Evidence that Places OJ Simpson at the Crime Scene [Archive] - Page 4

bobaugust

11-23-2006, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by martin II
bob
Above is the picture of the gloves taken from about 2-3 feet.
They look like regular black leather gloves to me that one could buy from a local flea market or Macys.

no way to tell if they were Aris because there is no logo identifying them.
martin II

martin II, thanks for the link, the picture shows how Simpson splayed his hands like a two year old to keep the gloves from being pulled down over his fingers. About the only people he fooled that these gloves didn't fit him were people who wanted to be fooled.

The photograph on this web page is made from a video tape and then reproduced on a web page. It's quality can't be compared to an original photograph taken by a still camera. Of course the gloves look like any kind of gloves to you because you are not an expert about Aris gloves and know nothing about them. Rubin was and he could tell from the stitching what kind of Aris gloves they were looking at original photographs taken at different football games.

Chris Darden wrote about Simpson trying on the gloves.
In Contempt,
"He was bull****ting and I hoped everyone could see that, hoped the jury could see it. But as I glanced quickly around the courtroom, I saw that everyone else was staring at his hands and not his face.

At First, his eyebrows were arched and his mouth set, nervous, like someone about to dive off a bridge. Then he broke into a weird, relieved smile, unlike any I'd seen in any of the old football footage or any of his movies, a smile that I think was close to the real O.J. Simpson as I'd ever seen, as he'd surprised even himself.

(My God, I'm getting away with it.)"

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-23-2006, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by martin II

bob

Rubin said he determined the SIZE of the glove by mearurung from the top of the glove to the tip of the finger and i think he said it was
9 1/2 or 9 3/4 inch long

martin II, the bloody gloves size was extra large. That's the point. The duplicate gloves were the same size the bloody gloves were when they were new, not the measured size of the bloody gloves after the murders since they were smaller based on a combination of normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage.

They had to be stretched on Simpson's fingers to fit the way they originally fit him before the murders.

Rubin said 9 3/8" long.

bobaugust

martin II

11-23-2006, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

martin II, the bloody gloves size was extra large. That's the point. The duplicate gloves were the same size the bloody gloves were when they were new, not the measured size of the bloody gloves after the murders since they were smaller based on a combination of normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage.

They had to be stretched on Simpson's fingers to fit the way they originally fit him before the murders.

Rubin said 9 3/8" long.

bobaugust

bob

it does not matter what size the gloves were. if that ex large did not fit then they were too small for oj wide hands
do you believe that one can tell if a goove can fit a particular hand by measuring from top to tip of the finger as rubin did.

martin II

bobaugust

11-23-2006, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by martin II

bob

it does not matter what size the gloves were. if that ex large did not fit then they were too small for oj wide hands
do you believe that one can tell if a goove can fit a particular hand by measuring from top to tip of the finger as rubin did.

martin II

martin II, Rubin didn't measure the gloves to see if they would fit Simpson, he measured them to see how much they had shrunk compared to the standard size they were manufactured.

The bloody gloves were extra large. That was Simpson's size. If he had pulled the bloody gloves stretching them on his fingers they would have fit him better despite the latex gloves he was wearing.

It's very simple, if Simpson's life had depended on the gloves fitting him, they would have fit him. If in this case he didn't want them to look like they fit him, he made it look like they didn't fit him by doing nothing to make them fit. Only very gullible people can't seem to understand this.

bobaugust

martin II

11-24-2006, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

martin II, Rubin didn't measure the gloves to see if they would fit Simpson, he measured them to see how much they had shrunk compared to the standard size they were manufactured.

The bloody gloves were extra large. That was Simpson's size. If he had pulled the bloody gloves stretching them on his fingers they would have fit him better despite the latex gloves he was wearing.

It's very simple, if Simpson's life had depended on the gloves fitting him, they would have fit him. If in this case he didn't want them to look like they fit him, he made it look like they didn't fit him by doing nothing to make them fit. Only very gullible people can't seem to understand this.

bobaugust

bob
the problem with your theory is that there was no proof that OJ would wear size Extra Large in those Airis gloves. He may have worn extra large in some OTHER gloves but it was not proven that he wore extra large in THAT AIRIS glove.

oj jad a very wide HAND (palm area) i think it was wider than the normal hand. This area ,palm, is important in a hand being able to fit a glove.imo

http://www.leatherglovesonline.com/pages2/sizes.htmYour

how to measure a hand for gloves.

martin II

bob
the link seems not to work so here are instructions

To find out your glove size, measure (in inches) around your hand with a tape measure at the place indicated by the red line (just below the knuckles). You should use your dominant hand, the right if you are right-handed, and the left if you are left-handed.

martin II

11-24-2006, 09:11 AM

try the link again

http://www.leatherglovesonline.com/pages2/sizes.htm

this one is good

martin II

bobaugust

11-24-2006, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by martin II

bob
the problem with your theory is that there was no proof that OJ would wear size Extra Large in those Airis gloves. He may have worn extra large in some OTHER gloves but it was not proven that he wore extra large in THAT AIRIS glove.

martin II, This is not my theory, this is what Rubin testified to. Rubin testified that he reviewed Simpson's hands and that Simpson would wear between a large in some styles and an extra large in other styles.

The bloody gloves were an extra large. If Simpson wore only a large in those gloves than he would have had no problem putting on a size extra large that had shrunk to a large.

bobaugust

jotun

11-24-2006, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by martin II
i was wondering what event took place to cause so much of this anger from furhman towards Vanhatter/lang and then towards Furhman.
martin II

Martin,
Simple.PLANTING!!!
Vanatter and Lange know
Fuhrman planted the glove.Fuhrman and Lange know Vanatter planted the blood on the sock.As do we.They all know, as do we, that the swatches were switched. They all know it was a drug hit and that Ron was a drug dealer.Had been since he was a teen.As do we.It's not anger but FEAR.

jotun

martin II

11-24-2006, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

martin II, This is not my theory, this is what Rubin testified to. Rubin testified that he reviewed Simpson's hands and that Simpson would wear between a large in some styles and an extra large in other styles.

The bloody gloves were an extra large. If Simpson wore only a large in those gloves than he would have had no problem putting on a size extra large that had shrunk to a large.

bobaugust

bob you miss the point.

oj had very large hands(palms) larger than most people so the airs fine leather gloves were made for people with normal size hands for each size. normal size large normal size ex large etc.

Ojs hand were larger than Aris size exlarge. Therefore when he tried to put the murder gloves on, his very large PALMS would not
allow his fingers to get into place in those little fine leather Aris dress gloves made for average normal size hands imo

martin II

Rubin may have examined ojs hands but he obviously did not understand the size of ojs very large PALMS.

jotun

11-24-2006, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

jotun, the fact is

There was no 11:00

We know the times of those calls from Karen Crawford

The fact is that both Ron and Nicole were dead before 11:00 PM. That's reality.

bobaugust

All,
Once again ba trots out one of his top 10 EXCUSES of why the evidence doesn't fit.That he posts over and over and over.Who is he trying to convince US or THEM or himself?

Karen Crawford-the undercover COP.
Most likely a male or 2 also.Mezzuluna was a cover for drugs.They would sell them and hand them over in a doggie-bag.

Maybe not 11 but certainly 10:47.
Remember the clock hadn't been set ahead for DST
so 9:47 was now 10:47. That's why the "record" was obviously faked.Why not bring in someone from the telephone company to verify?.Like was done for the 89 incident.
Because nobody would LIE about it for them.So Ron couldn't have left until 10:50.
Not enough time to get home, eat, change and get himself to Bundy to get killed by O.J. before 11.Who would have had no time being seen by Park at 10:54.

Nicole certainly didn't have much time to get killed with a 10:47 phone call, before 11. O.J.certainly had no time to kill her and get back before being seen at 10:54. Takes at least 6 minutes to drive from Bundy to Rockingham.
Vanatter drove it showed the jury the tape with no objection by the defence.And how long for a novice kill.with 2 fighting victims. Defensive wounds on Nicole"s and Ron's hands.Look at the autospy report.

O.J. IS INNOCENT.

jotun

Wukong

11-24-2006, 11:54 PM

Jotun,

So if Nicole wasn't killed until after 11:00, then I guess she just left the Akita roam the streets barking his head off for an hour and a half without trying to get him in the house? Doesn't make sense, just like your "theory".

jotun

11-25-2006, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

jotun,
speak to Johnnie about this
We couldn't make the connection. The viewers became mad when the film got to the part with Johnnie saying 'we're not going to show the jury the phone records'. A few important people who were there knew Cochran and vowed to confront him about the phone records remark, however, a short while after it was announced that he had brain cancer, further removing him, and finally he was dead.

and that's what I believe that Johnnie C. was trying to tell the court conspirators. In essence, he appeared to be saying: (paraphrasing) 'come on people, remember our unholy alliance, we agreed that we would have honor amongst thieves, and now the prosecution is betraying that committment'.

I'd encourage you to analyze the Serpents Rising clip on YouTube that shows Johnnie C. slipping up in making this remark in July/1995

Big Ben,
I have been upset about the phone records since I first heard about them.

[Also about the Grand Jury that was NOT going to indite O.J. when Shapiro, Dershowitz and Ulleman got it dismissed.Went to a judge instead of 22 jurors.]

Johnnie was in town for another book signing soon after.Had met him at his 1st.That's the question I had for him.'WHY AREN'T YOU HELPING O.J. WITH THESE PHONE RECORDS"????? Was not going to leave without a satifactory answer.Watched every minute of that trial.Johnnie was my barometer.So knew all his dodges etc. Unfortunally didn't get to go. Sorry!!! For O.J. his kids,for me and you and your brother Doc.

Makes me mad also.
Still I find it hard to believe that Johnnie would enter into a 'unholy alliance' against O.J.Darden was so insulted that Johnnie CHOSE O.J.over him.Do believe it of Shapiro tho. Remember Marcia waving those records and never producing them.Imagine. 'You don't want this to end do you Bob?" "NOOOOOOOO." They ignored each other from then on.

I can't get the youtube.
Had been rereading
'Double Crossed for Blood' before all this 'IF I DID IT" came up.

jotun

2L8 4A D8

11-25-2006, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by jotun

Martin,
Simple.PLANTING!!!
Vanatter and Lange know
Fuhrman planted the glove.Fuhrman and Lange know Vanatter planted the blood on the sock.As do we.They all know, as do we, that the swatches were switched. They all know it was a drug hit and that Ron was a drug dealer.Had been since he was a teen.As do we.It's not anger but FEAR.

jotun
You cannot substantiate any of the above whatsoever! It is just another delusional post of yours in a long, long line of ridiculous and assinine theories that you continue to post ~ ad nauseum! Spare us, please!

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

11-25-2006, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by martin II

bob you miss the point.

oj had very large hands(palms) larger than most people so the airs fine leather gloves were made for people with normal size hands for each size. normal size large normal size ex large etc.

Ojs hand were larger than Aris size exlarge. Therefore when he tried to put the murder gloves on, his very large PALMS would not
allow his fingers to get into place in those little fine leather Aris dress gloves made for average normal size hands imo

martin II

Rubin may have examined ojs hands but he obviously did not understand the size of ojs very large PALMS.

martin II, your the one who doesn't understand about Simpson's wide palms, not Rubin.

Triumph of Justice,
"Simpson, he (Rubin) 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."

"He looked at the cutter number on each and verified that they were mates. They were a fit, he said, but they were 'one inch short in the wrist.'"

As to you ridiculous comment that these gloves were not made for people like Simpson and that's why he couldn't get his fingers into them only shows again you have no idea what you're talking about. The many photographs of Simpson wearing the exact kind of gloves, Aris Leather Lights, contradicts your false uninformed beliefs. Photographs that showed the gloves fit on Simpson's fingers just fine but looked a little short on his wrist. That was because of his extra wide palms.

bobaugust

martin II

11-25-2006, 10:58 AM

bob

if you have ANY picture of oj wearing the murder gloves SHOW IT NOW or stop making up stuff about it and expect people to belive it.imo
martin II

socaldiva

11-25-2006, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by martin II
bob

if you have ANY picture of oj wearing the murder gloves SHOW IT NOW or stop making up stuff about it and expect people to belive it.imo
martin II

OMG give it up! There were muliple pictures of Simpson wearing the Aris gloves.

William Anthony

11-25-2006, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

I'm really disappointed in this comment from you.

Christopher Darden stated in his book, and has held firm, that his decision regarding the "glove demonstration" was spontaneous and that he had not consulted anyone about it.

Are you suggesting that he is just saying that?

Regardless, that is what his statement is and thus people are only "blaming" the person who has openly admitted responsibility.

Kate

My response was made in jest as indicated by the smile. However, there are those on the board, who have stated that M. Clark requested Darden not to do the experiment. That was the comment to which I was referring and the fact that Darden was not the lead prosecutor and did not have final authoruity. I have not read any of the books in regard to the case. If Darden wants to take full credit, then I am not the one to call him a liar. I think your posts disagrees with the posts of others, and having found you to be fair thus far, I will accept what you say. Perhaps, my humor may be a tad off color:). I will attempt to make it clear when I am joking from here on out. I trust that you enjoyed your holiday and hope that my comment did not make it any less pleasurable for you.

William Anthony

11-25-2006, 11:51 AM

William Anthony

11-25-2006, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

And it did.

bobaugust

The problem may not be with your reading but with your eyesight.:) To everyone this is a joke.

William Anthony

11-25-2006, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

The glove became an issue in June. Fuhrman's so called "demolition" happened in September. Does June come after September?

bobaugust

The glove becam evidence in June, and, as you should be aware, we were speaking of the fit of the glove. The glove became a "central issue", after it apparently did not fit and the blankety blank MF had been totally demolished, imho, on the stand. Thus, creating a reasonable doubt about how the glove was allegedly found at the alleged location.

William Anthony

11-25-2006, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Hi...THANK YOU for the welcome. I have always thought that OJ was guilty, due to the overwhelming evidence. It baffles me that the jury thought that he was "innocent". I wonder how many of them thought that he was guilty, but voted on his innocence anyway, because of who he was? IMO BTW...HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE!!!

The jury did not vote on his innocence, only that the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof.

William Anthony

11-25-2006, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

martin II, your the one who doesn't understand about Simpson's wide palms, not Rubin.

Triumph of Justice,
"Simpson, he (Rubin) 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."

"He looked at the cutter number on each and verified that they were mates. They were a fit, he said, but they were 'one inch short in the wrist.'"

As to you ridiculous comment that these gloves were not made for people like Simpson and that's why he couldn't get his fingers into them only shows again you have no idea what you're talking about. The many photographs of Simpson wearing the exact kind of gloves, Aris Leather Lights, contradicts your false uninformed beliefs. Photographs that showed the gloves fit on Simpson's fingers just fine but looked a little short on his wrist. That was because of his extra wide palms.

bobaugust

If the jury decided the gloves worn by the killer did not fit, then they were forced to acquit, to paraphrase someone superior in the art of argument than you and I.

Big Ben

11-25-2006, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by jotun

Big Ben,
I have been upset about the phone records since I first heard about them.

Johnnie was in town for another book signing soon after.That's the question I had for him.'WHY AREN'T YOU HELPING O.J. WITH THESE PHONE RECORDS"?????

Still I find it hard to believe that Johnnie would enter into a 'unholy alliance' against O.J.

I can't get the youtube.
Had been rereading
'Double Crossed for Blood' before all this 'IF I DID IT" came up.

jotun

Sorry, jotun, you can't get www.youtube.com. You're the second person that told me that they just missed confronting Johnnie. However, he has been confronted. Mary Cox, the African-American attorney you see in the documentary "Serpents Rising" confronted him in her law office in Wash. D.C. back in 2000. She was booted out subsequently from that firm which, I believe, became one of the many national Cochran Law Firm franchises.

Johnnie C. did what he did, you have to get over it. It didn't hurt nor shock you as much as it did myself. I hurt for days, but we have him on tape, so get to youtube, and see it for yourself, so that your hurt can dissipate.

Just got off of a telephone three-way. Doc Johnson, the author of 'Double Crossed for Blood' is mad as hell about OJ's action with Murdoch and Regan. He claims that the book cites multiple assailant theory, and other stuff, he wants to sue. His brother says no, not yet.

Doc is the one who told OJ about multiple assailants, OJ was as dense as a rock and didn't believe Doc J at first. He couldn't fathom who or how the victims had been killed. It was Doc J's analysis of the autopsy report exit wounds of Dr. Golden that made OJ start to come around. He began to believe in Doc J more, certainly after Doc's brother came to Simpson and told him that DDA Hodgman had clandestinely removed the telephone records from his case file earlier in 1998. He never signed for them at the Exhibit Dept., and took them home, or at least away from the courthouse.

These are the records that bobaugust is mad about us not accepting as the verified truth. He has condemnded us for using Simpson to demand that the telephone company, GTE, produce a certified copy from the hard disk archive in San Angelo, TX where these conspirators whisked them off, immediately after putting their deceitful acts into motion.

This is treacherory and seditious behaviour of the highest order against all that our Constitutional guarantees provide. These people have undermined our faith in America for their own pecuniary interests, regardless of their power and authority, their racial, ethnic or religious background. They are all caught up in this unbelievably widening conspiracy to undermine our system of justice. We will not stand down.

socaldiva

11-25-2006, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

The jury did not vote on his innocence, only that the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof.

It is obvious to me that the prosecution met it's burden of proof, which is why the vast majority of people consider Simpson a double murderer.

Kate Sachel

11-25-2006, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I looked back and found a post that concerened Clarke's knowledge of a glove demonstration. Perhaps, she did not consent to the use of laytex, but she clearly had prior knowledge of a glove demonstration. That prior knowledge, imo, speaks volumes to her role in the demonstration. I think the ultimate blame lies with the prosecution team.

Yes, Marcia Clark was planning on a glove demonstration, but not at that time and not with those gloves. She had asked the manufacturer to send a duplicate pair.

Chris Darden did decide, without first discussing it with anyone, to do the demonstration with the actual evidence gloves at a time when no one had prepared for it.

So, it is correct that the demonsration was of Chris Darden's own doing without consulting with Marcia Clark or any other prosecutor on the team.

To confirm my statements I did go back and check my sources. Both Marcia Clark and Chris Darden's books reflect the same.

Kate

bobaugust

11-25-2006, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by jotun

All,
Once again ba trots out one of his top 10 EXCUSES of why the evidence doesn't fit.That he posts over and over and over.Who is he trying to convince US or THEM or himself?

Karen Crawford-the undercover COP.
Most likely a male or 2 also.Mezzuluna was a cover for drugs.They would sell them and hand them over in a doggie-bag.

Maybe not 11 but certainly 10:47.
Remember the clock hadn't been set ahead for DST
so 9:47 was now 10:47. That's why the "record" was obviously faked.Why not bring in someone from the telephone company to verify?.Like was done for the 89 incident.
Because nobody would LIE about it for them.So Ron couldn't have left until 10:50.
Not enough time to get home, eat, change and get himself to Bundy to get killed by O.J. before 11.Who would have had no time being seen by Park at 10:54.

Nicole certainly didn't have much time to get killed with a 10:47 phone call, before 11. O.J.certainly had no time to kill her and get back before being seen at 10:54. Takes at least 6 minutes to drive from Bundy to Rockingham.
Vanatter drove it showed the jury the tape with no objection by the defence.And how long for a novice kill.with 2 fighting victims. Defensive wounds on Nicole"s and Ron's hands.Look at the autospy report.

O.J. IS INNOCENT.

jotun

jotun, no, I don't offer excuses I offer the facts and the evidence, you offer only false claims and false accusations.

There is no evidence that Karen Crawford was an undercover cop.

The time clock at the Mezzaluna Restaurant wasn't an hour off, it was set at the correct time.

If Simpson's defense attorneys had challenged the authenticity of any of the telephone records in this case than the prosecutors would have brought in witnesses from the telephone company to testify. Simpson's attorneys were given all of the actual telephone records to examine and check out. They never raised any question about their authenticity. That's why they agreed to the times shown on them in several stipulations made in the criminal trial. Simpson's civil trial defense attorneys never raised any question about the authenticity of any of the telephone records.

The drive between Bundy and Rockingham is normally about a five minute drive. Late on a Sunday night with very little or no traffic by someone who is speeding it could easily have been made in less than five minutes.

Simpson didn't fight both victims at the same time. He could very well have fought with Nicole first who was knocked unconscious just before Ron arrived. When Ron arrived surprising Simpson, he was killed. Simpson than returned to his unconscious wife and sliced her throat.

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-25-2006, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Big Ben

This is treacherory and seditious behaviour of the highest order against all that our Constitutional guarantees provide. These people have undermined our faith in America for their own pecuniary interests, regardless of their power and authority, their racial, ethnic or religious background. They are all caught up in this unbelievably widening conspiracy to undermine our system of justice. We will not stand down.

Big Ben, what you have on tape is nothing sinister. The problem is yours. You took Cochran's words out of context and then put your own ridiculous interpretation on them.

The only conspiracy about these telephone records is a conspiracy of ignorance by people who can accept the reality of what witnesses in this case testified to and the actual evidence that was found. Witnesses who tell us what and when events happened before, during, and after the murders were committed. Physical evidence that all points to one person and only one person, Orenthal James Simpson, who was the only other person at Bundy at the time both victims were killed.

This conspiracy of ignorance tries to blame everyone else except for the proven killer. Ignorant claims that evidence was planted. Ignorant claims that the LAPD conspired by committing crimes. Ignorant claims about other killers. Ignorant claims that all of the witnesses lied. Ignorant claims that Simpson's defense attorneys conspired against him.

This has nothing to do with anyone undermining our system of justice, it has to do with false claims and false accusations made by people who are completely out of touch with reality.

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-25-2006, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

The glove becam evidence in June, and, as you should be aware, we were speaking of the fit of the glove. The glove became a "central issue", after it apparently did not fit and the blankety blank MF had been totally demolished, imho, on the stand. Thus, creating a reasonable doubt about how the glove was allegedly found at the alleged location.

Maybe in your mind but not based on when these events actually happened. But I understand since most of your knowledge about this case is based on your memory and as we've all seen your memory isn't very credible.

There is no evidence that the glove was planted, there is only evidence that Simpson dropped it when he returned from Bundy.

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-25-2006, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

If the jury decided the gloves worn by the killer did not fit, then they were forced to acquit, to paraphrase someone superior in the art of argument than you and I.

Right an argument made to gullible people and only gullible people believed it.

bobaugust

martin II

11-25-2006, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Right an argument made to gullible people and only gullible people believed it.

bobaugust

bob

I agree that you do seem to be excessively gullible.

martin II

2L8 4A D8

11-25-2006, 06:03 PM

Extremely EXCELLENT post, Bob. You just keep on getting better and better!

As you so eloquently posted, "This has nothing to do with anyone undermining our system of justice, it has to do with false claims and false accusations made by people who are completely out of touch with reality."

Unfortunately, it will never change because "they" won't change! It'll just be the same 'ol sh*t coming from them, but just a different day!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

11-25-2006, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by martin II

bob

I agree that you do seem to be excessively gullible.

martin II

As I read it, Bob wasn't asking for your agreement or approval of ANYTHING!

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

11-25-2006, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by martin II

bob

I agree that you do seem to be excessively gullible.

martin II

martin II, I'm glad that you agree that anyone who fell for Cochran's ridiculous rhymes are gullible people.

It's obvious you and William Anthony believed them as well as you were both evidently fooled by Simpson's act when he put the gloves on. That makes you guys the gullible ones, not me.

Thanks for making that clear.

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-25-2006, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

The only conspiracy about these telephone records is a conspiracy of ignorance by people who can accept the reality of what witnesses in this case testified to and the actual evidence that was found.

Another missed spell check correction:

This should read,

The only conspiracy about these telephone records is a conspiracy of ignorance by people who can't accept the reality of what witnesses in this case testified to and the actual evidence that was found.

bobaugust

Ames

11-25-2006, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

The jury did not vote on his innocence, only that the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof.

The prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof?? That is bull...IMO. They proved, WAY BEYOND a shadow of a doubt, that OJ killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. The jury had blinders on...IMO

Ames

11-25-2006, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

It is obvious to me that the prosecution met it's burden of proof, which is why the vast majority of people consider Simpson a double murderer.

DITTO! I totally agree!!!

Ames

11-25-2006, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

If the jury decided the gloves worn by the killer did not fit, then they were forced to acquit, to paraphrase someone superior in the art of argument than you and I.

If the gloves don't fit...you must acquit....wonder how long Cochran rehearsed that line? IMO

jotun

11-25-2006, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Big Ben

Sorry, jotun, you can't get www.youtube.com. You're the second person that told me that they just missed confronting Johnnie. However, he has been confronted. Mary Cox, the African-American attorney you see in the documentary "Serpents Rising" confronted him in her law office in Wash. D.C. back in 2000.

Johnnie C. did what he did, you have to get over it. but we have him on tape

Big Ben,
Am very aware of Mary Cox.Saw her tell off G. Rivera on his show.96? O.J. called her the next day.When she did tv interviews, O.J.called in a few times.
WHAT did Johnnie say to Mary when confronted????

It DID shock me when Johnnie spoke of NOT showing the phone records.I also have it on tape.

jotun

socaldiva

11-25-2006, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Ames

If the gloves don't fit...you must acquit....wonder how long Cochran rehearsed that line? IMO

Yeah, that & that dopey knit cap demonstration. "Dream Team" my backside.

Ames

11-26-2006, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Yeah, that & that dopey knit cap demonstration. "Dream Team" my backside.

LOL...my thoughts exactly!

Zold1

11-26-2006, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Zold1, actually all of the blood found at Bundy, in Simpson's Bronco, and on the killer's right hand glove came from only three people, the two victims and Simpson. Nicole's blood was found on Simpson's socks.

Simpson's hair was found on Ron's shirt. The same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Goldman's shirt and on the killers right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks.

Photographs show Simpson wearing the exact kind of gloves the killer wore, and the exact kind of shoes the killer wore.

bobaugust

Yes, thank you for the chance to respond, BobAugust. With reference to the blood found on Simpson's socks that was full of the preservative EDTA leads me to believe it did not come directly from Nicole or Ron. Therefore, the blood must be discounted and was obviously discounted by the Jury.

Blue Black fibers also can come from contaminated crime scenes that match police uniforms. There was absolutely no proof any of those fibers came from anything OJS wore that fateful night.

Even should one believe those shoes were something OJS owned and the gloves were also his, there is Nothing to put them on OJ. They mean nothing. No one even bothered to use caution in trolling the area crawling with police and other personnel that fateful night. The crime scene was dismissed as a mess and a new one began at Rockingham. I recall Johnnie Cochran's 15 points of questionable evidence.

Zold1

11-26-2006, 12:58 AM

Herein lies some truth:

JOHNNY COCHRAN'S 15 POINTS OF REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE SIMPSON CASE
1. Why...did the blood...show up on the sock almost two months after a careful search for evidence and shy, as demonstrated by Dr. Lee and Professor MacDonell, was the blood applied when there was no foot in it?

2. Why was Mark Fuhrman, a detective who had been pushed off the case, the person who went by himself to the Bronco, over the fence to interrogate Kato to discover the glove and the thump-thump-thump area?

3. Why was the glove still moist when Fuhrman found it if Mr. Simpson had dropped it seven hours earlier?

4. If Mark Fuhrman...would speak so openly about his intense genocidal racism to a relative stranger such as Kathleen Bell, how many of his co-workers, the other detectives in this case, were also aware that he lied when he denied using the n-word, yet failed to come forward?

5. Why did the prosecution not call a single police officer to rebut police photographer Rokahr's testimony that Detective Fuhrman was pointing at the glove before - before Fuhrman went to Rockingham? That is, around 4:30 in the morning.

6. If the glove had been dropped on the walkway at Rockingham 20 minutes after the murder, why is there no blood or fiber on that south walkway or on the leaves the glove was resting on. Why is there no blood in the 150 feet of narrow walkway, on the stucco walk abutting it?

7. For what purpose was Vannatter carrying Mr. Simpson's blood in his pocket for three hours and a distance of 25 miles instead of booking it down the hall at Parker Center?

8. Why did Deputy District Attorney Hank Goldberg, in a desperate effort to cover up for the missing 1.5 milliliters of Mr. Simpson's blood, secretly go out to the home of police nurse Thano Peratis without notice to the defense and get him to contradict his previous sworn testimony at both the grand jury and the preliminary hearing?

9. Why if, according to Ms. Clark, he walked into his own house wearing the murder clothes and shoes is there not any soil or so much as a smear or drop of blood associated with the victims on the floor, the white carpeting, the doorknobs, the light switches, and his bedding?

10. If Mr. Simpson had just killed Mr. Goldman in a bloody battle involving more than two dozen knife wounds - where Mr. Goldman remained standing and struggling for several minutes - how come there is less than seven-tenths of one drop of blood consistent with Mr. Goldman found in the Bronco?

11. Why following a bitter struggle alleged with Mr. Goldman were there no bruises or marks on O.J. Simpson's body?

12. Why do bloodstains with the most DNA not show up until weeks after the murder?

13. Why did Mark Fuhrman lie to us?

14. Why did Phil Vannatter lie to us?

15. Given Professor MacDonell's testimony that the gloves would not have shrunk no matter how much blood was smeared on them, and given that they never shrank on June 21, 1994 until now, despite being repeatedly frozen and thawed, how come the gloves just don't fit?

Zold1

11-26-2006, 01:18 AM

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

Really?! Then you obviously did not hear about this lawsuit. I don't believe it to be rumor or innuendo at that price.....

According to internal LAPD documents, between 1994 and 2000 Chrisman tapped computer files on scores of celebrities, including Meg Ryan, Kobe Bryant, O.J. Simpson, Larry King, Drew Barrymore, Dionne Warwick, Farrah Fawcett,
Cindy Crawford, Elle Macpherson and Berry Gordy.

LT. FRANK SPANGLER SEZ HE GAVE THIS GUY THE TASK OF MAPPING CELEBS IN THE WEST L.A. AREA!

The lawsuit, filed in federal court by Chrisman's former girlfriend, said Chrisman had collected the data for financial gain, but LAPD investigators say they could not pin down a motive.

"We just don't know," said Deputy Chief James McMurray, until recently the chief of internal affairs. "There was all sorts of rumor and speculation."Officials say unauthorized access alone violates department regulations, and no motive needs to be shown.

Whatever the motive, the case prompted worried debate during a closed session of the City Council on March 19, when council members voted unanimously to pay $387,500 to settle the lawsuit. According to sources, the council also directed its staff to study the liability the city might face as a result of unauthorized computer use by Chrisman or possibly by other officers.

The suit by Cyndy Truhan, ex-wife of former Dodger Steve Garvey, alleged that Chrisman had violated her privacy by using LAPD computers to secretly investigate her, as well as hundreds of other people, and that he had made a significant side income by selling the information to tabloids. In settling the suit, the city admitted no wrongdoing by Chrisman or the LAPD.

Councilman Dennis Zine said he and other council members found the Chrisman case disturbing and are concerned that the city might be at risk for more legal action. The LAPD has no monitoring system to detect unauthorized computer use, officials said.

"How many other situations do we have like this?" Zine asked. "How does this go unchecked? We're spending almost $400,000 of taxpayer money on this one suit, and God knows how many more will come down the line."

Zine, who was a police officer for more than 30 years, said council members had held a long discussion in closed session. "This wasn't a case of, 'Let's pass this and thank you very much.' I had some serious questions and my colleagues joined me in those questions," he said.

Zold1

11-26-2006, 01:21 AM

Wasn't Candace Garvey a friend of Nicole Brown Simpson's?

I understand the attorney for Chrisman is Christopher Darden who cannot understand whut the fuss was all about. For the amount of settlement, I should think he, a former prosecutor, would find out to help him in the future as a defense attorney, wouldn't you?

Zold1

11-26-2006, 01:26 AM

Plus! I find this absolutely appalling as a tax payer and a person who has been seeking the stalker of Nicole Simpson. It was apparent no one was talking and Vanatter or Lange and Mark Furhman are the ones responding to that stalker, telephone threatening person. Who wuz it?

Police apparently became aware of Chrisman's computer activity only by accident.

In March 2000, Truhan called the LAPD to accuse Chrisman of coming to her home and roughing her up in a dispute related to their recently ended three-year relationship. The case did not result in criminal charges, but it set off an internal affairs investigation of Chrisman's activities on and off duty.

In her suit, Truhan said Chrisman had "used his position as an officer to find her new telephone numbers and addresses" and to stalk her after she had broken off the relationship.

While they were still dating, according to the suit, Chrisman had told her that he could plant unflattering stories about her in tabloids and had threatened her with bodily harm if she told anyone that he was making money as a tipster for the National Enquirer and other publications.

Sources said phone records obtained by the LAPD show numerous calls from Chrisman to Cindy Solomon, a Los Angeles-based senior reporter for the National Enquirer. Solomon declined to say whether she knows the officer. "I know where you're going with this and I can't comment," she said.

Enquirer Editor David Perel acknowledged that his paper pays some sources, but said his reporters do not buy information from police officers. Major newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, prohibit reporters from paying sources for information.

WELL....DUH!?

Zold1

11-26-2006, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by goatgirl

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:

Thank You GG for asking that question. I would really like to know why the Dentist took his family and moved to Arizona the next day. Something scary in L.A.? Couldn't be OJ. He was in the air or in jail.

Zold1

11-26-2006, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by martin II

bob
that is what vanhatter said during the Geraldo show. That he saw them as the daylight was breaking. To my surprise Furhman
then claimed that Brad had been the one that found them.

In case you did not see the show;

Geraldo had furhman on for a few minutes allowing him to attack oj for the interview/book and talk about his part in the crime scene and rockingham etc etc

After he had made certain comments, Geraldo then switched to Vanhatter and Lang by remote camera to get their responses.
I am not sure Furhman knew that Vanhatter/Lang were waiting
by remote.
So Geraldo switched back and forth between Furhman and Vanhatter/lang and it was obvious to me that there was bad blood between furhman and these two. imo
martin II

So if Furhman's partner found all the evidence in the case, then I wonder what Furhman was rattling off that if HE went down so did the CASE goes Bye-Bye since HE had found all of the evidence!???

bobaugust

11-26-2006, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by Zold1

Yes, thank you for the chance to respond, BobAugust. With reference to the blood found on Simpson's socks that was full of the preservative EDTA leads me to believe it did not come directly from Nicole or Ron. Therefore, the blood must be discounted and was obviously discounted by the Jury.

Blue Black fibers also can come from contaminated crime scenes that match police uniforms. There was absolutely no proof any of those fibers came from anything OJS wore that fateful night.

Even should one believe those shoes were something OJS owned and the gloves were also his, there is Nothing to put them on OJ. They mean nothing. No one even bothered to use caution in trolling the area crawling with police and other personnel that fateful night. The crime scene was dismissed as a mess and a new one began at Rockingham. I recall Johnnie Cochran's 15 points of questionable evidence.

Zold1, you are mistaken. There was no EDTA preserved blood ever found in Nicole's blood stain on Simpson's socks.

In the civil trial Dr. Cotton testified to test results when she compared that blood stain to the blood in Nicole's autopsy sample that proved that Nicole's blood was not planted on Simpson's socks.

Deedrick testified that the blue black cotton fibers found on Ron's shirt, the killer's right hand glove, and Simpson's socks were all exactly the same. There were no uniformed officers who saw the right hand glove at Rockingham or Simpson's socks.

No one ever saw a second glove at Bundy. Not the patrol officers who first arrived and not any of the other detectives or officers who arrived at Bundy after them. There was no second glove at Bundy. All of the blood and fiber evidence on that glove points to Simpson and no one else.

Triumph of Justice,
Dr. Cotton explained that when blood is drawn for testing by labs, it is preserved with the chemical EDTA, which stops the DNA in the blood from degrading. (Degradation is simply the breaking down of a chemical into its component parts over time.) But when she compared the degradation levels of Nicole's autopsy vial, Dr. Cotton found the autopsy vial contained the more degraded blood. The blood on the sock was fresher and richer in DNA content than the blood in the vial. Once blood has degraded, it is impossible to raise its DNA count; you can't pony it back up. Under the conspiracy theory, the blood used to plant on the sock came from Nicole's autopsy vial, but that blood had a lower DNA count than the blood on the sock. Nicole's blood was fresher when it spurted out and splashed onto Simpson's sock as he was killing her than two days later when the coroner collected it. This completely destroyed the notion of any planting; its impossible for degraded blood to become fresh again. Nicole's blood on the sock could not have been planted.

bobaugust

limakey

11-26-2006, 09:24 AM

Mr. August,

Aren't you making a huge mistake by assuming that all the "tips" the police received regarding this case all pointed away from OJ Simpson as the killer? How many defendants are now in jail because of "tips" that broke a case for a DA?

However, even making that very wrong assumption that all these tips had to be in Simpson's favor, it does not provide any comfort when the police ignored several "tips" right from the start. Such as what Sydney heard that night, her bed time, the receipt for the ice cream, just to name a few?

We also know that another person, saw the bodies before the couple who testified about it. I'd say that was a big "tip".

Another big tip, that phone call at the police station. Not even you can possibly believe that it was a female reporter asking about two bodies on the West Side.

First and foremost, a reporter is always looking for the one story that will make their career. There is no way a real reporter would have first called the wrong police station and second, just accepted what she was told.

Do you really believe that had the police been aware of the murders when the phone call came in they would have actually told her about it?

Secondly, didn't the police officer say he called the correct station? And if he didn't, why the hell not? What if someone calls the wrong police they lose their rights to have the police investigate because it wasn't within their boundaries?

You are slipping!

BTW, I was just scanning Fuhrman's book when I saw a picture of the inside of the washing machine. Funny thing, he says Brad Roberts first found this, when he did he testify about what he saw at the scene, at either trial?

limakey

11-26-2006, 09:31 AM

Wukong,

As you know, I find any reference to Kato the dog to be rather silly. If you give the dog the emotion of anger and grief then you also have to give it the emotion of fear and knowing when to keep out of danger.

However, IMO, there are two interesting points about the dog that I don't if ever has been discussed. One, the dog had a leash on it when it was found, didn't it? What was done with this leash? Was it processed for evidence?

The second thing, the blood on the dog's underbelly. Isn't it possible the blood on the dog's underbelly could have been a direct result of someone, somehow, "holding" the dog down? I realize that others may feel the dog may have just layed in Nicole's blood, but that doesn't make sense with all the barking and pacing the dog did.

IMO

limakey

11-26-2006, 09:43 AM

GG,

Nicole and Ron's relationship is another aspect of this case of where way too many people went out of their way to either convince the public that they were a couple or they were not a couple. It appears to me that the DA's were not going to budge on Ron just being at the wrong place at the wrong time in regards to bringing the glasses over.

However, what difference would it make to them if Nicole and Ron were lovers? It doesn't change the fact they are both still dead.

While I know this opens a big can of worms, but the DA's motive for the killings was really, really weak. However, had they combined it with a crime a passion, I think they would have had more evidence for the motive.

IMO, if Simpson is the killer and he loses it with Nicole because of her behavior toward him, there is no way, that when he "sees" Ron that night he automatically thinks of him as nothing more then a witness to his crime and therefore he must be killed too. In other words, if Simpson is the killer, it makes no difference if Ron was Nicole's lover or not. The way the scene was set up inside the house, no one could be blamed for thinking that Nicole did have plans that night for male company.

limakey

11-26-2006, 10:20 AM

What exactly does it mean when both sides "stipulate" to any evidence in a case? Does it mean that the evidence, itself is beyond any form of contestment? That there is no way to prove that there is other evidence that either stregthens it or counters it?

A stipulation is nothing more then an agreement between both sides that the subject evidence is simply off limits.

Mr. Simpson was Mr. Cochran's client. Regardless of what any of his defense lawyers thought about phone records and how they could be used to Simpson's advantage doesn't matter if Mr. Simpson tells them not to go there.

For the NG's who are angry at Johnnie regarding these phone records, remember one thing, OJ is fully aware that by contesting those phone records, he and his defense team was basically handing over the identities of witnesses who know that OJ Simpson is not the killer.

Both sides had witnesses who ran away to protect themselves and or their families. The only way this fear makes sense is that at the very least, Simpson did not act alone during the commission of the crime and even if he was the only one convicted in this crime, there was still his accomplice or accomplices to worry about.

If Mr. Simpson is the sole killer and his sole motive was a domestic violence and/or a crime a passion, again, any witness coming forward had nothing to fear. Especially during the civil trial. IMO.

William Anthony

11-26-2006, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

It is obvious to me that the prosecution met it's burden of proof, which is why the vast majority of people consider Simpson a double murderer.

I cannt speak of what is obvious to you, only that the jury disagreed with your conclusion.

William Anthony

11-26-2006, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

Yes, Marcia Clark was planning on a glove demonstration, but not at that time and not with those gloves. She had asked the manufacturer to send a duplicate pair.

Chris Darden did decide, without first discussing it with anyone, to do the demonstration with the actual evidence gloves at a time when no one had prepared for it.

So, it is correct that the demonsration was of Chris Darden's own doing without consulting with Marcia Clark or any other prosecutor on the team.

To confirm my statements I did go back and check my sources. Both Marcia Clark and Chris Darden's books reflect the same.

Kate

I will only say that I believe that Clark was the senior prosecutor and could have forced Darden not to do a demonstration with which she so strongly opposed. I will only say that, to me, all, who let the demonstration proceed, share in the culpability. I think that at the time he announced his decision to do the demonstration, if memory serves me correctly, Ms. Clark was present. If she was the senior prosecutor and could not control Darden, then that speaks to her ability, which is another matter. I hope you understood that my remark was in jest and that you did enjoy your Holiday.

William Anthony

11-26-2006, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Ames

If the gloves don't fit...you must acquit....wonder how long Cochran rehearsed that line? IMO

Long enough for the jury to render a favorable verdict.

Kate Sachel

11-26-2006, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I will only say that I believe that Clark was the senior prosecutor and could have forced Darden not to do a demonstration with which she so strongly opposed. I will only say that, to me, all, who let the demonstration proceed, share in the culpability. I think that at the time he announced his decision to do the demonstration, if memory serves me correctly, Ms. Clark was present. If she was the senior prosecutor and could not control Darden, then that speaks to her ability, which is another matter. I hope you understood that my remark was in jest and that you did enjoy your Holiday.

Hi William,

I am going to eat a little crow here and agree that you are correct. She certainly could have, and should have, forced the demonstration not to continue.

I do understand and accept that your remark was in jest. I appreciate that you even took the time to explain to me what your thought process behind the remark was.

My Holiday was wonderful and I hope that yours was as well.

Kate

William Anthony

11-26-2006, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Yeah, that & that dopey knit cap demonstration. "Dream Team" my backside.

Hope you Holiday was enjoyable. While I cannot speak to any attributes of your backside, I can say that the simplest argument and demonstration is often the best.:) In case those of you may not be aware, this post is in jest as to the portion, which may be interpreted as a suggestion that Socaldiva demostrate her backside.

William Anthony

11-26-2006, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

Hi William,

I am going to eat a little crow here and agree that you are correct. She certainly could have, and should have, forced the demonstration not to continue.

I do understand and accept that your remark was in jest. I appreciate that you even took the time to explain to me what your thought process behind the remark was.

My Holiday was wonderful and I hope that yours was as well.

Kate

Thank you very much and it suddenly got better.

Big Ben

11-26-2006, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by jotun

Big Ben,
Am very aware of Mary Cox.Saw her tell off G. Rivera on his show.96? O.J. called her the next day.When she did tv interviews, O.J.called in a few times.
WHAT did Johnnie say to Mary when confronted????

It DID shock me when Johnnie spoke of NOT showing the phone records.I also have it on tape.

jotun

jotun, she told us that Johnnie C. was extremely nervous becuase it was like his first movement towards the east coast to build the nationally franchised chain of what is now the Johnnie Cochran Law Firm. Her bosses, even moreso, since Mary C. has always been kind of the loose cannon to speak her mind. The senior partners didn't care about this OJ stuff, their immediate interest appeared to be how much money could be brought in if their law firm became associated with the Cochran name. Mary C. was expendable because her continued presence with the firm was a potential embarrassment for the D.C. law firm. I believe that she took a professorship up in Boston in the aftermath.

Johnnie is not the only one to have been nervous when confronted with the question. Atty Doug McCann ran into Shapiro after being seen on FOX re: those phone records, McCann reported the same nervous behaviour. F. Lee was allegedly confronted by someone at a barbershop, who got back to Doc, and Bailey was alleged to have become totally unglued. Lou Brown told Doc's brother when the matter blew up on FOX that his neighbors were disbelieving of their drive claims and mad that he wouldn't agree to show Simpson the telephone records. California Highway Patrol Commanders were red faced when Doc's brother told them of the alleged Brown's drive time and asked their permission to allow a CHIPS lieutenant responsible for that stretch of highway, who was willing to be taped saying the drive was impossible. CalTrans officials were upset and gave Doc highway documents indicating the impossibility that year in '94 due to a major highway construction project right in the path of the Brown's return trip home on the I-405.

Other Calif. officials have done their best to smother this PR embarrassment and, in my opinion, keep it on the west side of the Rocky Mountains. Only a relatively few people nationally saw the controversial debates with Doc and Mary Cox on FOX and Court TV. Even if they saw it, they were removed from the preliminary local heat in L.A. that led up to the national TV invitations by FOX and Court TV.

However, the controversy refuses to go away, regarding those telephone records and the Brown's drive time to make that crucial telephone call.

limakey

11-26-2006, 02:10 PM

Big Ben,

Have you had any chance to ask anyone regarding the gated community the Browns lived in, what their security was at that time? Was a guard on duty that night? I would love to see the security records for that day.

If you think about it, even the Browns leaving home would have been useful in regards to a timeline. IMO.

Also, isn't it possible that the defense team would have put other people in danager had they persued the telephone records. I always found it odd how only the Browns records were used, what about Nicole's? Ron's? Something isn't right, that is for sure.

Kate Sachel

11-26-2006, 03:08 PM

Big Ben

11-26-2006, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by limakey
What exactly does it mean when both sides "stipulate" to any evidence in a case? Does it mean that the evidence, itself is beyond any form of contestment? That there is no way to prove that there is other evidence that either stregthens it or counters it?

A stipulation is nothing more then an agreement between both sides that the subject evidence is simply off limits.
IMO.

limakey, a very good question! A stipulation, based upon my previously assigned research of the matter in '99, is supposed to be offered when based upon something that is accepted as a universally known and undisputed fact, i.e. the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west.

However, whenever evidence that would support the truth of the fact is in dispute, requires authentification or is contradictory, it can only be examined for its voracity by the "trier of fact", meaning the jury. This is in accordance with the FRE (Federal Rules of Evidence) and the URE (Uniform Rules of Evidence) from which the FRE takes its wording after 1965.

The problem that I have found during my research is that California has some very strange laws that, in my opinion, were intended to facilitate the protection of California's valuable asset, the movie stars or celebrities of the billion dollar motion picture industry.

In 1953 national jurists and preeminent legal scholars decided that it was high time that all of the states gather in Wash. D.C., to construct one uniform code regarding the rules of evidence, (URE), in order to eliminate the hodge podge of local common laws throughout each state in the U.S.; it lasted for 12 years.

California along with several southern states refused to participate, instead California chose to hold thier own inner state conference on restructuring the rules of evidence.

In 1966 Calif. annullled an amendment to the California Constitution, I believe it was Article 6 sec. 12, that forbid Calif. judges from interferring with juries regarding the examination of evidence. In other words, from doing the very thing that Judge Ito did to his jurors in his courtroom on Feb. 7, 1995.

On Feb. 7, 1995, Judge Ito instructed the jury, pursuant to sec. 1.02, of the BAJI (Cal. Book of Approved Jury Instructions), that even though he had told them they were not obligated to believe anything that lawyers on either side of the table had to say, whenever opposite lawyers stipulate to a fact, the jury must accept the stipulation (without question) as evidence in the trial.

This is how the lawyers slipped the unseen, unexamined telephone records past the jury, in both trials. The jury appeared awed by the majesty of the judge on his bench, and possibly the celebrity of the trial itself, and simply did not realize, in my opinion, their sacred duty.

They have an obligation that has been past down over 800 years from clause 39 of the Magna Charta, that grants them their designated role as the 'Trier of Fact'.

This is what the English noblemen who took their own lives into their hands by capturing King John were determined to extract and to preserve. They were tired of being subjected to the whims extemporaneous and unfair judgements of a King or his apponted judge who was not only the "trier of law" but until that day on the plains of Runnymeade, was also the "trier of fact" as well.

Despite the fashionably attired attorneys in Simpson's trial, their eloquence, and whatever else they have that influences the bobaugusts of the world. They had no legitimate authority in a common law court to bypass the jury, only the "trier of fact" the jury was entitled to determine the truth of the telephone records. Anybody who says that these attorneys or this judge had a right to withhold these disputed telephone records from the jury is consummately and absolutely mistaken, pursuant to the rules of common law and the U.S. Constitution.

I am upset that we have allowed the diversion of race and other deceptions promulgated by these charlatans to undermine the most important clause, 39, that has withstood the tests of time and has become one of the most fundamental guaranteed protections under our U.S. Constitution.

In spite of what bobaugust and his minions of deception may plead, I must stand firm, that despite some of its historical shortcomings the model for the adversarial system of justice that is practised within the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, and Australia is still, in my opinion, the best and should not be destroyed by these incalcitrant nay sayers. The benefits of this model of justice should be practised whether it is for the benefit of OJ Simpson or your own brother or sister.

Big Ben

11-26-2006, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Big Ben,

Have you had any chance to ask anyone regarding the gated community the Browns lived in, what their security was at that time? Was a guard on duty that night? I would love to see the security records for that day.

If you think about it, even the Browns leaving home would have been useful in regards to a timeline. IMO.

Also, isn't it possible that the defense team would have put other people in danager had they persued the telephone records. I always found it odd how only the Browns records were used, what about Nicole's? Ron's? Something isn't right, that is for sure.

Yes, they had a guard shack with a young man prepared to lift the gate and lower the potential tire shredding teeth that one would have to pass over.

I'm not clear as to whom you are referring when you are speaking of endangering other people. My feeling is that this was and still is a sea of danger from many perspectives; actual lethal danger. Now, after uncovering what we have, and watching the mysterious deaths of those who have gone on well before the normal expiration of their life expectancy, I can appreciate those who live so close to the lion's mouth and have chosen to deal with us discreetly, or in some instances, not at all. I used to get very angry because I couldn't understand why they wanted to talk but refused to come forth. Now I know, and I apologize to any of those that I may have displayed a sense of total disdain.

socaldiva

11-26-2006, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I cannt speak of what is obvious to you, only that the jury disagreed with your conclusion.

The jurors were idiots & mocked by the vast majority of the populace.

Aren't you one of the posters that claim that Simpson "probably did it"? If so, I'd say the state formed your opinion. Unless it was the toothfairy :rolleyes:

William Anthony

11-26-2006, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Big Ben

Despite the fashionably attired attorneys in Simpson's trial, their eloquence, and whatever else they have that influences the bobaugusts of the world. They had no legitimate authority in a common law court to bypass the jury, only the "trier of fact" the jury was entitled to determine the truth of the telephone records. Anybody who says that these attorneys or this judge had a right to withhold these disputed telephone records from the jury is consummately and absolutely mistaken, pursuant to the rules of common law and the U.S. Constitution.

I am upset that we have allowed the diversion of race and other deceptions promulgated by these charlatans to undermine the most important clause, 39, that has withstood the tests of time and has become one of the most fundamental guaranteed protections under our U.S. Constitution.

First, let me commend you on your well-done research on the topic of the Rules of Evidence. I have one problem. If the records were disputed, then why was there a stipulation? With a stipulation, it is my understanding that both sides have agreed that it is a fact and I do not see any problem with Ito informing the jury of the stipulation. I agree that bobaugust has a limited knowledge as to legal concepts and this may lead to, imho, his misguided opinions. I do not think that any discussion of the role that race plays in the CJS or in the trial was a diversion. I fail to see how race undermined the Constitutional protections and look forward to hearing your thoughts on the subject.

William Anthony

11-26-2006, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

The jurors were idiots & mocked by the vast majority of the populace.

Aren't you one of the posters that claim that Simpson "probably did it"? If so, I'd say the state formed your opinion. Unless it was the toothfairy :rolleyes:

When I say that he probably did it, I mean that, if the standard of proof was by a preponderance of the evidence, then he should have been found guilty, but, since the standard was beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury decided that he was not guilty. I will not call either the criminal or civil jurors idiots. What I find most interesting is the race of the people who mock the verdicts.

socaldiva

11-26-2006, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony
*snip*

What I find most interesting is the race of the people who mock the verdicts.

I find it interesting that you assume that only white people mock the criminal jury.

William Anthony

11-26-2006, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I find it interesting that you assume that only white people mock the criminal jury.

I find it interesting that you misquoted my post, whether intentionally or not. Show me where I say that only white people mock the criminal jury? What I can say is by your post;

"The jurors were idiots & mocked by the vast majority of the populace."

that Whites are the majority in America and if that is why you thought that I said only White people mock the jury, you are wrong in your assumption and with your response as to my post.

socaldiva

11-26-2006, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony
*snip*

I find it interesting that you misquoted my post

I did not misquote your post. If you weren't talking about white people, just what race were you talking about?

William Anthony

11-26-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I did not misquote your post. If you weren't talking about white people, just what race were you talking about?

Whatever race makes up the "vast majority" of those who mock. It was your post. Do you know or can you provide a link?

Big Ben

11-26-2006, 04:28 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

Big Ben, what you have on tape is nothing sinister. The problem is yours. You took Cochran's words out of context and then put your own ridiculous interpretation on them.

No Bob, I placed Cochran's words, "We didn't show...we're not going to show the jury the telephone bills or whatever" in the context of his pleading to the court on that particular date in July of 1995.

Johnnie was making a 352 argument. The 352 argument is one in which a California attorney pleads to a judge why he feels that certain evidence, if introduced, at trial could prejudice the jury. Therefore, one must explain, if one replaced the defense's desire not show bloody photographs with the intent not to show the jury the telephone records, how the latter could or would possibly prejudice the jury.

The only conspiracy about these telephone records is a conspiracy of ignorance by people who can't accept the reality of what witnesses in this case testified to and the actual evidence that was found.

Questioning witness testimony and/or evidence, after the fact, is not unusual for investigators to do, Bob. Barry Scheck has quite a successful program, "Innocense Project", that has helped to salvage the innocense of several condemned men by questioning the testimony and the evidence.

This conspiracy of ignorance tries to blame everyone else except for the proven killer. Ignorant claims that evidence was planted.

The Serpents Rising documentary shows what occurred because of the LAPD officer Raphael Perez's testimony in 2000, that Ramparts Police Precinct had sent over 3,000 innocent men to prison by the use of planted evidence, Bob. Others alleged that Ramparts officers had visited OJ's house on the night of the murders.

Ignorant claims that the LAPD conspired by committing crimes.

Well we all saw on video tape, Bob, how they handled Rodney King, or the young man with handcuffs whose face the police officer pummeled after slamming his body onto the trunk of the police car. We saw the policeman with his knee across the throat of the recent Mexican fellow out there in L.A. that two officers had effectively subdued. Bob, you got to get yourself a TV, even a small one will help you keep up with the debate, my man.

Ignorant claims about other killers. Ignorant claims that all of the witnesses lied. Ignorant claims that Simpson's defense attorneys conspired against him.

We call it the way that we see it, Bob. Certainly if the rest of the world has an uneasiness about these persistent irregularities, don't you think that you should take pause and see which way the wind is blowing. You need to check yourself, you're the one who is beginning to look really ignorant and foolish. The world is hitting your wall like a punishing tide demanding answers, and you keep giving these flimsy explanations. I told you, you are like some old fool trying to keep his finger in the dike of a crumbling wall. You know that fool 2L84AD8 can't give you any intelligent assistance. You're going to drown, man!

This has nothing to do with anyone undermining our system of justice, it has to do with false claims and false accusations made by people who are completely out of touch with reality.

Oh, I think it is desperately becoming about undermining our system of justice. People are beginning to tire of that same old menu that you keep offering. You can't continue to offer excuses for all of these serious irregularities. 1 or 2 maybe, but all of these, I'm afraid not, Bob.

You're beginning to sound like one of those old Mississippi status quo judges, Bob, who would say, "Now son, we're going to make sure you get a fair trial before a jury of your peers, then we're going to take you out back and hang you!"

William Anthony

11-26-2006, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Big Ben

SNIPPED

Oh, I think it is desperately becoming about undermining our system of justice. People are beginning to tire of that same old menu that you keep offering. You can't continue to offer excuses for all of these serious irregularities. 1 or 2 maybe, but all of these, I'm afraid not, Bob.

You're beginning to sound like one of those old Mississippi status quo judges, Bob, who would say, "Now son, we're going to make sure you get a fair trial before a jury of your peers, then we're going to take you out back and hang you!" [/B]

:beer:

socaldiva

11-26-2006, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Whatever race makes up the "vast majority" of those who mock. It was your post. Do you know or can you provide a link?

More games from W.A. I think a wide variety of races understand that Orenthal is a double murderer. You are the one that characterized it as a race thing, not I.

weezer

11-26-2006, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

More games from W.A. I think a wide variety of races understand that Orenthal is a double murderer. You are the one that characterized it as a race thing, not I. he's always pushing his agenda. . .

Hope you've had a good holiday.

bobaugust

11-26-2006, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Zold1
Herein lies some truth:

JOHNNY COCHRAN'S 15 POINTS OF REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE SIMPSON CASE

Zold1, some of these questions are based on false information. All of these questions have reasonable answers.

1. The tiny dark blood stains on the dark colored socks could not be seen under normal light unless someone was specifically looking for them. The small stains were only seen when the socks were later examined for blood under high intensity lighting.

The defense had provided Dr. Lee second generation photographs of the socks and he had not been able to see clearly the condition the socks were in when before they were recovered. When he was shown a clearer photograph it showed that the socks were inside out and the toe fo the sock was touching the ankle. Dr. Lee agreed that would be a logical, rational explanation for how a microscopic stain of blood got from one side of the sock to the other.

2. Fuhrman and Phillips went to Rockingham at the request of Det. Lange so that after Simpson was notified of his ex wife's death they could stay and help him recover his children who had been taken to their police station. When the police were waiting for some kind of response from the house Fuhrman saw the Bronco and went over to check it out.

When the decision was made by the Robbery Homicide detectives to enter Simpson's estate Fuhrman volunteered to climb over the thick, five foot high, vine covered stone wall because he was the junior officer and the youngest officer there.

After the detectives awakened Kaelin Fuhrman stayed to talk to him while the other three detectives went to Arnelle's room. Fuhrman question Kaelin and after leaning about the noises Kaelin heard on his back wall by a possible intruder, he and Kaelin followed the other three detectives into Simpson's house through the rear door. Fuhrman found Vannatter and told him to hear what Kaelin was saying. Fuhrman then left the house to check out he noises for himself.

3. The glove had been on the dark path through out the cool night. Fuhrman said it was looked sticky and moist, he never touched it. Dennis Fung testified that when he saw the glove there were areas that had a sheen or shininess, but it was his opinion the blood was dry.

4. Kathleen Bell testified that Fuhrman spoke those words in 1985. Fuhrman had been working gangs units back then. That's the way cops talked. This had absolutely nothing to do with his job in 1994 or the way he talked then. Nor did it have anything to do with Simpson's guilt or innocence.

5. Vannatter asked Fuhrman to return to Bundy and look at the glove there to make sure it was a match. He was to have it photographed and then return to Rockingham bringing the photographer with him. And that's what he did.

At the time Rokahr testified about taking a photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove he was on off duty status because of his poor health and he was under heavy medication. Rokahr was mistaken about the time he took that photograph.

6. There is no reason why there should be any fibers or blood on the leaves around the glove. No blood was ever seen on any natural surface such as leaves, dirt, or grass.

7. Vannatter never carried Simpson's blood sample in his pocket nor did he ever carry it for 3 hours. Vannatter left his office with Simpson's blood sample contained in an analyzed evidence envelope. Vannatter left his office at about 4:30 PM and drove directly to Rockingham. Television cameras recorded his arrival at 5:17 PM. and recorded Vannatter approaching Simpson's front door, meeting Dennis Fung, and handing him the evidence envelope at 5:20 PM.

8. The Prosecution Responds, Hang Goldberg
"About a week before John Gerdes's testimony and while I was preparing for Henry Lee, Neufeld asked me to stipulate that Thano (Peratis) was unavailable. This would make his transcript admissible. In court that day I stated that the prosecution would be willing to agree that Thano was unavailable as a witness if Judge Ito would allow us to introduce an interview with Thano in which he contradicted hs previous testimony. I said that Evidence Code section 1202 allowed this. Neufeld apparently didn't know what I was talking about. "Well, it's this unique little thing we have in California called the Evidence Code," Judge Ito said sarcastically.

Interestingly, weeks earlier Gerald Uelmen had conceded that the prosecution could introduce an interview with Thano. He said, If the prosecution wanted to introduce an interview of Peratis "to rebut or impeach (Peratis prior testimony), they can do that during their rebuttal case." Apparently, Uelmen and Neufeld disagreed on this point. The media experts, who were shocked that the judge allowed the videotape interview, also must have missed Uelmen's concession."

9. Most of the blood on the bottom of Simpson's shoes was transferred to the walkway at Bundy. The bloody shoe prints faded out about half down the walkway to the rear gate. The remainder of blood in the grooves of the sole of his left shoe transferred to Simpson's Bronco carpet leaving a large partial bloody shoe print. When Simpson got back to Rockingham he walked across his neighbor's property to reach the lowest point of his fence, behind his guest house. Any remaining blood in the grooves of the soles of his shoes would have been transferred to the grass and dirt he walked across. After scaling his fence he walked back down the south path to get to his driveway and then across his driveway to get to his front door. By the time he entered his house there wasn't any more blood on the bottom of his shoes to transfer.

10. If Simpson killed both of his victims from behind them. Any blood on his clothing would have been on the front of his clothing and his sleeves. When he got into his Bronco there was no blood on the back of his clothing so no blood got on his seats. When Jill Shively encountered Simpson she said that his arms were bare. Simpson could very well have rolled up his sleeves so that no blood on them would have transferred to his Bronco. Before Simpson left his Bronco he attempted to wipe up any blood he saw on the center console leaving only blood stains. Because it was dark in the car Simpson never knew his tiny blood drops splattered all over the inside, on the inside driver's door, the instrument panel, and the steering wheel.

11. Simpson held Goldman from behind him with his left arm wrapped around Goldman's neck while he stabbed and cut him with the knife in his right hand. According to Dr. Spitz the killing wound happened early in the struggle, a stab to Goldman's left flank that cut his aorta. Goldman would have immediately weakened but continued to struggle until Simpson dropped him to the ground to bleed to death. Simpson was bigger, stronger, angry, and armed with a weapon in a very small enclosure. Goldman never had a chance.

12. The blood on the ground on porous cement degraded quickly. The blood that dried on the painted metal of the rear gate that was collected weeks later was less degraded based on the difference in surfaces.

13. Mark Fuhrman didn't think he was lying based on the questions that Bailey asked him about saying the "n" word in the last ten years.

14. Vannatter never lied.

15. Richard Rubin measured the gloves during the criminal trial. They were size extra large, old gloves and were about 10%, 11% smaller than standard. Rubin testified that was due to a combination of normal wear and tear, time, and shrinkage.

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-26-2006, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Aren't you making a huge mistake by assuming that all the "tips" the police received regarding this case all pointed away from OJ Simpson as the killer? How many defendants are now in jail because of "tips" that broke a case for a DA?

However, even making that very wrong assumption that all these tips had to be in Simpson's favor, it does not provide any comfort when the police ignored several "tips" right from the start. Such as what Sydney heard that night, her bed time, the receipt for the ice cream, just to name a few?

We also know that another person, saw the bodies before the couple who testified about it. I'd say that was a big "tip".

Another big tip, that phone call at the police station. Not even you can possibly believe that it was a female reporter asking about two bodies on the West Side.

First and foremost, a reporter is always looking for the one story that will make their career. There is no way a real reporter would have first called the wrong police station and second, just accepted what she was told.

Do you really believe that had the police been aware of the murders when the phone call came in they would have actually told her about it?

Secondly, didn't the police officer say he called the correct station? And if he didn't, why the hell not? What if someone calls the wrong police they lose their rights to have the police investigate because it wasn't within their boundaries?

BTW, I was just scanning Fuhrman's book when I saw a picture of the inside of the washing machine. Funny thing, he says Brad Roberts first found this, when he did he testify about what he saw at the scene, at either trial?

limakey, no you're making a huge mistake thinking that something legitimate ever pointed to someone else. It didn't.

No one knows what Sydney said that night and a receipt for the ice cream is meaningless.

There is no evidence that another person saw the bodies.

The supposed reporter who asked about two bodies called the Wilshire Police station. Sergeant Merrin testified that was not an unusual call.

Brad Roberts was never called as a witness by either side.

bobaugust

martin II

11-26-2006, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

limakey, no you're making a huge mistake thinking that something legitimate ever pointed to someone else. It didn't.

No one knows what Sydney said that night and a receipt for the ice cream is meaningless.

There is no evidence that another person saw the bodies.

The supposed reporter who asked about two bodies called the Wilshire Police station. Sergeant Merrin testified that was not an unusual call.

Brad Roberts was never called as a witness by either side.

bobaugust

if furhman said that brad roberts found MOST of the evidence, why didn't the prosecution call him.???
martin II

bobaugust

11-26-2006, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by limakey

IMO, if Simpson is the killer and he loses it with Nicole because of her behavior toward him, there is no way, that when he "sees" Ron that night he automatically thinks of him as nothing more then a witness to his crime and therefore he must be killed too. In other words, if Simpson is the killer, it makes no difference if Ron was Nicole's lover or not.

limakey, if Simpson was standing over his unconscious ex wife after physically attacking her when Ron Goldman surprised him, walking in and yelling at Simpson, that may very well have been what caused Simpson to attack Ron.

bobaugust

Big Ben

11-26-2006, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I do not think that any discussion of the role that race plays in the CJS or in the trial was a diversion. I fail to see how race undermined the Constitutional protections and look forward to hearing your thoughts on the subject.

W.A.
I would say under normal circumstances you would have as solid a point as one could defend. However, this trial was everything but normal as a year long media event and thus permitted our investigators to go deeply behind the curtain to review what continues to be promulgated and discussed actively as the truth 12 years after the criminal trial has ended.

This case is not unlike others whereby a stipulation had been rendered and accepted by the court, in order for attorneys to circumvent the jury for their own benefit, what-so-in-ever the benefits might be, only to find after post-examination that manipulation of the facts were involved. I believe that it was Wigamore on Evidence, who discussed the protocol of how stipulations should be offered. It may have been Wigamore or one of those old dusty books on evidence that pointed out how 19th century lawyers that were on small retainers with whaling companies knew that those companies had put money secretly aside in case of certain types of injuries to sailors at sea. The plaintiff counsels were often informed by defense counsel for the whaling companies that the pile of money existed and that both attorneys could get their legal fees paid by the accessing the pile of money, if they were secretly willing to circumvent an incumbent problem; i.e. redefining how and when death occurred. When the court's finally discovered what was going on, they ruled that such actions amounted to lawyers trespassing into the domain of the court either in violation of the domain of the trier of law or the domain of the trier of fact.

Our post examination, indicates that the telephone time of Juditha Brown's telephone call to her daughter Nicole was in dispute from day one, as it was reported by her father initially to the coroner's investigator on June 13, '94 and included within the autopsy report on Nicole as being 11:00 PM as the last known time of her being alive.

We have F. Lee Bailey on video tape on the CBS Morning show during the morning of June 20, '94, with Paula Zahn and Harry ?. Bailey is stating that the defense has an iron clad alibi because the father had told the coroner that Nicole was alive and on the telephone at 11:00 PM talking to her mother. We also have the father, Lou Brown, subsequently going back to the coroner's office later that day on June 20, '94 to change the initial time from 11:00 PM to between 9:30 PM and 10:00 PM as time of that last telephone conversation. (Contradiction and Dispute)

We have a certified copy of the court stenographer who was in Judge Kathleen K. Powell's closed chambers along with M.Clark, B. Hodgman, and R. Shapiro. Wherein, Shapiro offers an initial stipulation on July 8, '94 that the
the Juditha Brown initial telephone call was made at 10:17 PM the evening of June 12, '94. Marcia Clark had temporary amnesia as to the time of the phone call even though she made what Shapiro previously referred to in open court 7 days earlier as a grandstand performance.

We have Marcia Clark subsequently introducing a posterboard with the initial phone call now at 9:37 PM from Juditha Brown to Nicole on June 12, '94.
(Contradiction)

We have Johnnie Cochran's video taped remarks on July 6, '94, in defense of not displaying the prejudicial bloody photos to the jury. Johnnie C. remarks , afterall "we didn't....We're not going to show the jury the telephone bills...."
(Contradiction)

In light of the concealed evidence now revealed I think that race has been a very convenient diversion, this very sensitive taboo, given America's history, should not have been, but was exploited to facilitate the very effect that has occurred.

It has provided the conspirators with a raw and sensitive camoflague to facilitate escape from their malfeasance, knowing that it would cause people to erupt in anger, preoccupy their time with subjective analysis, and create further delay through disdain and inuendo whenever their prior assertions of fact were to be examined under the light.

This Simpson trial may have been a trial balloon, an experiment for a broader purpose for future events to come. The subsequent calls of Americans after the Simpson trial to revamp the way that justice is administered by the U.S., I don't think has fallen upon deaf ears.

After the softening of our intellect, I think that we may have given certain people the prototype to justify subsequent activities in violation of the basic accordances of law around the world. We've found now that if you frighten people using race as a catalyst the normal procedures of legislative and judicial protocol will give way to facilitate the granting of plenipotentiary power or an effective brand of martial law.

jotun

11-26-2006, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Big Ben

jotun, she told us that Johnnie C. was extremely nervous becuase it was like his first movement towards the east coast to build the nationally franchised chain of what is now the Johnnie Cochran Law Firm.

Johnnie is not the only one to have been nervous when confronted with the question. Atty Doug McCann ran into Shapiro after being seen on FOX re: those phone records, McCann reported the same nervous behaviour. F. Lee was allegedly confronted by someone at a barbershop, who got back to Doc, and Bailey was alleged to have become totally unglued.

Big Ben,
Can you do better than Johnnie was nervous because of his new firm? Again.
WHAT DID HE SAY?????
About the records.IF I had been able to confront him as planned.
Would remember his words and actions.

Also what was the MOTIVE for hiding the phone-records??? Can understand Shapiro but not F.Lee. WHAT DID THEY SAY?????

F.Lee is the most experienced and the most vocal on O.J.'s innocence.But he did say
'EVERY lawyer in this
case KNOWS O.J. IS INNOCENT.

jotun

limakey

11-26-2006, 09:20 PM

Big Ben,

It appears that Simpson made it very clear to his team that Sydney was not even to be questioned about what she heard and saw that night. When Johnnie started questioning Lange about it, a side bar was called and that is when Clark said that only Sydney could testify about that and when Johnnie said he would put her on the stand or witness list, Clark snapped back that OJ would never allow you to put her on.

IMO, the only one who was calling the shot on the phone records was OJ Simpson. IMO, these phone calls clearly go toward his innocence, yet he was firm that he did not want his daughter to be questioned. There has to be a reason for this, IMO.

That could also be the reason that Simpson allowed his lawyers to stipulate to this. He may have believed that once this stipulation was in place, no other questions would be asked about what Sydney heard that night.

limakey

11-26-2006, 09:45 PM

Mr. August,

You are dead wrong. The man and woman who found the bodies testified about a woman they saw standing by a car looking at the bodies. They asked her to call for help, she just stood there and then took off. She may have given a statement to the police, she may not have. However, it is clear, she saw the bodies before the couple who was given "credit" (not sure that is the right word to use) for finding the bodies.

Fact---the police testified about tips they were given, they testified about numbers, no where did they ever reveal what those tips were nor did the reveal any tips they received that pointed to OJ Simpson. You made the assumption all these tips were meant to exhonrate Simpson, I very clearly stated that this was a mistake to make this assumption.

You are also lying to yourself and to everybody else on these boards when you say that no one knows what Sydney saw and heard that night. The police who took her and her brother to the police station never testified about their interaction with the children. Fact, Sydeny was the one who gave the police Arnelle's telephone---fact, it was almost six hours after she and her brother were taken out of the home. Fact, it would not have taken Sydney six hours to figure out her sister's telephone number and fact, the police officers who were put in charge of keeping the children entertained were never called to the stand.

Fact, your buddy Jeff Toobin was told of what the children said and fact, several other books made reference to what they were told what the children said.

If you go the section on this board about unanswered questions, Freshwater posted something about the phone call, however, in Freshwater's post, there was two phone calls made.

Det. Merrin testified the media often made these type of phone calls and that each and every time, the media took his word for it?

I could be wrong Mr. August, but when someone calls the police to ask a question or to get help, don't they usually respond with questions of their own? Like, "why would you think we were sitting on two bodies on the west side?" Or why do you think there are two dead bodies on Bundy?".

Reality check---even if this was a common thing, it doesn't mean that they police know at the time that the caller is just getting his or her kicks by making these phone calls. How would you feel is someone saw you having a heart attack on the street, called 911 or the wrong police station and thought the caller was playing tricks so they never responded? How fast would your family being filing a civil suit?

And Mr. August, your ignorance of a reporter's job is just appalling. Please, so the rest of the board can see how ignorant you are to the realities of this, please name one instant when a news reporter would first call a police station to verify a "tip" they obviously received and would accept the police's first response.

As for the caller calling the wrong station, did the Sgt. adivse the reporter that she had the wrong police station and she has to call the right one and here is there number?

Where is your proof that the Sgt. never passed this on to the proper police station? Where is your proof that no one responded to this call? You have it, you just don't want to see it.

Pitiful. Just pitiful. The fantasy you create--Yikes!! You are still a member of "You Got Nothing.Com". The bennies must be great because you have lived very high off of them. IMO:lol:

limakey

11-26-2006, 10:01 PM

Mr. August,

It was the DA's who said the only reason why Ron was killed was because he was a witness to his attack on Nicole. They had no idea what Mr. Simpson thought of Mr. Goldman. They had no idea if he believed Ron was or was going to Nicole's lover that night.

Why would they insist on something they couldn't have known?

2L8 4A D8

11-26-2006, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by limakey

Big Ben,

It appears that Simpson made it very clear to his team that Sydney was not even to be questioned about what she heard and saw that night. When Johnnie started questioning Lange about it, a side bar was called and that is when Clark said that only Sydney could testify about that and when Johnnie said he would put her on the stand or witness list, Clark snapped back that OJ would never allow you to put her on.

Hmmm...let's see ~ maybe because it would incriminate him?

IMO, the only one who was calling the shot on the phone records was OJ Simpson. IMO, these phone calls clearly go toward his innocence, yet he was firm that he did not want his daughter to be questioned. There has to be a reason for this, IMO.

Hmmm...let's see ~ maybe because it would incriminate him?

That could also be the reason that Simpson allowed his lawyers to stipulate to this. He may have believed that once this stipulation was in place, no other questions would be asked about what Sydney heard that night.

Hmmm...let's see ~ maybe because it would incriminate him?

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

11-26-2006, 10:32 PM

2Late,

If those phone calls did incriminate OJ Simpson, why was Marcia Clark wigging out over this? Why not let Johnnie Cochran open a door so wide that she, Chris Darden, and the LAPD could have driven the widest and biggest Mac Truck that God ever allowed to be built?

She was the one who wanted nothing to do with Sydney Simpson and what she heard that night---not the defense.

2L8 4A D8

11-26-2006, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by limakey

<snipped>

Pitiful. Just pitiful. The fantasy you create--Yikes!! You are still a member of "You Got Nothing.Com". The bennies must be great because you have lived very high off of them. IMO:lol:
Speak for yourself Limakey!

You pose the same questions/answers over and over again.

Bob keeps answering your same questions/answers over and over again.

You must be getting paid for every paragraph that you post because your posts just keep on getting longer and longer and longer and longer and longer and longer and longer!

I don't know who is worse. You or Big Ben! Are you ever going to stop or at least cut them down to a low roar? Geez!

JMO and MOO!!

Zold1

11-26-2006, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by jotun

All,
Once again ba trots out one of his top 10 EXCUSES of why the evidence doesn't fit.That he posts over and over and over.Who is he trying to convince US or THEM or himself?

Karen Crawford-the undercover COP.
Most likely a male or 2 also.Mezzuluna was a cover for drugs.They would sell them and hand them over in a doggie-bag.

Maybe not 11 but certainly 10:47.
Remember the clock hadn't been set ahead for DST
so 9:47 was now 10:47. That's why the "record" was obviously faked.Why not bring in someone from the telephone company to verify?.Like was done for the 89 incident.
Because nobody would LIE about it for them.So Ron couldn't have left until 10:50.
Not enough time to get home, eat, change and get himself to Bundy to get killed by O.J. before 11.Who would have had no time being seen by Park at 10:54.

Nicole certainly didn't have much time to get killed with a 10:47 phone call, before 11. O.J.certainly had no time to kill her and get back before being seen at 10:54. Takes at least 6 minutes to drive from Bundy to Rockingham.
Vanatter drove it showed the jury the tape with no objection by the defence.And how long for a novice kill.with 2 fighting victims. Defensive wounds on Nicole"s and Ron's hands.Look at the autospy report.

O.J. IS INNOCENT.

jotun

The problem with you Jotun is that you are using common sense with true facts of this case. As with Joe Boscoe and his, "Problem of Evidence." EDTA here and there, lead detective packing blood instead of booking it where he drew it, wrong times listed confusing issues, people changing their testimony under duress, eyewitnesses ignored and run off by prosecution such as Heidstra! As everyone else is aware of, there was a problem with the blood in and on the Bronco which concluded as ICHABOD and dismissed due to ... what? Oh yes. Contamination! It never made it into the evidence as true and valid. Now it sits forever as an eyesore to the outstanding (NOT) detective work provided by LAPD Rampart Division. what did the Judge know and why was the Bronco prevented from coming in ... with all that supposed evidence? The only thing I have never heard before is that Karen Crawford was an undercover drug police officer which may explain why she made a telephone call right after Ron left.

I also noted that the glasses inside the white envelope was missing a lens. I'm sure someone was quite surprised to discover glasses and not drugs inside. What a shocker. Of course we now know the gardener/handiman confessed to the murder but was also ignored because he is not a rich uppity arrogant black dude. Not so much as a polygraph for him as he sits rotting in a prison. That would sure throw a cog in the wheel, eh?

A few problems come to mind such as egg on face, feet in mouth, unexplained evidence professed, no further investigation on any other tip. Ah well. The truth will one day surface.

As far as Sydney, the reason she was not allowed to testify was due to her fragile condition and loss of her mother. I will hand that part to the police for getting those children out of the house immediately before they woke up. I'm sure that decision was based on a psychologist's opinion irregardless to how it would have exonerated one OJ Simpson. I will also hand that to OJ for following doctor's orders.

jotun

11-26-2006, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

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.

limakey,
O.J.did NOT waive his rights to the phone-records.

The defence DID try to talk to Sydney. The Browns wouldn't allow it.That's why Johnnie was asking Lange about it.
O.J.wanted the defence to talk to her but didn't want her to testify.

Was the same in the Road-Rage Trial.Tho he personally delivered Sydney & Justin to the d.a.'s office. Yale said
'O.J.we might have to call the kids'.O.J.said
'ABSOLUTELY NOT'. In fact that was the only question from he jury.'Could either side have called the minor
children" Answer'YES'
Verdict: NOT GUILTY.

jotun

2L8 4A D8

11-26-2006, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by limakey
2Late,

If those phone calls did incriminate OJ Simpson, why was Marcia Clark wigging out over this? Why not let Johnnie Cochran open a door so wide that she, Chris Darden, and the LAPD could have driven the widest and biggest Mac Truck that God ever allowed to be built?

She was the one who wanted nothing to do with Sydney Simpson and what she heard that night---not the defense.
I say absolutely nothing about Marcia Clark in my post, so I don't know what you are talking about when you say that she was "wigging out".

I was answering your post of, "IMO, the only one who was calling the shot on the phone records was OJ Simpson. IMO, these phone calls clearly go toward his innocence, yet he was firm that he did not want his daughter to be questioned. There has to be a reason for this, IMO." What could Sydney possibly add to the telephone records fiasco? NIL! Nada! Zilch!

Also, as I have stated many times, I don't think Sydney heard or saw anything that night. She was fast asleep in her bedroom, as was Justin in his!

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

11-26-2006, 11:18 PM

Jotun,

Chris Darden said it was the Browns' who would not allow them to talk the children. However, IMO, since the Browns felt so strongly that OJ was the killer, and if Sydney or Justin had information to prove this, they would have testified.

Perhaps legally OJ didn't waive his rights regarding these phone records, however, his defense team could not go against his wishes on this.

In American Tragedy, I believe this phone call was brought up and the comment was made or asked, "why would the Browns want to help OJ?"

I find it impossible to believe that none of the Browns asked Sydney and Justin about that night. Maybe not in very straight forward manner, but surely, they would at least want the comfort of knowing just exactly they were dealing with in regards to the children's mental state. IMO.

limakey

11-26-2006, 11:23 PM

2Late,

No, Mr. August does not answer my questions, he keeps answering questions that I didn't ask. Perfect example, how does he know that the only tips that came in were ones that went to OJ's innocence?

Mr. August insists that the phone call or phone calls regarding the murders were common phone calls, yet he has yet to explain why a member of the media would pass up the "scoop" of being the first at the murder scene.

Mr. August feels he has to duty to correct any information he has deemed as false. He does not have exclusive rights to this "duty".

limakey

11-26-2006, 11:50 PM

2Late,

Did you miss the part of my post about the side bar? If I remember correctly, Lange did acknowledge he knew something about that phone call. Clark insisted that only Sydney could testify about this.

Also, you have said all along you believe the person on the other end of that phone conversation, was OJ Simpson. That she was "mommy's best friend". If you truly believe this, then you can't say Sydney and/or Justin heard nothing or knew nothing about that night. Sydney could have only known about the "best friend" is if Nicole told her.

Sydney might not have heard any thing that night in direct relation to the murders, however, that does not mean she doesn't remember what time she went to bed. It doesn't mean that could not have seen any blood drops before that night and it does not mean that she could not have testified about the last few hours or days of her mother's life.

IMO, had the DA's only had to worry about the "best friend" testimony from Sydney, they would have put her on the stand, using the "cover" story. However, if Sydney was put on the stand, she would have been asked if she was asked about her father's whereabouts. She would have been asked if she knew her father's telephone number and if she ever asked to call him, etc.

As usual, there is nothing simple in this case. IMO.

Zold1

11-26-2006, 11:52 PM

Oh, BTW... the EDTA was also in the blood found on the back gate as well as the socks. I wonder if that is the same gate MF was so adamnant to have recovered and was so irrate it was not. I also understand it was Vanatter walking around for two days with that blood vial, and it was Judge Ito who watched the film and told the poor guy collecting it that the vial was IN HIS BAG. Fung? Fong? He didn't even know he had it.

Interesting. :rolleyes:

socaldiva

11-27-2006, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
he's always pushing his agenda. . .

Hope you've had a good holiday.

Sigh...I know.

I had a great holiday & hope you had the same :seeya:

Big Ben

11-27-2006, 01:07 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jotun

Big Ben,
Can you do better than Johnnie was nervous because of his new firm? Again.
WHAT DID HE SAY?????
About the records.IF I had been able to confront him as planned.
Would remember his words and actions.

But, jotun, you didn't confront him so all of what you say you would have remembered is a mute issue.

I don't know what Cochran said to Mary Cox. What I got from Doc J was that Cox was as surprised that Johnnie had left Calif. and was now standing in her offices on the east coast. He, according to her, was uneasy that someone that should not have had deep knowledge of those phone records was confronting him about them outside of the state of Calif. The confrontation, I was told, undoubtedly made the senior partners uneasy and more leery of keeping her on with their firm. This is what I received from Doc J after Mary had spoken to him about her pending status.

Also what was the MOTIVE for hiding the phone-records??? Can understand Shapiro but not F.Lee. WHAT DID THEY SAY?????

It trivializes MOTIVE, in my opinion, to say greed, money and celebrity. But if the time remained at 11:00 PM there would not have been a need for a trial. Alll but F. Lee Baileywere virtually unknown outside of Southern California therefore a celebrity trial was akin to a perfect storm, or winning a lottery, for these attorneys. The only thing that could upset the apple cart is evidence arising that would obviate the need for a trial to take place at all.

I don't know again what either Shapiro or F. Lee had to say because the info came to me, second and third hand, after the fact again from Doc J and attorney Doug McCann.

Big Ben

11-27-2006, 02:07 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

All of these questions have reasonable answers.

11. Simpson held Goldman from behind him with his left arm wrapped around Goldman's neck while he stabbed and cut him with the knife in his right hand. According to Dr. Spitz the killing wound happened early in the struggle, a stab to Goldman's left flank that cut his aorta. Goldman would have immediately weakened but continued to struggle until Simpson dropped him to the ground to bleed to death. Simpson was bigger, stronger, angry, and armed with a weapon in a very small enclosure. Goldman never had a chance.

The autopsy report indicates a single edge knife stab wound to the right flank penetrating the ribs and nicking the aorta. Are you sure that you didn't make a mistake on this, Bob, when you said left flank.

The cutting edge of the single edge knife is facing a direction away from the body based upon the medical examiner's measurements and description of the right flank exit wound, according to Doc J's review of the autopsy report. This is indicative that the wound was more likely delivered by a left handed assailant facing Goldman, hooking upward with the knife through the right flank of his body, rather than an assailant stabbing his right flank from behind with this particular single edge knife assault.

If Ron Goldman were being attacked from behind, by a right handed assailant, it would be an awkward manner for the assailant to be holding the single edge knife with the sharp edge facing outward, to then plunge it into Goldman's torso. Try it Bob and see if it makes sense. Use a butter knife, so you'll be around to comment.

The right handed assailant, then raises the knife to slice the front of Goldman's throat from behind, as seen in the autopsy report, with the single edge knife and its sharp edge facing away from his body.

What you would have is the dull edge of the knife pressed against his throat.
So now you are digging a dungeon for yourself putting just one knife into the hands of one right handed assailant. The assailant would have to turn the knife around and make the adjustment before delivering certain stab wounds to allow it to line up with your Simpson as the one assailant theory, Bob.

All indications are that Goldman put up a significantly long struggle. Though he had 23 stab wounds to the right side of his face and neck, they were all superficial wounds. Those wounds according to Dr. Golden carry the imprint of a double edge knife, or a dagger, due to the wound being tapered on both sides of the exit wounds. Goldman only had his jugular cut, which is only under approx. 20 lbs of pressure, and his voice box was not severed. Therefore he still had enough adrenalin rush that he cut punch, kick and scream. Unlike Nicole who had her right carotid artery severed, which is under 120 lbs of pressure, and probably caused immediate death to her. She also had 4 deep stab wounds to the left side of her neck with the dull edge of the single edge knife facing forward and the sharp edge facing over her shoulders to the rear. Again, Bob, use one of your single edge butter knives and expalin how a right hand assailant places these single edge stab wounds in the left side of her neck with the sharp edge facing the rear over her shoulders.

bobaugust

11-27-2006, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

No Bob, I placed Cochran's words, "We didn't show...we're not going to show the jury the telephone bills or whatever" in the context of his pleading to the court on that particular date in July of 1995.

Big Ben, you took Cochran's words completely out of context. Your interpretation is not only ridiculous it's meaningless. As far as I know none of the telephone records were shown to the jury except Juditha Brown's that were used in a prosecution exhibit.

For someone who sounds so intelligent you're entire argument is dumb, because it's based only on mistakes not evidence.

There was no 11:00 PM telephone call.
Louis Brown initially told Ratcliffe the wrong time of the last telephone call Juditha made to Nicole. But he told her what that call was about. We know from Karen Crawford and Juditha Brown that call was made shortly after 9:30 PM, not 11:00. PM

There was no 10:17 PM telephone call.
Clark did not remember one because it wasn't there. If it was there she said in court she would stipulate to it but that stipulation was never made. This was only another mistake this time made by Shapiro.

So tell us Big Ben, what makes the mistaken 11:00 PM time more credible to you than the mistaken 10:17 time?

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-27-2006, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

You are dead wrong. The man and woman who found the bodies testified about a woman they saw standing by a car looking at the bodies. They asked her to call for help, she just stood there and then took off. She may have given a statement to the police, she may not have. However, it is clear, she saw the bodies before the couple who was given "credit" (not sure that is the right word to use) for finding the bodies.

limakey, you're the one who is wrong. Boztep never said anything you claim he said.

February 8, 1995 Sukru Boztep
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

11-27-2006, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by limakey

Fact---the police testified about tips they were given, they testified about numbers, no where did they ever reveal what those tips were nor did the reveal any tips they received that pointed to OJ Simpson. You made the assumption all these tips were meant to exhonrate Simpson, I very clearly stated that this was a mistake to make this assumption.

limakey, Vannatter and Lange talked about the tips in there book

Evidence Dismissed,
"Lange and Vannatter were deluged by telephone calls, ranging from the LAPD high command and reporters to potential sources who want to offer information. These tips, usually provided anonymously, cause the LAPD to open a "clue book" for what would become 518 clues, 50 of which pointed to a variety of motives and suspects having nothing to do with Simpson. ALL fifty of these tips were investigated. Among those clues taken seriously and not so seriously include.

Person reporting heard dog bark and saw man run across her front yard.
Neo-Nazi bikers claim Nicole killed due to interracial marriage.
Inmate states he was approached to kill the victim.
Waiter at Mezzaluna missing from work (suspect?)
Mezzaluna is a cocaine distribution pint and Goldman is supplying.
(Person reporting) confesses to killing victims with bayonet.
Jason Simpson is the suspect.
Kato did it.
(Person reporting) saw a neighbor making a machete.
Nicole's family did it.
Psychic. Heard a voice. O.J. didn't do it.
Informant states the 'mob' committed murders.
Informant states Nicole 'laundering money. Mob 'whacked' her.
Psychic. A serial killer involved.
Ambulance attendant did it.
Two black men out of Houston did murders.
Hitman Johnny Reb killed victims.
Can prove Simpson didn't commit the murders.
Saw a Mercedes Benz follow Nicole from the Mezzaluna.
Caller confesses to murders.
Simpson didn't do it. (Caller) framed Simpson.
Indiana prisoner recruited to kill Nicole.
(Person reporting) has videotape. Killer is a male, white.
(Person reporting) states, "This is my fault."
Gang member paid $260,000 to kill Nicole.
(Person reporting) saw two guys grab Goldman and then attack Nicole.
Gang related murder.
(Person reporting provides) license number of vehicle involved in murders.
(Person reporting has) photo of man who knows real killers.
Fuhrman and Kato offered (Person reporting) $100,000 to kill victims."

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-27-2006, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by limakey

You are also lying to yourself and to everybody else on these boards when you say that no one knows what Sydney saw and heard that night. The police who took her and her brother to the police station never testified about their interaction with the children. Fact, Sydeny was the one who gave the police Arnelle's telephone---fact, it was almost six hours after she and her brother were taken out of the home. Fact, it would not have taken Sydney six hours to figure out her sister's telephone number and fact, the police officers who were put in charge of keeping the children entertained were never called to the stand.

Fact, your buddy Jeff Toobin was told of what the children said and fact, several other books made reference to what they were told what the children said.

If you go the section on this board about unanswered questions, Freshwater posted something about the phone call, however, in Freshwater's post, there was two phone calls made.

limakey, no I'm not lying to myself, you're the one posting false information based only on your imagination and rumors.

My buddy Jeff Toobin? That's funny. You seem to think that everyone who understands that Simpson was the guilty all know each other or are buddies, right? The only thing Toobin wrote in his book about this was that Sydney asked to make a phone call and then dialed her home number.

The Run of His Life, Jeffrey Toobin,
"The answering machine picked up, and Sydney left a message, 'Mommy, please call me back. I want to know what happened last night. Why did we have to go to the police station? Please answer, Mommy. Please answer, Mommy. Please answer, Mommy. Please answer. 'Bye."

Fact: you don't know what Sydney said or didn't say to the police. And if someone at the police station knows they have never said anything about it. So, nobody knows.

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-27-2006, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by limakey

Det. Merrin testified the media often made these type of phone calls and that each and every time, the media took his word for it?

I could be wrong Mr. August, but when someone calls the police to ask a question or to get help, don't they usually respond with questions of their own? Like, "why would you think we were sitting on two bodies on the west side?" Or why do you think there are two dead bodies on Bundy?".

Reality check---even if this was a common thing, it doesn't mean that they police know at the time that the caller is just getting his or her kicks by making these phone calls. How would you feel is someone saw you having a heart attack on the street, called 911 or the wrong police station and thought the caller was playing tricks so they never responded? How fast would your family being filing a civil suit?

And Mr. August, your ignorance of a reporter's job is just appalling. Please, so the rest of the board can see how ignorant you are to the realities of this, please name one instant when a news reporter would first call a police station to verify a "tip" they obviously received and would accept the police's first response.

As for the caller calling the wrong station, did the Sgt. adivse the reporter that she had the wrong police station and she has to call the right one and here is there number?

Where is your proof that the Sgt. never passed this on to the proper police station? Where is your proof that no one responded to this call? You have it, you just don't want to see it.

limakey, your rant is ridiculous and has nothing to do with what Merrin said happened. You have again relied on rumors and exaggerations.

The woman who called represented to Sergeant Merrin that she was somehow associated with Channel 4. There is no evidence who that person was or if she was telling the truth. Sergeant Merrin indicated that as watch commander he received calls several times a day asking whether or not he had heard of any murders or crimes that have gone on in the Wilshire area.

No Sergeant Merrin did not tell the caller they had the wrong police station because the caller only referred to the west side of Los Angeles. The fact is that the call was made to the Wilshire police station not Brentwood. That's what makes it the wrong police station. Merrin was not asked if he passed this information on.

bobaugust

William Anthony

11-27-2006, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

SNIPPED

It has provided the conspirators with a raw and sensitive camoflague to facilitate escape from their malfeasance, knowing that it would cause people to erupt in anger, preoccupy their time with subjective analysis, and create further delay through disdain and inuendo whenever their prior assertions of fact were to be examined under the light.

This Simpson trial may have been a trial balloon, an experiment for a broader purpose for future events to come. The subsequent calls of Americans after the Simpson trial to revamp the way that justice is administered by the U.S., I don't think has fallen upon deaf ears.

After the softening of our intellect, I think that we may have given certain people the prototype to justify subsequent activities in violation of the basic accordances of law around the world. We've found now that if you frighten people using race as a catalyst the normal procedures of legislative and judicial protocol will give way to facilitate the granting of plenipotentiary power or an effective brand of martial law.

You have set forth a well reasoned argument that necesitates some profound consideration. However, the argument does not include any reason for the defense to engage in the manipulation of that specific evidence and suggests that the prosecution intentionally distorted or tampered with exculpatory evidence. Given those presumptions, I cannot see Cochran conceding or acquiescing to not introducing the phone records, when he could have made a formidable argument that the photos were more prejudicial than probative. The role of race was a central issue in the case and had its own reason for being introduced, i.e. the impeachement of blankety blank the MF. Given the aforementioned parameters, it is unlikey that race was introduced as a diversion, and there must have been a far more sinister or beneficial quid pro quo that allowed for the stipulation, other than a concession to the display of the photos, imo.

William Anthony

11-27-2006, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

So tell us Big Ben, what makes the mistaken 11:00 PM time more credible to you than the mistaken 10:17 time?

bobaugust

I thought about something that has puzzled me about the trial for sometime. Please, tell me bobaugust what would have been the first thing you would have done, if you walked in on someone being murdered?

William Anthony

11-27-2006, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

More games from W.A. I think a wide variety of races understand that Orenthal is a double murderer. You are the one that characterized it as a race thing, not I.

So, you do not have a racial break-down on the "vast mocking majority", correct? This is all you needed to say, instead of responding with accusations.

bobaugust

11-27-2006, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

No Bob, I placed Cochran's words, "We didn't show...we're not going to show the jury the telephone bills or whatever" in the context of his pleading to the court on that particular date in July of 1995.

The Serpents Rising documentary shows what occurred because of the LAPD officer Raphael Perez's testimony in 2000, that Ramparts Police Precinct had sent over 3,000 innocent men to prison by the use of planted evidence, Bob. Others alleged that Ramparts officers had visited OJ's house on the night of the murders.

Big Ben, your tactic of taking Cochran's words out of context and then putting your own interpretation on them is not only dishonest it's doesn't even make any sense. As far as I know the only telephone records that were shown to the jury was the enlarged copy of the Brown's telephone bill on the the prosecution exhibit.

You're lame excuses pointing to other cases and other situations are meaningless. Every claim of evidence planting in the Simpson case was proved false.

There was no 11:00 PM telephone call.
That was only a mistaken time estimate about a real call Lou Brown told Ratcliffe about that was made shortly after 9:30 PM.

There was no 10:17 PM telephone call.
That was a mistake by Robert Shapiro. It was never on the Brown's telephone records.

Everything you claim about these telephone calls are fantasies. The evidence in this case proves they were only mistakes and these fictitious telephone calls never happened.

bobaugust

William Anthony

11-27-2006, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
he's always pushing his agenda. . .

Hope you've had a good holiday.

Your agenda seems to be intrusion into subjects you have a chance to stay out of, imho. I do not have or am I any position to push any agenda that you may assume I have. I have always stated that the role that race plays in the CJ S is intriguing to me and seek to have an open and honest discussion on the subject. Unlike some posters, I do not hide behind snide comments or try to evade the subject by employing unwarranted accusations.

martin II

11-27-2006, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Your agenda seems to be intrusion into subjects you have a chance to stay out of, imho. I do not have or am I any position to push any agenda that you may assume I have. I have always stated that the role that race plays in the CJ S is intriguing to me and seek to have an open and honest discussion on the subject. Unlike some posters, I do not hide behind snide comments or try to evade the subject by employing unwarranted accusations.

William

very well stated. Especially the part about snide comments.
THANKS

MARTIN II

bobaugust

11-27-2006, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

The autopsy report indicates a single edge knife stab wound to the right flank penetrating the ribs and nicking the aorta. Are you sure that you didn't make a mistake on this, Bob, when you said left flank.

Big Ben, I don't have any confidence in anything Dr. Johnson says just based on the ignorant law suit he filed.

Dr. Golden, Dr. Lakshmanan, and Dr. Spitz all testified that all of the wounds on both victims were consistent with having been made by one single edge knife. They all opined that the killer was right handed.

Dr. Spitz told how the stab to Goldman's left flank that cut his aorta was the killing wound that happened early in the struggle. I am not a physician and do not claim any expertise about this subject but based on what I know about Dr. Spitz and his impressive credentials, I find his opinions credible.

November 8, 1997
Q. Were there wounds on both sides of the body?
A. here were wounds on both sides of the body. The wound that I named the devastating wound on the left flank on the left side of the body, and then there were the stab wounds to the lung on the right side of the body. And there are wounds on both sides.
Q. What accounts for wounds on both sides of the body?
A. Well, there's movement. There is movement. There is an attempt to get away from this situation. Sometimes the victim presents the right side and sometimes presents the left side. And there's movement on the part of the assailant, as well, but very fast movement.
Q. You said that you weren't putting the wounds in any sequence when you listed the groups. Do you have any opinion on the nature of the struggle, in some general sense, when the thigh wound was inflicted and the wound to the aorta or the left flank was inflicted?
A. The wound of the thigh and many of the superficial, or maybe most of the superficial cuts and bruises were inflicted at the outset. In other words, that's how it started. That's during the active portion of the altercation --
of the -- of the encounter. The wound to the left flank, I cannot say exactly when it happened, but it occurred early on. And the reason I'm saying that is because this wound entered through the skin, through a muscle adjacent to
the vertebral column, and into the aorta. The aorta is a garden-hose-diameter pipe, tube. The aorta comes directly out of the heart, makes a curve called the arch, runs to the left of the vertebral column, and then comes down into the lower abdominal area and bifurcates into each leg.
Q. When you use the words vertebral column --
A. The vertebral column is the backbone. And within the aorta, with a is the large-caliber artery, there's very large pressure, so that when there's a hole in the aorta, the blood gushes out at fantastic speed.
And so, there are two holes in the aorta. There is one that is described in the report as half an inch, and then the knife went through the aorta a second time as it came out of the aorta, and caused another half-an-inch opening.
I measured it on a picture and I found that it is indeed five-eighths of an inch, but it's as close as half an inch as can be.
And the reason I'm saying that this wound was inflicted early on, is because there is very little blood in the chest from two wounds that injure the lung.
And the reason that there is so little blood in the chest is because the blood had already been running out of the aorta, however little time there was. But as soon as there is a hole in the aorta, the pressure drops, just as -- exactly the same as would happen if you make two half-an-inch or two five-eighths-inch holes in your garden hose, you could not expect that the sprinkler at the end of the garden hose is going to generate a lot of water, because the
water is running out before it gets to the sprinkler.
*
Q. We'll talk about the aorta a little more in a moment. But you mentioned a lot of blood coming out. Is that blood going out externally or is it internal, within the body?
A. No. Most -- most of Mr. Goldman's blood was internal bleeding. And the bleeding, in the case of Mr. Goldman, was from the aorta; all other wounds combined caused little bleeding. But the bleeding from the aorta was overwhelming, and is, in fact, is what killed him. And this wound was bled internally.

bobaugust

Kate Sachel

11-27-2006, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

What I find most interesting is the race of the people who mock the verdicts.

I normally attempt to stay away from this topic, but because I believe that you are open minded and able to discuss the issues at hand honestly, I'd like to respond.

In my own experiences, I found that it was mostly whites that mocked the criminal trial verdict, stating that it was rendered only based on sending a message of payback to law enforcement for the injustice that blacks experienced in the legal system. At the conclusion of the civil trial, I found that it was mostly blacks that mocked the verdict, stating that it was payback for the criminal trial verdict and an attempt to ensure that a black man was brought down on some level.

Kate

weezer

11-27-2006, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Your agenda seems to be intrusion into subjects you have a chance to stay out of, imho. I do not have or am I any position to push any agenda that you may assume I have. I have always stated that the role that race plays in the CJ S is intriguing to me and seek to have an open and honest discussion on the subject. Unlike some posters, I do not hide behind snide comments or try to evade the subject by employing unwarranted accusations. Oops -- looks like YOU butted into my post with socal.

William Anthony

11-27-2006, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

I normally attempt to stay away from this topic, but because I believe that you are open minded and able to discuss the issues at hand honestly, I'd like to respond.

In my own experiences, I found that it was mostly whites that mocked the criminal trial verdict, stating that it was rendered only based on sending a message of payback to law enforcement for the injustice that blacks experienced in the legal system. At the conclusion of the civil trial, I found that it was mostly blacks that mocked the verdict, stating that it was payback for the criminal trial verdict and an attempt to ensure that a black man was brought down on some level.

Kate

I hope your holiday went well, and I do appreciate your honesty. This is what I surmised that the break-down would be. The wounds of racial hatred and bigotry heal very slowly. The greatest autrocity of this trial is that to some neither of the verdicts represent what the evidence tended to prove, but only the effect of racisim on the legal system. As long as race plays such a dominant role in cases such as this one, victims and victim's families, imo, may not ever be comforted by having the satisfaction of knowing the verdict has an independent credibility.

William Anthony

11-27-2006, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Oops -- looks like YOU butted into my post with socal.

No, my post was in regard to your intrussion into the conversation between fbg and myself. Although, you are right, since I should have expected it, because I cannot remeber a single post you offered, imo, that was based on an original thought you had. I forgot to consider the source, and I apologize.

William Anthony

11-27-2006, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Oops -- looks like YOU butted into my post with socal.

Oops, I had you confused with socaldiva-I wonder why?

socaldiva

11-27-2006, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Oops, I had you confused with socaldiva-I wonder why?

Because you are easily confused?

socaldiva

11-27-2006, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by martin II

William

very well stated. Especially the part about snide comments.
THANKS

MARTIN II

Oh please...you & William are constantly making snide comments. :rolleyes:

Kate Sachel

11-27-2006, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Oh please...you & William are constantly making snide comments. :rolleyes:

Yes, indeed martin II is the very last person on this forum who should be commenting on another person's "snide comments".

Kate

William Anthony

11-27-2006, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Because you are easily confused?

No, not easily, but the two of you sound like echos of bobaugust.

William Anthony

11-27-2006, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Kate Sachel

Yes, indeed martin II is the very last person on this forum who should be commenting on another person's "snide comments".

Kate

Kate,

I will not attempt to respond for Martin. I will say that I have a tendency to respond in kind. I wish others would do so.:)

William Anthony

11-27-2006, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

No, not easily, but the two of you sound like echos of bobaugust.

Oops. I misspelled echoes!

socaldiva

11-27-2006, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

No, not easily, but the two of you sound like echos of bobaugust.

No doubt considering all 3 of us base our information on actual trial testimony & evidence rather than our imaginations.

socaldiva

11-27-2006, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Kate,

I will not attempt to respond for Martin. I will say that I have a tendency to respond in kind. I wish others would do so.:)

Wrong. For example you altered just about everyone's nic here. You would refer to Bob August as "Bobby" & 2L8 as "license plate". I forgot what your other ones were, but don't sit there & claim that you only "respond in kind".

William Anthony

11-27-2006, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Wrong. For example you altered just about everyone's nic here. You would refer to Bob August as "Bobby" & 2L8 as "license plate". I forgot what your other ones were, but don't sit there & claim that you only "respond in kind".

I responded after they posted to me what I considered disrespectful and unwarranted negative comments, thank you very much. I do believe that my post was directed to Kate. However, I will not hold your audacity against you:). I noticed that you have not made any accusation that I have done anything untoward toward you. Is that because you have been civil with me?

socaldiva

11-27-2006, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I responded after they posted to me what I considered disrespectful and unwarranted negative comments, thank you very much. I do believe that my post was directed to Kate. However, I will not hold your audacity against you:). I noticed that you have not made any accusation that I have done anything untoward toward you. Is that because you have been civil with me?

You are spinning here. I didn't give a full accounting of the immaturity of your posts. Let's leave it at that & Kate can reach her own conclusion as to what kind of poster you are. ;)

William Anthony

11-27-2006, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

You are spinning here. I didn't give a full accounting of the immaturity of your posts. Let's leave it at that & Kate can reach her own conclusion as to what kind of poster you are. ;)

Imho, you are spining a house full of carpet of false accusations about my posts. There was a poster, who tried to influence Kate about me, and Kate and I have disagreed civilly. I respect the fact, and I am sure that you likewise do, that Kate has expressed her ability to decide for herself. This perhaps should be the goal of all posters and not to paraphrase the post of others.

socaldiva

11-27-2006, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony
*snip*
Imho, you are spining a house full of carpet of false accusations about my posts.

Wrong again. I have not made any "false accusations" about your posts.

William Anthony

11-27-2006, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Wrong again. I have not made any "false accusations" about your posts.

You are claiming that I did not respond in kind and that some of my posts are immature. I responded to immature and derrogatory posts made about the criminal jury. I do believe that I have the ability to discern when posters are earnest as to their feelings about the jury making mistakes and other who call them names without admitting to their true motivation behind the name calling. Putting this aside, perhaps, you can answer a question I originally posed to bobaugust. What would you do first, if you walked in on someone murdering someone else?

bobaugust

11-27-2006, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Putting this aside, perhaps, you can answer a question I originally posed to bobaugust. What would you do first, if you walked in on someone murdering someone else?

I don't recall you asking me that question. What makes you think when Ron Goldman walked in on Simpson that he was murdering Nicole?

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-27-2006, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I thought about something that has puzzled me about the trial for sometime. Please, tell me bobaugust what would have been the first thing you would have done, if you walked in on someone being murdered?

I previously saw where you made reference to this question on another thread. My response is the same as I responded there.

What makes you think when Ron Goldman walked in on Simpson that Simpson was murdering Nicole?

bobaugust

Ames

11-27-2006, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I cannt speak of what is obvious to you, only that the jury disagreed with your conclusion.

Well, the jury was WRONG! Stranger things have happened....(IMO)

Ames

11-27-2006, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Long enough for the jury to render a favorable verdict.

OH please....the jury already knew what the outcome was going to be, even before the trial got started. What a waste of tax payer's money! IMO

socaldiva

11-28-2006, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Ames

OH please....the jury already knew what the outcome was going to be, even before the trial got started. What a waste of tax payer's money! IMO

:beer:

William Anthony

11-28-2006, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Ames

OH please....the jury already knew what the outcome was going to be, even before the trial got started. What a waste of tax payer's money! IMO

I honor your opinion and will only state that there are many who feel the same about the outcome of the civil trial.

William Anthony

11-28-2006, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by socaldiva

:beer:

Too much drinking is not good for you.:) This post is in jest!

William Anthony

11-28-2006, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

I previously saw where you made reference to this question on another thread. My response is the same as I responded there.

What makes you think when Ron Goldman walked in on Simpson that Simpson was murdering Nicole?

bobaugust

I think that was the theory asserted by the prosecution, if memory serves me correctly. They promulgated the theory that Ron walked in on the murder and Simpson attacked and disabled him and then went back and finished murdering Nicole. Again, my question to you is what would you have done first, if you walked in on someone being murdered? Please, do not respond with a question.

Ames

11-28-2006, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I honor your opinion and will only state that there are many who feel the same about the outcome of the civil trial.

Are you just totally overlooking all of the OVERWHELMING evidence? Apparently so. Look, I am not trying to be rude to you...and I do have to commend you for being so civil to me, considering we are on opposite sides of the fence. You have been an extremely polite poster..and I appreciate that. I was just curious if you REALLY think that OJ is innocent? If so, then who do YOU think killed Nicole and Ron?? (IMO)

William Anthony

11-28-2006, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Are you just totally overlooking all of the OVERWHELMING evidence? Apparently so. Look, I am not trying to be rude to you...and I do have to commend you for being so civil to me, considering we are on opposite sides of the fence. You have been an extremely polite poster..and I appreciate that. I was just curious if you REALLY think that OJ is innocent? If so, then who do YOU think killed Nicole and Ron?? (IMO)

Thank you. I have previously stated that I did not follow the civil trial and, now I wish I had, because I intend to practice civil law. However, the criminal trial was not to prove guilt or innoncence and I have never claimed him to be innocent. It was to prove whether or not he was guilty as charged. The civil trial only proved that he was liable for the wrongful deaths. Perhaps, we will never know who the killer(s) is or are. One of the things that bothers me is a question I posed to bobaugust, as to what he would do first, if he walked in on somone murdering someone else. I have yet to get a response. I will be polite as long as others do likewise. I do not believe it is appropriate to call others names simply because they do not agree with your opinion.

Ames

11-28-2006, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Thank you. I have previously stated that I did not follow the civil trial and, now I wish I had, because I intend to practice civil law. However, the criminal trial was not to prove guilt or innoncence and I have never claimed him to be innocent. It was to prove whether or not he was guilty as charged. The civil trial only proved that he was liable for the wrongful deaths. Perhaps, we will never know who the killer(s) is or are. One of the things that bothers me is a question I posed to bobaugust, as to what he would do first, if he walked in on somone murdering someone else. I have yet to get a response. I will be polite as long as others do likewise. I do not believe it is appropriate to call others names simply because they do not agree with your opinion.

I don't know what bobaugust would do...but, if I walked in on someone murdering someone else....I would turn around and run as fast as I could, in the other direction...:chicken: If it was a family member being murdered....I would fight the attacker with everything that I had, though. But, that's just me. What would YOU do??? Just curious.....(IMO)

William Anthony

11-28-2006, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I don't know what bobaugust would do...but, if I walked in on someone murdering someone else....I would turn around and run as fast as I could, in the other direction...:chicken: If it was a family member being murdered....I would fight the attacker with everything that I had, though. But, that's just me. What would YOU do??? Just curious.....(IMO)

I would like to think that I would help and if it was a loved one I know I would, but the first thing I would do would be to holler at the top of my lung power for help. This is a problem with the case that has troubled me from the beginning. Then the prosecution would like for us to believe that he was nimble and agile enough to disable or kill Ron and proceed with killing Nichole and make a hasty get away, but somehow became so clumsy, after niftiliy scaling a fence and leaving only one bent wire, to bang into a wall three times, and the fence was not made of rubber.:) I think bobaugust realized the trouble with the scenario and chose not to answer.

weezer

11-28-2006, 12:32 PM

*Snipped*Originally posted by William Anthony
but the first thing I would do would be to holler at the top of my lung power for help. maybe you would just holler, "Hey, hey, hey!"

William Anthony

11-28-2006, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* maybe you would just holler, "Hey, hey, hey!"

No, help, help, help. Personally, and maybe this is a Black thing :) , but hollering hey to me is an attempt to speak to someone. I might have holled help, stop, he is killing her. I know I would have yelled help, murder and not hey, hey, hey.

weezer

11-28-2006, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

No, help, help, help. Personally, and maybe this is a Black thing :) , but hollering hey to me is an attempt to speak to someone. I might have holled help, stop, he is killing her. I know I would have yelled help, murder and not hey, hey, hey. There is no evidence that orenthal was murdering Nicole when Ron walked up.

William Anthony

11-28-2006, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
There is no evidence that orenthal was murdering Nicole when Ron walked up.

I agree but that is what I recall the prosecution' s theory was. The criminal jury also agreed with your assesment of the evidence. Thank you for your conceeding:). How's that for lawyering?

weezer

11-28-2006, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I agree but that is what I recall the prosecution' s theory was. The criminal jury also agreed with your assesment of the evidence. Thank you for your conceeding:). How's that for lawyering? your recollection is wrong

At least tell me what I was 'conceeding'

Ames

11-28-2006, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
There is no evidence that orenthal was murdering Nicole when Ron walked up.

I thought that the theory was that OJ went there to kill Nicole, but, as he got there...Ron came up...so HE was murdered first...and then Nicole. Please correct me if I am wrong.....(IMO)

William Anthony

11-28-2006, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
your recollection is wrong

At least tell me what I was 'conceeding'

You are conceding that there is no evidence that Simpson was murdering Nicole.

weezer

11-28-2006, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

You are conceding that there is no evidence that Simpson was murdering Nicole. There is evidence that only three people were at Bundy the night of the murders: Nicole Brown, Ron Goldman and their murderer: orenthal james simpson. orenthal left behind fiber, hair, blood, glove, cap and size 12 BM footprints.

William Anthony

11-28-2006, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I thought that the theory was that OJ went there to kill Nicole, but, as he got there...Ron came up...so HE was murdered first...and then Nicole. Please correct me if I am wrong.....(IMO)

I have unsucessfully looked for a link but was unable to find one, but as I recall there was testimony that Ron walked in and Simpson attacked him and maybe killed him and then went back and slit Nicole's throat would had been prostrate on the steps.

William Anthony

11-28-2006, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
There is evidence that only three people were at Bundy the night of the murders: Nicole Brown, Ron Goldman and their murderer: orenthal james simpson. orenthal left behind fiber, hair, blood, glove, cap and size 12 BM footprints.

Please provide the testimony that conclusively or beyond a reasonable doubt proves he left the evidence, you menttioned, there on the night of the murders.

weezer

11-28-2006, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Please provide the testimony that conclusively or beyond a reasonable doubt proves he left the evidence, you menttioned, there on the night of the murders. :shrug: WTH

William Anthony

11-28-2006, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
:shrug: WTH

Does that mean you cannot?

weezer

11-28-2006, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Does that mean you cannot? are you kidding? I suggest you watch all of your tapes of the criminal trial and then read the transcripts from the civil trial.

William Anthony

11-28-2006, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
are you kidding? I suggest you watch all of your tapes of the criminal trial and then read the transcripts from the civil trial.

Reading transcripts will not tell me the spirit in which things were said, and I never heard anyone say that the evidence was placed there on the night of the murders by Simpson.

weezer

11-28-2006, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Reading transcripts will not tell me the spirit in which things were said, and I never heard anyone say that the evidence was placed there on the night of the murders by Simpson. You said you have the tapes of the trial -- watch them and judge for yourself the spirit in which things were said.

Are you suggesting the evidence was NOT there on the night of the murders?

And if the evidence wasn't brought there by orenthal, then by who?

Ames

11-28-2006, 01:57 PM

William Anthony

11-28-2006, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Okay, thats what I thought. Ron's attack came first. Thanks...

No, you misunderstood. The testimony was, as I recall, that Simpson was allegedly attacking her, when Ron walked in and then he attacked and maybe killed Ron, and afterward returned to and killed Nicole. Ron may have been killed first but she was attacked first, according to my recollection of the testimony and prosecution theory. I hope this clarifys the matter for you.

Ames

11-28-2006, 02:16 PM

Kate Sachel

11-28-2006, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

No, you misunderstood. The testimony was, as I recall, that Simpson was allegedly attacking her, when Ron walked in and then he attacked and maybe killed Ron, and afterward returned to and killed Nicole. Ron may have been killed first but she was attacked first, according to my recollection of the testimony and prosecution theory. I hope this clarifys the matter for you.

Nicole had a large contusion on the back of her head, and the bottom of her feet were clean which obviously shows that she did not step in any blood. Based on those two things, it appeared that Nicole was possibly struck first with a blow to the back of the head which knocked her down and rendered her unconsious. It is then speculated that is when Ron came onto the scene and was killed.

Kate

socaldiva

11-28-2006, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*snip*
And if the evidence wasn't brought there by orenthal, then by who?

Maybe Orenthal has an ugly azz identical twin he's kept hidden from the world :tongue:

bobaugust

11-28-2006, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I have unsucessfully looked for a link but was unable to find one, but as I recall there was testimony that Ron walked in and Simpson attacked him and maybe killed him and then went back and slit Nicole's throat would had been prostrate on the steps.

The problem here is your original question of what we would do if we walked in on someone murdering someone. If you're trying to relate that to what you think Ron Goldman did that night your premise is wrong.

When Ron Goldman arrived at Nicole's front gate, the evidence is that Nicole's dog wa barking loudly and continuously outside the gate. What Goldman may have seen was Simpson standing over Nicole who was lying unconscious on the ground. If that was the situation then Simpson wasn't "murdering" Nicole at that time. So Goldman yelled, "Hey, hey, hey, hey!"

bobaugust

weezer

11-28-2006, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Maybe Orenthal has an ugly azz identical twin he's kept hidden from the world :tongue: :lol: Thanks -- I needed that

William Anthony

11-28-2006, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

The problem here is your original question of what we would do if we walked in on someone murdering someone. If you're trying to relate that to what you think Ron Goldman did that night your premise is wrong.

When Ron Goldman arrived at Nicole's front gate, the evidence is that Nicole's dog wa barking loudly and continuously outside the gate. What Goldman may have seen was Simpson standing over Nicole who was lying unconscious on the ground. If that was the situation then Simpson wasn't "murdering" Nicole at that time. So Goldman yelled, "Hey, hey, hey, hey!"

bobaugust

According to your scenario, you will conced that the dog was barking and Simpson was standing over an unconscious body. What about the blood? Why was he just standing there and not stabbing, if he only had a small time window to commit premeditated murder, since you claim he took the knapsack with him? Your scenario does not make logical sense, imho. If Ron had walked in and saw Simpson just standing over her body, why did he not ask is she alright or okay or something to that effect. You are disagreeing with your disciples who try to assert that Simpson attacked Ron first. This was the problem with the prosecution's case, it just did not fit, imho. Who do I sound like there?

weezer

11-28-2006, 05:16 PM

*Snipped*Originally posted by William Anthony
According to your scenario, you will conced that the dog was barking and Simpson was standing over an unconscious body. this is not bob's scenario -- this is what can best be pieced together using the evidence and/or testimony. Maybe Ron did walk up and ask what had happened -- maybe orenthal attacked him then.........we don't know. We do know that orenthal left his hair, blood, fiber, cap, gloves and size 12 BM pigeon-toed footprints at the murder scene.

bobaugust

11-28-2006, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

According to your scenario, you will conced that the dog was barking and Simpson was standing over an unconscious body. What about the blood? Why was he just standing there and not stabbing, if he only had a small time window to commit premeditated murder, since you claim he took the knapsack with him? Your scenario does not make logical sense, imho. If Ron had walked in and saw Simpson just standing over her body, why did he not ask is she alright or okay or something to that effect. You are disagreeing with your disciples who try to assert that Simpson attacked Ron first. This was the problem with the prosecution's case, it just did not fit, imho. Who do I sound like there?

You sound like a very foolish person.

If Ron Goldman walked in Nicole's front gate, with her dog barking like crazy, and saw someone dressed in all dark clothing, wearing a knit hat and gloves, and possibly holding a knife in his hand standing over Nicole lying on the ground unconscious I doubt if he would have asked if she was alright or okay. That's funny.

I don't know who said Simpson attacked Ron first. Simpson killed Ron first.

Maybe Simpson never intended to kill Nicole. Maybe he only intended to scare her or slash her tires. But things escalated. When Ron unexpectedly surprised him, Simpson attacked and killed Ron. Simpson then had no choice but to kill Nicole. He couldn't leave a living witness to his rage killing of Ron Goldman.

bobaugust

Ames

11-28-2006, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

<snipped>
Maybe Simpson never intended to kill Nicole. Maybe he only intended to scare her or slash her tires. But things escalated. When Ron unexpectedly surprised him, Simpson attacked and killed Ron. Simpson then had no choice but to kill Nicole. He couldn't leave a living witness to his rage killing of Ron Goldman.

bobaugust

I think that he intended to kill her....why else would he have had on the gloves? Why would he need those, if he was only going there to "slash her tires" or something, why the need for the gloves? Wasn't there some sort of family event, that happened right before the murders....like a recital or something, and OJ wasn't invited? OR SOMETHING like that....I think he got a little miffed about that, and that is what set him off. He even could have possibly been drunk or doing drugs the time of the murders. IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO

socaldiva

11-28-2006, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I think that he intended to kill her....why else would he have had on the gloves? Why would he need those, if he was only going there to "slash her tires" or something, why the need for the gloves? Wasn't there some sort of family event, that happened right before the murders....like a recital or something, and OJ wasn't invited? OR SOMETHING like that....I think he got a little miffed about that, and that is what set him off. He even could have possibly been drunk or doing drugs the time of the murders. IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO

I agree with you on the gloves. Yes, there was a recital for Sydney & IIRC Nicole didn't save a seat for him or invite him to the family dinner at Mezzaluna.

Ames

11-28-2006, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

I agree with you on the gloves. Yes, there was a recital for Sydney & IIRC Nicole didn't save a seat for him or invite him to the family dinner at Mezzaluna.

Thanks so much for the info....I KNEW it was something like that, but couldn't remember the details. I believe that he was a little po'd about that....and that is what set him off. He had abused her in the past....according to her 911 call, that she had made earlier. Apparently he had "control" issues. IMO IMO IMO

socaldiva

11-28-2006, 05:50 PM

Ames

11-28-2006, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by socaldiva

Your welcome. I know it's hard to remember all the details from 12 yrs ago :tongue: I bet he was po'd too.

Yep, LOL...apparently her was REAL po'd. (IMO)

bobaugust

11-28-2006, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I think that was the theory asserted by the prosecution, if memory serves me correctly. They promulgated the theory that Ron walked in on the murder and Simpson attacked and disabled him and then went back and finished murdering Nicole. Again, my question to you is what would you have done first, if you walked in on someone being murdered? Please, do not respond with a question.

I don't believe the prosecution offered that theory.

I've already responded to this in another thread by pointing out if your question is based on what Ron Goldman did based on what he saw he probably didn't see a murder being committed when he entered Nicole's front gate.

As to what I would have personally done depends on the circumstances and what I actually saw was happening. Your question isn't specific enough for me to give you an answer.

bobaugust

martin II

11-28-2006, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Gotcha! Thanks!

the prosecution first thought that oj had hit nicole on the head with the butt of a large steleto (sp) knife that oj had baught. when that turned out not to be the kinfe they switched to he hit her on the head with the butt of a very small 4 inch pen knife
and then proceeded to do all the damage you saw to both of them with this same very small pen kinfe.imo
martin II

Ames

11-28-2006, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Yep, LOL...apparently her was REAL po'd. (IMO)

Can't spell....I mean HE....not her.....geez

martin II

11-28-2006, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
You said you have the tapes of the trial -- watch them and judge for yourself the spirit in which things were said.

Are you suggesting the evidence was NOT there on the night of the murders?

And if the evidence wasn't brought there by orenthal, then by who?

no one knows. there has been many guesses but thats what they are. oj said he did not snuff anyone.imo

martin II

Ames

11-28-2006, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by martin II

no one knows. there has been many guesses but thats what they are. oj said he did not snuff anyone.imo

martin II

Maybe , just maybe...he wasn't saying that the evidence didn't belong to him....just that it got there on a different day, other than the night of the murders. (IMO)

socaldiva

11-28-2006, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by martin II
*snip*

oj said he did not snuff anyone.imo

More "OJ says" :tongue:

William Anthony

11-28-2006, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

You sound like a very foolish person.

If Ron Goldman walked in Nicole's front gate, with her dog barking like crazy, and saw someone dressed in all dark clothing, wearing a knit hat and gloves, and possibly holding a knife in his hand standing over Nicole lying on the ground unconscious I doubt if he would have asked if she was alright or okay. That's funny.

I don't know who said Simpson attacked Ron first. Simpson killed Ron first.

Maybe Simpson never intended to kill Nicole. Maybe he only intended to scare her or slash her tires. But things escalated. When Ron unexpectedly surprised him, Simpson attacked and killed Ron. Simpson then had no choice but to kill Nicole. He couldn't leave a living witness to his rage killing of Ron Goldman.

bobaugust

More unsupported specualtion! He intended to slash her tires, that is laughable, when, according to my recollection, you have claimed that he intended to kill her from the time he left Rockingham. I doubt that he would have asked if she was okay also, and that shows the proposterousness, imho, of your scenario. Even in your scenario, you have him attacking Nicole first
and according to you Ron callled out a greeting of hey.

William Anthony

11-28-2006, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

I don't believe the prosecution offered that theory.

I've already responded to this in another thread by pointing out if your question is based on what Ron Goldman did based on what he saw he probably didn't see a murder being committed when he entered Nicole's front gate.

As to what I would have personally done depends on the circumstances and what I actually saw was happening. Your question isn't specific enough for me to give you an answer.

bobaugust

Your posts are forming circular arguments again. What would you do, if you saw someone's ex-husband standing over an unconscious wife? Would you ask what happening, can I help, or would you holler, hey?

William Anthony

11-28-2006, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* this is not bob's scenario -- this is what can best be pieced together using the evidence and/or testimony. Maybe Ron did walk up and ask what had happened -- maybe orenthal attacked him then.........we don't know. We do know that orenthal left his hair, blood, fiber, cap, gloves and size 12 BM pigeon-toed footprints at the murder scene.

We know that supposedly there was an argument between two men and that supposedly Ron hollered hey, hey, hey. We can only go by the evidence submitted and decided upon by the trier of fact, who obviously, imo, considered some of the questions I did before rendering their verdict of not guilty. To now say that he may have asked what happened is what bobaugust would say is unsupported speculation or what you try to term as piece together.

William Anthony

11-28-2006, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Thanks so much for the info....I KNEW it was something like that, but couldn't remember the details. I believe that he was a little po'd about that....and that is what set him off. He had abused her in the past....according to her 911 call, that she had made earlier. Apparently he had "control" issues. IMO IMO IMO

It is a far leap, imo, to say that he was po'd enough because of those events, and to think that he was so angry as to kill her ,because of not being invited to her family's dinner after a divorce is far reaching, imho. I think he had enough money to fly in his whole family for a dinner and not invite the Browns and Nicole, imho.

Ames

11-28-2006, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

It is a far leap, imo, to say that he was po'd enough because of those events, and to think that he was so angry as to kill her ,because of not being invited to her family's dinner after a divorce is far reaching, imho. I think he had enough money to fly in his whole family for a dinner and not invite the Browns and Nicole, imho.

He was an abuser....it was a matter of control for him. IMO

weezer

11-28-2006, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

We know that supposedly there was an argument between two men and that supposedly Ron hollered hey, hey, hey. We can only go by the evidence submitted and decided upon by the trier of fact, who obviously, imo, considered some of the questions I did before rendering their verdict of not guilty. To now say that he may have asked what happened is what bobaugust would say is unsupported speculation or what you try to term as piece together. my theory is my theory and does not include a conversation between Ron and orenthal. I simply do not discount someone else's theory -- when considering all of the evidence and testimony -- it is a possibility. You need to work on your reasoning and logic.

weezer

11-28-2006, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Your posts are forming circular arguments again. What would you do, if you saw someone's ex-husband standing over an unconscious wife? Would you ask what happening, can I help, or would you holler, hey? what difference does it make what anyone else would do? we know that orenthal attacked Ron and murdered both he and Nicole. When he did, he left his blood, hair, fiber, cap, glove and size 12 pigeon toed BM footprints at the murder scene.

bobaugust

11-28-2006, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

More unsupported specualtion! He intended to slash her tires, that is laughable, when, according to my recollection, you have claimed that he intended to kill her from the time he left Rockingham. I doubt that he would have asked if she was okay also, and that shows the proposterousness, imho, of your scenario. Even in your scenario, you have him attacking Nicole first
and according to you Ron callled out a greeting of hey.

You're confused again.

I said that we don't know why Simpson went to Bundy that night, maybe to scare Nicole, maybe to slash her tires, but I still believe that he went there to kill her.

In my scenario Simpson arrived before Ron and encountered Nicole. They talked, argued and the confrontation turned physical. The evidence is that Simpson could have hit Nicole on her forehead, possibly with the blunt end of knife knocking her down. As she fell she may have hit the back of her head, as the evidence suggests, on something hard, possibly one of the cement steps, knocking her unconscious.

The Akita was barking loudly and consistently at this time outside the front gate. That's when Ron Goldman came in and saw Simpson standing over Nicole lying unconscious on the ground. Goldman didn't say "hey" to greet Simpson. That's funny. Heidstra testified that he heard a clear younger male voice say, "Hey, hey, hey!" for three, four times.

He then heard a deeper, older, male voice talking very fast.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

11-28-2006, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Your posts are forming circular arguments again. What would you do, if you saw someone's ex-husband standing over an unconscious wife? Would you ask what happening, can I help, or would you holler, hey?

Circular/Square/Round/Triangle/Hexagon/Octagon/Diamond/Rectangular arguments. Have I missed any? WTH does your question(s) have anything to do with the murders of Nicole and Ron? None. Nada. NIL. Zilch. You only asked so as to bait Bob so that you and Martin can rip him to shreds re: his opinion(s)/answer(s) to your ridiculous and assinine posts that's what!

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

11-28-2006, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Your posts are forming circular arguments again. What would you do, if you saw someone's ex-husband standing over an unconscious wife? Would you ask what happening, can I help, or would you holler, hey?

No, my arguments are not circular your inability to understand them is circular. Funny.

What part of Ron didn't just say "hey" can't you seem to understand?

If Goldman yelled at someone he saw standing over Nicole lying unconscious on the ground it wasn't a greeting but a reaction to something that wasn't right letting the person know that he sees them. Ron may never have thought that person would attack him.

Forget asking me or others what we would do. What I, others, or you would do is meaningless to what Ron Goldman did.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

11-28-2006, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I think that he intended to kill her....why else would he have had on the gloves? Why would he need those, if he was only going there to "slash her tires" or something, why the need for the gloves? Wasn't there some sort of family event, that happened right before the murders....like a recital or something, and OJ wasn't invited? OR SOMETHING like that....I think he got a little miffed about that, and that is what set him off. He even could have possibly been drunk or doing drugs the time of the murders. IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO

Sounds to me like you pretty much know what transpired and what happened that fateful day/night. Yet you are asking questions like you are just guessing and haven't the foggiest. What's up with that? Just curious!

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

11-28-2006, 10:12 PM

Mr. August,

Don't you find it just a tad to pat that a woman called the police station or perhaps two woman called the police to talk about two bodies?

You know as well as I do that there are "Yahoos" who love to confess to crimes they didn't do. Love to give "tips" that belong on the Sci-Fi Channel, however, we also know people who give "tips" but do not want to be identified. Isn't it possible this woman could have seen something on Bundy or in that area and didn't want to get involved?

However, you will never be able to convince me that a member of the media made that call. No way would they blow the biggest scoop they probably ever had. It is for this reason I find this call impossible to discount.

martin II

11-28-2006, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
what difference does it make what anyone else would do? we know that orenthal attacked Ron and murdered both he and Nicole. When he did, he left his blood, hair, fiber, cap, glove and size 12 pigeon toed BM footprints at the murder scene.

WEEZER

One of the stabb wounds to ron was 5 inches in depth. The swiss army knife was only 4 inches long. Do you think the 4 inch knife could make a 5 inch deep wound?
imo
martin II

2L8 4A D8

11-28-2006, 10:25 PM

IMO ~ Ron's "Hey Hey Hey" was not as if he was speaking to someone. It was along the lines of him being surprised and stating, "Hey Hey Hey, WTH are you doing or WTH have you done (to Nicole)?"

socaldiva

11-28-2006, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by martin II
*snip*

Do you think the 4 inch knife could make a 5 inch deep wound?

I do. It's called a compression wound.

Ames

11-28-2006, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Sounds to me like you pretty much know what transpired and what happened that fateful day/night. Yet you are asking questions like you are just guessing and haven't the foggiest. What's up with that? Just curious!

JMO and MOO!!

Yeah, I "know" what happened that night....thats why I put IMO IMO IMO...at the end of my post. Geez....

I only asked the question about the recital....I saw the trial. But, there are a couple of things that I need a refresher course on, I am new to this forum. But, IMO....bottom line....OJ DID IT! What else do we need to know? IMO IMO IMO IMO (NOTE the IMO's).

jotun

11-28-2006, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by Big Ben
[QUOTE][i]

It trivializes MOTIVE, in my opinion, to say greed, money and celebrity. But if the time remained at 11:00 PM there would not have been a need for a trial. Alll but F. Lee Baileywere virtually unknown outside of Southern California therefore a celebrity trial was akin to a perfect storm, or winning a lottery, for these attorneys. The only thing that could upset the apple cart is evidence arising that would obviate the need for a trial to take place at all.

Big Ben,
Thanks.Now that's a MOTIVE.One I suspected all along!!! Ever since Shapiro,Dershowitz,and Ulleman got the Grand Jury dismissed.22 jurors.Went to a prelim instead.1 judge.Their EXCUSE.The jury might indite O.J. SO!! Learned much later they were NOT going to indite. Bet they knew it.
Know the d.a.'s DID. Were so pleased to get that jury dismissed.
Think O.J.caught on.Too late.So with Johnnie he felt he had a chance. But IMO everyone had an AGENDA.It became all about THEM. The lawyers,the judge,the families,pundits and the media.They loved the circus.
O.J.was incidential.Even the books.None had a photo of O.J.'s gorgeous face.Only their own. He was used by everyone and still is.

jotun

bobaugust

11-28-2006, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Don't you find it just a tad to pat that a woman called the police station or perhaps two woman called the police to talk about two bodies?

limakey, two woman called the police station? What are you talking about?

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

11-29-2006, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Yeah, I "know" what happened that night....thats why I put IMO IMO IMO...at the end of my post. Geez....

I only asked the question about the recital....I saw the trial. But, there are a couple of things that I need a refresher course on, I am new to this forum. But, IMO....bottom line....OJ DID IT! What else do we need to know? IMO IMO IMO IMO (NOTE the IMO's).
Geez! I just asked a simple question. Sorry, it wasn't dripping with honey, but I didn't think that I was actually posting to a child. Had I known, I would have posted it differently, trust me!

JMO and MOO!!

limakey

11-29-2006, 08:13 AM

Mr. August,

Freashwater posted it on the thread about unanswered questions. That was the first time I ever noticed that may have been two phone calls.

William Anthony

11-29-2006, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
my theory is my theory and does not include a conversation between Ron and orenthal. I simply do not discount someone else's theory -- when considering all of the evidence and testimony -- it is a possibility. You need to work on your reasoning and logic.

My reasoning is base on evidence that was submitted during the criminal trial and supported the verdict rendered by those who have been termed unintelligent among other adjectives. To want to base a theory on information that was not alleged or supported is, in the words of bobaugust, unsupported speculation and fantasy. I do not believe, imho, that bobaugust will pull your disciple card for your momentary demonstrated ability to think for yourself.:) The last sentence was made in jest.

martin II

11-29-2006, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Zold1
Oh, BTW... the EDTA was also in the blood found on the back gate as well as the socks. I wonder if that is the same gate MF was so adamnant to have recovered and was so irrate it was not. I also understand it was Vanatter walking around for two days with that blood vial, and it was Judge Ito who watched the film and told the poor guy collecting it that the vial was IN HIS BAG. Fung? Fong? He didn't even know he had it.

Interesting. :rolleyes:

zoldi

Mazzula (sp) didn't want to be involved in this lie about vanhatter giving fung the blood vile so she just made up this incredible lie that at the moment vanhatter was supposed to have handed fung the vile she , sitting on the sofa/chair in plain view, JUST CLOSED HER EYES FOR THE MOMENY BECAUSE SHE WAS TIERD. so she did not see the transfer.

IMO there were two viles after vanhatter received ojs blood from parantis (nurse) and refused to log it in immediately. one with about 6 cc and one with about 2 cc.
martin II

William Anthony

11-29-2006, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

You're confused again.

I said that we don't know why Simpson went to Bundy that night, maybe to scare Nicole, maybe to slash her tires, but I still believe that he went there to kill her.

In my scenario Simpson arrived before Ron and encountered Nicole. They talked, argued and the confrontation turned physical. The evidence is that Simpson could have hit Nicole on her forehead, possibly with the blunt end of knife knocking her down. As she fell she may have hit the back of her head, as the evidence suggests, on something hard, possibly one of the cement steps, knocking her unconscious.

The Akita was barking loudly and consistently at this time outside the front gate. That's when Ron Goldman came in and saw Simpson standing over Nicole lying unconscious on the ground. Goldman didn't say "hey" to greet Simpson. That's funny. Heidstra testified that he heard a clear younger male voice say, "Hey, hey, hey!" for three, four times.

He then heard a deeper, older, male voice talking very fast.

bobaugust

I will accept that Ron did not utter hey in salutation. That is another problem with your scenario. If he was not alarmed by what he saw, then why holler hey instead of stop, help, murder or something to that effect? There was pedistrian traffic on the street and he could have easily shouted for assistance before being attacked by a middle age man with knee problems, unless there were more than one attackers. Most reasonable thinking people, imho, such as Ames, have stated that they would have tried to get to safety first. The only things that I question is was there more than one attacker or was the attacker someone in suprerior physical condition than Simpson. I am sure you will respond with a post concerning adrenaline, and I ask you at what time you think this hormonal surge dissipated.

William Anthony

11-29-2006, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Geez! I just asked a simple question. Sorry, it wasn't dripping with honey, but I didn't think that I was actually posting to a child. Had I known, I would have posted it differently, trust me!

JMO and MOO!!

You are beginnig to incur the wrath of the disciples.:) This comment is made in jest

William Anthony

11-29-2006, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
what difference does it make what anyone else would do? we know that orenthal attacked Ron and murdered both he and Nicole. When he did, he left his blood, hair, fiber, cap, glove and size 12 pigeon toed BM footprints at the murder scene.

Did you forget that there were other unidentified hairs found in the cap and that the supposed matching glove did not fit. It makes a difference, because if the prosecutions theory does not fit you must acquit.:)

William Anthony

11-29-2006, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Circular/Square/Round/Triangle/Hexagon/Octagon/Diamond/Rectangular arguments. Have I missed any? WTH does your question(s) have anything to do with the murders of Nicole and Ron? None. Nada. NIL. Zilch. You only asked so as to bait Bob so that you and Martin can rip him to shreds re: his opinion(s)/answer(s) to your ridiculous and assinine posts that's what!

JMO and MOO!!

This would be your assessment of my motivations. I asked the question, because bobaugust has claimed to know the facts and I wanted his factual knowledge to answer the questions. If he has been ripped to sheds, it is because his arguments fit into the geometric shapes you have enumerated, imho.

William Anthony

11-29-2006, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

No, my arguments are not circular your inability to understand them is circular. Funny.

What part of Ron didn't just say "hey" can't you seem to understand?

If Goldman yelled at someone he saw standing over Nicole lying unconscious on the ground it wasn't a greeting but a reaction to something that wasn't right letting the person know that he sees them. Ron may never have thought that person would attack him.

Forget asking me or others what we would do. What I, others, or you would do is meaningless to what Ron Goldman did.

bobaugust

The problem is my dear friend is that you have offered a knowledge of facts and, when I post a question that does not fit into your so-called factual knowledge, you want me to forget about it. Unfortunately, I can not forget a question that has troubled me. Now, you are engaging in that unsupported speculation with the use of the words "may have". A reasonable thinking person, under the circumstances given, would have ran for safety and yelled for help, imho. Another problem is that we do not know what Ron did. Contrary to your assertion that it is meaningless what anyone else would do, jurors are allowed to use their common sense in order to determine what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances and, because they felt that the prosecution's scenario of how the murders were accomplished did not fit, the chose to acquit, imh&ro.

martin II

11-29-2006, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I will accept that Ron did not utter hey in salutation. That is another problem with your scenario. If he was not alarmed by what he saw, then why holler hey instead of stop, help, murder or something to that effect? There was pedistrian traffic on the street and he could have easily shouted for assistance before being attacked by a middle age man with knee problems, unless there were more than one attackers. Most reasonable thinking people, imho, such as Ames, have stated that they would have tried to get to safety first. The only things that I question is was there more than one attacker or was the attacker someone in suprerior physical condition than Simpson. I am sure you will respond with a post concerning adrenaline, and I ask you at what time you think this hormonal surge dissipated.

william

the theory that there was two killers (gus and k2) seems at least as reasonable as the stuff bob continues to alter and post here.

Wagnerandsons.com make some good points on this issue but as expected the some toss it without giving it a serious read.imo

Ron upon arriving at the gate , according to wagner, was grabbed from behind by k2 that was hidding in the nook(area by the mail box) as a back up, grabbed ron from behind, to rons surprise and put him in a head lock. so ron could have been greeting hey hey hey to k2 not the killer that was standing over nicole.imo
martin II

William Anthony

11-29-2006, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by martin II

william

the theory that there was two killers (gus and k2) seems at least as reasonable as the stuff bob continues to alter and post here.

Wagnerandsons.com make some good points on this issue but as expected the some toss it without giving it a serious read.imo

Ron upon arriving at the gate , according to wagner, was grabbed from behind by k2 that was hidding in the nook(area by the mail box) as a back up, grabbed ron from behind, to rons surprise and put him in a head lock. so ron could have been greeting hey hey hey to k2 not the killer that was standing over nicole.imo
martin II

Martin,

Most people, who are not operating from a bais, are open to a resonable interpretation of the evidence, showing that there could have been two killers.

martin II

11-29-2006, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Martin,

Most people, who are not operating from a bais, are open to a resonable interpretation of the evidence, showing that there could have been two killers.

william
especially since some belive it only took 1.5 minutes to kill both nicole and ron and the number of wounds both received.
martin II

bobaugust

11-29-2006, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I will accept that Ron did not utter hey in salutation. That is another problem with your scenario. If he was not alarmed by what he saw, then why holler hey instead of stop, help, murder or something to that effect? There was pedistrian traffic on the street and he could have easily shouted for assistance before being attacked by a middle age man with knee problems, unless there were more than one attackers. Most reasonable thinking people, imho, such as Ames, have stated that they would have tried to get to safety first. The only things that I question is was there more than one attacker or was the attacker someone in suprerior physical condition than Simpson. I am sure you will respond with a post concerning adrenaline, and I ask you at what time you think this hormonal surge dissipated.

What makes you think there was pedestrian traffic on the street?

A middle age man with knee problems? No, a former world class athlete that kept himself in good shape.

Why yell? Ron may not have seen Simpson stabbing or fighting with Nicole, he may have only saw him standing over Nicole lying unconscious on the ground. Maybe he thought by yelling that this person would run knowing they had been seen, not attack him. The fact is that Ron did yell and Simpson yelled back, and Simpson did attack and kill Ron.,

There was only one attacker. Simpson was bigger, stronger, armed with a knife, and determined. He attacked a smaller unarmed man in a small enclosed area. Ron didn't have a chance.

bobaugust

Kayleighjo

11-29-2006, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

because they felt that the prosecution's scenario of how the murders were accomplished did not fit, the chose to acquit, imh&ro.

They didn't care what fit and what didn't. The only thing they cared about was two things: OJ's skin color and Nicole's skin color.

Period.

bobaugust

11-29-2006, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

The problem is my dear friend is that you have offered a knowledge of facts and, when I post a question that does not fit into your so-called factual knowledge, you want me to forget about it. Unfortunately, I can not forget a question that has troubled me. Now, you are engaging in that unsupported speculation with the use of the words "may have". A reasonable thinking person, under the circumstances given, would have ran for safety and yelled for help, imho. Another problem is that we do not know what Ron did. Contrary to your assertion that it is meaningless what anyone else would do, jurors are allowed to use their common sense in order to determine what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances and, because they felt that the prosecution's scenario of how the murders were accomplished did not fit, the chose to acquit, imh&ro.

Everything I have ever said happened at Bundy has always been speculation based on the known evidence. Because the same people here keep asking the same questions about it, sometimes I leave off the "maybes" and "ifs" assuming that the poster I'm responding to understands that. Some do, some don't.

Your question is meaningless based on some idea in your mind of what you think was happening when Ron arrived. But what you imagine he might have seen is not what I imagine he might have seen. If Ron had seen someone standing over Nicole lying unconscious on the ground maybe he thought by yelling and letting that person know he had been seen, that person would run away. Ron may have had also been relying on the security of Nicole's dog that probably entered with him. Or maybe he recognized Simpson and didn't imagine that Simpson would ever attack him.

I'm sorry but I don't believe the criminal trial jurors were reasonable thinking people. They were people with another agenda willing to accept any explanation no matter how improbable or how unlikely it was as an excuse to ignore the evidence that proved Simpson guilty.

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-29-2006, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Freashwater posted it on the thread about unanswered questions. That was the first time I ever noticed that may have been two phone calls.

limakey, yes I see where Freshwater posted that. I have never heard that before and do not know what the source is for it.

It sounds like just another rumor based on the one telephone call that was made to the Wilshire police station. I'll ask Freshwater.

bobaugust

weezer

11-29-2006, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Did you forget that there were other unidentified hairs found in the cap and that the supposed matching glove did not fit. It makes a difference, because if the prosecutions theory does not fit you must acquit.:) Wrong -- again!

weezer

11-29-2006, 01:35 PM

*Snipped*Originally posted by martin II
IMO there were two viles after vanhatter received ojs blood from parantis (nurse) and refused to log it in immediately. one with about 6 cc and one with about 2 cc. looks like rayray is doing what he screams at everyone else for: making up a story to go with his theory. Nothing to support it -- just made up to fit his story. Hmmm

Zold1

11-29-2006, 02:00 PM

tazzybaby

11-29-2006, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Zold1

Eww! No we don't know that. Neither did a jury of peers. :read:

Yes, we do. And, he was found responsible by a jury of peers.

:seeya:

Zold1

11-29-2006, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by jotun

Big Ben,
Thanks.Now that's a MOTIVE.One I suspected all along!!! Ever since Shapiro,Dershowitz,and Ulleman got the Grand Jury dismissed.22 jurors.Went to a prelim instead.1 judge.Their EXCUSE.The jury might indite O.J. SO!! Learned much later they were NOT going to indite. Bet they knew it.
Know the d.a.'s DID. Were so pleased to get that jury dismissed.
Think O.J.caught on.Too late.So with Johnnie he felt he had a chance. But IMO everyone had an AGENDA.It became all about THEM. The lawyers,the judge,the families,pundits and the media.They loved the circus.
O.J.was incidential.Even the books.None had a photo of O.J.'s gorgeous face.Only their own. He was used by everyone and still is.

jotun

Such a sad indictment! :beer:

limakey

11-29-2006, 02:27 PM

Mr. August,

In many ways, you are defeating your stance that the civil trial had "new" evidence and that is why Simpson was found responsible.

The criminal trial jurors followed the law and the judge's instructions and came back with the only legal verdict they could have. You have posted many times how Dr. Cotton proved that the blood that was said to be planted couldn't have come from Nicole's sample in the civil trial. How did she come to this conclusion and more importantly, when did she come to this conclusion? It was after the criminal trial. When it came to the battle of the EDTA witnesses, Roger Martz did not do himself any favors and certainly painted himself into a corner when he made the comment that he only decided to tell the real truth after lunch.

Reader's Digest version, the defense's expert said that EDTA was found in the samples. I believe he also explained why he felt that Roger Martz was not the expert he claimed to be. Now, even to later give the excuse that his machine was dirty and that could have caused the results still casts doubts on Martz's abilities and credibility as a witness. By law, the jurors had no choice but to find reasonable doubt on this issue.

I have been reading Mark Fuhrman's book. While you know how I feel about his race challenged ways, in no way did I ever say that turned him into a stupid man that was not capable of knowing what to look for at a crime scene. I never knew that he himself, went over to the other side of the fence and personally checked for evidence he felt that may have been there--as in a blood drop, shoe prints, etc. And as you know, the DA's never even attempted to explain how Simpson got behind the wall, dropped the glove, just basically the glove was there, Kato heard a loud three thumps and that equals Simpson jumping the fence, falling into the wall and dropping the glove. However, the defense experts said that no one could have jumped that fence unless they jumped like a helicopter, something about straight up and down. In other words, that glove and the surrounds, plus the condition of the glove had to be explained and it wasn't.

He also made a very interesting comment that I never thought of before. He was very "disappointed" and felt it was a major, major mistake when he was sent to Rockingham to identify the second glove, it see if it was was the other's mate. He made the excellent point, so what if they weren't "mates"? What did that have to do with with anything. And he is right. Even if those gloves weren't exact mates, does it change anything? However, I would like to know is how that he or other detective could have said that they were mates at that time. To the best of my knowledge, they were looked at and collected but were not examined in great detail because at that time they couldn't have been. He, himself made an interesting observation, IMO---he didn't think those glove were "mates", that one appeared to be more beat up then the other. So what could this mean? And how was it determined that these gloves were exact mates? That they were sold as a set? How was that determined?

William Anthony

11-29-2006, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Wrong -- again!

Surely, you are not saying I am wrong about the unidentified hairs. If so you are disputing your leader, bobaugust.

limakey

11-29-2006, 02:38 PM

Jotun,

Having a Grand Jury actually dismissed is rare. However, defense attorney's fililng a motion to do this, is not. In other words, IMO, no was more surprised than OJ's lawyers were when this happened. I believe it was said to be the DA's releasing the 911 phone call is why it was dismissed. However, in reading Joe Boscoe's book, that was not the case. The Grand Jurors had problems with the timeline and the glove---IMO, it is possible that the Grand Jury was dismissed because it was what was best for the DA's and the LAPD at the time.

I totally agree with that lawyers, regardless of which aisle they are on, do have agendas. However, OJ Simpson was told this and he was told that he needed to know everything about his case and he better be active in it. I believe it was Shapiro's private investigator who told him this.

Also, IMO, a defense lawyer's main job is not to focus on the actual defendant, but focus on the evidence. A defense can't be built on a client's words on how they would never do such a thing, that is going to go far at all. They need to focus on the evidence and reasonable doubt, IMO.

William Anthony

11-29-2006, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

What makes you think there was pedestrian traffic on the street?

A middle age man with knee problems? No, a former world class athlete that kept himself in good shape.

Why yell? Ron may not have seen Simpson stabbing or fighting with Nicole, he may have only saw him standing over Nicole lying unconscious on the ground. Maybe he thought by yelling that this person would run knowing they had been seen, not attack him. The fact is that Ron did yell and Simpson yelled back, and Simpson did attack and kill Ron.,

There was only one attacker. Simpson was bigger, stronger, armed with a knife, and determined. He attacked a smaller unarmed man in a small enclosed area. Ron didn't have a chance.

bobaugust

You are arguing circular with yourself! Why yell and he did yell? Why yell hey and not get the f***k out of here or What the h**l are you doing. You see someone in a dark sweatsuit, standing over an unconscious person you are coming to see and you yell hey, expecting them to run. I will now emulate you-that's funny!

William Anthony

11-29-2006, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

What makes you think there was pedestrian traffic on the street?

A middle age man with knee problems? No, a former world class athlete that kept himself in good shape.

Why yell? Ron may not have seen Simpson stabbing or fighting with Nicole, he may have only saw him standing over Nicole lying unconscious on the ground. Maybe he thought by yelling that this person would run knowing they had been seen, not attack him. The fact is that Ron did yell and Simpson yelled back, and Simpson did attack and kill Ron.,

There was only one attacker. Simpson was bigger, stronger, armed with a knife, and determined. He attacked a smaller unarmed man in a small enclosed area. Ron didn't have a chance.

bobaugust

I apologize for getting sidetracked by your ridiculous post, imho. The evidence makes me believe there was pedestrian traffic and your referrence to Heidstra's testimony. The trainer testified that Simpson had difficulty, despite his physical conditon, in completing the video and exercises therein.

bobaugust

11-29-2006, 03:01 PM

limakey, the fact is that the tests Martz conducted resulted in the undisputed conclusion that there was no EDTA preserved blood in the gate blood or the sock blood stains.

The fact is that in the criminal trial a crime scene photograph taken the morning after the murders was entered into evidence that showed one of the rear gate blood stains that the defense claimed was planted. After that Simpson's defense attorneys never again made the claim that blood was planted on the rear gate, so why do you?

I'm not sure if Dr. Cotton testified about the tests she did comparing the degradation in Nicole's autopsy sample to the Nicole's blood on the sock in the criminal trial, but she did testify to that in the civil trial. She testified that it was impossible for Nicole's blood found on Simpson's sock to have come from Nicole's autopsy sample.

The defense witness, supposedly Dr. Lee, who said no could have jumped that fence was wrong. Other people have claimed that Simpson could not have even gotten to his fence. All of those claims are wrong.

Fuhrman wrote in his book that when he first saw the glove at Rockingham it looked like a mate to the one at Bundy. He wrote that when he returned to Bundy to see if the gloves matched he again wrote that they appeared to be match although the leather had a duller appearance. The Bundy glove was not soaked with blood. When Fuhrman wrote about hair and fiber evidence found on the gloves he wrote, "The Rockingham glove was shown to be a match with the Bundy glove." I have no idea where you got the idea that Fuhrman didn't think they were a match. If you think you read that in his book, give me a page number please.

Lange also checked the two gloves when Dennis Fung came to Bundy after collecting the evidence at Rockingham and he found them to be a match. Later Richard Rubin confirmed that fact.

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-29-2006, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Surely, you are not saying I am wrong about the unidentified hairs. If so you are disputing your leader, bobaugust.

Deedrick testified that he found six hair fragments that did not match Simpson. All of the naturally shed hairs with roots found on that hat did match Simpson.

The fragments of unidentified hair could have been very old hair from Simpson or they could have been from someone else who had worn that hair sometime in the past.

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-29-2006, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

You are arguing circular with yourself! Why yell and he did yell? Why yell hey and not get the f***k out of here or What the h**l are you doing. You see someone in a dark sweatsuit, standing over an unconscious person you are coming to see and you yell hey, expecting them to run. I will now emulate you-that's funny!

Now you're showing your reading problem, I was simply repeating your question "Why yell?" Funny.

Like I said possibly Ron recognized Simpson. I doubt if he though he would be attacked.

bobaugust

William Anthony

11-29-2006, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Deedrick testified that he found six hair fragments that did not match Simpson. All of the naturally shed hairs with roots found on that hat did match Simpson.

The fragments of unidentified hair could have been very old hair from Simpson or they could have been from someone else who had worn that hair sometime in the past.

bobaugust

Or they could have been from someone who wore that cap on the night of the murders.

martin II

11-29-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Or they could have been from someone who wore that cap on the night of the murders.

Absolutely
MARTIN ii

William Anthony

11-29-2006, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Now you're showing your reading problem, I was simply repeating your question "Why yell?" Funny.

Like I said possibly Ron recognized Simpson. I doubt if he though he would be attacked.

bobaugust

bobaugust,

I apologize, because you are showing signs that you really are confused. Here is the complete postings, which you claim to be responding to.

Originally posted by William Anthony

I will accept that Ron did not utter hey in salutation. That is another problem with your scenario. If he was not alarmed by what he saw, then why holler hey instead of stop, help, murder or something to that effect? There was pedistrian traffic on the street and he could have easily shouted for assistance before being attacked by a middle age man with knee problems, unless there were more than one attackers. Most reasonable thinking people, imho, such as Ames, have stated that they would have tried to get to safety first. The only things that I question is was there more than one attacker or was the attacker someone in suprerior physical condition than Simpson. I am sure you will respond with a post concerning adrenaline, and I ask you at what time you think this hormonal surge dissipated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What makes you think there was pedestrian traffic on the street?

A middle age man with knee problems? No, a former world class athlete that kept himself in good shape.

Why yell? Ron may not have seen Simpson stabbing or fighting with Nicole, he may have only saw him standing over Nicole lying unconscious on the ground. Maybe he thought by yelling that this person would run knowing they had been seen, not attack him. The fact is that Ron did yell and Simpson yelled back, and Simpson did attack and kill Ron.,

There was only one attacker. Simpson was bigger, stronger, armed with a knife, and determined. He attacked a smaller unarmed man in a small enclosed area. Ron didn't have a chance.

bobaugust

Show me where I posted "why yell". I know you will try to take my posting out of context but here is the entire context in which I used the words why holler, not yell;

"If he was not alarmed by what he saw, then why holler hey instead of stop, help, murder or something to that effect?"

I worry that your obession with this case is making you delusional and now understand your misinterpretations of transcripts. :)

William Anthony

11-29-2006, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by martin II

Absolutely
MARTIN ii

Martin,

When you let bias, as some seem to do, cloud your logic, you do not consider all the possibilities.

martin II

11-29-2006, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* looks like rayray is doing what he screams at everyone else for: making up a story to go with his theory. Nothing to support it -- just made up to fit his story. Hmmm

WEEZER
Paratis changed testimony supports it.
martin II

bobaugust

11-29-2006, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I apologize for getting sidetracked by your ridiculous post, imho. The evidence makes me believe there was pedestrian traffic and your referrence to Heidstra's testimony. The trainer testified that Simpson had difficulty, despite his physical conditon, in completing the video and exercises therein.

The murders happened late on a Sunday evening. There was very little pedestrian or automobile traffic on Bundy at that time. There were people who walked their dogs at night, that's why Heidstra was there to hear the voices, but there is no evidence that anyone else was outside near Nicole's condo at that time to hear what was happening.

The trainer for the video, Richard Walsh, also testified that through out the day Simpson did push-ups, punching, twisting, forward and backward movements, lateral movements. bending form the knees, shoulder movements, lats, backs, bicep curls and more.

In fact they worked the whole day. Walsh said,

July 19, 1995
MR. WALSH: Well, towards the end of the day--we had been going a long time. The two girls behind me were very physically fit and used to this type of activity. Nobody is used to 12-hour days of exercise. They were. Two men behind me, young men in their 30's, they were beat. I mean they were gone. And they're in better shape, at least in my opinion, than OJ was, and there are times I thought he was not going to be able to finish many times. I talked with Playboy prior to shooting, not able to get him better prepared for it, and somehow, you know, when "Action" was said, he somehow dug down and was able to pull it out.

Dr Robert Huizenga examined Simpson three days after the murders.

July 17, 1995
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you were asked on Friday if there was anything that you found which prevented Mr. Simpson from being physically capable of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. You were asked that question on Friday, weren't you?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I was.
MR. KELBERG: And your answer was no, there was no such limitation, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.

bobaugust