that fact." THE GLOVES DID FIT!

JMO and MOO!!

The glove only fit in the mind of those who, like Rubin had an agenda, imho.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Hi Martin,

They had pictures of him wearing other gloves that matched the description of the ones in the house. And, they were a little small. Obviously he liked the tight fit. And, no, the ones at OJ's home were the same size as the one's that Darden asked him to try on.

I guess they would not fit or belong to anyone in the house, because they did not fit.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, wrong. My whole argument is not based on these gloves getting wet.

The liquid blood and moisture from possible sweating was only one factor that contributed to their reduced size. After blood was taken off the gloves they laid in evidence drying out for about a year until the glove demonstration in the criminal trial. The gloves were smaller based on a "combination of normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage."

When Simpson tried them on they were smaller than they were when new. Even when new they had to be stretched to fit properly. Simpson not only had latex gloves on his hands he never pulled the gloves or attempted to stretch them because he didn't want them to look like they fit.

The gloves sat in evidence again for about another year and half before Rubin got them. They hadn't been stretched, they hadn't been warmed or worn. Rubin measured them. He found the gloves to measure nine and three-eights inches long. Approximately an inch less than the standard length. Between 10 and 11 percent smaller than the standard.

Rubin was given permission to put his bare hands in the gloves. As he testified Rubin continued to work the dried up bloody gloves right there on the witness stand, just sitting there idly refurbishing them. This went on for a while, until he had a pair of nicely warmed and pliable gloves in hand before Baker made him take them off. Gloves that were once again close to their original size. Simpson wasn't going to be wearing them at this trial.

bobaugust

Your whole on argument is based on the fact that it rained or snowed in LA on the night of the murders or that the forked tongued prevaricating admitted evidence tampering, planting, fabricating, interracial couple hating the MF dropped them in water.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


Simpson tried the gloves on in the condition that they were allegedly found. Why would he try them after they had been refurbished/manipulated by the prosecution's expert? I do not believe the court would have allowed him to try the fitting experiment again.


The criminal defense claimed that since the gloves were too small for Simpson when he tried them on that means the gloves weren't his. Richard Rubin explained why the gloves were smaller than their original size when Simpson tried them on over latex gloves and the gloves were the size gloves Simpson would normally wear.

In the civil trial the judge allowed Simpson to try the gloves on again if the defense so wished. But after Rubin refurbished the gloves back to close their original size Simpson's attorneys decided to play the criminal trial glove demonstration tape instead. Simpson's attorneys saw that the gloves would now fit Simpson better if he were to try them on again.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by William Anthony


Your whole on argument is based on the fact that it rained or snowed in LA on the night of the murders or that the forked tongued prevaricating admitted evidence tampering, planting, fabricating, interracial couple hating the MF dropped them in water.



No Mr. Don King, my whole argument is based on Richard Rubin's testimony.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob
Again

1. There is no proof that these gloves got wet.
2. Rubin, your expert said that 3cc on liquid would not shrink
these gloves at all.
3. As i have told you before, the cashmere linning inside the
gloves would absorbe any sweat from the hand if there was
any at all. The temp in la on the night of 6/12 was 63 degrees
F.
4. 3 cc is the estimate amount of blood found on the gloves.


You say these things PROBABLY happened. (gloves got wet etc)Probably is not proof.

Rubin sat on the stand playing 'I CAN STREATCH YOU, YOU SOB"
With the gloves to try to trick the jury that he was doing something scientific and smart. As THE PLAINTIFF knew that there was no plan for oj to try these gloves on AGAIN.
IMO
Martin II
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




No Mr. Don King, my whole argument is based on Richard Rubin's testimony.

bobaugust

bob

again
It seems that you are trying to infere that there is something negative about Mr Don King.
Whats up with that. Can you explain what this is all about?
Martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by William Anthony


Simpson tried the gloves on in the condition that they were allegedly found. Why would he try them after they had been refurbished/manipulated by the prosecution's expert? I do not believe the court would have allowed him to try the fitting experiment again.

william
Thanks for that data point i had missed.
bob belives that the judge would have allowed oj to do a experiment using 'EVIDENCE' that had been manipulated, touched or changed by Mr. "what time does the party start" Rubin

Another Issue;

Rubin was a ex employee of Aris when he testified. I am not sure
that Airis gave him permission to testify about how their product shrinks 11%. He may have been testifying on his own. imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

If you read my post to Kate about Sydney and the telephone debate of that night, even you might see a very good reason on why the Browns', still to this day refuse to let anyone see the phone records.




limakey, the Brown's telephone records were presented in open court in the preliminary hearing and given to the defense. An enlarged photo copy of the Brown's telephone bill showing all the calls for the days of June 10 to June 13 was a prosecution exhibit used in the criminal trial and shown to the jury.

Simpson's attorneys agreed by stipulation that the times shown on that telephone bill were accurate. A copy of that exhibit was and is available on the internet.

There is no reason why the Brown's should release their original telephone records and dignify the false claims some delusional people have made. Not one of Simpson's defense attorneys from either of his trials has ever supported any of those claims or requested the Brown's to release their records. So why should they?

What you think Sydney supposedly said regarding the events that happened that night is pure speculation and rumor, not fact.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob
Again

1. There is no proof that these gloves got wet.
2. Rubin, your expert said that 3cc on liquid would not shrink
these gloves at all.
3. As i have told you before, the cashmere linning inside the
gloves would absorbe any sweat from the hand if there was
any at all. The temp in la on the night of 6/12 was 63 degrees
F.
4. 3 cc is the estimate amount of blood found on the gloves.

Rubin sat on the stand playing 'I CAN STREATCH YOU, YOU SOB"
With the gloves to try to trick the jury that he was doing something scientific and smart. As THE PLAINTIFF knew that there was no plan for oj to try these gloves on AGAIN.
IMO
Martin II



martin II, and you can't seem to comprehend that not one you numbered comments mean anything as to why the gloves didn't fit Simpson properly.

The fact is that the killer's gloves were the exact same kind and size gloves that Simpson previously wore.
The fact is that all of the blood and trace evidence found on those gloves point to Simpson.
The fact is that Simpson only made it look like the gloves didn't fit him. They did.

As to the Petrocelli knowing that their was no plan for the defense to try them on again, how do you know that?
The fact is that Petrocelli anticipated what the defense may have wanted to do and to prevent any stunts in front of the jury he requested if Simpson were to try the gloves on that their should be no latex gloves underneath that would distort the fit. The judge agreed. Anticipating what Baker would do after that Petrocelli asked the judge to prevent the showing of the glove demonstration from the criminal trial. Judge Fujisaki would not bar the defense from playing the video but he made them delete the sound.

The defense had the option of letting Simpson try on the gloves but after seeing that Rubin refurbished them so they were no close to their original size, Baker decided to play the tape without the grunting an groaning from Simpson.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

again
It seems that you are trying to infere that there is something negative about Mr Don King.
Whats up with that. Can you explain what this is all about?
Martin II


martin II, some of the words William Anthony uses to describe Fuhrman are based on false information and not true. His method of repeating these false descriptions when ever he uses Fuhrman's name sounds like how Don King talks. It's funny.

I'm only complementing William Anthony. Why do you infer something negative?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


william
Thanks for that data point i had missed.
bob belives that the judge would have allowed oj to do a experiment using 'EVIDENCE' that had been manipulated, touched or changed by Mr. "what time does the party start" Rubin





martin Ii, of course the judge would have allowed Simpson to put the gloves on after Rubin finished refurbishing them.

Rubin didn't change the gloves he only brought them back to the original size that they would have been before the murders. The defense claimed that they weren't Simpson's because they didn't fit. That argument was false. The fact is that the gloves were Simpson's size and that in their original condition before the murders they did fit him very well.

bobaugust

[goatgirl]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by limakey
[B]

*Snip*


Don't forget, Nicole's shrink said she called Nicole that night, that Nicole was very upset and knew that OJ would not let her get away with what she did to him that night--not inviting him to dinner. It was this doctor, her shrink who totally believed Nicole and then told Nicole to call a friend to sit with her. Does that make sense to you?

Hi Limakey

I never heard about this conversation w/ the Dr. before!
what time did they talk?

Thanks GoatGirl
:seeya:

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin Ii, of course the judge would have allowed Simpson to put the gloves on after Rubin finished refurbishing them.

Rubin didn't change the gloves he only brought them back to the original size that they would have been before the murders. The defense claimed that they weren't Simpson's because they didn't fit. That argument was false. The fact is that the gloves were Simpson's size and that in their original condition before the murders they did fit him very well.

bobaugust

bob


"martin Ii, of course the judge would have allowed Simpson to put the gloves on after Rubin finished refurbishing them."


Now you know that is not true. you must be kidding.



There is absolutely no way that Rubin knew what size those gloves were before the murders.

There is no way to know if all of the size xlarge gloves were the exact same size in inches. lenght is not the only measurement to be considered when determining what size hand will fit a particular glove. imo
martin ii