Evidence that Places OJ Simpson at the Crime Scene [Archive] - Page 5

William Anthony

11-29-2006, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

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

Show the cross, but you do not have to, because most remember that he testified Simpson had difficulty, and, like another poster, I am tired of reading one-sided (my personal opinion) posted testimony.

bobaugust

11-29-2006, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

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

Deedrick said there was no way to know how long those six fragments had been in the hat.

There were 12 hairs that were found that were consistent with Simpson's hair that were were found inside and outside the hat that were naturally shed or didn't have a root. Some of them were full length. One of Simpson's hairs was also found on Ron's shirt.

Simpson's defense never suggested that the unidentified six fragments may have come from someone else who wore that hat that night but that's probably another example of what you think is "reasonable doubt." Right?

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-29-2006, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Martin,

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

When someone has very limited knowledge of the evidence in this case and hasn't the common sense to understand the difference between a realistic possibility and an unlikely possibility they wind up saying the ridiculous things you and martin II say.

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-29-2006, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Yes, you were wrong in your interpretation of words, which tends to prove my point about transcripts, and, now you want to change the facts as to Ron recognizing Simpson. This again is the problem with the prosecution's case, imh&ro.

This has nothing to do with the transcripts. I used the word "yell" because Heidstra testified that he heard the voices over the barking of two dogs. I really don't think that's an unreasonable interpretation since Heidstra was in the alley behind a house across the street from Nicole's condo.

As to changing the facts, I've changed nothing. What we are talking about is all speculation not fact. The only fact is that what Heidstra said he heard.

This has nothing to do with the prosecution case. Robert Heidstra was a defense witness not a prosecution witness. The problem is yours not being able to make logical reasonable inferences.

bobaugust

bobaugust

11-29-2006, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Show the cross, but you do not have to, because most remember that he testified Simpson had difficulty, and, like another poster, I am tired of reading one-sided (my personal opinion) posted testimony.

The cross examination doesn't change the testimony I've posted.

I'm also tired of reading all of your misinformed opinions. If you think that the testimony from these witnesses changed when they were cross examined then you post it. You only remember what you want to remember. You don't remember this because you only heard what you wanted to hear based on your bias.

bobaugust

jotun

11-29-2006, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Zold1

The problem with you Jotun is that you are using common sense with true facts of this case.
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?

Zold1
Thank you.As do you.

WHATTTTTTT. I never KNEW the gardener/handiman CONFESSED!!!!!
[Would explain the worn glove.]
Could you fill in all the details please?????

jotun

Ames

11-29-2006, 10:37 PM

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 weren't posting to a child. But YOU sure are acting like one. How RUDE!

Ames

11-29-2006, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

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

Okay, now you know that I have been nothing but NICE to you, because you are NICE to me. I was only rude to whathisface/whatsherface....(can't remember all of those letters and numbers)....because they were rude to me first. They shouldn't dish it out, if they can't take it. IMO IMO

Ames

11-29-2006, 10:43 PM

Ames

11-29-2006, 10:44 PM

OH GOOD GRIEF....I didn't mean to post that twice...I hit the wrong key by mistake. SORRY GUYS...

Zold1

11-29-2006, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by tazzybaby

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

:seeya:

Uh... yes. Blood Money I recall. No one could tell Nic what to do. So many people who don't listen. :rose:

Zold1

11-29-2006, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by jotun

Zold1
Thank you.As do you.

WHATTTTTTT. I never KNEW the gardener/handiman CONFESSED!!!!!
[Would explain the worn glove.]
Could you fill in all the details please?????

jotun

I read it here, Jotun. Never saw it anywhere else. But it fits. Supposedly a serial killer.

socaldiva

11-30-2006, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Ames
OH GOOD GRIEF....I didn't mean to post that twice...I hit the wrong key by mistake. SORRY GUYS...

No problem. Glad to see you posting :seeya:

Zold1

11-30-2006, 12:55 AM

Okay, I went to find the link on other suspects thread:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?threadid=267547&perpage=40&highlight=worked%20for%20Nicole&pagenumber=2

BeeBee talking to Goatgirl.

Glen Rogers

2L8 4A D8

11-30-2006, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Okay, now you know that I have been nothing but NICE to you, because you are NICE to me. I was only rude to whathisface/whatsherface....(can't remember all of those letters and numbers)....because they were rude to me first. They shouldn't dish it out, if they can't take it. IMO IMO

If you can't remember 3 letters and 4 numbers, you need to go back to kindergarten. Oh, I can dish it out. You just can't take it. If any "G" (and only a "G") can tell me that my original post was offensive and give me a reasonable explanation of why it was offensive, I will apologize to you for being so RUDE!

Until then, please don't post to me and I will do the same! Or, in the alternative, you can put me on Ignore!

2L8 4A D8

11-30-2006, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Ames

You weren't posting to a child. But YOU sure are acting like one. How RUDE!

I should have answered this post first. Excuse me!

There was absolutely nothing wrong with my original post to you, absolutely nothing. You just want to make a mountain out of a molehill, which is a typical trait of an NG.

You're the one acting like the child, over nothing. You need to put on your big girl panties and stop with the whiny cry-baby cr@p! Boo Hoo!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

11-30-2006, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by Zold1
Okay, I went to find the link on other suspects thread:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?threadid=267547&perpage=40&highlight=worked%20for%20Nicole&pagenumber=2

BeeBee talking to Goatgirl.

Glen Rogers
1. He was not the gardener/handyman

2. It was never proved by anyone that he confessed that he was the murderer of Nicole and Ron

3. There was never any evidence at Bundy to show that he was ever there that fateful night. None. Nada. NIL. Zilch.

4. It is only hearsay, innuendoes, fantasy, unfounded speculation with no support to substantiate the theory and wishful thinking on the part of certain Posters that Glen Rogers was the killer of Nicole and Ron

JMO and MOO!!

William Anthony

11-30-2006, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

When someone has very limited knowledge of the evidence in this case and hasn't the common sense to understand the difference between a realistic possibility and an unlikely possibility they wind up saying the ridiculous things you and martin II say.

bobaugust

You have provided no evidence only theories of what might have happened, but I guess that you arrogantly assume that you are the only one entitled to say this might or this may have happened, and your self proclaimed and highly questionable claim to superior intelligence, as to what is realisitic and ridiculous, is rancorous, imo.

William Anthony

11-30-2006, 07:50 AM

William Anthony

11-30-2006, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

I should have answered this post first. Excuse me!

There was absolutely nothing wrong with my original post to you, absolutely nothing. You just want to make a mountain out of a molehill, which is a typical trait of an NG.

You're the one acting like the child, over nothing. You need to put on your big girl panties and stop with the whiny cry-baby cr@p! Boo Hoo!

JMO and MOO!!

Excuse me for butting in and not listening to the chruch song, but some comments deserve universal responses, inho, Typical of some Gs, imho. When faced with the evidence, they say its nothing.

martin II

11-30-2006, 08:24 AM

martin II

11-30-2006, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

I should have answered this post first. Excuse me!

There was absolutely nothing wrong with my original post to you, absolutely nothing. You just want to make a mountain out of a molehill, which is a typical trait of an NG.

You're the one acting like the child, over nothing. You need to put on your big girl panties and stop with the whiny cry-baby cr@p! Boo Hoo!

JMO and MOO!!

It seems to me that you could have used words other than big girl panties when addressing another woman on this open tread.
imo
martin II

weezer

11-30-2006, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by martin II

It was stated that glen rogers was a painter that once painted nicole house by a poster that read the book.
martin II did he paint the Bundy house?

martin II

11-30-2006, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
did he paint the Bundy house?

I did not read the book so i don't know if it was the bundy condo
or the house at G.G.
I think Bee BEE could tell you. do you know?

martin II

2L8 4A D8

11-30-2006, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Excuse me for butting in and not listening to the chruch song, but some comments deserve universal responses, inho, Typical of some Gs, imho. When faced with the evidence, they say its nothing.

This has nothing to do with my original post to whatshername. I also specifically asked for no responses from any NG's. Thus, I will just consider the source that, as usual, you have your mouth in gear before your brain shifts in!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

11-30-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by martin II

It seems to me that you could have used words other than big girl panties when addressing another woman on this open tread.
imo
martin II

You don't like it? Too bad! This is stated all over the Boards/Threads from time to time. A lot of Posters use it, not just me. If you would push yourself away from the OJ Simpson Board where you spend 24/7, you would know that!

JMO and MOO!!

William Anthony

11-30-2006, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

This has nothing to do with my original post to whatshername. I also specifically asked for no responses from any NG's. Thus, I will just consider the source that, as usual, you have your mouth in gear before your brain shifts in!

JMO and MOO!!

I will tell you the same thing that I told bobaugust, you are old enough for your wants to hurt and fyi, you do not run the board, and I am neither your slave, servant nor employee. Hence, when you post to me henceforth try to keep that in the space between your ears.

weezer

11-30-2006, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I will tell you the same thing that I told bobaugust, you are old enough for your wants to hurt and fyi, you do not run the board, and I am neither your slave, servant nor employee. Hence, when you post to me henceforth try to keep that in the space between your ears. forgot the lesson of that church song didn't you?

William Anthony

11-30-2006, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
forgot the lesson of that church song didn't you?

No, my dear,

Just did not follow it for the following reason,

"Excuse me for butting in and not listening to the chruch song, but some comments deserve universal responses, inho, Typical of some Gs, imho. When faced with the evidence, they say its nothing. '
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or did you forget my post?

bobaugust

11-30-2006, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

You have provided no evidence only theories of what might have happened, but I guess that you arrogantly assume that you are the only one entitled to say this might or this may have happened, and your self proclaimed and highly questionable claim to superior intelligence, as to what is realisitic and ridiculous, is rancorous, imo.

All of my scenarios are speculative based on the known evidence in this case. You wouldn't know that because you aren't very well informed about the known evidence.

If you question something I've speculated about, simply state what it is and I will be happy to inform you as to what evidence, if any, supports it. I've always been open to constructive criticism and any valid point that might contradict what I have speculated about.

bobaugust

William Anthony

11-30-2006, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

All of my scenarios are speculative based on the known evidence in this case. You wouldn't know that because you aren't very well informed about the known evidence.

If you question something I've speculated about, simply state what it is and I will be happy to inform you as to what evidence, if any, supports it. I've always been open to constructive criticism and any valid point that might contradict what I have speculated about.

bobaugust

If the evidence as you say is know, oh highly intelligent person, then you would not preface them with maybe this happened and could have or might have. You would argue, as the prosecution should have, the evidence shows. I must remember the adage about arguing with a fool, not calling you one, just something I must keep in mind, Oh, all-kinowing one.

bobaugust

11-30-2006, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

If the evidence as you say is know, oh highly intelligent person, then you would not preface them with maybe this happened and could have or might have. You would argue, as the prosecution should have, the evidence shows. I must remember the adage about arguing with a fool, not calling you one, just something I must keep in mind, Oh, all-kinowing one.

The evidence does show us what happened but not how it happened.

No one knows how the killings actually happened except for the one person still living who was there, Simpson.

All anyone else can do is speculate based on that known evidence offering reasonable and logical inferences in possible scenarios. On this discussion group unless that speculation is prefaced with maybes, ifs, could haves, and might haves some posters here think it is being said as fact.

bobaugust

William Anthony

11-30-2006, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

The evidence does show us what happened but not how it happened.

No one knows how the killings actually happened except for the one person still living who was there, Simpson.

All anyone else can do is speculate based on that known evidence offering reasonable and logical inferences in possible scenarios. On this discussion group unless that speculation is prefaced with maybes, ifs, could haves, and might haves some posters here think it is being said as fact.

bobaugust

If your first statement was true, then the evidence would have been that two people were murdered. That is a fact, not evidence.
The evidence then must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the peson accused committed the murders as the prosecution's theory claims the murders were committed. The prosecution cannot say, the evidence will not show you how the murders happened, so you are free to speculate that they happened in any manner so long as you arrive at the conclusion that the defendant did them. This is not a trial and never should be, Oh, most intelligent of all beings. You have claimed knowledge of the truth and the facts and criticized anyone who disagreed, claiming that they were engaged in unsupported speculation. You must part us, who are not so favored with your knowledge of truth and facts, Oh, most esteemed of all intelligent people and tells us assetrively what you know the truth and the facts to be, without your qualifying maybe and could be. Live up to your claims and tell us exactly what happened, Oh, most informed of all human beings.

bobaugust

11-30-2006, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

If your first statement was true, then the evidence would have been that two people were murdered. That is a fact, not evidence.

The evidence is that there were only three people at Bundy that night, the two victims and Simpson.

bobaugust

jotun

12-01-2006, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Zold1

I read it here, Jotun. Never saw it anywhere else. But it fits. Supposedly a serial killer.

Zold1
You mean Glen Rogers.Am very aware of him. Saw him run a road block and get arrested LIVE on tv.

jotun

William Anthony

12-01-2006, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

The evidence is that there were only three people at Bundy that night, the two victims and Simpson.

bobaugust

You believe that is what the evidence shows and a reasonable inference can be drawn that he was there at sometime prior to the night of the murders, either visiting Nicole or her children. I am speaking of the evidence in the criminal trial. If you have some evidence that places him there on that night, other than what was considered during the criminal trial, then tell me what you think that evidence is.

tazzybaby

12-01-2006, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Zold1

Uh... yes. Blood Money I recall. No one could tell Nic what to do. So many people who don't listen. :rose:

Are you talking about the Blood Money OJ just received? Are you suggesting Nicole caused her own death?

:confused:

weezer

12-01-2006, 01:52 PM

William Anthony

12-01-2006, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Good Gawd! :rolleyes:

If you are trying to call on the Lord and Savior, then I think you are making a step in the right direction.

Big Ben

12-01-2006, 03:04 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

Big Ben, you took Cochran's words completely out of context. Your interpretation is not only ridiculous it's meaningless.

Au contraire, Roberto! Cochran's words were taken completely within the context of his argument to the judge. Apparently many people disagree with your counter-assertions based upon the enormous response that this particular webclip is receiving at YouTube. It has strangely jumped to a 4:1 viewer response over 2 clips and a 2:1 rate over the 3rd clip.

Judging from the response rate, I think that the general public is judging by what they see. Too bad that you haven't made a video clip to present your feeble minded rebuttal of what you allege that Cochran really means.

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.

So what if the others weren't shown to the jury? They certainly were not, in my opinion, as crucial as the time establishing the window of time for which the defendant was alleged to have committed the murders.

However, with that said, this alleged crucial record should have been entered into the Exhibit Dept. as telephone records like all the other periphally and less than crucial records were. Instead it was entered on the Exhibit Dept. manifest as "Ex. 35- a posterboard claimed to be the Juditha Brown phone records". And if the wording of Ex. 35 is what I say it is, do you have a plausible excuse for this irregularity as well?

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

The condition of the I-405 the night the Browns made the journey, the heavy construction work ongoing to expand the lanes increasing to an HOV lane. The 15 mile stretch of the I-405 intersected by two other freeways whereby the construction caused expected traffic congestion and slowdown to 29 MPH in that stretch according to CalTrans documents we, OMIG, acquired.

Also reaffirmed by, Shapiro, he reports that he spoke to Juditha about the time of arrival in his book and that she vehemently insisted, initially, after 2 or 3 pressing inquiries, that she arrived home at approximately 11:00 PM.

I think that Shapiro may have been offering what he perceived to be a reasonable compromise of 10:17 PM or approximately a 45 minute cutback as opposed to the ridiculous hour and-a-half, back to 9:37 PM, in the closed chambers of Judge Kathleen Kennedy Powell on July 7, 1994 during the Preliminary Hearings.

But the charlatans who pulled this scam would have it no other way, confident in their deception, that they could blind the American public by tapping into the shallow covered bigotry which is always there to be found, if exploited effectively.

Big Ben

12-01-2006, 03:32 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by William Anthony

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.

In California, for some reason so many legal protocols appear to be strange and maybe was chosen purposely, years before this matter, to be that way. It is strange to me that the media never picked up on Johnnie C. having been the prior boss over every one of the prosecutors and the judge as a former L.A. Prosecutor. I don't know the truth of it, however, we were told that only former D.A.'s with the endorsement of the L.A.P.D. become superior court judges, the rest struggle in the less than stellar municipal court system.

The judicial incestial relationships should have been enough that lawyers and judges should have been trying to recuse themselves. The relationship simply provided a better staged battle, a mock trial for public consumption.

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.

Unfortunately, that appears to be the conclusion that so many of us arrive at when seeing Johnnie C. do just what one would presume he would not do as a defense attorney in the Serpents Rising/YouTube webclip.

William Anthony

12-01-2006, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Big Ben
[QUOTE]Originally posted by William Anthony

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.

In California, for some reason so many legal protocols appear to be strange and maybe was chosen purposely, years before this matter, to be that way. It is strange to me that the media never picked up on Johnnie C. having been the prior boss over every one of the prosecutors and the judge as a former L.A. Prosecutor. I don't know the truth of it, however, we were told that only former D.A.'s with the endorsement of the L.A.P.D. become superior court judges, the rest struggle in the less than stellar municipal court system.

The judicial incestial relationships should have been enough that lawyers and judges should have been trying to recuse themselves. The relationship simply provided a better staged battle, a mock trial for public consumption.

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.

Unfortunately, that appears to be the conclusion that so many of us arrive at when seeing Johnnie C. do just what one would presume he would not do as a defense attorney in the Serpents Rising/YouTube webclip.

Thank you for responding. I had no knowledge of the tenuous political relationship of the parties involved and now, may understand better the quid pro quo that could have taken place as a favor to be exercised at some future time. If that was the case, then JC was even more skillful than I gave him credit. He must have known that he had the case won at the time he conceded.

bobaugust

12-01-2006, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

You believe that is what the evidence shows and a reasonable inference can be drawn that he was there at sometime prior to the night of the murders, either visiting Nicole or her children. I am speaking of the evidence in the criminal trial. If you have some evidence that places him there on that night, other than what was considered during the criminal trial, then tell me what you think that evidence is.

That's funny. You make a false statement and then you evidently think that's a valid reason to ignore all of the evidence that was found at Bundy. And then you ask for new evidence? Why? So you can dream up some other fantasy to eliminate that evidence also using "your reasonable doubt"?

As to limiting the evidence only to what was known during the criminal trial, no I won't do that. That's your handicap, not ours. The evidence that was found at Bundy was never shown to could have possibly been left there at an earlier time. Simpson testified that the last time he was at Nicole's was a week earlier.

* It was testified that Simpson's blood drops were fresh blood, not old blood.
* Simpson's hair was not only found in the hat found at Bundy it was found on Ron Goldman's shirt.
* The same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt were found on Simpson's socks.
* Nicole's fresh blood was found on Simpson's sock.
* The bloody shoe prints were made by shoes that Simpson was proved to have previous worn were made with Nicole's fresh blood.
* A witness saw what could have been Simpson's Bronco speed away from Bundy.
* Another witness identified Simpson driving his Bronco at the intersection of Bundy and San Vicente.
* Both victims blood was found in Simpson's Bronco.
* A partial bloody shoe print made from Nicole's blood was found in Simpson's Bronco.
* The matching glove found at Simpson house had both victims blood on it as well as Simpson's blood. It had the same blue black fibers on it that were found on Simpson's socks. It had fibers on it consistent with the Bronco carpet. It had Nicole's hair on it. It had Ron's hair on it. It had fibers on it from Ron's clothing.

Your turn William, what evidence do you know of that points to anyone else other than Simpson and the two victims?

bobaugust

Big Ben

12-01-2006, 04:24 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

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

Dr. Michael Baden changed his position during the civil trial to state that he now believed that more than one assailant was involved in the murders of the two victims. He made those remarks the same week, late Dec. 1996 or Jan. '97, that Dr. Johnson sat down to lunch and presented his multiple assailant analysis of the autopsy reports to OJ's civil attorneys Baker et al. Bob, Is Dr. Baden ignorant too?

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.

Come on Bob, go to the documentary Serpents Rising, and it will show you Dr. Golden stating during his testimony in the prelims under cross by Shapiro, "Could two knives had of caused the stab wounds on these victims?"

Dr. Golden's answer was a resounding, "Yes!"

Long after they dispensed with Dr. Golden, 10 months later Dr. Lakshmanan under cross-exam testified that multiple knives could have caused the knife wounds on the victims' bodies.

Therefore, I am puzzled by what type of minutia you are trying to spin into a technicality to win another feeble point. However, the benefit of the video documentary is that it eliminates narration and for the most part shows these charlatans caught up in their own malfeasance.

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.

Bob, I am not an accountant and do not claim any expertise about this subject, but based on what I know about Enron, and the impressive credentials of its CFO, Jeffrey Skilling and its CEO, I find their opinions about the growth potential of Enron to be credible and feel that my investment is in safe and competent hands.

I have lost any and all sense of trepidation that a good investigator would have, and knowing of your long sense of good faith belief in others, I too see no need for independent examination and as a result of your influence on me, will probably do as you and continue to throw all caution to the wind in my future decisions, whatsoever they may be, Bob.

William Anthony

12-01-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by bobaugust

That's funny. You make a false statement and then you evidently think that's a valid reason to ignore all of the evidence that was found at Bundy. And then you ask for new evidence? Why? So you can dream up some other fantasy to eliminate that evidence also using "your reasonable doubt"?

As to limiting the evidence only to what was known during the criminal trial, no I won't do that. That's your handicap, not ours. The evidence that was found at Bundy was never shown to could have possibly been left there at an earlier time. Simpson testified that the last time he was at Nicole's was a week earlier.

* It was testified that Simpson's blood drops were fresh blood, not old blood.
* Simpson's hair was not only found in the hat found at Bundy it was found on Ron Goldman's shirt.
* The same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt were found on Simpson's socks.
* Nicole's fresh blood was found on Simpson's sock.
* The bloody shoe prints were made by shoes that Simpson was proved to have previous worn were made with Nicole's fresh blood.
* A witness saw what could have been Simpson's Bronco speed away from Bundy.
* Another witness identified Simpson driving his Bronco at the intersection of Bundy and San Vicente.
* Both victims blood was found in Simpson's Bronco.
* A partial bloody shoe print made from Nicole's blood was found in Simpson's Bronco.
* The matching glove found at Simpson house had both victims blood on it as well as Simpson's blood. It had the same blue black fibers on it that were found on Simpson's socks. It had fibers on it consistent with the Bronco carpet. It had Nicole's hair on it. It had Ron's hair on it. It had fibers on it from Ron's clothing.

Your turn William, what evidence do you know of that points to anyone else other than Simpson and the two victims?

bobaugust

Who testifed that it was "fresh blood" and show the testimony. The hair could have come from a transfer due to the inept crime scene processing. We have discussed the socks, but how could the blood have been fresh since the socks were not tested until some time afterward. Shoes like those that simpson wore in the distant past. Were the shoes collected? We have discussed what was seen and not seen in the Bronco and by whom. There is reasonable doubt as to everything you have posted and, therefore, I do not need a turn, but the unidentified hairs found in the cap, could mean it was worn by someone else on the night of the murders.

bobaugust

12-01-2006, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Big Ben

Au contraire, Roberto! Cochran's words were taken completely within the context of his argument to the judge. Apparently many people disagree with your counter-assertions based upon the enormous response that this particular webclip is receiving at YouTube. It has strangely jumped to a 4:1 viewer response over 2 clips and a 2:1 rate over the 3rd clip.

Judging from the response rate, I think that the general public is judging by what they see. Too bad that you haven't made a video clip to present your feeble minded rebuttal of what you allege that Cochran really means.

So what if the others weren't shown to the jury? They certainly were not, in my opinion, as crucial as the time establishing the window of time for which the defendant was alleged to have committed the murders.

However, with that said, this alleged crucial record should have been entered into the Exhibit Dept. as telephone records like all the other periphally and less than crucial records were. Instead it was entered on the Exhibit Dept. manifest as "Ex. 35- a posterboard claimed to be the Juditha Brown phone records". And if the wording of Ex. 35 is what I say it is, do you have a plausible excuse for this irregularity as well?

The condition of the I-405 the night the Browns made the journey, the heavy construction work ongoing to expand the lanes increasing to an HOV lane. The 15 mile stretch of the I-405 intersected by two other freeways whereby the construction caused expected traffic congestion and slowdown to 29 MPH in that stretch according to CalTrans documents we, OMIG, acquired.

I think that Shapiro may have been offering what he perceived to be a reasonable compromise of 10:17 PM or approximately a 45 minute cutback as opposed to the ridiculous hour and-a-half, back to 9:37 PM, in the closed chambers of Judge Kathleen Kennedy Powell on July 7, 1994 during the Preliminary Hearings.

But the charlatans who pulled this scam would have it no other way, confident in their deception, that they could blind the American public by tapping into the shallow covered bigotry which is always there to be found, if exploited effectively.

Big Ben, that's funny trying to argue that your false beliefs are not false because the number of views of your dishonest video has increased. Based on that reasoning I guess since my web site views increased well over 20 times the normal amount before Simpson's book deal became public must prove that Simpson was the killer, right? Funny.

You claim that there was something sinister because the Brown's telephone records weren't shown to the jury yet the fact is that the only telephone records that were shown to the jury were the Brown's telephone records.

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the prosecution exhibit. The prosecution exhibit included an enlarged copy of the Brown's telephone bill and was entered into evidence as (PEO'S 35 FOR ID = BOARD/JUDITHA BRN PHONE RCDS) It was followed by a stipulation made by Robert Shapiro.

February 7, 1995

MS. CLARK: IT IS ENTITLED "JUDITHA BROWN PHONE RECORD, JUNE 12, 1994."
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, IN THE INTERESTS OF SAVING TIME, SINCE I DON'T THINK
THIS WITNESS CAN AUTHENTICATE THOSE PHONE RECORDS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS
WITNESS' TESTIMONY, WE WOULD STIPULATE THAT THE RECORDS ARE ACCURATE AND
DEPICT THE TIME THAT THE CALL CAME INTO THE RESTAURANT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS THAT STIPULATION AGREEABLE TO THE PEOPLE?
MS. CLARK: YES, THAT STIPULATION IS AGREEABLE. THANK YOU.

Your accusation that Shapiro made up the time of 10:17 PM as some sort of compromise is as ridiculous and false as the rest of your delusional claims. I'm sorry to say that you're the only charlatan here. You're the one who has created a scam with your dishonest tactics and false claims and accusations.

Everything you claim is contradicted by real facts the and the real evidence in this case. There was no 11:00 PM telephone call. There was no 10:17 PM telephone call. The fact is that the Brown's started their drive home at about 8:30 PM and had no problem making it back home that Sunday night about an hour later. As soon as she got in her house, Juditha Brown called the Mezzaluna Restaurant at 9:37 PM. She then called and spoke with Nicole at 9:40 PM. That was the last time she ever spoke with Nicole.

That's the evidence in this case and neither you nor anyone else has ever offered anything legitimate that contradicts it except fantasies, ignorance, and delusions.

bobaugust

mindtwist

12-01-2006, 05:36 PM

this is my first time here and i have thoroughly enjoyed the arguments and banter. until i am sure of the rules and regs of this site i respectfully withhold my opinion. but i will say that it is very easy to see who are the informed and who are the not so informed on this subject!! keep up the good work vernin and bob. respectfully mindtwist

bobaugust

12-01-2006, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Who testifed that it was "fresh blood" and show the testimony. The hair could have come from a transfer due to the inept crime scene processing. We have discussed the socks, but how could the blood have been fresh since the socks were not tested until some time afterward. Shoes like those that simpson wore in the distant past. Were the shoes collected? We have discussed what was seen and not seen in the Bronco and by whom. There is reasonable doubt as to everything you have posted and, therefore, I do not need a turn, but the unidentified hairs found in the cap, could mean it was worn by someone else on the night of the murders.

* Dennis Fung testified that the blood was fresh.
* Simpson testified that the last time he had been at Bundy was a week before the murders..
* Dr. Cotton testified that Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock was less degraded than the blood on her autopsy sample. (My previous post about Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock was incomplete. Her blood was fresh, not preserved, when it stained Simpson's sock.)
* The bloody shoe prints were made by the same size shoes Simpson wore. Simpson's shoes were disposed of but over thirty authenticated photographs show Simpson wearing shoes with the exact kind of sole that the killer wore.
* Deedrick testified that the six unidentified hair fragments found in the hat may have been Simpson's old hair.
* There is no evidence that Simpson's hair found on Ron's shirt was transferred there because of evidence handling.

You don't need a turn because there is no relevant physical evidence found at Bundy that points to anyone else except the two victims and Simpson. Nothing you claim is "reasonable doubt" only unlikely, unsubstantiated, remote imagined possibilities. Your fantasy claims are not evidence of anything, only excuses you use when you can't contradict the actual evidence and reasonable inferences that prove Simpson was at Bundy that night.

November 4, 1996 Fung
Q. Did Detective Lange point out to you any particular items of evidence that he wanted collected?
A. Yes, he did. He showed me keys, a pager, glove, and a cap in the caged area, and then there was a series of blood drops along the north side of the Bundy house.
Q. And these blood drops that you described, what condition did they appear to you to be in?
THE WITNESS: The blood drops appeared to be fairly fresh, meaning that they were red and had a slight tacky appearance to them.

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

Big Ben

12-02-2006, 03:13 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

Neither you nor anyone else has ever offered anything legitimate that contradicts it except fantasies, ignorance, and delusions.

Yeah Bob, you refer, I presume, to Doctor Johnson's/(Simpson's) lawsuit as ignorant, regarding the production of the GTE telephone records. We found that the records had been removed surrepticiously from Simpson's criminal case file, where they should be. We'd like to now see the records directly from GTE's archive. You base your enlightenment upon the "impressive credentials" of others, whose books you buy/or abscound with from the library.

You claim that there was something sinister because the Brown's telephone records weren't shown to the jury yet the fact is that the only telephone records that were shown to the jury were the Brown's telephone records.

You don't know if they were the actual Brown's records and your premise is certainly suspiciously undermined by the judge's admonition to the jury that disallowed the jury from examining the authenticity of those records, Exhibit 35.

The prosecution exhibit included an enlarged copy of the Brown's telephone bill and was entered into evidence as (PEO'S 35 FOR ID = BOARD/JUDITHA BRN PHONE RCDS).

The Custodian of Records on the exhibit manifest for Simpson's case describes, "35 Evidence-( hand written:LG CHART)-Posterboard Entitled Juditha Brown Phone Records". Regarding the differences in titling of all phone records, the response was that the employees title exhibits as accurately as reflects what is deposited within the Exhibit Department, and not what is entered at trial.

The fact is that the Brown's started their drive home at about 8:30 PM. As soon as she got in her house, Juditha Brown called the Mezzaluna Restaurant at 9:37 PM.

You have no direct knowledge of departure. According to three restaurant employees they left at no earlier than 8:40-8:45 PM and the manager initially stated on June 13, 1994, that the Brown's departed at approx. 9:00 PM. As far as a 9:37 PM arrival from Brentwood to Dana Point, it didn't happen on that night.

11:00 PM is more consistent with the highway conditions for the I-405 for the evening of June 12, 1994.

I am not as accepting of good faith and "impressive credentials" as you. As the late Ronald Reagan would say, "Trust but verify!"

Big Ben

12-02-2006, 03:45 AM

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 WOW! You really want to get B.A. riled.

William Anthony

12-02-2006, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

THE WITNESS: The blood drops appeared to be fairly fresh, meaning that they were red and had a slight tacky appearance to them.

Snipped

bobaugust

So, no one testified that the blood was fresh only that it appeared to be "fairly fresh", and that my dear self-proclaimed most assured and intelligent one is simply speculation. Show me the testimony of the person, who testified that to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty Simpson's blood and all the other evidence found at Bundy, which you promulgate proves Simpson was there on the night of the murders, was deposited on the night of the murders. And the testimony on which you rely is the testimony of the person you admit made mistakes?

William Anthony

12-02-2006, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben
WOW! You really want to get B.A. riled.

I did not realize that, if one calls me Bill, then bobaugst and I have the same initials. In any event, if the post to which you replied is true, I am riled. Since I do want to become a lawyer, I cannot fault them for wanting to pad the bill, but at the expense of someone's future does alarm and anger me.

William Anthony

12-02-2006, 08:46 AM

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

Unsupported speculation, "could have been...from Simpson", or could have been from anyone unidentified, reasonable doubt.

William Anthony

12-02-2006, 08:48 AM

bobaugust

12-02-2006, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

Dr. Michael Baden changed his position during the civil trial to state that he now believed that more than one assailant was involved in the murders of the two victims. He made those remarks the same week, late Dec. 1996 or Jan. '97, that Dr. Johnson sat down to lunch and presented his multiple assailant analysis of the autopsy reports to OJ's civil attorneys Baker et al. Bob, Is Dr. Baden ignorant too?

Come on Bob, go to the documentary Serpents Rising, and it will show you Dr. Golden stating during his testimony in the prelims under cross by Shapiro, "Could two knives had of caused the stab wounds on these victims?"

Dr. Golden's answer was a resounding, "Yes!"

Long after they dispensed with Dr. Golden, 10 months later Dr. Lakshmanan under cross-exam testified that multiple knives could have caused the knife wounds on the victims' bodies.

Big Ben, Dr. Baden's opinion about a second assailant was based on false information about the shoe prints he and Dr. Lee found at Bundy. Dr. Lee would later testify that the shoe prints he and Dr. Baden had seen and photographed on June 25 were not shown in crime scene photographs taken on June 13. They were made sometime later after the crime scene was processed.

When Dr. Baden was asked to assume that fact he agreed based on that fact all the bloody shoe prints found at Bundy the day after the murders were consistent with only one person.

Dr. Baden also testified that all the knife wounds inflicted in this double murder are consistent with having been delivered by one knife.

I'm sorry but your documentary is a sham. Yes Dr. Golden testified that two knives could have caused the stab wounds to the victims but that's completely meaningless since Dr. Golden also testified that one knife could have caused all the stab wounds on both victims. Both Dr. Lakshmanan and Dr. Spitz also testified that all of the wounds on both victims were consistent with having been made with one knife.

Your argument about more than one knife is completely meaningless since there isn't one single shred of legitimate evidence that points to another assailant. All of the relevant physical evidence at Bundy points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. If you think you know of any legitimate evidence that points to a second killer, please inform us.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-02-2006, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben
You base your enlightenment upon the "impressive credentials" of others, whose books you buy/or abscound with from the library.

You don't know if they were the actual Brown's records and your premise is certainly suspiciously undermined by the judge's admonition to the jury that disallowed the jury from examining the authenticity of those records, Exhibit 35.

The Custodian of Records on the exhibit manifest for Simpson's case describes, "35 Evidence-( hand written:LG CHART)-Posterboard Entitled Juditha Brown Phone Records". Regarding the differences in titling of all phone records, the response was that the employees title exhibits as accurately as reflects what is deposited within the Exhibit Department, and not what is entered at trial.

You have no direct knowledge of departure. According to three restaurant employees they left at no earlier than 8:40-8:45 PM and the manager initially stated on June 13, 1994, that the Brown's departed at approx. 9:00 PM. As far as a 9:37 PM arrival from Brentwood to Dana Point, it didn't happen on that night.

Big Ben, I base my enlightenment on the reality of what was presented in the criminal trial. The reality that Simpson's criminal defense attorneys were given the telephone records to examine and authenticate. The reality that they then made and agreed to every stipulation regarding the relevant times of telephone calls shown on those records. The reality that an enlarged copy of the Brown's telephone bill was shown to the jury.

The jury does not authenticate evidence. The fact is that Simpson's attorneys agreed by stipulation that all the telephone records in this case were accurate and correct. The only telephone records that jury saw were the Brown's telephone records because they were used in a prosecution exhibit.

The prosecution decided the name of the exhibit they entered into evidence as PEO'S 35 FOR ID = BOARD/JUDITHA BRN PHONE RCDS. None of the other telephone records were used in an exhibit.

The fact is that the witnesses from the Mezzaluna restaurant only estimated the times that they thought the Brown's may have left the restaurant. There was no reason that any of them would have remembered the exact time the Brown's left. They were busy working and not concerned about that.

The fact is that Juditha Brown was aware of the time they started their drive back home because of her concern for the small children and what time they had to go to bed. Juditha Brown testified that time was 8:30 PM.

The fact is that Karen Crawford estimated the time she received Juditha and Nicole's telephone calls and she and other employees estimated the time that Ron Goldman left the restaurant with Juditha Brown's eyeglasses. They were aware of those events because it had to do with what was happening in the restaurant and remembered those times. The fact is that the Brown's telephone records documented the actual time of those calls and they support the times Karen Crawford estimated.

Your beliefs are based on a mistaken time estimate of a telephone call that was later corrected, while you dishonestly ignore witness time estimates regarding the calls that were made just before and just after that call. Time estimates that are all supported by telephone records that document the actual time the calls were made.

Your claims about the fictitious 11:00 PM telephone call not doesn't make any sense and it's been proven false.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-02-2006, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

So, no one testified that the blood was fresh only that it appeared to be "fairly fresh", and that my dear self-proclaimed most assured and intelligent one is simply speculation. Show me the testimony of the person, who testified that to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty Simpson's blood and all the other evidence found at Bundy, which you promulgate proves Simpson was there on the night of the murders, was deposited on the night of the murders. And the testimony on which you rely is the testimony of the person you admit made mistakes?

Fung's testimony about this was never contradicted or disputed by Simpson's attorneys.

No witness was asked the questions that you seem to need the answers to. Not asked by the prosecutors and not asked by Simpson's defense attorneys. The problem is you, William Anthony. You have shown us many times that you aren't capable of comprehending reasonable supported explanations as to what the evidence means in this case. You have shown us many times what your idea of reasonable doubt is. You think any doubt no matter how unlikely is reasonable.

You seem to think that just because you can imagine some fantasy as an alternate explanation that somehow creates doubt in your mind. I'm sorry to tell you that it only shows us how foolish you are. You're fantasy arguments are not supported by anything except your imagination and they have no credibility.

All of the relevant physical evidence found at Bundy proves Simpson was there.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-02-2006, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Unsupported speculation, "could have been...from Simpson", or could have been from anyone unidentified, reasonable doubt.

Maybe reasonable doubt if that was the only evidence in this case, but it's not. Simpson's hair evidence is only additional evidence that points to Simpson as the killer. There is no legitimate evidence of another person being at Bundy except for the two victims and Simpson.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-02-2006, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Fung's testimony about this was never contradicted or disputed by Simpson's attorneys.

No witness was asked the questions that you seem to need the answers to. Not asked by the prosecutors and not asked by Simpson's defense attorneys. The problem is you, William Anthony. You have shown us many times that you aren't capable of comprehending reasonable supported explanations as to what the evidence means in this case. You have shown us many times what your idea of reasonable doubt is. You think any doubt no matter how unlikely is reasonable.

You seem to think that just because you can imagine some fantasy as an alternate explanation that somehow creates doubt in your mind. I'm sorry to tell you that it only shows us how foolish you are. You're fantasy arguments are not supported by anything except your imagination and they have no credibility.

All of the relevant physical evidence found at Bundy proves Simpson was there.

bobaugust

You, oh self-assured wise on, do not seem to understand that, if an attorney asks that we only have your word as to the time you say the evidence was collected and you were trying to be accurate in the times that you collected items, then the record disputes the testimony, which you of such superior intellect should have gleamed from your mystical powers while reading the transcripts. The answer is that no witness testtified to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the evidence was deposited on the night of the murders. The prosecution should have asked and the defense had no obligation to assist them, as I am sure of someone of your self-procalimed intelligence is aware. Therefore, the prosecution's failure amounted to reasonable doubt as to when Simpson could have or could not have been there and who else could and could not have been there. The question again is not was Simpson there, but when, which, if you will allow me, oh most gifted one, imho, raises reasonable doubt due to the prosecution's failure.

William Anthony

12-02-2006, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Maybe reasonable doubt if that was the only evidence in this case, but it's not. Simpson's hair evidence is only additional evidence that points to Simpson as the killer. There is no legitimate evidence of another person being at Bundy except for the two victims and Simpson.

bobaugust

The fact that there were other unidentified hairs is trully exculpatory evidence, imho.

limakey

12-02-2006, 11:46 AM

Mr. August,

Mr. Simpson handed the LAPD and the DA's their case during his 30 minute interview with them, so why didn't they use any of this in his criminal trial?

Why didn't Petrocelli use it?

According to you, he gave them all the evidence they needed to nail him down and put him on death row, so why wasn't it used?

limakey

12-02-2006, 11:51 AM

Big Ben,

Don't know if you know this but Dr. Spitz refused to get involved in the criminal trial. In fact, no highly known and acccredited Dr. would help the DA's. Marcia & Chris were a tad puzzled why they all came out of the woodwork for the civil trial.

Another point, both the DA's and the civil trial lawyers knew that both Nicole and Ron had unusual markings on their bodies. The best guess was that it either came from a ring or from something on the handle of the knife.

To the best of my knowledge, while both the DA's and the civil trial lawyers requested all of OJ's rings, they found nothing. They also were never able to identify which knife handle could have left those markings.

Ames

12-02-2006, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

If you can't remember 3 letters and 4 numbers, you need to go back to kindergarten. Oh, I can dish it out. You just can't take it. If any "G" (and only a "G") can tell me that my original post was offensive and give me a reasonable explanation of why it was offensive, I will apologize to you for being so RUDE!

Until then, please don't post to me and I will do the same! Or, in the alternative, you can put me on Ignore!

Yes, you WERE rude! You were being a smart a-- with your first comment to me. Anyway, I can put you on Ignore? Will do....

Ames

12-02-2006, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

You're the one acting like the child, over nothing. You need to put on your big girl panties and stop with the whiny cry-baby cr@p! Boo Hoo!

JMO and MOO!!

Sounds like you need to CHANGE your big girl panties....maybe the reason that you are being so crabby, is because you have pooped in yours.

martin II

12-02-2006, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Big Ben,

Don't know if you know this but Dr. Spitz refused to get involved in the criminal trial. In fact, no highly known and acccredited Dr. would help the DA's. Marcia & Chris were a tad puzzled why they all came out of the woodwork for the civil trial.

Another point, both the DA's and the civil trial lawyers knew that both Nicole and Ron had unusual markings on their bodies. The best guess was that it either came from a ring or from something on the handle of the knife.

To the best of my knowledge, while both the DA's and the civil trial lawyers requested all of OJ's rings, they found nothing. They also were never able to identify which knife handle could have left those markings.

limakey

I doubt the marks on their bodies came from the handle of that little 3 inch pen knife some belive the killer used. imo
martin II

socaldiva

12-02-2006, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by martin II

limakey

I doubt the marks on their bodies came from the handle of that little 3 inch pen knife some belive the killer used. imo
martin II

Wrong again. No one has ever said anything about a "3 inch pen knife" being used.

martin II

12-02-2006, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Big Ben,

Don't know if you know this but Dr. Spitz refused to get involved in the criminal trial. In fact, no highly known and acccredited Dr. would help the DA's. Marcia & Chris were a tad puzzled why they all came out of the woodwork for the civil trial.

Another point, both the DA's and the civil trial lawyers knew that both Nicole and Ron had unusual markings on their bodies. The best guess was that it either came from a ring or from something on the handle of the knife.

To the best of my knowledge, while both the DA's and the civil trial lawyers requested all of OJ's rings, they found nothing. They also were never able to identify which knife handle could have left those markings.

limakey
Maby the answer as to why Dr.Spitz did not testify for the proecution is that he did not want to be crossexamined by THAT defense team on his opinions. Or he felt the evidence was shakey.imo
martin II

martin II

12-02-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Sounds like you need to CHANGE your big girl panties....maybe the reason that you are being so crabby, is because you have pooped in yours.

Ames

That is really funny.:lol:

martin II

bobaugust

12-02-2006, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

You, oh self-assured wise on, do not seem to understand that, if an attorney asks that we only have your word as to the time you say the evidence was collected and you were trying to be accurate in the times that you collected items, then the record disputes the testimony, which you of such superior intellect should have gleamed from your mystical powers while reading the transcripts. The answer is that no witness testtified to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the evidence was deposited on the night of the murders. The prosecution should have asked and the defense had no obligation to assist them, as I am sure of someone of your self-procalimed intelligence is aware. Therefore, the prosecution's failure amounted to reasonable doubt as to when Simpson could have or could not have been there and who else could and could not have been there. The question again is not was Simpson there, but when, which, if you will allow me, oh most gifted one, imho, raises reasonable doubt due to the prosecution's failure.

No, not the prosecution failure, your failure to comprehend reality.

bobaugust

Ames

12-02-2006, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by martin II

Ames

That is really funny.:lol:

martin II

LOL...gee...thank you!!! I just get sick and tired of someone posting something innocent, and having another poster make a smart butt comment. Its totally uncalled for. Everyone else on this board has been nothing but nice to me. Thank you nice people!!!

bobaugust

12-02-2006, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

Mr. Simpson handed the LAPD and the DA's their case during his 30 minute interview with them, so why didn't they use any of this in his criminal trial?

Why didn't Petrocelli use it?

According to you, he gave them all the evidence they needed to nail him down and put him on death row, so why wasn't it used?

limakey, Petrocelli did use Simpson's statements that he made in his initial interview to contradict his story changes, fabrications, and lies.

Clark wrote that she understood that there were some good arguments to be made from Simpson's answers but she believed that most of his statement was a disaster because of the soft ball questions and Simpson's answers that the defense would use to for "sympathy grabbing."

But if Simpson had testified in the criminal trial and said what he said in the civil trial the prosecutors would probably have also used his initial statement to impeach him.

bobaugust

Big Ben

12-03-2006, 12:11 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

Your claims about the fictitious 11:00 PM telephone call not doesn't make any sense and it's been proven false.

Are you alright, Bob. You're beginning to write and sound like you've been foaming at the mouth. "It's been proven false"??? By who?

Big Ben, I base my enlightenment on the reality of what was presented in the criminal trial.

Yeh! That reality is crumbling in your mind every night that you try to go to sleep. Even those that you tout for their voracity fumble when confronted with these contradictions regarding the travel time. You better buy the documentary, Bob,www.ojcoverup.com.

The reality that Simpson's criminal defense attorneys were given the telephone records to examine and authenticate.

That constitutes a usurption of the primary obligation and responsibility of the trier of fact (jury). I've repeated that enough to you, Bob.

The fact is that Simpson's attorneys agreed by stipulation that all the telephone records in this case were accurate and correct.

As did Lord of London attorneys who, were on retainer, initiated, and mutually agreed to untruthful facts through stipulations in the 1800s in order to access huge piles of money set aside to compensate sailor's wives as a result of freek accidents at sea.

(1.) Bob's lunacy: There was no reason...that any of The... witnesses from the Mezzaluna restaurant ...... would have remembered the exact time the Brown's left. They were busy working and not concerned about that....

(2.) Bob's lunacy: ....employees estimated the time that Ron Goldman left the restaurant .....They were aware of those events because it had to do with what was happening in the restaurant and remembered those times.

What an idiotic remark. Either they are too busy to remember or they are not, you only get one, so which one of these foolish assertions do you want, Roberto.

The fact is that Juditha Brown was aware of the time they started their drive back home...and... testified that time was 8:30 PM.

The Fact is! She also twice told Shapiro after telling his investigators that she arrived home at approximately 11:00 PM. (Page 33- Shapiro's Search for Justice.

Your beliefs are based on a mistaken time estimate of a telephone call that was later corrected..

Conveniently corrected, Bob!

Big Ben

12-03-2006, 12:21 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

Big Ben,

If you think you know of any legitimate evidence that points to a second killer, please inform us.

Voila! www.ojcoverup.com or www.serpentsrising.com !

limakey

12-03-2006, 01:19 AM

Mr. August,

Are you kidding me, what did OJ Simpson say that was sympathy grabbing? Softball questions by two experienced, hard core detectives? No, they knew they had nothing, were getting nothing and were smart enough to stop it.

Mr. Simpson saying he was not at Nicole's home some weeks before the murder is not sympathy grabbing. He gave them Paula's phone call, the one you said that is proof he was lying. Tell me Mr. August, what did Mr. Simpson say that was sympathy grabbing?

limakey

12-03-2006, 01:28 AM

Big Ben,

I know you answered this question before, but, I'm still a tad confused. The defense agreed stipulated to one phone record, that was one of the Browns. However, does this mean they could not have introduce another phone record of the Browns or Nicole's phone records? Another other phone records that would have open the door to any later phone calls made to and/or from Nicole's home?

I don't know if you remember this but Stewart Tanner was very vague on the stand. He would never really give a time on what time he called Ron that night or what time they were to meet that night.

After the criminal trial, the Goldmans were given Ron's answering machine or the tape from his machine. If you read the Goldmans' book, I believe that this could have been used by the DA's, yet, again it wasn't. I wonder why.

limakey

12-03-2006, 01:36 AM

Mr. August,

Lets be real, shall we, do you really think any police department or any DA office is ever going to introduce any evidence that may conflict with their case? Isn't that really why we have two sides represented in a trial?

And to be fair, we know how many mistakes that were made in this case. You may consider them to be harmless or mistakes that really have no meaning---however, what about the mistakes that were made that we know nothing about?

As you know, the DA's are suppose to hand over they have to the defense, we know the defense is also suppose to turn over their stuff to the DA's. We know that both sides play the "hide" game, then spend countless minutes in court calling the other side for hiding this or whatever. However, we also know that in most cases that are overturned, it is because of evidence that was hid by the DA's or the police department or both. We also know that in many cases, that cases are also overturned when a police officer has not been truthful in their testimony.

How can you be so sure that we know about every piece of evidence? How can you prove that every "mistake" in this case was presented in court and explained?

bobaugust

12-03-2006, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

"It's been proven false"??? By who?

You better buy the documentary, Bob,www.ojcoverup.com.

That constitutes a usurption of the primary obligation and responsibility of the trier of fact (jury). I've repeated that enough to you, Bob.

(1.) Bob's lunacy: There was no reason...that any of The... witnesses from the Mezzaluna restaurant ...... would have remembered the exact time the Brown's left. They were busy working and not concerned about that....

(2.) Bob's lunacy: ....employees estimated the time that Ron Goldman left the restaurant .....They were aware of those events because it had to do with what was happening in the restaurant and remembered those times.

What an idiotic remark. Either they are too busy to remember or they are not, you only get one, so which one of these foolish assertions do you want, Roberto.

Big Ben, your claim about a fictitious 11:00 PM telephone call is proven false by the Brown's telephone records. Proven false by Juditha Brown's testimony under oath. Proven false by the time estimates Karen Crawford testified to before the telephone records were obtained. Proven false by Steven Schwab's testimony that he found Nicole's dog with blood on it before 11:00 PM. Proven false by the testimony of Danny Mandel, Ellen Aaronson, Robert Heidstra, Jill Shively and Allan Park whose testimony tells us when the murders were committed.

No I'm not going to buy your dishonest so called documentary, so stop pitching your scams here, please.

No, I don't believe that it is the responsibility of the jury to authenticate telephone records. It's the responsibility of the attorneys to present that evidence. In this case Simpson's defense attorneys were given the Brown's telephone records to examine. If they had any question as to their authenticity they would have said as such and it would be up to the prosecution to present witnesses who would authenticate them. But they didn't have any questions as to their authentication and agreed by stipulation that the times shown on the enlarged copy of the Brown's telephone bill were accurate and depicted the time those calls were made.

That's the evidence in criminal trial. Simpson's civil trial attorneys also accepted the times documented on the Brown's telephone records as the evidence in that case.

The employees of the Mezzaluna restaurant were not concerned as to the actual time the Brown's left the restaurant but they were aware of what time another employee left work that night and when they received telephone calls. That was part of the job that Karen Crawford as acting manager that night was responsible for as well as John DeBello the general manager of the restaurant.

Karen Crawford talked to Juditha Brown on the telephone and found her eyeglasses in the street. She also talked to Nicole on the telephone about five minutes later before giving it to Ron Goldman and then giving him the eyeglasses before he left work that night. In the grand jury Karen Crawford estimated the time Juditha Brown called her between 9:30 and 9:45 PM.

Karen Crawford, John DeBello, and Stuart Tanner all testified that Ron Goldman left work that night at about 9:50 PM.

Juditha Brown testified that when they left the restaurant all of the family walked out together. She told how she watched Nicole cross the street with Justin, Sydney, and her friend Rachel to go to get some ice cream. After looking for her eyeglasses in the jeep she noticed the time was 8:30 and she said, "lets go" because the children had to go to bed.

You tell us Big Ben, that you believe that the Brown's never left the restaurant until at least 9:00 PM. But Simpson testified that he called Nicole's house about 9:00 PM before he and Kaelin went to McDonalds and he spoke with Sydney about the recital. So tell us Big Ben, how was that possible if what you believe actually happened?

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-03-2006, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

No, not the prosecution failure, your failure to comprehend reality.

bobaugust

Forgive me, oh all knowledgeable one, since the jury determined the prosecution failed and show me the testimony that it was Ron's voice saying, hey, and that it was he and Simpson engaged in a conversation or is the testimony that there were two men, one young and one older engaged in a conversation. I do not believe that, if I intended to kill someone, I would be talking loud enough for passerby to hear. Oh wisest and most intelligent one, do you believe that it was JC, who brought race into the trial, or was it the prosecution, who attempted to have Hiedsta identify one of the voices as AA?

William Anthony

12-03-2006, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Sounds like you need to CHANGE your big girl panties....maybe the reason that you are being so crabby, is because you have pooped in yours.

Do you mean my post to her, "I am neither your slave, servant nor employee. Hence, when you post to me henceforth try to keep that in the space between your ears", could not enter the space, bexause her ears were blocked with poop?:)

martin II

12-03-2006, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Do you mean my post to her, "I am neither your slave, servant nor employee. Hence, when you post to me henceforth try to keep that in the space between your ears", could not enter the space, bexause her ears were blocked with poop?:)

William Anthony

12-03-2006, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by martin II

No, Martin that was my original post to 2 and Ames could have been explaining to me why 2 could not comply.:), because her ears were blocked and my advice could not enter the space. Does that clarify?

bobaugust

12-03-2006, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

Forgive me, oh all knowledgeable one, since the jury determined the prosecution failed and show me the testimony that it was Ron's voice saying, hey, and that it was he and Simpson engaged in a conversation or is the testimony that there were two men, one young and one older engaged in a conversation. I do not believe that, if I intended to kill someone, I would be talking loud enough for passerby to hear. Oh wisest and most intelligent one, do you believe that it was JC, who brought race into the trial, or was it the prosecution, who attempted to have Hiedsta identify one of the voices as AA?

The fact is that Sunday night in Brentwood was a very still and quiet night where voices could easily be heard by people who were outside.

The fact is that no one at either trial ever argued that Simpson's blood drops may have been at Bundy before the murders. No one ever disputed the fact that all the blood found at Bundy was fresh blood.

The fact is that Fung was asked about that blood and testified as to it's appearance. The fact is that Simpson told the police in his initial interview that the last time he had been at Nicole's was five days before the murders. The fact is that Simpson later testified that he did not recall ever bleeding there.

You are the one who is constantly dreaming up alternate fantasy explanations that have no basis in fact and then you tell us that is reasonable doubt to you. It's a good thing you're not a juror or no one on this earth would ever be convicted of a crime since there is always some fantasy explanation for everything that happens. Most people understand the difference between a reasonable explanation and the bull crap explanations such as you dream up. The criminal trial jurors evidently couldn't tell the difference and neither can you.

bobaugust

weezer

12-03-2006, 08:50 PM

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

Big Ben,

If you think you know of any legitimate evidence that points to a second killer, please inform us.

Voila! www.ojcoverup.com or www.serpentsrising.com ! I do believe it is against the rules so please quit posting links to your for profit website.

limakey

12-03-2006, 10:20 PM

Mr. August,

You are mistaken, the defense did argue that some of the blood drops were not fresh. The DA's said the blood was degraded because the AC unit was not working. However, I don't remember them introducing any proof that this was the case.

The DA's claimed that could have been reason, but never proved it.

However, there were several witnesses that the DA's could have called outside of LAPD. Yet, they didn't, why?

limakey

12-03-2006, 10:24 PM

Mr. August,

If what your post is accurate, that Mrs. Brown noticed her glasses were missing at 8:30 p.m. but insisted they leave because the children had to go to bed, this makes no sense.

If Mrs. Brown was so concerned about the time and the children, why wait until much later to make a phone call? Why wait until she got home?

2L8 4A D8

12-04-2006, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I did not realize that, if one calls me Bill, then bobaugst and I have the same initials. In any event, if the post to which you replied is true, I am riled. Since I do want to become a lawyer, I cannot fault them for wanting to pad the bill, but at the expense of someone's future does alarm and anger me.

Well, if and when you and Bob ever decide to get married, at least you'll have the same Monogram :eek: This post is just in jest (isn't that what you say?)

JMO and MOO!!

Big Ben

12-04-2006, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I do believe it is against the rules so please quit posting links to your for profit website.

Nobody is doing any arm twisting, Weezer! He asked if one knew of specific information, I'm simply pointing him in a specific direction where said information can be found. The exercise of perogative rests with him, not I. I have no ownership or pecuniary interest in the website, but do think that it offers more objective evidence than most. Stop whining, Weezer, and post something interesting beyond your usual tripe.

bobaugust

12-04-2006, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

You are mistaken, the defense did argue that some of the blood drops were not fresh. The DA's said the blood was degraded because the AC unit was not working. However, I don't remember them introducing any proof that this was the case.

The DA's claimed that could have been reason, but never proved it.

However, there were several witnesses that the DA's could have called outside of LAPD. Yet, they didn't, why?

limakey, the degradation of the blood drops was not because the blood was old blood. Nobody ever argued that.

Dennis Fung testified as to the appearance of the blood drops when he saw them, "The blood drops appeared to be fairly fresh, meaning that they were red and had a slight tacky appearance to them."

bobaugust

Big Ben

12-04-2006, 06:41 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust

Big Ben, you believe that the Brown's never left the restaurant until at least 9:00 PM. So tell us Big Ben, how was that possible if what you believe actually happened?.......

First of all, Roberto, I don't believe that I stated to you that I believed that the Browns left the restaurant at 9:00 PM. If I said that in any manner, I apologize. My point was that a prime witness, John DeBello, Mngr. of the Mezzaluna, told the detectives and the grand jury that they left at 9:00 PM, thus creating another instance challenging the voracity of a 9:37 PM phone call from Dana Point. I think that you are confused with my emphatic position that the Brown's did not arrive in Dana Point to much before 11:00 PM, as first stated to the coroner less than 12 hours after the murders by Lou Brown.

Ben, your claims are proven false by Juditha Brown's testimony under oath.

2. I don't think that Juditha Brown's testimony under oath necessarily sanctifies her voracity, especially when she initially told defense investigators that she arrived home at 11:00 PM. Face it Bob, many of us believe that these people didn't have temporary amnesia,they simply lied!

Big Ben, your claim about a fictitious 11:00 PM telephone call is proven false by Steven Schwab's testimony that he found Nicole's dog with blood on it before 11:00 PM.

3. Nor do I think that Steven Schwab's testimony or integrity is that impressive considering his admission that he first told the police less than twelve hours after the murders that he originally saw the Akita after 11:00 PM. You seem to be missing an ongoing pattern here with all of your testifiers, Bob.

Re: lawyers authenticating evidence

4. I wholeheartedly disagree with you regarding the role of lawyers in regard to our common law courts. Though they may present what they allege to be authentic evidence, they were never given the privilege of usurping the responsibilities of the trier of fact (jury) as the authenticator and verifier of evidence. That is the jury's responsibility, in determining the innocense or guilt of a defendant dating back to the year 1215. You are simply an unenlightened, I presume, fellow who would throw away one of the most sacred privileges that citizens in the U.S. are obliged to assume. I simply will not condone such heresy, nor discuss that element with one who seems to be so feeble mindedly miopic with regard to the history of our legal system.

bobaugust

12-04-2006, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

If what your post is accurate, that Mrs. Brown noticed her glasses were missing at 8:30 p.m. but insisted they leave because the children had to go to bed, this makes no sense.

If Mrs. Brown was so concerned about the time and the children, why wait until much later to make a phone call? Why wait until she got home?

limakey, you seem to be confused. Read Juditha Brown's testimony for yourself.

December 6, 1996

Q. Now, did you get in the car, then, and head down towards your house?
A. Yes. I -- we looked for my glasses, still, I know, because I didn't have the glasses in the restaurant. So we looked in the jeep and we didn't see them. And it was 8:30 by that time and the children had to go to bed, so we said, well, let's go; I'll call.
Q. And did you get in the car and head down to Orange County?
A. We drove home. And on the way home, a terrible depression came over me, something I have never experienced. My whole body got really heavy. And I haven't had it before and I haven't had it afterwards. It was --
it was a whole feeling. And as we arrived at home, I shook myself, and I thought, "God, I have to buy a pair of new glasses again." And I went on the phone and I called Mezzaluna.

*
Q. Now, after you got home, you -- I'm sorry -- do you recall who you spoke to at Mezzaluna?
A. It was a woman. No, I don't remember her name.
Q. Do you recall the substance of the conversation?
A. Yes. I said can you -- I know I left my glasses somewhere; could you please check outside. Because I had Justin on my lap, and as I got out of the car, I said, maybe they had fallen out, and there was a puddle in front where we got out. So I said, could you just check there and see if you find my glasses. And she returned and she says, "Yes, I have them." I said, "What luck."
Q. And anything else in that conversation?
A. And I said, "Well I'm going to call my daughter and tell her to pick up the glasses in the morning."
Q. Did you then call Nicole?
A. Then I called Nicole and I said, "You know, I found my glasses over there. Would you please pick them up in the morning." And she said, oh, you know -- and she said a name, but it just slipped my mind, but who it was -- and she says "can bring it to Starbucks Cafe, because we always talk, and we can meet there, and he can bring them."
Q. Okay. Anything else in the conversation?
A. And then she said good night, and "I love you." And I said, "I love you." And those were the last words.

bobaugust

Big Ben

12-04-2006, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by limakey
Big Ben,

I know you answered this question before, but, I'm still a tad confused. The defense agreed stipulated to one phone record, that was one of the Browns. However, does this mean they could not have introduce another phone record of the Browns or Nicole's phone records? Another other phone records that would have open the door to any later phone calls made to and/or from Nicole's home?

limakey, I hear what you're saying and kind of see what you are reaching for. The defense could have done so, but I do not believe that the defense was doing anymore than playing their role in an elaborate show, a mock trial, put on for your entertainment.

However, our major concern has been to reveal objective evidence when at all possible. For us, after being given the autopsy reports, we could have been the greatest indicters of O.J. Simpson, but the discoveries that we have made point away from him as the perpetrator of this crime.

The prosecution has presented time evidence, and the defense lawyers representing Simpson have agreed to this time evidence that gives O.J. Simpson the window of time to have committed these murders. The introduction of this evidence was crucial in order to have an O.J. Simpson trial.

Our investigative discoveries indicate that, given the time the employees of the Mezzaluna Restaurant stated that the Browns left the restaurant, it would have been impossible for the Browns to have traveled down any of the California highway systems on June 12, 1994 to arrive at their home in time to make a 9:37 PM phone call. Virtually every authority we've interviewed affirms our position, Cal. Highway Patrolmen, Cal. Dept. of Transportation officials, Mapquest for 1997, and AAA travel for 1997.

We believe that the Brown's initial arrival and telephone time statements of 11:00 PM are more reflective of the travel conditions on that date, and if so, it would have eliminated Simpson as being the perpetrator of these murders.

I just don't know of anything else, regarding time, that reaches such a level of crucial significance, because this issue implies that sworn officers of the court (lawyers) lied about exculpatory evidence that could have eliminated the need for this infamous media event. That is why we continue to pursue the production of these stolen records with GTE/Verizon Communications. I sincerely hope that my answer helps you to understand our position.

William Anthony

12-04-2006, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

The fact is that Sunday night in Brentwood was a very still and quiet night where voices could easily be heard by people who were outside.

The fact is that no one at either trial ever argued that Simpson's blood drops may have been at Bundy before the murders. No one ever disputed the fact that all the blood found at Bundy was fresh blood.

The fact is that Fung was asked about that blood and testified as to it's appearance. The fact is that Simpson told the police in his initial interview that the last time he had been at Nicole's was five days before the murders. The fact is that Simpson later testified that he did not recall ever bleeding there.

You are the one who is constantly dreaming up alternate fantasy explanations that have no basis in fact and then you tell us that is reasonable doubt to you. It's a good thing you're not a juror or no one on this earth would ever be convicted of a crime since there is always some fantasy explanation for everything that happens. Most people understand the difference between a reasonable explanation and the bull crap explanations such as you dream up. The criminal trial jurors evidently couldn't tell the difference and neither can you.

bobaugust

No one had to argue about when the blood was deposited. The does not negate the fact that the jurors may have decided it could have been placed there before the murders. Fung's testimony disputed the fact that it was fresh, just appeared fairly fresh. Did not recall is not the same as saying did not. I firmly believe that it is a travesty that one innocent person is convicted and, if your post is meant to mean that I, as a juror, would be demanding on the prosecution to meet its burden, then I stand guilty.

William Anthony

12-04-2006, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Maybe reasonable doubt if that was the only evidence in this case, but it's not. Simpson's hair evidence is only additional evidence that points to Simpson as the killer. There is no legitimate evidence of another person being at Bundy except for the two victims and Simpson.

bobaugust

We have discussed the possibility of when the blood may have deposited and now the unidentified hairs, both of which leave some baisis for reasonable doubt, imho. What else, bobaugust?

William Anthony

12-04-2006, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Well, if and when you and Bob ever decide to get married, at least you'll have the same Monogram :eek: This post is just in jest (isn't that what you say?)

JMO and MOO!!

Bobaugust is not my type, despite his obvious affection for me.:) This post is in jest concerning the latter part of the above statement. i.e. that portion following the comma.

bobaugust

12-04-2006, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Big Ben

First of all, Roberto, I don't believe that I stated to you that I believed that the Browns left the restaurant at 9:00 PM. If I said that in any manner, I apologize. My point was that a prime witness, John DeBello, Mngr. of the Mezzaluna, told the detectives and the grand jury that they left at 9:00 PM, thus creating another instance challenging the voracity of a 9:37 PM phone call from Dana Point. I think that you are confused with my emphatic position that the Brown's did not arrive in Dana Point to much before 11:00 PM, as first stated to the coroner less than 12 hours after the murders by Lou Brown.

I don't think that Juditha Brown's testimony under oath necessarily sanctifies her voracity, especially when she initially told defense investigators that she arrived home at 11:00 PM.

Nor do I think that Steven Schwab's testimony or integrity is that impressive considering his admission that he first told the police less than twelve hours after the murders that he originally saw the Akita after 11:00 PM. You seem to be missing an ongoing pattern here with all of your testifiers, Bob.

Big Ben, John DeBello never estimated the time the Brown's left the restaurant as 9:00 PM.

June 21, 1994 John Debello
Q. DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME THE DINNER PARTY WAS OVER, OR THE TIME THAT NICOLE
BROWN SIMPSON LEFT?
A. IT WAS ABOUT 8:30, 8:40 P.M.

June 21, 1994 Karen Crawford
Q. DO YOU RECALL SEEING THE PARTY NICOLE SIMPSON WAS WITH LEAVE THE RESTAURANT?
A. I SAW THEM WALKING OUT THE DOOR. I CAN'T BE POSITIVE WHAT TIME THEY LEFT, BUT I
DO REMEMBER SEEING THEM LEAVING. I THINK, YOU KNOW, I TOLD THEM TO HAVE A NICE
EVENING.
Q. DO YOU RECALL APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME THAT WAS?
A. IT WAS AROUND 8:30 OR 9. I'M NOT POSITIVE.

Both DeBello and Crawford estimated a time range that included 8:30. Nicole and her children left the restaurant with the rest of her family. She went across the street to buy ice cream while her family started their drive back home at about 8:30 PM. Sydney was back home and ready to go to bed when Simpson testified that he called Nicole's house at about 9:00 PM and spoke with her about the recital and when he would be back to take her to Knots Berry Farm.

Denise Brown testified that the family that night were riding in Dominique's Jeep with Dominique driving.

May 2, 1996 Denise Brown.
Q. Do you recall what time you left Mezzaluna on June 12th,
A. I think it was around 9:00 o'clock, 8:30 -- 8:30.
Q. Did you talk with any members of your family about O.J. Simpson after you left Mezzaluna?
A. No.
Q. You have no knowledge as to whether you left Mezzaluna at 8:30 or 9:00? You can't be any more specific than that?
A. You know what, it was closer to 8:30, because I told the kids to lay down and go to sleep in the back. They had school the next day.
Q. Which kids were in the car?
A. Sean and Aaron.
Q. Who is Aaron?
A. Aaron is Dominique's boy.
Q. So there were 6 of you in the car ride home from Mezzaluna on June 12, 1994?
A. There was my mother, my father, me, Dominique and the 2 boys.
Q. Where did you stay -- Were you living at the Monarch Bay house on June 12th, 1994?
A. Yes.
*
Q. What time did you return to Monarch Bay on the night of June 12th, 1994?
A. 8:30, 9:30;, figure around 10:00 o'clock. No. 9:30, quarter to 10:00.
*
Q. Did you overhear Judy talking to anybody associated with the Mezzaluna restaurant?
A. No.
Q. Did you overhear Judy talking with Nicole on the night of June 12, 1994?
A. No.
Q. After you went to bed, did Judy or Lou come in and say "good-night'' to you on June 12th, 1994?
A. No.
Q. So basically after you returned home from Mezzaluna, you put Sean to bed and went to sleep?
A. I put -- I put Sean to bed. I yelled out my door and said "good-night" and closed the door and went to bed.
Q. Did you make any phone calls after you returned from Mezzaluna to Monarch Bay on June 12, 1994?
A. No. Not that I can recall, no.

Big Ben, Lou Brown never told Claudine Ratcliffe that they returned home from the restaurant at about 11:00, PM. Juditha Brown never told anyone that either. They only estimated an incorrect time when she last telephoned and spoke with Nicole.

Read Claudine Ratcliffe's statement for yourself and you will see that telephone call that Juditha Brown made to Nicole was when she told her about her missing eyeglasses. Karen Crawford tells us what time that call was made since she spoke with Juditha just before that telephone call was made and she spoke with Nicole just after that telephone call was made.

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

Steven Schwab's testimony was not only credible it was supported by a police report. Steven Schwab testified he got home about five minuets after eleven o'clock. based on the television show that was just beginning. He testified that the police woke him up about 5:00 in the morning. He said he was confused and scared when they told him that the dog he had found was somehow connected to a homicide. When he was asked what time he got home he said he mentioned 11:30 and then said no, it was--it must have been around 11:00. He said he went back to bed and when he woke up he remembered more clearly what the sequence of events were. He said he immediately called the police to make sure his statement was accurate.

Schwab also told about how the Akita was following him that night when he saw a police car and flagged it down. He told the police officer about the dog. He said the dog was intent on following him and the police officer told him not to worry about it that he would take care of it and that Schwab should continue home.

In the criminal trial Officer Benjamin Jones came forward when he heard about the incident testified to by Steven Schwab, realizing that it was him. Clark gave the defense a copy of the police report Jones made at that time. She also gave the defense a copy of the report of an interview conducted on February 8th concerning the proposed testimony of Officer Jones. He was the officer who was on patrol the night that Steven Schwab found Nicole's dog and called animal shelter for him.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-04-2006, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

No one had to argue about when the blood was deposited. The does not negate the fact that the jurors may have decided it could have been placed there before the murders. Fung's testimony disputed the fact that it was fresh, just appeared fairly fresh. Did not recall is not the same as saying did not. I firmly believe that it is a travesty that one innocent person is convicted and, if your post is meant to mean that I, as a juror, would be demanding on the prosecution to meet its burden, then I stand guilty.

Who cares what the criminal trial jury believed about the blood? You're the one making this argument, not the jury and not Simpson's defense attorneys.

You have been made aware of Fung's testimony why he believed the blood drops were fresh blood.
You have been made aware that Simpson testified that the last time he was at Nicole's house was five days before the murders and he never recalled bleeding there.

You're one who thinks that imagined fantasies are reasonable doubt to you. You have no idea what the criminal trial believed so stop blaming them for the nonsense that you evidently believe.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-04-2006, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

We have discussed the possibility of when the blood may have deposited and now the unidentified hairs, both of which leave some baisis for reasonable doubt, imho. What else, bobaugust?

We have discussed your uninformed imagined possibilities that you think raises reasonable doubt to you.

Not one of your imagined possibilities raises any reasonable doubt to me nor do I believe to any other reasonable thinking person. Your arguments don't point to anyone else they only show how desperate you are create excuses to avoid the reality that there is no credible or legitimate evidence that points to anyone else except Simpson as the killer.

bobaugust.

William Anthony

12-04-2006, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

We have discussed your uninformed imagined possibilities that you think raises reasonable doubt to you.

Not one of your imagined possibilities raises any reasonable doubt to me nor do I believe to any other reasonable thinking person. Your arguments don't point to anyone else they only show how desperate you are create excuses to avoid the reality that there is no credible or legitimate evidence that points to anyone else except Simpson as the killer.

bobaugust.

It matters not what you think, and, most intelligent one, why can you not get that through your head. The only thing that is material in this case is that 12 people agreed with me and others that there was reasonable doubt and not with you and your disciples.

bobaugust

12-04-2006, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by William Anthony

It matters not what you think, and, most intelligent one, why can you not get that through your head. The only thing that is material in this case is that 12 people agreed with me and others that there was reasonable doubt and not with you and your disciples.

Why can't you get it through your head this is a discussion about who the killer was not only what the criminal trial jury did or didn't do.

The information and evidence relating to these murders did not stop with the criminal trial verdict.

People like you may have stopped learning but others who continued to follow this case learned about all the new information from the many depositions that the criminal trial jurors never knew. New evidence that was presented in the civil trial that the criminal trial jurors never knew. And Simpson's testimony that the criminal trial jurors never heard.

If you ever decide to learn about all this information and evidence for yourself, you too may some day be able to understand the simple truth that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-04-2006, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by bobaugust

Why can't you get it through your head this is a discussion about who the killer was not only what the criminal trial jury did or didn't do.

The information and evidence relating to these murders did not stop with the criminal trial verdict.

People like you may have stopped learning but others who continued to follow this case learned about all the new information from the many depositions that the criminal trial jurors never knew. New evidence that was presented in the civil trial that the criminal trial jurors never knew. And Simpson's testimony that the criminal trial jurors never heard.

If you ever decide to learn about all this information and evidence for yourself, you too may some day be able to understand the simple truth that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

If you read my post on the other thread about common sense and inference, then you should understand that, unless you are dealing with mathmatics, one and one does not always equal two.
I cannot, nor can you know for a fact who the killer is, and, due to the inept processing of the crime scene, there may have been, and, inho, most likely was evidence that was overlooked. Have you ever asked yourself why LE so quickly arrested Simpson. I applaud the DA, who arrested John Karr and had the fortitude to admit her mistake. Simpson was arrested before all the results of the DNA testing was completed. Have you ever asked yourself why? Have you ever asked yourself , what would have happened to the careers of the prosecutors had they won?

Kayleighjo

12-04-2006, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

It matters not what you think, and, most intelligent one, why can you not get that through your head. The only thing that is material in this case is that 12 people agreed with me and others that there was reasonable doubt and not with you and your disciples.

How about if there is reason enough to believe that the juror's racial bias played a part in their decision, much like your question regarding whether Fuhrman's racial bias played a part.

When a juror says they never tried to explain why Simpson's blood was at the crime scene tells me that they never tried to explain it!! Which means that they didn't even bother to question if it could have gotten there from a prior visit from Simpson when he may have been bleeding, or anything else.

William Anthony

12-04-2006, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Kayleighjo

How about if there is reason enough to believe that the juror's racial bias played a part in their decision, much like your question regarding whether Fuhrman's racial bias played a part.

When a juror says they never tried to explain why Simpson's blood was at the crime scene tells me that they never tried to explain it!! Which means that they didn't even bother to question if it could have gotten there from a prior visit from Simpson when he may have been bleeding, or anything else.

I am sorry, but your quoted juror statement confuses me. Who was the juror speaking of that never tried to explain it the jury or the prosecution?

Kayleighjo

12-04-2006, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by William Anthony

I am sorry, but your quoted juror statement confuses me. Who was the juror speaking of that never tried to explain it the jury or the prosecution?

Armanda Cooley. It's in her book. She explicitly states that she nor the rest of the jury ever tried to explain to themselves why OJ's blood was at Bundy.

Hhmmm ...

William Anthony

12-04-2006, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Kayleighjo

Armanda Cooley. It's in her book. She explicitly states that she nor the rest of the jury ever tried to explain to themselves why OJ's blood was at Bundy.

Hhmmm ...

Then they did their duty. They, meaning the prosecution, obviously had not explained it through their presentation, and the jury was not allowed to speculate on evidence not presented.

Kayleighjo

12-04-2006, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by martin II

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

Do you even know Dr. Henry Lee's testimony in the civil trial?

Get educated to the fact that even Dr. Lee testified that the killings could have taken place in as little as one minute.

In fact, I challenge you to read his testimony and then to try to continue to argue that it's not possible, when your own defense expert testified that it was.

bobaugust

12-04-2006, 07:24 PM

If you read my post on the other thread about common sense and inference, then you should understand that, unless you are dealing with mathmatics, one and one does not always equal two.
I cannot, nor can you know for a fact who the killer is, and, due to the inept processing of the crime scene, there may have been, and, inho, most likely was evidence that was overlooked. Have you ever asked yourself why LE so quickly arrested Simpson. I applaud the DA, who arrested John Karr and had the fortitude to admit her mistake. Simpson was arrested before all the results of the DNA testing was completed. Have you ever asked yourself why? Have you ever asked yourself , what would have happened to the careers of the prosecutors had they won?

The decision to charge Simpson was made when the blood on the walkway at Bundy was found to match Simpson's blood. Your belief that there was most likely evidence that was overlooked is again only in your imagination. People are convicted on the evidence that is found not on what is not found.

Simpson was arrested after he broke the agreement that he would turn himself in and attempted to flee.

I would think that if the prosecutors had won they would have either stayed as prosecutors or went into private practice. What do you think would have happened to the careers of the prosecutors had won? And what difference does that make as to Simpson's guilt or innocence?

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-04-2006, 07:57 PM

The decision to charge Simpson was made when the blood on the walkway at Bundy was found to match Simpson's blood. Your belief that there was most likely evidence that was overlooked is again only in your imagination. People are convicted on the evidence that is found not on what is not found.

Simpson was arrested after he broke the agreement that he would turn himself in and attempted to flee.

I would think that if the prosecutors had won they would have either stayed as prosecutors or went into private practice. What do you think would have happened to the careers of the prosecutors had won? And what difference does that make as to Simpson's guilt or innocence?

bobaugust

The DNA had not come back by the next dat when they placed him in handcuffs. That is correct on what people are convicted on and he was not convicted on the evidence found and there was evidence of sloppy crime scene process and it is from that evidence and facts that I draw a reasonable evidence that evidence could have been overlooked. I think if they won, they would have gone into private practice also and charged fees that surpassed those of JC's or ran for political office. Clarke may have become the first female President and not have slept with Darden. That last comment is made in jest.

bobaugust

12-04-2006, 08:09 PM

The DNA had not come back by the next dat when they placed him in handcuffs. That is correct on what people are convicted on and he was not convicted on the evidence found and there was evidence of sloppy crime scene process and it is from that evidence and facts that I draw a reasonable evidence that evidence could have been overlooked. I think if they won, they would have gone into private practice also and charged fees that surpassed those of JC's or ran for political office. Clarke may have become the first female President and not have slept with Darden. That last comment is made in jest.

The crime lab conducted a relatively simple DNA test called DQ alpha and the preliminary markers linked Simpson to the crime scene. That gave the police plenty of grounds to arrest.

bobaugust

jotun

12-04-2006, 09:26 PM

limakey, The defense could have done so, but I do not believe that the defense was doing anymore than playing their role in an elaborate show, a mock trial, put on for your entertainment.
because this issue implies that sworn officers of the court (lawyers) lied about exculpatory evidence that could have eliminated the need for this infamous media event. That is why we continue to pursue the production of these stolen records with GTE/Verizon Communications.

Big Ben:
Could you appeal for decency from Shawn, Carl, Sara, Barry, Peter etc. Have you contacted any of them to see what they have or know?????

Also the kids are 21 & 18. They could sign consent for Nicole's records.
And blackmail the Browns.Custody agreement is over. So, if you want to see us...
Give our DAD those records!!!

jotun

jotun

12-04-2006, 10:08 PM

Why can't you get it through your head this is a discussion about who the killer was not only what the criminal trial jury did or didn't do.

The information and evidence relating to these murders did not stop with the criminal trial verdict.

People like you may have stopped learning but others who continued to follow this case learned about all the new information from the many depositions that the criminal trial jurors never knew. New evidence that was presented in the civil trial that the criminal trial jurors never knew. And Simpson's testimony that the criminal trial jurors never heard.

If you ever decide to learn about all this information and evidence for yourself, you too may some day be able to understand the simple truth that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

All:
Have seen and read everything ba has. And alot more. With one difference.I understand that
O.J. IS INNOCENT.
Nothing I have seen or heard or read at the money trial PROVE otherwise.
The depos are very interesting, especially the best friends and O.J.'s depo and testimony.I have the tv coverage taped. The reporters were very impressed with O.J.'s testimony. Leslie Abramson [defence attorney and pundit for ABC] said nobody could take their eyes off O.J., as he's so beautiful.But said the jury wouldn't even look at him. Minds made-up huh???

jotun

jotun

jotun

12-04-2006, 10:22 PM

bobaugust

12-04-2006, 11:27 PM

All:
Have seen and read everything ba has. And alot more. With one difference.I understand that
O.J. IS INNOCENT.
Nothing I have seen or heard or read at the money trial PROVE otherwise.
The depos are very interesting, especially the best friends and O.J.'s depo and testimony.I have the tv coverage taped. The reporters were very impressed with O.J.'s testimony. Leslie Abramson [defence attorney and pundit for ABC] said nobody could take their eyes off O.J., as he's so beautiful.But said the jury wouldn't even look at him. Minds made-up huh???

jotun

jotun

jotun, of course nothing you read proves Simpson guilty because he's so beautiful and you've made it very clear why you believe Simpson was not the killer.

4/08/06 o.j.nut
"Yes, I do believe a man who can't stand the sight of blood COULD NOT slaughter 2 people. Or a man who COULD NOT even put a worm on his fishing hook [Sydney did it for him] COULD NOT butcher the mother of his children. Especially a total Mama's Boy like O.J. I don't think kind-hearted O.J. could kill anyone. Yes, I believe a man afraid of the dark does NOT go into any dark place. And here's one even the o.j.nut didn't know until a few years ago. O.J. has a very sensitive stomach. That Big-Mac would have been in that blood."

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-05-2006, 08:01 AM

The crime lab conducted a relatively simple DNA test called DQ alpha and the preliminary markers linked Simpson to the crime scene. That gave the police plenty of grounds to arrest.

bobaugust

As the cuffs were removed almost as quickly as they were put on, they did not believe that those results, if they had come back by that time, equaled probable cause to make an arrest, but what the placing of the handcuffs on Simpson did show was that LE had already determined that he was a suspect and, imho, eliminated everyone else at that point and focused their investigation on an attempt to convict, rightly or wrongly, Simpson only.

Kate Sachel

12-05-2006, 11:11 AM

Then they did their duty. They, meaning the prosecution, obviously had not explained it through their presentation, and the jury was not allowed to speculate on evidence not presented.

No, that clearly shows that something else was on her mind.

When you are presented with evidence that the defendant's blood is found at the scene of the murder, and you state that you did not try to explain how the blood got there, or when you state as Armanda Cooley did that the presence of his blood was not even an issue for you, then there are problems.

To me, when you state that you did not try to explain the bood evidence to yourself, you are stating that you didn't even run with the defense's theory and deem it reasonable doubt. You're saying that you didn't listen to any theory at all.

What do you mean "not allowed to speculate on evidence not presented"? The evidence of his blood at Bundy was presented ... and apparently ignored by some.

William, I know that you believe in our justice system and I'm sure you'd like to believe that every juror performs his/her duty but we know that is not the case all of the time. Why does it seem to be so difficult for you to explore the possibility that some may not have risen to their duty in this case?

Kate

William Anthony

12-05-2006, 12:05 PM

No, that clearly shows that something else was on her mind.

When you are presented with evidence that the defendant's blood is found at the scene of the murder, and you state that you did not try to explain how the blood got there, or when you state as Armanda Cooley did that the presence of his blood was not even an issue for you, then there are problems.

To me, when you state that you did not try to explain the bood evidence to yourself, you are stating that you didn't even run with the defense's theory and deem it reasonable doubt. You're saying that you didn't listen to any theory at all.

What do you mean "not allowed to speculate on evidence not presented"? The evidence of his blood at Bundy was presented ... and apparently ignored by some.

William, I know that you believe in our justice system and I'm sure you'd like to believe that every juror performs his/her duty but we know that is not the case all of the time. Why does it seem to be so difficult for you to explore the possibility that some may not have risen to their duty in this case?

Kate

Good Morning Kate,

I have not closed myself to that possibility. What I have a problem with is the interpretation of words and, I admit I have not read the book.

What I meant by saying that jurors are not allowed to speculate on evidence not presented is in reference to another admission by bobaugust that no one testified to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that Simpson's blood was deposited there on the night of the murders. In fact, the prosecution did not present any evidence that Simpson was there on the night of the murders. They relied on someone hearing unidentified voices, a cap that they never placed on his head, gloves that apparently did not fit, the fact that he did not answer his bell when rang by Park, and the Bronco being parked in a strange manner, which Park did not see and was not looking for, in connection with the blood drops to infer on inference that he was there. What I am saying is that because the prosecution failed to produce evidence, other than the testimony of Fung that the blood appeared "fairly fresh", the jury was not free to speculate as to how the blood got there, since the prosecution did not produce a therory of how the blood got there and only assumed that, because his blood was there, it was deposited there on the night of the murders. They tried through Kato, but he did not Know what Simpson did from the time they returned from McDonalds until he saw him in the driveway. Can a conclusion be reached that the jury did not do their duty or can a conclusion be reached that they did there duty by not speculating on evidence not presented? This is why I love the law.

I do not dispute that there was evidence of his blood at Bundy, but where is the evidence that Simpson deposited there on that night. This I believe was another of the prosecution's failures.

bobaugust

12-05-2006, 02:34 PM

As the cuffs were removed almost as quickly as they were put on, they did not believe that those results, if they had come back by that time, equaled probable cause to make an arrest, but what the placing of the handcuffs on Simpson did show was that LE had already determined that he was a suspect and, imho, eliminated everyone else at that point and focused their investigation on an attempt to convict, rightly or wrongly, Simpson only.

There were no test results back when Simpson returned from Chicago and cuffs were put on him. Simpson wasn't arrested when that happened, it was simply a communication error and the handcuffs were immediately removed.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-05-2006, 02:50 PM

I do not dispute that there was evidence of his blood at Bundy, but where is the evidence that Simpson deposited there on that night. This I believe was another of the prosecution's failures.

At Bundy the killer's blood drops were found to the left of some of his bloody shoe prints. When Simpson returned from Chicago he had a cut across one of his knuckles on his left hand.

Later when the blood found in Simpson's Bronco was tested it was determined that all of the blood came from both victims and Simpson. Including a mixture of all three.

And there was a blood trail. There were small blood drops at Bundy starting near the victims, down the walkway to the rear gate and outside the rear gate, in Simpson's Bronco, at Rockingham on the street behind the Bronco, just outside and inside Simpson's Rockingham gate, along Simpson's driveway, and inside Simpson's house on his foyer floor.

All of those blood drops were Simpson's blood.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-05-2006, 03:04 PM

At Bundy the killer's blood drops were found to the left of some of his bloody shoe prints. When Simpson returned from Chicago he had a cut across one of his knuckles on his left hand.

Later when the blood found in Simpson's Bronco was tested it was determined that all of the blood came from both victims and Simpson. Including a mixture of all three.

And there was a blood trail. There were small blood drops at Bundy starting near the victims, down the walkway to the rear gate and outside the rear gate, in Simpson's Bronco, at Rockingham on the street behind the Bronco, just outside and inside Simpson's Rockingham gate, along Simpson's driveway, and inside Simpson's house on his foyer floor.

All of those blood drops were Simpson's blood.

bobaugust

And none of that answers my original question?

bobaugust

12-05-2006, 03:07 PM

And none of that answers my original question?

Sure it does. When someone's blood is found at a murder scene, that's evidence they were there.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-05-2006, 03:31 PM

Sure it does. When someone's blood is found at a murder scene, that's evidence they were there.

bobaugust

The question remains is where is the evidence that he bled there on that night? Please, do not rely on the shoeprint of shoes they did not find and cannot prove he wore on that night.

bobaugust

12-05-2006, 04:29 PM

The question remains is where is the evidence that he bled there on that night? Please, do not rely on the shoeprint of shoes they did not find and cannot prove he wore on that night.

Blood, blood, blood.

The blood evidence and blood trail proves Simpson was at Bundy that night. There is also the hair, and fiber evidence found at Bundy as well as the blood, fiber, and hair evidence found on the killer's right hand glove. As well as the blood and fiber evidence found on Simpson's socks.

There is evidence that Simpson was not at Rockingham at the time of the murders. One witness tells us he saw what was most likely Simpson's Bronco speed away from Bundy. Another witness tells us she saw Simpson's Bronco at the intersection of Bundy and San Vicente and positively identified Simpson as the driver.

And the bottom line is that every single piece of relevant physical evidence in this case all points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. None of it points to anyone else. Nothing eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-05-2006, 04:43 PM

Blood, blood, blood.

The blood evidence and blood trail proves Simpson was at Bundy that night. There is also the hair, and fiber evidence found at Bundy as well as the blood, fiber, and hair evidence found on the killer's right hand glove. As well as the blood and fiber evidence found on Simpson's socks.

There is evidence that Simpson was not at Rockingham at the time of the murders. One witness tells us he saw what was most likely Simpson's Bronco speed away from Bundy. Another witness tells us she saw Simpson's Bronco at the intersection of Bundy and San Vicente and positively identified Simpson as the driver.

And the bottom line is that every single piece of relevant physical evidence in this case all points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. None of it points to anyone else. Nothing eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

Which witness saw Simpson's Bronco speed away and please do not say Heidstra. Where is the blood trail leading from Nicole's house to the point at which you claim the Bronco was parked on Bundy or the adjoining street?

weezer

12-05-2006, 04:47 PM

William Anthony

12-05-2006, 04:49 PM

Good grief! :punch:

I was asking someone, who, imo, might know, since they made the statement.

weezer

12-05-2006, 04:55 PM

I was asking someone, who, imo, might know, since they made the statement. I thought you knew all about this case?

William Anthony

12-05-2006, 05:04 PM

I thought you knew all about this case?

I said I had the complete trial on tapes and I do not recall anyone saying they recognized the Bronco speeding away as belonging to Simpson. Your Lord and Savior, imho, made the statement and I am asking him to back it up. I applaud your efforts at trying to intervene, although they are a denial of the facts and disguised to hide his possible shortcomings. Oh yeah, you do not deny or disguise, or is that only in regard to your feelings on race which you have avoided after Martin's comment. To thine ownself be true.

bobaugust

12-05-2006, 05:04 PM

Which witness saw Simpson's Bronco speed away and please do not say Heidstra. Where is the blood trail leading from Nicole's house to the point at which you claim the Bronco was parked on Bundy or the adjoining street?

The evidence is that Simpson parked his Bronco in the alley behind Nicole's condo.

Yes Heidstra is the witness who saw a "white jeep like" vehicle turn from Dorothy street onto Bundy and speed away about five or so minutes after he heard the two male voices coming from Nicole's condo.

bobaugust

Big Ben

12-05-2006, 05:08 PM

Big Ben, John DeBello never estimated the time the Brown's left the restaurant as 9:00 PM.
bobaugust

Go to Det. Vanatter and Det. Tom Lange's book, they state that DeBello told them the Brown's departed the restaurant at 9:00 PM. Also Marcia Clark, was impressed enough to use it as the Brown's time of departure during the Grand Jury session.

Big Ben, Lou Brown never told Claudine Ratcliffe that they returned home from the restaurant at about 11:00, PM. Juditha Brown never told anyone that either. They only estimated an incorrect time when she last telephoned and spoke with Nicole.

You're equivocating, Bob. Lou Brown told Claudine Ratcliffe, the coroner's investigator, on the morning of June 13, 1994, that his daughter was last known to be alive the night of June 12, 1994 talking on the telephone at 11:00 PM to her mother about eye glasses her mother had left at the restaurant.

Shapiro is quite believable in his memoir, "Search For Justice", on page 33 where he goes through a long explanation of how he questioned Juditha about her adament belief that she arrived home at approximately 11:00 PM which he leads one to believe, regarding her statements about time, was told to him before questioning her, by his own assigned investigators.

Steven Schwab testified he got home about five minuets after eleven o'clock. He said he was confused and scared when they told him that the dog he had found was somehow connected to a homicide.

Steven Schwab, give me a break! Schwab, Lou Brown, Juditha Brown, Faye Resnick, Denise Brown, Tia Gavin, John DeBello, all needed to change their initial stories of crucial times that favored Simpson. You'd be the winningest lottery player or horse bettor if you had the privilege of continuously going back to the window the next day to provide an alibi for what you meant or intended to bet.

You appear to be so overly consumed with an incessant need to pin these murders on Simpson that you are persistently willing to abandon your common sense. Your willingness to continuously ignore these serious flaws and irregularities is what makes you continue to look like a fool. You're too sharp to be on the wrong and unfair side of this, get on the right side, before you have a breakdown, Bob.

William Anthony

12-05-2006, 05:09 PM

The evidence is that Simpson parked his Bronco in the alley behind Nicole's condo.

Yes Heidstra is the witness who saw a "white jeep like" vehicle turn from Dorothy street onto Bundy and speed away about five or so minutes after he heard the two male voices coming from Nicole's condo.

bobaugust

This is the portion of yourpost bobaugust,

"One witness tells us he saw what was most likely Simpson's Bronco speed away from Bundy. "

Show me in the testimony where Heidstra said it was most likely Simpson's Bronco that sped away.

weezer

12-05-2006, 05:12 PM

I said I had the complete trial on tapes and I do not recall anyone saying they recognized the Bronco speeding away as belonging to Simpson. Your Lord and Savior, imho, made the statement and I am asking him to back it up. I applaud your efforts at trying to intervene, although they are a denial of the facts and disguised to hide his possible shortcomings. Oh yeah, you do not deny or disguise, or is that only in regard to your feelings on race which you have avoided after Martin's comment. To thine ownself be true. and I said if you knew the trial, you would have known who the witness was.

I am hoping that the moderator of this board will look at your posts and see the disrespect and race baiting you continue to submit the other posters to. You bring nothing to this discussion but derision, delusion and hate. I, for one, am damned tired of it.

William Anthony

12-05-2006, 05:35 PM

and I said if you knew the trial, you would have known who the witness was.

I am hoping that the moderator of this board will look at your posts and see the disrespect and race baiting you continue to submit the other posters to. You bring nothing to this discussion but derision, delusion and hate. I, for one, am damned tired of it.

Then could I respectfully suggest that you consider retiring.

Big Ben

12-05-2006, 06:13 PM

Big Ben:
Could you appeal for decency from Shawn, Carl, Sara, Barry, Peter etc. Have you contacted any of them to see what they have or know?????

Also the kids are 21 & 18. They could sign consent for Nicole's records.
And blackmail the Browns.Custody agreement is over. So, if you want to see us...
Give our DAD those records!!!

jotun

We sincerely hope that the children some day will pursue those records, no matter what it takes, consent or otherwise. I think that the system will come up with some phoney excuse to deny, even their consent, but they should pursue it wholeheartedly. As you point out, they would have stronger standing than you or I. We got away with getting O.J. to file a compalint against GTE with his written permission once, and only once. Since 4/19/2002, our last 22 minute conversation with Simpson, we've become personna non grata, and he's been reduced to being projected as a monkey, a clown, baffoon by people who allege to be his representatives. It appears that he can't communicate directly with us nor we with him after the hidden telephone records made the news. I really believe that Sydney will pursue, given the questions that Simpson would not allow us to answer, but the question was seen so vividly in her young eyes when she was a child.

As far as those other lackeys are concerned, get the video and you can see Carl talking about how he has "simply forgotten that level of minutia" when the L.A. News Channel put the question to him. He's in the film saying it not long after Johnnie is caught on video saying that they all agreed that they were not going to show the jury the telephone records, so let's not show them the bloody photos of the murdered victims.

I doubt that anyone wants to put themselves in the penitentiary about this malfeasance, that's why you will encounter them attempting to distance themselves from these crucial telephone records. Thus whenever you encounter one of them you have our blessing to press them about those telephone records and the Brown's alleged 45 minute journey between Brentwood and Dana Point. About the Bruno Magli shoe soles being found on 19 other shoe brands. Press the issue, and show them that the internet, is as strong if not stronger than their controlled outlets, i.e. Fox News, Court TV, Geraldo, Nancy Grace and all the other propaganda promoting vehicles they control. I've heard from people in California who have definitely confronted many of these charlatans about those infamous time discrepancies. Their responses have been a royal reward for our investigative team.

bobaugust

12-05-2006, 06:15 PM

[/B]

Go to Det. Vanatter and Det. Tom Lange's book, they state that DeBello told them the Brown's departed the restaurant at 9:00 PM. Also Marcia Clark, was impressed enough to use it as the Brown's time of departure during the Grand Jury session.

You're equivocating, Bob. Lou Brown told Claudine Ratcliffe, the coroner's investigator, on the morning of June 13, 1994, that his daughter was last known to be alive the night of June 12, 1994 talking on the telephone at 11:00 PM to her mother about eye glasses her mother had left at the restaurant.

Shapiro is quite believable in his memoir, "Search For Justice", on page 33 where he goes through a long explanation of how he questioned Juditha about her adament belief that she arrived home at approximately 11:00 PM which he leads one to believe, regarding her statements about time, was told to him before questioning her, by his own assigned investigators.

Steven Schwab, give me a break! Schwab, Lou Brown, Juditha Brown, Faye Resnick, Denise Brown, Tia Gavin, John DeBello, all needed to change their initial stories of crucial times that favored Simpson. You'd be the winningest lottery player or horse bettor if you had the privilege of continuously going back to the window the next day to provide an alibi for what you meant or intended to bet.

You appear to be so overly consumed with an incessant need to pin these murders on Simpson that you are persistently willing to abandon your common sense. Your willingness to continuously ignore these serious flaws and irregularities is what makes you continue to look like a fool. You're too sharp to be on the wrong and unfair side of this, get on the right side, before you have a breakdown, Bob.

Big Ben, John DeBello testified in the grand jury as to the time he believed the Brown's left the restaurant as about 8:30, 8:40 PM. In his interview by the police it was written "approximately 2100 hours." Many witnesses after taking the time to think back to the events they were first asked about make sure that what they are saying is as accurate as possible when they testify under oath.

You claimed that Lou Brown told Ratcliffe that they returned from the restaurant at 11:00. That's not true. But it seems you do understand that Juditha Brown called the restaurant as soon as she got home inquiring about her missing eyeglasses. Karen Crawford tells us when she received that telephone call. Juditha Brown said she then called Nicole and told her that the restaurant had found her eyeglasses and they were being held for Nicole to pick up. Nicole immediately called the restaurant and spoke with Ron Goldman. Karen Crawford again tells us when that she received that telephone call. The Brown's home telephone records confirm Crawford's time estimates and document the exact time Juditha called the restaurant and then Nicole. All of those calls were made before 9:45 PM.

Shapiro's book is one of he few I've never read. If Shapiro wrote that Juditha Brown told him she got back home from the restaurant at 11:00 PM. please quote the exact words he wrote. Your interpretations are not very credible.

If Juditha Brown called the restaurant at 11:00 asking about her missing eyeglasses, now do you explain the fact that Ron Goldman left the restaurant before 10:00 with Juditha Brown's eyeglasses?

You claim that all these witnesses changed their stories and lied under oath. Not only is there absolutely no evidence that ever happened it's absolutely absurd. What would motivate these different people who did not know each other to do commit this crime? And they aren't the only ones who had to have lied. Robert Heidstra would have to be lying. Karen Crawford would have to be lying. Stuart Tanner would have to be lying. Every one of Nicole's neighbors would have to be lying. Virtually every witness in this case would have to be lying for what you to believe to be true.

I think not, Big Ben. None of these witnesses was ever found to be lying. The problem here is you and your inability to understand the evidence in this case that contradicts the fantasy you want to so desperately believe.

I'm not overly consumed to pin these murders on Simpson, I understand the evidence that proves Simpson was the killer. I'm sorry to say that the only one looking like a fool here is you Big Ben, with your delusional accusations that all of the witnesses and all the attorneys lied in this case to somehow hide evidence that Simpson was innocent.

Everything you claim about the fictitious 11:00 PM telephone call has been proven false and sadly the only person here who can't comprehend that is you.

bobaugust

Big Ben

12-05-2006, 07:11 PM

I'm sorry to say that the only one looking like a fool here is you Big Ben, with your delusional accusations that all of the witnesses and all the attorneys lied in this case to somehow hide evidence that Simpson was innocent.

Everything you claim about the fictitious 11:00 PM telephone call has been proven false and sadly the only person here who can't comprehend that is you.
bobaugust[/QUOTE]

Well Bob, I know that it appears strange and I would be the first to admit it, however, California has previously been the testing ground for these type of major conspiracies involving a great cast of participants.

You remember the 1960s and the FBI's Co-Intelpro activities, orchestrated to promote a street war between the Black Panther Party and Ron Karinga's organization. They did masterfully orchestrate the killings by proxy that ultimately took place, and subsequently admitted to it.

How about the CIA's admission of involvement in allowing thousands of pounds of cocaine to enter the U.S. in conjunction with the Contras via California's Mexican border a caste of characters, law enforcement officials and others, who could have spilled the beans and told many years ago, but they often lied too.

How about the thousands of innocent men (go to the documentary Serpents Rising) that one precinct, Ramparts, was responsible for planting false evidence and sending to the penitentiary, some for as long as 32 years. That took as many officers to lie as the number of phony witnesses in the Simpson trial but they continued to keep silent or go along with the powers to be, until the penalties became to big for one man to face.

Could authorities orchestrate this magnitude of conspiracy? I'd say absolutely. Anything can happen, in good old Cali-forn-I-A!, Bob.
Just like it took the whistle blowers, the investigative reporters, and others to expose the malfeasance of law enforcement officials in these past acts of misbehavior, so too do we find ourselves today.

bobaugust

12-05-2006, 08:43 PM

Well Bob, I know that it appears strange and I would be the first to admit it, however, California has previously been the testing ground for these type of major conspiracies involving a great cast of participants.

You remember the 1960s and the FBI's Co-Intelpro activities, orchestrated to promote a street war between the Black Panther Party and Ron Karinga's organization. They did masterfully orchestrate the killings by proxy that ultimately took place, and subsequently admitted to it.

How about the CIA's admission of involvement in allowing thousands of pounds of cocaine to enter the U.S. in conjunction with the Contras via California's Mexican border a caste of characters, law enforcement officials and others, who could have spilled the beans and told many years ago, but they often lied too.

How about the thousands of innocent men (go to the documentary Serpents Rising) that one precinct, Ramparts, was responsible for planting false evidence and sending to the penitentiary, some for as long as 32 years. That took as many officers to lie as the number of phony witnesses in the Simpson trial but they continued to keep silent or go along with the powers to be, until the penalties became to big for one man to face.

Could authorities orchestrate this magnitude of conspiracy? I'd say absolutely. Anything can happen, in good old Cali-forn-I-A!, Bob.
Just like it took the whistle blowers, the investigative reporters, and others to expose the malfeasance of law enforcement officials in these past acts of misbehavior, so too do we find ourselves today.

Big Ben, I see you didn't answer my question. In case you missed it here it is again.

If Juditha Brown called the restaurant as you claim at 11:00 asking about her missing eyeglasses, how do you explain the fact that Ron Goldman left the restaurant before 10:00 with those eyeglasses?

Your imagined conspiracy doesn't involve people who kept silent but civilians from different walks of life who you claim lied giving testimony in two courts of law under oath subject to the penalty of perjury. As well as attorneys and police officers who if they did what you claim they did would all be facing jail time.

It never happened. What we have here is simply one person, you Big Ben, who can't seem to understand that Lou Brown simply gave a mistaken time estimate about a telephone call his wife had made the night Simpson killed their daughter.

I'm sorry Big Ben, but your claims are unrealistic, unsupported, preposterous and absurd.

bobaugust

limakey

12-05-2006, 09:21 PM

Big Ben,

Can a defense lawyer go against his client's orders when it comes to evidence that may help clear him? In other words, while these records may have cleared Simpson, they also very well could have also been seen as signing a death warrant, perhaps for his minor daughter. It is very obvious that Sydney Simpson heard at least one troubling phone call that night. So troubling that she asked her mother about it. Had she testified, isn't that like a huge gift to the killers? IMO, I think it is a real possibility that Simpson knew that he had a strong, strong case of reasonable doubt. Perhaps, he even told his lawyers that if he loses this case, he might then reconsider about opening some doors that he clearly slammed shut.

Another point to consider, when Simpson did mention these phone calls, he knew by then they were gone. IMO, he knew that there was no way those phone calls could ever be recovered or opened. Yes, they can be questioned, but if they are never found, how much harm can come from the sound bytes?

While I'll agree that the case held the nation captive, I don't believe it was a show for our entertainment. IMO, the Simpson case is a perfect example of how our legal system should work. Where the defendant can level the playing field just a tad. While Mr. Simpson was a very rich man, the state was a lot richer and they still came up empty in the courtroom.

However, I will give you this, I do believe that there are some lawyers who can whine better then a two year old! And the temper tantrums, they should have be on "How Not To Do Yourself Any Favors.Com":)

limakey

12-05-2006, 09:32 PM

2L8 4A D8

12-06-2006, 12:18 AM

Sounds like you need to CHANGE your big girl panties....maybe the reason that you are being so crabby, is because you have pooped in yours.

Oigignally posted by 2L8 4A D8[/b]If you can't remember 3 letters and 4 numbers, you need to go back to kindergarten. Oh, I can dish it out. You just can't take it. If any "G" (and only a "G") can tell me that my original post was offensive and give me a reasonable explanation of why it was offensive, I will apologize to you for being so RUDE!

Until then, please don't post to me and I will do the same! Or, in the alternative, you can put me on Ignore![/b]

Well, it looks like you've "pooped" all over yourself! It's going on 5+ days and I've yet to hear from one "G" giving "me a reasonable explanation of why (my Original post) was offensive..." It wasn't and receiving no answers from any "G" says so. You just wanted to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Thus, I won't be apologizing "to you for being so RUDE!"

Aligning yourself with the likes of Martin and William shows just what kind of character that you have. But Birds of A Feather, Flock Together and I just consider the source.

JMO and MOO!!

Big Ben

12-06-2006, 02:15 AM

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8785144]Big Ben, I see you didn't answer my question. In case you missed it here it is again. If Juditha Brown called the restaurant as you claim at 11:00 asking about her missing eyeglasses, how do you explain the fact that Ron Goldman left the restaurant before 10:00 with those eyeglasses? bobaugust [quote]

I've reviewed the question that you've posed for several years, when it was difficult to fathom that these characters may have been anything other than innocent victims. Then people began approaching us with very serious allegations about Ron, Nicole, and Faye Resnick's involvement with illicit activities. The Cover-up by the Court using the Confidential Informant Law, concerning Ron's criminal background only further fuels our suspicion. Faye's published allegations of menague a trois liason involving Ron and Nicole, and her I guess, certainly lends to our suspicion as well.

Therefore the eyeglasses, in my opinion, were probably a simple ruse, worked out between Juditha & Nicole, and Nicole & Ron to provide an alibi for Ron, in the event of the occurrence of a confrontation at Nicole's residence. Given Nicole's post marriage lifestyle and liasons, whose to say with whom the confrontation may have occurred. The call to the Mezzaluna by Juditha, was evidently a part of the play. Ron more than likely knew that the glasses would be in his hands before the night was over, and reinforced his desire to throw advised caution to the wind by doing a samuritan's beneficent act.

The call probably came in at 10:37 PM and not 9:37 PM as they allege. The timeclock as we suspect was probably not adjusted for daylight savings time and therefore Ron's punchout time was probably 10:33 PM, instead of 9:33 PM as reported. Ron probably did sit around socializing until around 10:50 PM, instead of 9:50 PM due to a failure to make the truthful daylight savings adjustment. At that time he quite possibly left the Mezzaluna. He possibly returned to his apartment to spruce up before heading out again either for some time spent with Nicole and later some socializing with old Stu Tanner over at the Venice Beach Pub where they had allegedly agreed to meet.
Juditha probably called Nicole in a lengthy girl talk conversation to inquire as to the outcome of the potential rendez-vous with Ron. I suspect that the call may have occurred at approximately 10:45 PM as Juditha is alleged to have told Shapiro, starting on page 33 of his book "Search For Justice".

Again the failure to make the daylight savings adjustment on the time clock would account for a more accurate reflection of the time for the Browns to travel between point A and point B, and a more reasonable time for Juditha to make the call from her home in Dana Point, and certainly to provide you with the most plausible explanation as to how Ron could have been mistakenly presumed to have departed the restaurant before 10:00 PM.

Bob, I notice that the town Marshall, The Weezer, doesn't say anything when I mention other people's literary offerings, just ours I guess, at www.ojcoverup.com.

Big Ben

12-06-2006, 02:55 AM

[QUOTE=limakey;8785158]Big Ben,

Can a defense lawyer go against his client's orders when it comes to evidence that may help clear him?

Sure, it happens more often than not, especially when clients' lives are considered to be inconsequential. That's what all the innocently convicted Ramparts felons were saying. 'We didn't have any money, and our public defender would come in once a month and tell us that Ramparts has a 100% conviction rate. You're facing 30 years, but they're offering you 8, if you plead guilty'. Even if you had what you perceived to be credible evidence, would you take a chance with an over loaded public defender that appears to have little time for you in the first place, against a 100% conviction rate from a Ramparts prosecutor. (I think the precinct prosecutor was one of Johnnie C. inventions when he was a top prosecutor with L.A. County).

Perhaps, he even told his lawyers that if he loses this case, he might then reconsider about opening some doors that he clearly slammed shut.

I've come to the conclusion that others told Simpson that he was going to be used for prior transgressions in areas not directly related to this matter. They may possess the appearance of such omnipotent power and recourse that Simpson may have felt that he had no other choice, certainly for the sake and safety of all his children. He would be part of an elaborate show, again for public consumption.

If it's not real, then to me, it is no more than entertainment. If you examine all of the elements of it, it was the perfect play, possessing drama, titillating inuendo, othellean lust, vengeance, and deception, tapping into America's deepest taboos. Billions were made, networks and careers were built, a virtually unknown legal soul brother became an overnight sensation in the courtroom, and America continues to be thoroughly preoccupied with the antics of trial participants 12 years later. A year long legal phenomenon became the "trial of the century" whereas within 10 months of this event two men would conspire to blow up the Federal Building and kill 168 human beings in Oklahoma City and most Americans couldn't even tell you the two condemned and convicted defendants' names.

When you see a white Bronco though we all know what that invokes. Yes, to me, it was nothing but entertainment. Unfortunately two people were actually killed, but maybe, just maybe, that is not an abnormal occurance in California where the show must go on.

nathangp

12-06-2006, 03:33 AM

Of all the "circumstantial" evidence presented in the case, the Bruno Magli shoe prints found all over the crime scene, which were determined by CSIs to be the prints left by the killer, might just be the most compelling of all.
So distinctive were those " ugly ass shoes ", as Simpson called them, that Bruno Magli only made a very limited number of pairs even available for purchase. In fact, so rare was that particular style and model of shoe, of which O.J. also stated he " wouldn't be caught dead in ", that the manufacturer kept very exact records of where and how many of each pair were sold.
Not only did Bruno Magli keep a record of just how many of that particular style of shoe were sold in the U.S., but also, a record of where each individual pair sold geographically in the U.S, even down to which particular store, and in what city, each pair was sold in.
Here's the kicker: by the time the Simpson case came to trial, Bruno Magli had determined that ONLY THREE (3) PAIRS of size 11 shoes of that type were sold in the entire United States, and not only that, but that one of those pair had been sold in the Los Angeles area. ONE.
Now,..we know that O.J. was caught (not dead), but alive and well, on film, on the sidelines of an NFL game in those SAME, EXACT, BRUNO MALI SHOES!!! Combine that fact, with the remarkable, DOCUMENTED, fact that only a grand total of three size 11 pairs of those same shoes existed in ther universe at the time of the murders,...AND HE OWNED ONE OF THEM!!!...and for anyone possessing even a minor grasp of the law of averages,...there is a very good reason based on the odds against one of the other two owners of those size 11 shoes in the world...happening to also be in Brentwood that night...even happening to also know Nicole Brown???...PLEASE...THE ODDS AGAINST THAT ALONE ARE BEYOND ASTRONOMICAL!!!!..
BUT THEN AGAIN...OF COURSE...L.A.P.D. knew to have one the officers, or CSIs, or Detectives, who were part of the conspiracy to frame O.J. , and who were physically present ON THE SCENE...probably at the same time Detective Fhurman was locating the glove(s) he would plant later... walk carefully around the crime scene IN O.J.'s Bruno Magli shoes...WHICH THEY SOMEHOW KNEW TO STEAL (AND WEAR?) to the murder scene...BEFORE IT HAPPENED????...RIGHT!!! Who's doing the distorting?

bobaugust

12-06-2006, 04:16 AM

I've reviewed the question that you've posed for several years, when it was difficult to fathom that these characters may have been anything other than innocent victims. Then people began approaching us with very serious allegations about Ron, Nicole, and Faye Resnick's involvement with illicit activities. The Cover-up by the Court using the Confidential Informant Law, concerning Ron's criminal background only further fuels our suspicion. Faye's published allegations of menague a trois liason involving Ron and Nicole, and her I guess, certainly lends to our suspicion as well.

Therefore the eyeglasses, in my opinion, were probably a simple ruse, worked out between Juditha & Nicole, and Nicole & Ron to provide an alibi for Ron, in the event of the occurrence of a confrontation at Nicole's residence. Given Nicole's post marriage lifestyle and liasons, whose to say with whom the confrontation may have occurred. The call to the Mezzaluna by Juditha, was evidently a part of the play. Ron more than likely knew that the glasses would be in his hands before the night was over, and reinforced his desire to throw advised caution to the wind by doing a samuritan's beneficent act.

The call probably came in at 10:37 PM and not 9:37 PM as they allege. The timeclock as we suspect was probably not adjusted for daylight savings time and therefore Ron's punchout time was probably 10:33 PM, instead of 9:33 PM as reported. Ron probably did sit around socializing until around 10:50 PM, instead of 9:50 PM due to a failure to make the truthful daylight savings adjustment. At that time he quite possibly left the Mezzaluna. He possibly returned to his apartment to spruce up before heading out again either for some time spent with Nicole and later some socializing with old Stu Tanner over at the Venice Beach Pub where they had allegedly agreed to meet.
Juditha probably called Nicole in a lengthy girl talk conversation to inquire as to the outcome of the potential rendez-vous with Ron. I suspect that the call may have occurred at approximately 10:45 PM as Juditha is alleged to have told Shapiro, starting on page 33 of his book "Search For Justice".

Again the failure to make the daylight savings adjustment on the time clock would account for a more accurate reflection of the time for the Browns to travel between point A and point B, and a more reasonable time for Juditha to make the call from her home in Dana Point, and certainly to provide you with the most plausible explanation as to how Ron could have been mistakenly presumed to have departed the restaurant before 10:00 PM.

Big Ben, a ruse that included Juditha Brown? Evidently there is no limit to your outrageous accusations.

Your claim the restaurant time clock was not adjusted for daylight savings time is completely ridiculous. The Mezzaluna restaurant was a chain restaurant whose employees were paid based on the time clock. John DeBello was the general manager and he testified that he changed the time on the clock when daylight savings time changed.

I don't know what you do for a living but to think that this business would allow the time clock to be one hour off for over a month without anyone being aware of it or employees complaining about it only shows how limited your life experience must be about a business that pays it's employees by the hours recorded on a time clock.

You say the eyeglasses were a ruse. A ruse that included Juditha Brown yet you never even talk about Karen Crawford. Karen Crawford was the acting manager that night who spoke with Juditha Brown and then went outside to the street and found the eyeglasses where Juditha told her they might have been. She then cleaned them off and put them in an envelope and wrote Nicole's name on it. She gave that envelope to Ron after Nicole called the restaurant. That envelope was found at Bundy.

DeBello testified that Ron punched out at 9:33 and he initialed his time card. Karen Crawford, Stuart Tanner. and DeBello all testified that Ron left the restaurant about ten minutes to ten. I doubt if they looked at the time clock while they worked, they all most likely looked at their watches.

You say the call probably came in at 10:37 PM not 9:37 PM. Wow. Do you not understand that the 9:37 PM time was on the Brown's telephone records? Based on your fantasy if the time clock at the Mezzaluna restaurant was never set to the right time Juditha's call would have come in according to the time clock at 8:37 PM.

Your claims Big Ben, are beyond belief. I thought Dick Wagner's beliefs about this were off the wall but you have outdone him many fold. You have created a fantasy that only a complete fool would fall for. It has no basis in fact and is contradicted not only by the evidence in this case but by simple common sense. A fantasy based on one mistaken time estimate. Unbelievable.

About the only thing your postings have done is caused me to order Shapiro's book to see exactly what he wrote. compared to how you interpreted it. I'll be sure to let you know when I find that out.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-06-2006, 07:54 AM

There were no test results back when Simpson returned from Chicago and cuffs were put on him. Simpson wasn't arrested when that happened, it was simply a communication error and the handcuffs were immediately removed.

bobaugust

That still does not deter from the fact that he was considered a suspect, and, if the results had not come back, it shows a rush to judgment, and anytime, no matter how briefly, handcuffs are placed on you that is an arrest.

Kate Sachel

12-06-2006, 08:28 AM

Kate,

I don't know if I posted this to you before, but do you realize how many witnesses could have testified about the blood drops at Bundy that had nothing to do with the LAPD or their tech's?

Did Nicole's maid, I believe she was a part-time live in? What about Sydney or Justin? Or her family who I believe went to the condo first. What about Rachel and/or her parents?

I realize you have problems with Armanda's comments about the blood, I took them to mean about the blood drops at Rockingham. However, the other jurors based their opinion about at least one drop being "old" because the "x-ray" they took of it was so degraded, they couldn't have made an accurate comparison against the one's the DA's used. No matter how many times the DA's basically said, "Don't you see how much alike they are?!", didn't mean that all 12 jurors could see it.

Another point, the jurors also made comments on why the DA's kept insisting the defense was saying that OJ's blood turned into someone else's. Their insistence that this was the defense's claim really went against them with some of the jurors. If you think about it, the defense's claim was that OJ's Simpson's blood was planted later, did the defense really think that who ever planted the blood would use someone else's besides his? Nicole's or Ron's?

limakey,

I know that I have posted to you before that Armanda Cooley stated that she didn't try to explain the blood drops at the murder scene so would you please stop posting that she may have meant Rockingham since we all know that Rockingham is not the murder scene?

OJ Simpson stated that he did not recall bleeding at Bundy on any recent visits there.

You and I have also posted regarding the degraded blood drop, in detail, so I am not sure why you're posting it again to me.

The defense did argue that the blood was contaminated and therefore unreliable. The prosecution was simply showing that degraded blood will not under any circumstances turn into someone else's or create a match in someone that it should not.

Kate

William Anthony

12-06-2006, 09:18 AM

Well, it looks like you've "pooped" all over yourself! It's going on 5+ days and I've yet to hear from one "G" giving "me a reasonable explanation of why (my Original post) was offensive..." It wasn't and receiving no answers from any "G" says so. You just wanted to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Thus, I won't be apologizing "to you for being so RUDE!"

Aligning yourself with the likes of Martin and William shows just what kind of character that you have. But Birds of A Feather, Flock Together and I just consider the source.

JMO and MOO!!

I have previously posted that imitation is the highest form of flattery, and, I am highly flattered that you are imitating my post on considering the source, and is it not wonder that G's do not find your comments rude, since you acknowledge the tendency of some birds.

tazzybaby

12-06-2006, 09:36 AM

*snip*
It is very obvious that Sydney Simpson heard at least one troubling phone call that night. So troubling that she asked her mother about it.

She asked her mother about it? What?! You need to back up this statement. You put great emphasis on what Sydney "heard" or saw. How do you know this?

Ames

12-06-2006, 11:07 AM

Kayleighjo

12-06-2006, 12:12 PM

and is it not wonder that G's do not find your comments rude, since you acknowledge the tendency of some birds.

Way to link the "G"s together like you link all "Whites" together. Will wonders never cease!

Ames

12-06-2006, 12:22 PM

Way to link the "G"s together like you link all "Whites" together. Will wonders never cease!

Heck, I am new to this board...and have no clue what a "G" even is! :confused:

William Anthony

12-06-2006, 12:33 PM

Way to link the "G"s together like you link all "Whites" together. Will wonders never cease!

Here we go again with the misinterpretations. Whites refers to Black people, known as caucasians. I do know how to type the word all when I so desire.
Thank you.:)

William Anthony

12-06-2006, 12:35 PM

Heck, I am new to this board...and have no clue what a "G" even is! :confused:

Some will say guilty, but I prefer gullible.:)

Ames

12-06-2006, 12:44 PM

Some will say guilty, but I prefer gullible.:)

Thank you!!

Kate Sachel

12-06-2006, 12:48 PM

Some will say guilty, but I prefer gullible.:)

I am a "G", but apparently to you that means I'm gullible:(

Kate

Kate Sachel

12-06-2006, 12:51 PM

Heck, I am new to this board...and have no clue what a "G" even is! :confused:

Hi Ames,

"G" is "guilty" for those who believe in his guilt, and "NG" is "not guilty" for those who believe in his innocence.

You might find that there are some individuals who will attempt to lump all of those who believe to the same "group" into one category, but it is not so.

We have many honest, independent thinkers on both sides.

Kate

William Anthony

12-06-2006, 12:52 PM

I am a "G", but apparently to you that means I'm gullible:(

Kate

No, did you notice the smile. I will not lable you as it will bring to me more than the forces of nature combined can create.:)

weezer

12-06-2006, 01:10 PM

*Snipped*I notice that the town Marshall, The Weezer, doesn't say anything when I mention other people's literary offerings, just ours I guess, at www.ojcoverup.com. At what point do you get the message that this is not the forum to advertise your for profit website?

William Anthony

12-06-2006, 01:20 PM

Hi Ames,

"G" is "guilty" for those who believe in his guilt, and "NG" is "not guilty" for those who believe in his innocence.

You might find that there are some individuals who will attempt to lump all of those who believe to the same "group" into one category, but it is not so.

We have many honest, independent thinkers on both sides.

Kate

Hi Ames,

I do not know where I would fit in. I do not believe him to be guilty or innocent. I believe that he can never be proven guilty. I guess I will have to be a VU-verdict upholder.:)

Ames

12-06-2006, 01:28 PM

bobaugust

12-06-2006, 01:44 PM

That still does not deter from the fact that he was considered a suspect, and, if the results had not come back, it shows a rush to judgment, and anytime, no matter how briefly, handcuffs are placed on you that is an arrest.

Vannatter testified that he told the patrol officer to detain Simpson when he arrived and to let him (Vannatter) know that he was there. Vannatter testified that Simpson was not under arrest at that time.

Cochran was trying to show a rush to judgment. Darden and Clark argued that there was more than probable cause. The patrol officer who cuffed Simpson testified that based on what he saw that day he saw nothing wrong in handcuffing Simpson.

March 17. 1995 Vannatter

Q DID YOU SPEAK TO OFFICER THOMPSON WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT NOON?
A YES.
Q OKAY. DID YOU ASK HIM TO DO SOMETHING?
A I DID.
Q WHAT DID YOU ASK HIM TO DO?
A TO MAKE SURE THAT MR. SIMPSON WASN'T ABLE TO ENTER THE PROPERTY IF HE SHOWED UP THERE.
Q DID YOU ASK HIM TO DO ANYTHING ELSE?
A I ASKED HIM TO DETAIN HIM THERE IN FRONT AND LET ME KNOW THAT HE WAS THERE.
Q YOU ASKED OFFICER THOMPSON TO DETAIN MR. SIMPSON?
A YES AND LET ME KNOW THAT HE WAS PRESENT.
*
Q AND WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT HANDCUFFED WITH OFFICER THOMPSON?
A I WENT OUT TO HIS LOCATION.
Q AND DOES THAT MEAN YOU WENT TO MR. SIMPSON?
A YES. I EXITED THE RESIDENCE AND WALKED TO WHERE MR. SIMPSON WAS.
Q OKAY. NOW, WHERE WAS MR. WEITZMAN AT THAT TIME?
A HE WAS STILL AT THE ROCKINGHAM GATE.
Q OKAY.
*
DID MR. WEITZMAN ASK YOU TO DO ANYTHING?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID HE ASK YOU TO DO?
A HE ASKED ME TO TAKE THE HANDCUFFS OFF.
Q DID YOU HAVE THE KEY TO THE HANDCUFFS?
A I HAVE A HANDCUFF KEY, YES.
Q DID YOU TAKE THE CUFFS OFF?
A YES.
Q WHY DID YOU TAKE THE CUFFS OFF MR. SIMPSON?
A BECAUSE HE WAS NOT UNDER ARREST AT THAT TIME.

bobaugust

Big Ben

12-06-2006, 02:04 PM

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8785238]Big Ben, a ruse that included Juditha Brown? Evidently there is no limit to your outrageous accusations.

You asked me to venture into what amounts to being a subjective opinion. Within this opinion, no one is sacred from scrutiny, including Juditha Brown. Relative to your question concerning how Ron Goldman could have departed the restaurant prior to 10:00 PM. Your disenchantment is the very reason that I hesitate to get involved in these types of subjective discussions, we'd rather leave them to you and try to remain as objective as possible. It is fun though. However, returning to an objective view point, what we do know is:

(1.) The Brown's were alleged to have traveled that evening in an extraordinary time window to permit arrival at Dana Point to make a 9:37 PM phone call. All elements of that journey would have been hair raising given the highway conditions to allow for the arrival time.

(2.) We know that there are a plethora of irregularities concerning the verifiable phone records, and that they are not where they should have been; in Simpson's criminal exhibit file. And we know that the actual verifiable Juditha Brown telephone records were never given to the jury for jury authentification.

(3.) We know that the U2887 shoe soles on the Bruno Magli Lorenzo style were on 19 other variety of shoes sold around the world, and that anyone could have been wearing those U2887 shoes soles upon entering the state of California via, car, plane, ship or by foot.

(4.) We know that Ron Goldman has a thick and extensive criminal file protected by California's C.I. (snitch) law, and his file, his reckless criminal conduct, and its protection from public scrutiny reinforces the allegations that were presented to us that he was involved in very sinister activity that could have resulted in his untimely death.

Your claim the restaurant time clock was not adjusted for daylight savings time is completely ridiculous. I don't know what you do for a living but to think that this business would allow the time clock to be one hour off for over a month......

Ron was going to receive the same amount of money whether his time card read that he worked from 4:30-9:30 PM (Pacific Standard Time) or 5:30-10:30 PM (Pacific Daylight Time). It is the same number of hours. Why should I believe that the sinister looking DeBello would adjust his time clock that had no bearing on how many hours his employees worked, but would not adjust the other verification time instruments that reflected the true time and date that customer service was rendered to his patrons, some of whom spent hundreds of dollars to eat at his establishment.

Do you believe that an unverifiable dispute on a customer's paid receipt is less worthy than an infraction on Ron's time card.
Come on Bob, we're talking about a small upscale eatery with no more than 9- 10 full and part time employees, not ten thousand emploees on the GM automotive assembly line working around the clock.

At least Dick Wagner, who was way out too, like you, would do field tests on what he believed. You simply order another book and take whatever they say as being gospel. Sometimes you can be pathetic, B.A.

William Anthony

12-06-2006, 02:14 PM

Vannatter testified that Simpson was not under arrest at that time.

Snipped
bobaugust

Here is the legal defintion of arrest and thank you for showing how Vanatter will stretch the truth. You have already stated that probable cause existed, which is necessary to a valid arrest.

"An arrest is the action of the police, or person acting under the color of law, to take a person into custody so that they may be forthcoming to answer for the commission of a crime. In many legal systems, an arrest requires mere verbal information to persons that they are under arrest; the laying of hands or restraints upon the arrested person is usually not required to effect an arrest. Also, there are certain non-criminal arrests that allow for the seizure of representatives not present in the legislative body lacking a quorum, and the forfeiture of property. "

Thus, he was under arrest as a police officer placed handcuffs on him in order to restrain him. There is also a concept of custodial arrest, which I will be more than happy to look up if you do not believe this.

Big Ben

12-06-2006, 02:33 PM

[QUOTE=nathangp;8785237]Of all the "circumstantial" evidence presented in the case, the Bruno Magli shoe prints found all over the crime scene, which were determined by CSIs to be the prints left by the killer, might just be the most compelling of all.

A lot of words Nathan, and most of it just fluff. However, I would present you with this issue:

How were you able to determine that the shoes that you are referring to were Bruno Magli shoes? The symbol for Bruno Magli sits in a place on the bottom of the shoe between the heel and the raised forefoot of the sole, and that location where the symbol is located never touches the ground. So again, How do you arrive at the conclusion that Bruno Magli shoes made the impression in blood at 875 South Bundy Drive.

I'm going to give you a break. The FBI agent that testified knew but didn't tell you nor the viewing public that the shoe soles were manufactured by a different company than Bruno Magli, an independent contractor called SILGA GOMMA of Italy. SILGA sold Bruno Magli a contingent of rubber (gomma) shoe soles from its U2887 shoe mold. However, SILGA also sold presumably more rubber shoe soles from that same U2887 shoe sole to another company called LORD shoes, and LORD provided their contingent of U2887 shoe soles to 19 shoe brands that they owned around the world. Many of them were not considered to be as highbrow or upscale as the Bruno Magli brand and styles were. This information is in the text book of the FBI agent, Wm. Bodziac, who testified about the Bruno Magli brand in the first place. I wonder how far his sharp observations would have gone had he revealed that to the public and the criminal jury?

So the question again is how do you know whether the shoes that made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy came from Bruno Magli or walked into the U.S. by Plane, By Ship, By Automobile, Bus, Truck, or walked across the Canadian or Mexican border, Nathan?

As far as the photos are concerned, Nathan, I can put you in a pair of Bruno Maglis or Bozo the Clown shoes, if you'd like, with an excellent computer and adequate digital camera. So what!

bobaugust

12-06-2006, 02:39 PM

Here is the legal defintion of arrest and thank you for showing how Vanatter will stretch the truth. You have already stated that probable cause existed, which is necessary to a valid arrest.

"An arrest is the action of the police, or person acting under the color of law, to take a person into custody so that they may be forthcoming to answer for the commission of a crime. In many legal systems, an arrest requires mere verbal information to persons that they are under arrest; the laying of hands or restraints upon the arrested person is usually not required to effect an arrest. Also, there are certain non-criminal arrests that allow for the seizure of representatives not present in the legislative body lacking a quorum, and the forfeiture of property. "

Thus, he was under arrest as a police officer placed handcuffs on him in order to restrain him. There is also a concept of custodial arrest, which I will be more than happy to look up if you do not believe this.

How did Vannatter stretch the truth? He took the cuffs off Simpson and when asked why he said because Simpson wasn't under arrest at that time .

I agree that technically Simpson was arrested and based on the evidence there was probable cause to arrest him, but evidently that wasn't Vannatter's intention, only a communication problem. Unless maybe Vannatter was playing games of intimidation and knew what he was doing all along. Maybe.

But one thing it wasn't was a rush to judgment.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-06-2006, 03:00 PM

How did Vannatter stretch the truth? He took the cuffs off Simpson and when asked why he said because Simpson wasn't under arrest at that time .

I agree that technically Simpson was arrested and based on the evidence there was probable cause to arrest him, but evidently that wasn't Vannatter's intention, only a communication problem. Unless maybe Vannatter was playing games of intimidation and knew what he was doing all along. Maybe.

But one thing it wasn't was a rush to judgment.

bobaugust

Thank you for opening your mind to possibilities. Now, the pseudo-arrest was televised and seen by onlookers. You admit that the DNA results were not back at that time. Thus, there was a rush to judgment. Have you considered that LE did not want to be embarrased after the world, and I do not mean that to be ALL inclusive, saw their arrest blunder?

bobaugust

12-06-2006, 03:06 PM

As far as the photos are concerned, Nathan, I can put you in a pair of Bruno Maglis or Bozo the Clown shoes, if you'd like, with an excellent computer and adequate digital camera. So what!

Big Ben, anyone can do that today with today's technology but the Scull and the Flammer photographs were taken in September, 1993.

One of the Flammer photographs was published in a monthly publication in November 1993, seven months before the murders. A copy of that publication was entered into evidence. There were over thirty Flammer photographs showing Simpson posing with members of the Monday Morning Quarterback club who hired Flammer to take the photographs that day as well as with Buffalo Bills executives. Every photograph showed Simpson wearing the same clothing and the same Bruno Magli shoes that he was shown wearing in the Scull photographs.

Five of the photographs were sold to the Buffalo Bills. Flammer provided the names of every person shown in those photographs. If the defense believed that these photographs were doctored all they had to do was contact these people and obtain the proof they needed to impeach Flammer. Not only did that never happen they never even had their so called expert examine the photos and negatives.

Simpson's defense attorneys knew the Flammer photographs were authentic, and confirmed the authenticity of the Scull photographs as well as they impeached Simpson. I bet you think this is just another giant conspiracy, right?

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-06-2006, 03:30 PM

Thank you for opening your mind to possibilities. Now, the pseudo-arrest was televised and seen by onlookers. You admit that the DNA results were not back at that time. Thus, there was a rush to judgment. Have you considered that LE did not want to be embarrased after the world, and I do not mean that to be ALL inclusive, saw their arrest blunder?

I disagree, there wasn't a rush to judgment. Both Clark and Darden argued that there was probable cause to arrest Simpson then. Based on what Clark wrote in her book the prosecutors were unhappy that Simpson wasn't even arrested when the blood results came back.

Without a Doubt, Marcia Clark
On June 14 "we were huddling in the conference room, kicking around our opinions, when the call came in from SID. I took it. The blood on the walk at the murder scene matched O.J. Simpson's.

Bingo! There was the evidence the cops needed to charge. I grinned jubilantly at David and Gil and held my wrists together, pantomiming handcuffs. I figured squad cars would be rolling toward Brentwood any minutes now.

Like hell, O.J. Simpson remained at large.

And when I arrived at work the following morning, Wednesday, June 15, he was still at large. The papers were filled with speculation about the case. Somehow the LA Times had gotten wind of the blood test results. But we were still getting the freeze out from the cops. Normally, we'd be getting witness statements and reports within twenty four hours of a crime. This time, we hadn't received so much as a single piece of paper. Even Gil had realized it was time for a showdown, and he's finally brokered a meeting with the cops for later that afternoon."

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-06-2006, 03:37 PM

I disagree, there wasn't a rush to judgment. Both Clark and Darden argued that there was probable cause to arrest Simpson then. Based on what Clark wrote in her book the prosecutors were unhappy that Simpson wasn't even arrested when the blood results came back.

Without a Doubt, Marcia Clark
On June 14 "we were huddling in the conference room, kicking around our opinions, when the call came in from SID. I took it. The blood on the walk at the murder scene matched O.J. Simpson's.

Bingo! There was the evidence the cops needed to charge. I grinned jubilantly at David and Gil and held my wrists together, pantomiming handcuffs. I figured squad cars would be rolling toward Brentwood any minutes now.

Like hell, O.J. Simpson remained at large.

And when I arrived at work the following morning, Wednesday, June 15, he was still at large. The papers were filled with speculation about the case. Somehow the LA Times had gotten wind of the blood test results. But we were still getting the freeze out from the cops. Normally, we'd be getting witness statements and reports within twenty four hours of a crime. This time, we hadn't received so much as a single piece of paper. Even Gil had realized it was time for a showdown, and he's finally brokered a meeting with the cops for later that afternoon."

bobaugust

This does not obviate the fact that he had been placed in handcuffs, and, according to your post, the results had not yet came back. If I have the time frame right he returned on June 13, and he gave his sample on that day, correct? If I am correct then he was arrested prior to that time and released, which, inho, shows that there was a rush to judgment.

weezer

12-06-2006, 03:49 PM

*Snipped*". . . the laying of hands or restraints upon the arrested person is usually not required to effect an arrest." orenthal was not told he was under arrest -- how does your post relate?

2L8 4A D8

12-06-2006, 04:04 PM

I have previously posted that imitation is the highest form of flattery, and, I am highly flattered that you are imitating my post on considering the source, and is it not wonder that G's do not find your comments rude, since you acknowledge the tendency of some birds.

I am NOT and NEVER have imitated any of your posts because they are NOT worth imitating. I have always considered the source as far as the NG's are concerned.

Ames knows my post wasn't rude ~ you know it and every other NG on this Board knows it! I am sick and tired of dealing with children and walking on eggshells everytime that I post to an NG. You all are offended by everything! Unless, of course, you are the ones doing the "offending!" IMO, the fortes of the NG's is pettiness, snide comments, baiting questions, making mountains out of molehills, and making false statements/information, et al.

The G's did NOT find my post to Ames to be rude because it wasn't. Thus, they didn't respond to me as I requested.

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

12-06-2006, 04:06 PM

:rolleyes: Whatever.....

Yeah, whatever! I thought that you put me on Ignore? Guess not! :rolleyes:

William Anthony

12-06-2006, 04:12 PM

martin II

12-06-2006, 04:17 PM

*Snipped* orenthal was not told he was under arrest -- how does your post relate?

LE cannot go around handcuffing citizens unless that citizen is under arrest.
Handcuffing is a sign that a arrest has been made.

IN oj's case some cop must have thought "he is guilty and we are going to lock this sob up so handcuff him". Then vanhatter must have said "no not yet
we don;t want them to know he is a suspect yet."

rush to judgement
imo
martin II

bobaugust

12-06-2006, 04:19 PM

You asked me to venture into what amounts to being a subjective opinion. Within this opinion, no one is sacred from scrutiny, including Juditha Brown. Relative to your question concerning how Ron Goldman could have departed the restaurant prior to 10:00 PM. Your disenchantment is the very reason that I hesitate to get involved in these types of subjective discussions, we'd rather leave them to you and try to remain as objective as possible. It is fun though. However, returning to an objective view point, what we do know is:

(1.) The Brown's were alleged to have traveled that evening in an extraordinary time window to permit arrival at Dana Point to make a 9:37 PM phone call. All elements of that journey would have been hair raising given the highway conditions to allow for the arrival time.

(2.) We know that there are a plethora of irregularities concerning the verifiable phone records, and that they are not where they should have been; in Simpson's criminal exhibit file. And we know that the actual verifiable Juditha Brown telephone records were never given to the jury for jury authentification.

(3.) We know that the U2887 shoe soles on the Bruno Magli Lorenzo style were on 19 other variety of shoes sold around the world, and that anyone could have been wearing those U2887 shoes soles upon entering the state of California via, car, plane, ship or by foot.

Ron was going to receive the same amount of money whether his time card read that he worked from 4:30-9:30 PM (Pacific Standard Time) or 5:30-10:30 PM (Pacific Daylight Time). It is the same number of hours. Why should I believe that the sinister looking DeBello would adjust his time clock that had no bearing on how many hours his employees worked, but would not adjust the other verification time instruments that reflected the true time and date that customer service was rendered to his patrons, some of whom spent hundreds of dollars to eat at his establishment.

Do you believe that an unverifiable dispute on a customer's paid receipt is less worthy than an infraction on Ron's time card.
Come on Bob, we're talking about a small upscale eatery with no more than 9- 10 full and part time employees, not ten thousand emploees on the GM automotive assembly line working around the clock.

Big Ben, your explanation of how Ron left restaurant with Juditha's eyeglasses before you think Juditha Brown even called the restaurant is as ridiculous and paranoid as all of your theories and contradicted by the evidence in this case.

If the Brown's started their drive back home at 8:30 as both Juditha and Denise testified they did then they would have been back home in time for Juditha to call the restaurant at 9:37 like Karen Crawford testified she did and her telephone records show she did.

An enlarged copy of the Brown's telephone bill was shown to the jury. The fact that the Brown's actual telephone records were never shown to the jury means nothing since none of the actual telephone records used in this case were shown to the jury.

The fact that the Silga sole was used on other shoes doesn't change the fact that Simpson wore the same size shoes that made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. And that photographs prove Simpson previously wore Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes with the same Silga soles that made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

Your inability to understand that a business that paid employees by time clock would not keep the correct time on that clock is ridiculous. It doesn't matter how many employees the restaurant had, no one one who was paid according to a time clock would allow that clock to be incorrect let alone for over a month after the change to daylight savings time.

The time clock was not difficult to change as DeBello testified he did, only a lever to press down. The NCR machine is an entirely different situation. It was basically a computer running a program and time of day on that machine was not as important as a time clock. That machine was used to print out customer checks. The time on the checks had no importance to anyone except management and evidently it wasn't that important to DeBello since Tia Gaven testified it was off quite a bit.

Your inability to understand the difference again shows your limited life experience about managing a business.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-06-2006, 04:20 PM

*Snipped* orenthal was not told he was under arrest -- how does your post relate?

Even you should know that when a person is placed in hancuffs they are under arrest.

martin II

12-06-2006, 04:21 PM

*Snipped* orenthal was not told he was under arrest -- how does your post relate?

weezer
what did they tell oj when they cuffed him??
martin II

weezer

12-06-2006, 04:30 PM

Even you should know that when a person is placed in hancuffs they are under arrest. that's not what your post stated.

bobaugust

12-06-2006, 04:38 PM

This does not obviate the fact that he had been placed in handcuffs, and, according to your post, the results had not yet came back. If I have the time frame right he returned on June 13, and he gave his sample on that day, correct? If I am correct then he was arrested prior to that time and released, which, inho, shows that there was a rush to judgment.

You're correct that Simpson returned on June 13 and that handcuffs were put on him before any test results were known but that still doesn't show a rush to judgment since not only did the police have probable cause to arrest Simpson then even without the test results, but the handcuffs were removed.

He may have technically been under arrest for a couple of minutes because handcuffs were put on him but he was not arrested for the murders at that time.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-06-2006, 04:47 PM

that's not what your post stated.

Here is the portion of the post stating what an arrest is;

An arrest is the action of the police, or person acting under the color of law, to take a person into custody so that they may be forthcoming to answer for the commission of a crime. In many legal systems, an arrest requires mere verbal information to persons that they are under arrest; the laying of hands or restraints upon the arrested person is usually not required to effect an arrest.

Even though it is not required that is what they did.

William Anthony

12-06-2006, 04:49 PM

You're correct that Simpson returned on June 13 and that handcuffs were put on him before any test results were known but that still doesn't show a rush to judgment since not only did the police have probable cause to arrest Simpson then even without the test results, but the handcuffs were removed.

He may have technically been under arrest for a couple of minutes because handcuffs were put on him but he was not arrested for the murders at that time.

bobaugust

Then, please tell me what you believe he was under arrest for, going to Chicago and not informing the police?

bobaugust

12-06-2006, 04:54 PM

Then, please tell me what you believe he was under arrest for, going to Chicago and not informing the police?

Vannatter testified he didn't want Simpson to enter the property and told the patrol officer to detain him. The patrol officer evidently interpreted that to mean cuff him.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-06-2006, 05:04 PM

Vannatter testified he didn't want Simpson to enter the property and told the patrol officer to detain him. The patrol officer evidently interpreted that to mean cuff him.

bobaugust

That is what Vanatter said just as he said Simpson was not under arrest and technically, when somone is prevented from going where they desire to go by LE that is a custodial arrest. The simple fact is, imo, that Vanatter did not tell the truth and, perhaps, the jury was sophisticated enough to see through his deceit, and chose not to believe anything further that came out of his mouth. Have you considered that as a possibility?

weezer

12-06-2006, 05:16 PM

*Snipped*the jury was sophisticated enough to see through his deceit, and chose not to believe anything further that came out of his mouth. Have you considered that as a possibility? Oh please! :lol: Stop! :lol:

William Anthony

12-06-2006, 05:34 PM

*Snipped* Oh please! :lol: Stop! :lol:

I know that you would not consider them sophisticated and it is beyond you realm of possibilities and that is why I asked someone else.

martin II

12-06-2006, 06:05 PM

*Snipped* Oh please! :lol: Stop! :lol:

weezer

just because you ate everything you READ does not mean that these fine outatanding black and white citizens of the jury did also.
martin II

limakey

12-06-2006, 07:29 PM

Big Ben,

IMO, Simpson followed Shapiro's investigator's advice. He was told that he better knew his own case better then his lawyers do because they all have agendas. From what I remember from interviews, everyone of Simpson's lawyers said how involved he was in the case. How he made several key calls that helped him, mainly insisting that Barry Scheck do part of the closing statements. As you know, there were times when he told his lawyers that they needed to remember what was at stake here and to knock off the personal and petty stuff and keep it out of the media.

I do not believe that any of his lawyers would have gone against him on this because at the end of day, he was their boss. I agree with that the phone records are important and I will never understand how Shapiro made the mistake of making a stipulation that he had no way of knowing at the time could be proved. As I have posted before, there were other phone calls and records from that night.

What do you think about the phone call to the police station?

bobaugust

12-06-2006, 08:42 PM

That is what Vanatter said just as he said Simpson was not under arrest and technically, when somone is prevented from going where they desire to go by LE that is a custodial arrest. The simple fact is, imo, that Vanatter did not tell the truth and, perhaps, the jury was sophisticated enough to see through his deceit, and chose not to believe anything further that came out of his mouth. Have you considered that as a possibility?

Are you saying that by stopping Simpson from entering the crime scene that means Simpson was under arrest?

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-06-2006, 08:52 PM

a.

I do not believe that any of his lawyers would have gone against him on this because at the end of day, he was their boss. I agree with that the phone records are important and I will never understand how Shapiro made the mistake of making a stipulation that he had no way of knowing at the time could be proved. As I have posted before, there were other phone calls and records from that night.

limakey, Shapiro offered a stipulation and Cochran agreed to offered stipulations regarding the times telephone calls were made because they were given the actual telephone records to examine and check out. They saw the time of the calls for themselves.

bobaugust

Big Ben

12-06-2006, 09:41 PM

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8785486]Big Ben, Simpson's defense attorneys knew the Flammer photographs were authentic, and confirmed the authenticity of the Scull photographs as well as they impeached Simpson. I bet you think this is just another giant conspiracy, right? bobaugust[Quote]

Bob, If one lies about one thing in a conspiracy, whose to say how deep and how wide such a conspiracy extends. Clarify what is it that you think that I think is a conspiracy. Do I think that their has been a conspiracy involving the Simpson matter? Yes, I do! As it relates to the Bruno Magli shoes I never have focused on whether Simpson did or did not have a pair of Bruno Magli shoes.

I don't give a darn whether he had a pair or did not. If he intentionally lied and said that he didn't when he did, what does that prove? If he thought he didn't have a pair of them but did, and all of those NFL licks he's taken when tackled has caused a degree of amnesia, so what? The main point is that you don't know how many U2887 shoe soles found on Bruno Magli and 19 other shoe brands were walking around America in 1994 that could have made those same bloody foot prints at 875 South Bundy.

You don't know if there were two dozen or if there were twenty thousand and two dozen pairs of U2887 shoes soles in America on June 12, 1994, do you? Make no mistake, I don't need you attempting to scope shift as to what my focus is. If you think that your head has crystal ball capability, then let's bet on it. My proposition bet is that you can't tell whether the U2887 shoe sole prints made at Bundy came from exclusively Bruno Magli shoes. Let's bet on that. I can imagine how far you want to engage on that proposition or let that fool Weezer bail you out with one of his/her admonitions to me about the rules.

The FBI special agent that got on the witness stand with his wing tip shoes and Brooks Brothers' suit in an attempt to convince America of his honest intentions, was no more than an intenerant liar, intent on covering up this exact fact, while flim flamming America with size conversions from the Continental metric shoe size system to the English shoe size system regarding those shoe soles. Why don't you want to focus on his lack of ethics, as opposed to those Flim Flammer photos you keep bringing up to make me see some absurd point you keep trying to make. Yeh! When I catch one rat, I believe that there's a rats' nest. And you can't clean it up for these conspirators. There's serious problems with this case!

You still can't tell me the exact measurements of a so called Size 12 U2887 shoe sole, be it on a Bruno Magli shoe or any of the 19 other shoe brands they were on. Are all size 12s the same worldwide? The FBI didn't tell you! Why not? What are the dimensions of Simpson's feet? We took the time to inquire! Why not the FBI? The FBI had access to him at the county jail for a year, why don't we know the dimensions of his foot? Are they the same length, are they shorter or longer than the Size 12 shoe soles? Why Mr. America August don't we know that? So get out of here with your razzle-dazzle, flim flam madness, bobaugust. Take this Tomfoolery to someone weak enough to go along with your madness.

bobaugust

12-06-2006, 10:27 PM

Bob, If one lies about one thing in a conspiracy, whose to say how deep and how wide such a conspiracy extends. Clarify what is it that you think that I think is a conspiracy. Do I think that their has been a conspiracy involving the Simpson matter? Yes, I do! As it relates to the Bruno Magli shoes I never have focused on whether Simpson did or did not have a pair of Bruno Magli shoes.

I don't give a darn whether he had a pair or did not. If he intentionally lied and said that he didn't when he did, what does that prove? If he thought he didn't have a pair of them but did, and all of those NFL licks he's taken when tackled has caused a degree of amnesia, so what? The main point is that you don't know how many U2887 shoe soles found on Bruno Magli and 19 other shoe brands were walking around America in 1994 that could have made those same bloody foot prints at 875 South Bundy.

You don't know if there were two dozen or if there were twenty thousand and two dozen pairs of U2887 shoes soles in America on June 12, 1994, do you? Make no mistake, I don't need you attempting to scope shift as to what my focus is. If you think that your head has crystal ball capability, then let's bet on it. My proposition bet is that you can't tell whether the U2887 shoe sole prints made at Bundy came from exclusively Bruno Magli shoes. Let's bet on that. I can imagine how far you want to engage on that proposition or let that fool Weezer bail you out with one of his/her admonitions to me about the rules.

The FBI special agent that got on the witness stand with his wing tip shoes and Brooks Brothers' suit in an attempt to convince America of his honest intentions, was no more than an intenerant liar, intent on covering up this exact fact, while flim flamming America with size conversions from the Continental metric shoe size system to the English shoe size system regarding those shoe soles. Why don't you want to focus on his lack of ethics, as opposed to those Flim Flammer photos you keep bringing up to make me see some absurd point you keep trying to make. Yeh! When I catch one rat, I believe that there's a rats' nest. And you can't clean it up for these conspirators. There's serious problems with this case!

You still can't tell me the exact measurements of a so called Size 12 U2887 shoe sole, be it on a Bruno Magli shoe or any of the 19 other shoe brands they were on. Are all size 12s the same worldwide? The FBI didn't tell you! Why not? What are the dimensions of Simpson's feet? We took the time to inquire! Why not the FBI? The FBI had access to him at the county jail for a year, why don't we know the dimensions of his foot? Are they the same length, are they shorter or longer than the Size 12 shoe soles? Why Mr. America August don't we know that? So get out of here with your razzle-dazzle, flim flam madness, bobaugust. Take this Tomfoolery to someone weak enough to go along with your madness.

Big Ben, the fact that there are other shoes in this world that had the same Silga soles does not change the fact that over thirty photographs show Simpson wearing shoes with Silga soles that were consistent with having made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. That's why Simpson lied. Plain and simple.

There is also the fact that Simpson's blood was found in conjunction with those bloody shoe prints. A blood trail starting near the victims, down the walkway, on the rear gate, in the alley, in Simpson's Bronco, on the street behind Simpson's parked Bronco, outside and inside Simpson's Rockingham gate, on Simpson's driveway and inside Simpson's house on his foyer floor.

The only Tomfoolery here is from you. Bodziak compared Simpson's size 12 Reeboks to the size 12 Bruno Magli and found them to be the exact same size.

November 20, 1996 Bodziak
Q. Did you have an opportunity to compare a pair of shoes that belonged to Mr. Simpson and the Bruno Magli size 12?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. I place before you what's been marked 404, and represent that as a matter of record these are a pair of Reebok shoes, belonging to Mr. Simpson, that he gave to Detective Lange.
(The instrument herein described as Mr. Simpson's Reebok shoes was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 404.)
Q. And I ask you if you compared those shoes with the size 12 Bruno Magli that's contained in Exhibit 395?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And how did you compare that?
A. Do you have 395?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Oh, sorry, here it is.
Q. That's okay.
A. Yes. I compared the Reebok shoes, left and right Reebok shoes, with the Exhibit 395 Bruno Magli. The Bruno Magli, as I have described, or will describe, these soles are compression molded, they're known as a cup sole, they're sort of like a cup, if you poured water into them, and they're attached to the bottom of the shoe by literally placing the lasted shoe, the completed upper to them, and through glue and stitching they're applied.

The Reebok is a similar construction. It's also a cup sole. It's known as a half cup sole because the toe area -- the middle which is just flat, but the toe area and heel area are cupped. They have variations of this known as cup half cup, three-quarter cup, so forth. So the general construction is compression molded cup sole construction. So even though the Reebok is an athletic sole, its manner of manufacture makes it a comparable shoe to compare with the Bruno Magli.

And I made a comparison of the external sole dimensions -- linear dimensions, and the internal measurement of the shoes, and found that they were virtually identical; that the Bruno Magli shoe and the Reeboks, if you place them one over another, you can line up their soles from heel to toe, left to right, and they fit as well as you could possibly expect.

Q. You're saying Mr. Simpson's shoe was identical to the size 12 Bruno Magli?
A. It's the same size internally. It reads a size 12, U.S. size 12, as well as the European 46, size 12 Bruno Magli, and it's physical dimensions and characteristics for comparability are the same, yes.

bobaugust

Big Ben

12-06-2006, 10:38 PM

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8785578]Big Ben, your explanation of how Ron left restaurant with Juditha's eyeglasses before you think Juditha Brown even called the restaurant is as ridiculous and paranoid as all of your theories and contradicted by the evidence in this case.

I never said that Ron left before Juditha called; you said that.
Are you stating that what I asserted that could have caused this time discrepancy, a failure to update the time clock, was not possible at all?

If the Brown's started their drive back home at 8:30 as both Juditha and Denise testified they did then they would have been back home in time for Juditha to call the restaurant at 9:37 like Karen Crawford testified she did and her telephone records show she did.

We'll never know until we see the GTE telephone records directly from the GTE archives in San Angelo, TX.

An enlarged copy of the Brown's telephone bill was shown to the jury.

An enlarged something was shown to the jury, but what that something actually was, the jury was disallowed from examining or verifying.

The fact that the Brown's actual telephone records were never shown to the jury means nothing since none of the actual telephone records used in this case were shown to the jury.

R U A Fool? The Brown's actual telephone records may have been the only necessary crucial records that needed to be examined by the jury because they established the window of time for which the murders could or could not have been committed by Simpson.

The fact that the Silga sole was used on other shoes doesn't change the fact that Simpson wore the same size shoes that made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. And that photographs prove Simpson previously wore Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes with the same Silga soles that made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

AND??? So could 19 other shoe brands, Bob. You act like you've been hit in the head with a hammer, you keep going around in circles about this. 19 other shoe brands worn by thousands of people could have walked through the blood at Bundy, man.

Your inability to understand that a business that paid employees by time clock would not keep the correct time on that clock is ridiculous. It doesn't matter how many employees the restaurant had, no one one who was paid according to a time clock would allow that clock to be incorrect let alone for over a month after the change to daylight savings time.

Argued and Answered!

The time clock was not difficult to change as DeBello testified he did, only a lever to press down. The NCR machine is an entirely different situation. It was basically a computer running a program and time of day on that machine was not as important as a time clock. That machine was used to print out customer checks. The time on the checks had no importance to anyone except management and evidently it wasn't that important to DeBello since Tia Gaven testified it was off quite a bit.

All the restaurants that I patronize; their NCR times and date calculators always appear to be accurate. Many are not nearly as upscale as the Mezzaluna. Why shouldn't one expect the same from them as a patron. Why should a restaurant honor a complaint of an infraction whereby the alleger is unable to substantiate the occurence with an accurate receipt showing the date that he was in the restaurant.

Your inability to understand the difference again shows your limited life experience about managing a business.

And your willingness to accept tacky customer service protections and sloppy accounting practises due to inaccurate time pieces reflects a management proficiency worthy of a gold medallion award? Right?

Big Ben

12-06-2006, 10:57 PM

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8785732]Big Ben, the fact that there are other shoes in this world that had the same Silga soles does not change the fact that over thirty photographs show Simpson wearing shoes with Silga soles that were consistent with having made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. That's why Simpson lied. Plain and simple.

Pure Balderdash!

There is also the fact that Simpson's blood was found in conjunction with those bloody shoe prints. A blood trail starting near the victims, down the walkway, on the rear gate, in the alley, in Simpson's Bronco, on the street behind Simpson's parked Bronco, outside and inside Simpson's Rockingham gate, on Simpson's driveway and inside Simpson's house on his foyer floor.

Scheck created enough reasonable doubt to impress me on that one.

The only Tomfoolery here is from you. Bodziak compared Simpson's size 12 Reeboks to the size 12 Bruno Magli and found them to be the exact same size.

How did the FBI agent Bodziak know that the Reeboks were Simpson's shoes?
He didn't acquire a search warrant and go to Simpson's property and retrieve the shoes. Where do you think he got them from, and only one pair?

You've been flim-flammed by an apparent unscrupulous FBI agent that got under the wire when the defense filed a motion ridding the trial of two other unscrupulous FBI agents. Shameful, shameful, shameful! The most preeminent investigative agency in the world and they show up with shoe soles that are almost an inch shorter than Simpson's foot, that could have, by their own admission, been on a total of twenty shoe brands around the world.

I can just imagine how that would have played out in court. Then I guess a few of you hang 'em high, arm chair jurors would still say that the jury was incompetent and stupid.

Oh, My country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty,......of thee I sing, bobaugust!

limakey

12-06-2006, 11:02 PM

Mr. August,

Where is the proof that any of the defense lawyers were shown any other phone records. We know they requested Faye's from the rehab center and they were denied those.

We know the Goldmans' didn't even know about Ron's answering machine. We also know that the DA's and the civil trial lawyers knew about Dr. Ameli's phone call to Nicole where she was clearly upset. There are other records to consider. IMO.

Big Ben

12-06-2006, 11:10 PM

limakey, Shapiro offered a stipulation and Cochran agreed to offered stipulations regarding the times telephone calls were made because they were given the actual telephone records to examine and check out. They saw the time of the calls for themselves.

bobaugust
limakey, don't let bobaugust think that he can influence you into becoming a dupe that he can continue to flim-flam and ridicule. I notice that he tries to play you that way. You know that Johnnie Cochran's statement about all of them agreeing not to show the jury the telephone records doesn't make any kind of sense and had no place in an argument to the court justifying why the jury shouldn't be shown the bloody photos. Something is wrong here! But leave it to ole bob to come along with one of his stupid and weak excuses. I believe that he'd try to seduce the devil if given a chance. He certainly bears watching. He'll put you to sleep with his madness, then pick your pocket and swear up and down, that you didn't have anything in the first place. Watch him!

bobaugust

12-07-2006, 12:05 AM

I never said that Ron left before Juditha called; you said that.
Are you stating that what I asserted that could have caused this time discrepancy, a failure to update the time clock, was not possible at all?

We'll never know until we see the GTE telephone records directly from the GTE archives in San Angelo, TX.

An enlarged something was shown to the jury, but what that something actually was, the jury was disallowed from examining or verifying.

The Brown's actual telephone records may have been the only necessary crucial records that needed to be examined by the jury because they established the window of time for which the murders could or could not have been committed by Simpson.

So could 19 other shoe brands, Bob. You act like you've been hit in the head with a hammer, you keep going around in circles about this. 19 other shoe brands worn by thousands of people could have walked through the blood at Bundy, man.

Argued and Answered!

All the restaurants that I patronize; their NCR times and date calculators always appear to be accurate. Many are not nearly as upscale as the Mezzaluna. Why shouldn't one expect the same from them as a patron. Why should a restaurant honor a complaint of an infraction whereby the alleger is unable to substantiate the occurence with an accurate receipt showing the date that he was in the restaurant.

Big Ben, you're the one claiming Juditha Brown called Nicole at 11:00 to tell her that the restaurant had found her eyeglasses, yet Ron Goldman left the restaurant at about 9:50 carrying those eyeglasses. You can't explain that because Juditha never called Nicole at 11:00, she called her at 9:40 and she testified that was that last time she ever spoke with Nicole.

That's what Karen Crawford who talked to Nicole right after that telephone call testified to. That's what Juditha Brown's telephone records document. That 's what Simpson's attorneys believed when they stipulated those times were accurate. And that's what the evidence is in this case.

The prosecution exhibit was an enlarged copy of the Brown's telephone bill. It showed exactly what was on the original. only with some telephone numbers blocked out that were not relevant to this case as requested by Simpson's attorneys. Those were the only telephone records the jury saw.

As I understand it the other brands of shoes that had the same Silga sole that was made for Bruno Magli were sold outside this country. Could some of these shoes have been brought back into this country, probably. But that doesn't change the fact that Simpson was shown in over thirty authenticated photographs wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes with Silga soles that made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. And it doesn't change the fact that Simpson wore the same size shoes as the killer who left those prints. And it doesn't change the fact that Simpson lied about ever wearing those shoes. And it doesn't change the fact that Simpson's blood drops were found on the walkway in conjunction with those bloody shoe prints.

Yes the Mezzaluna restaurant had a problem with the NCR machine that printed the guest checks having the incorrect time of day. Karen Crawford testified that it had never been accurate and everyone knew that so no one relied on it to fix the time that a particular party was served. But that has nothing to do with your false claim that the time clock didn't have the correct time.

The evidence is that the time clock at the Mezzaluna Restaurant was set to the correct time. Your argued and answered response is as lame as it is wrong. Not only are your claims about this false but you didn't even get the time differences right when you claimed that Juditha Brown's 9:37 call was really made at 10:37. Wrong.

John DeBello, Karen Crawford, and Tia Gavin all testified the time clock was set to the correct time. No one ever presented any evidence that contradicted that reality.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-07-2006, 12:07 AM

limakey, don't let bobaugust think that he can influence you into becoming a dupe that he can continue to flim-flam and ridicule. I notice that he tries to play you that way. You know that Johnnie Cochran's statement about all of them agreeing not to show the jury the telephone records doesn't make any kind of sense and had no place in an argument to the court justifying why the jury shouldn't be shown the bloody photos. Something is wrong here! But leave it to ole bob to come along with one of his stupid and weak excuses. I believe that he'd try to seduce the devil if given a chance. He certainly bears watching. He'll put you to sleep with his madness, then pick your pocket and swear up and down, that you didn't have anything in the first place. Watch him!

Big Ben, I guess I should take that as compliment coming from a con artist like you. Funny.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-07-2006, 12:21 AM

How did the FBI agent Bodziak know that the Reeboks were Simpson's shoes?
He didn't acquire a search warrant and go to Simpson's property and retrieve the shoes. Where do you think he got them from, and only one pair?

You've been flim-flammed by an apparent unscrupulous FBI agent that got under the wire when the defense filed a motion ridding the trial of two other unscrupulous FBI agents. Shameful, shameful, shameful! The most preeminent investigative agency in the world and they show up with shoe soles that are almost an inch shorter than Simpson's foot, that could have, by their own admission, been on a total of twenty shoe brands around the world.

I can just imagine how that would have played out in court. Then I guess a few of you hang 'em high, arm chair jurors would still say that the jury was incompetent and stupid.

Oh, My country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty,......of thee I sing, bobaugust!

Big Ben, your really don't know very much about the evidence in this case do you?

Simpson showed those Reeboks to Detective Lange telling him they were the shoes he was wearing the day of the murders. Lange knew they didn't match the bloody shoe prints nevertheless he seized them not only to have the crime lab check some red spots that were on them but primarily to establish Simpson's shoe size.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-07-2006, 08:53 AM

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8785578][B]Big Ben, your

AND??? So could 19 other shoe brands, Bob. You act like you've been hit in the head with a hammer, you keep going around in circles about this. 19 other shoe brands worn by thousands of people could have walked through the blood at Bundy, man.

No, a Jack-hammer swung by a Black man.:) This post is made in jest, even if true.:)

bobaugust

12-07-2006, 02:51 PM

No, a Jack-hammer swung by a Black man.:) This post is made in jest, even if true.:)

You're an idiot. This post is made in jest, even if true.:)

William Anthony

12-07-2006, 03:32 PM

You're an idiot. This post is made in jest, even if true.:)

You are a mental midget and your brain rolls around in your head like a bb in a box car and when people went insane in my home town we sent them to your school to teach you. This post is made in jest, even if true!

bobaugust

12-07-2006, 03:39 PM

You are a mental midget and your brain rolls around in your head like a bb in a box car and when people went insane in my home town we sent them to your school to teach you. This post is made in jest, even if true!

Funny, Okay William, enough. Lets get back to acting civil.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-07-2006, 04:19 PM

Funny, Okay William, enough. Lets get back to acting civil.

bobaugust

You have not been civil in your remarks about the jurors, other posters and me. However, I will once again try to be civil with you.

2L8 4A D8

12-08-2006, 04:53 AM

You have not been civil in your remarks about the jurors, other posters and me. However, I will once again try to be civil with you.

Well, why don't we all just turn everybody in to the Moderators for banning and then there will be no more OJ Simpson Board? How's that for a solution? I kinda like the idea because this Board and all of the Threads are going nowhere. Just repitition of the same old information bantered back and forth and the same stupid questions asked over and over again!

The NG's are never going to change their minds and the G's are never going to change their minds! So, let's call it a day! All in favor, say "I"...

JMO and MOO!!

P.S. Oh, by the way, does IMH&RO stand for "In My Humble & Racist Opinion?"

William Anthony

12-08-2006, 08:18 AM

Well, why don't we all just turn everybody in to the Moderators for banning and then there will be no more OJ Simpson Board? How's that for a solution? I kinda like the idea because this Board and all of the Threads are going nowhere. Just repitition of the same old information bantered back and forth and the same stupid questions asked over and over again!

The NG's are never going to change their minds and the G's are never going to change their minds! So, let's call it a day! All in favor, say "I"...

JMO and MOO!!

P.S. Oh, by the way, does IMH&RO stand for "In My Humble & Racist Opinion?"

No, it means in my humble and righteously indignant opinion, when it stated to some rude posters, but to most posters it means humble and respectful.

William Anthony

12-08-2006, 09:29 AM

Snipped
The only Tomfoolery here is from you. Bodziak compared Simpson's size 12 Reeboks to the size 12 Bruno Magli and found them to be the exact same size.

Q. You're saying Mr. Simpson's shoe was identical to the size 12 Bruno Magli?
A. It's the same size internally. .

bobaugust

Were you an athlete? I cannot speak for everyone, but I bought my sneakers a size larger than my dress shoes, because I sometimes wore two pairs of athletic socks for cushion and sometimes for style. When wearing dress shoes, I wear one pair of thin socks.

William Anthony

12-08-2006, 11:41 AM

Does anyone find it strange that Simpson went to eat a short time before allegedly killing Nicole and can anyone offer an explanation for this?

martin II

12-08-2006, 11:52 AM

Does anyone find it strange that Simpson went to eat a short time before allegedly killing Nicole and can anyone offer an explanation for this?

i always thought it was to evade eating airline food
martin II:shrug:

martin II

12-08-2006, 11:53 AM

William Anthony

12-08-2006, 11:59 AM

i always thought it was to evade eating airline food
martin:shrug:

Airline food or McDonalds:shrug:

Kate Sachel

12-08-2006, 12:02 PM

Does anyone find it strange that Simpson went to eat a short time before allegedly killing Nicole and can anyone offer an explanation for this?

I am personally of the thought process that he was setting up an alibi.

Kate

William Anthony

12-08-2006, 12:10 PM

I am personally of the thought process that he was setting up an alibi.

Kate

That is a possibility, but, unless he was accustomed to seeing a large pool of blood and killing someone, he ran the possibility of vomitting, which would have definitely placed him at the scene. If he wanted to be seen by Kato, he could have simply gone and talked with him for a while. It just does not seem that eating, no sarcasm intended, fits into the prosecution's theory.

weezer

12-08-2006, 12:10 PM

Does anyone find it strange that Simpson went to eat a short time before allegedly killing Nicole and can anyone offer an explanation for this? My theory is that he never intended to go eat but was setting up an alibi with Kato OR he wasn't sure Kato was there -- but knew Arnele and the maid weren't home -- and was ambushed with, "Can I go with you?"

William Anthony

12-08-2006, 12:14 PM

My theory is that he never intended to go eat but was setting up an alibi with Kato OR he wasn't sure Kato was there -- but knew Arnele and the maid weren't home -- and was ambushed with, "Can I go with you?"

Then you do not see him setting up an alibi, if I understand you?

martin II

12-08-2006, 12:18 PM

Airline food or McDonalds:shrug:

I have not read where he ate after playing golf and going to the recital, since he was not going to the after recital dinner, he decided to take a burger before taking a short nap and leaving for chicago.

This is a guess.
martin II

Kate Sachel

12-08-2006, 12:20 PM

That is a possibility, but, unless he was accustomed to seeing a large pool of blood and killing someone, he ran the possibility of vomitting, which would have definitely placed him at the scene. If he wanted to be seen by Kato, he could have simply gone and talked with him for a while. It just does not seem that eating, no sarcasm intended, fits into the prosecution's theory.

The question is, did he really intend to go eat or just say that he was in an effort to set up an alibi? We are all aware that Kato invited himself along, OJ did not ask him to come ... and at that time what was OJ going to say? He didn't have much choice other than to go and actually eat something.

Kate

weezer

12-08-2006, 12:21 PM

Then you do not see him setting up an alibi, if I understand you? I honestly don't know. He knew Kato was there earlier but maybe he was only 'checking' to see if he'd left and came up with the lame excuse of needing smaller bills. I don't know. If I had to venture a guess, I'd guess that he wasn't expecting Kato to ask to go eat with him. I came into this group believing that he did not go over there with the intention of harming Nicole. I had always felt a confrontation escalated into murder -- But that raises the question: why a knife, cap, gloves, dark sweat suit, and wear a pair of shoes you don't like?

William Anthony

12-08-2006, 12:24 PM

I honestly don't know. He knew Kato was there earlier but maybe he was only 'checking' to see if he'd left and came up with the lame excuse of needing smaller bills. I don't know. If I had to venture a guess, I'd guess that he wasn't expecting Kato to ask to go eat with him. I came into this group believing that he did not go over there with the intention of harming Nicole. I had always felt a confrontation escalated into murder -- But that raises the question: why a knife, cap, gloves, dark sweat suit, and wear a pair of shoes you don't like?

You are heading me off at the pass.:)

William Anthony

12-08-2006, 12:31 PM

The question is, did he really intend to go eat or just say that he was in an effort to set up an alibi? We are all aware that Kato invited himself along, OJ did not ask him to come ... and at that time what was OJ going to say? He didn't have much choice other than to go and actually eat something.

Kate

If Kato did not go, his alibi would not have been as good, if that was what he was attempting to establish. He could have, as we all have at sometime, I believe, said we are suddenly not hungry. He could have simply said that he was going anywhere other than Nicole's. The fact that he would go and commit the murders after eating, especially McDonalds, which often makes me go to the restroom shortly after eating it, does not add up to me. Do you think, if you were going to kill someone, you would eat first?

martin II

12-08-2006, 12:32 PM

Then you do not see him setting up an alibi, if I understand you?

oj could easily know if kato was home by looking for his car at the ashford gate. imo

At the time he ate the burger, the dinner party was in progress. so i don't think he would have been going to kill anyone at that time.imo

Kato seem to be nervous about asking oj if he could come. I don't think oj would have any problem telling kato NO.

MARTIN ii

William Anthony

12-08-2006, 12:36 PM

oj could easily know if kato was home by looking for his car at the ashford gate. imo

At the time he ate the burger, the dinner party was in progress. so i don't think he would have been going to kill anyone at that time.imo

Kato seem to be nervous about asking oj if he could come. I don't think oj would have any problem telling kato NO.

MARTIN ii

Martin,

Would you intentionally go eat before brutally killing someone?

martin II

12-08-2006, 12:40 PM

William Anthony

12-08-2006, 12:44 PM

william
Now that you mention it, NO i would not eat if i were about the kill someone.
( i have never thought about killing anyone) Oj was known to get sick at the sight of blood. Considering this, i think IF he was going to kill nicole he would have used one of those "clean" guns that he had at his home.imo
martin II

Matin,

I did not know about him getting sick at the sight of blood, or I would have started this thread long ago.

William Anthony

12-08-2006, 12:56 PM

Heyes

12-08-2006, 01:00 PM

martin II

12-08-2006, 01:01 PM

Matin,

I did not know about him getting sick at the sight of blood, or I would have started this thread long ago.

this information was posted on one of the OJ SIMPSON web sites. i don't remember which.imo
martin II

martin II

12-08-2006, 01:03 PM

I never thought they went to Mcdonalds. I never heard testimony from anyone but kato and oj
I think they went and got drugs. Yup, I said it.:D
Explains to me the bloody rage shortly after.
If there was testimoney from someone else, then ........ Never mind! :D .

so do you think kato lied when he said he returned with his food in a bag and went to his room and ate it??
martin II

William Anthony

12-08-2006, 01:06 PM

I never thought they went to Mcdonalds. I never heard testimony from anyone but kato and oj
I think they went and got drugs. Yup, I said it.:D
Explains to me the bloody rage shortly after.
If there was testimoney from someone else, then ........ Never mind! :D .

So, does that mean that Kato hallucinated about thumps on the wall and the blankety blank seized the opportunity to plant the glove?

martin II

12-08-2006, 01:07 PM

William Anthony

12-08-2006, 01:13 PM

martin II

12-08-2006, 01:14 PM

So, does that mean that Kato hallucinated about thumps on the wall and the blankety blank seized the opportunity to plant the glove?

hayes
if kato would lie about he and oj geting a burger, then maby he would be lying about other stuff for some reason. If you want to streatch it more maby kato was at bundy.
martin II

William Anthony

12-08-2006, 01:19 PM

hayes
if kato would lie about he and oj geting a burger, then maby he would be lying about other stuff for some reason. If you want to streatch it more maby kato was at bundy.
martin II

Martin,

Maybe, the blankety blank MF was the drug dealer and Kato, because he was angered that a dog was named after him, paid him to do the crime, because of his hatred of interracial couples, and the thumps were to let him know he finished the job, and that is when he planted the glove. This entire post is made in jest.

socaldiva

12-08-2006, 02:50 PM

I don't think a sociopath has any trouble eating before or after a murder. I've heard of several instances where someone murders a person & then eats something right away. Scott Peterson also comes to mind. He is supposed to have eaten pizza after coming home from dumping his pregnant murdered wife in the Bay. OJ says the sight of blood makes him sick? He lies, so you can't go by that.

William Anthony

12-08-2006, 02:55 PM

socaldiva

12-08-2006, 03:01 PM

Are you suggesting that he committed the murders before eating, because you have not identified one person who ate beforehand?

No, I'm not suggesting he ate first. Just because I don't provide a specific name, doesn't mean that there aren't people that eat first. Perhaps you should read about sociopaths. :rolleyes:

William Anthony

12-08-2006, 03:07 PM

No, I'm not suggesting he ate first. Just because I don't provide a specific name, doesn't mean that there aren't people that eat first. Perhaps you should read about sociopaths. :rolleyes:

That is something I will take under advisement. But, since you postulated the theory and I do not recall him being diagnosed as a sociopath, I would assume that you would have the name of one such person, who had eaten directly before committing a murder(s).

socaldiva

12-08-2006, 03:11 PM

That is something I will take under advisement. But, since you postulated the theory and I do not recall him being diagnosed as a sociopath, I would assume that you would have the name of one such person, who had eaten directly before committing a murder(s).

Sorry, I don't have to prove anything to you. I believe he's a sociopath & you can take it or leave it.

William Anthony

12-08-2006, 03:24 PM

Sorry, I don't have to prove anything to you. I believe he's a sociopath & you can take it or leave it.

I will now take the fact that you believe that is what he is, without providing any evidence of such, as your opinion and not as a fact, as implied by your first post, and, therefore, it is likewise your opinion that he ate first and then did the murders, even though you have not provided the name of anyone who acted in a manner similar to your belief.

socaldiva

12-08-2006, 03:31 PM

*snip*I will now take the fact that you believe that is what he is.

Just what about "take it or leave it" don't you understand? :rolleyes:

Where is your study to support that killers don't eat before they kill? What is the official wait time after a meal? Are there certain foods that are a no-no?

William Anthony

12-08-2006, 03:42 PM

Just what about "take it or leave it" don't you understand? :rolleyes:

Where is your study to support that killers don't eat before they kill? What is the official wait time after a meal? Are there certain foods that are a no-no?

My question was did anyone find it strange. I cannot recall any evidence or story about a killer having eaten before killing. As you put it, they show no remorse after they committed the act, and I have stated that I accept your opinion when stated as an opinion. Certain foods are a no-no at anytime, inho.

bobaugust

12-08-2006, 05:34 PM

If Kato did not go, his alibi would not have been as good, if that was what he was attempting to establish. He could have, as we all have at sometime, I believe, said we are suddenly not hungry. He could have simply said that he was going anywhere other than Nicole's. The fact that he would go and commit the murders after eating, especially McDonalds, which often makes me go to the restroom shortly after eating it, does not add up to me. Do you think, if you were going to kill someone, you would eat first?

I agree with Kate and fbgweezer. Simpson may have gone to Kaelin's room setting up an alibi that he was home that night and using the excuse that he needed change for the airport. Telling Kaelin he was going out for a hamburger may also have been a ruse in case Kaelin noticed later that he was gone. I doubt if he anticipated Kaelin would invited himself along. When he did he went with it.

If Simpson was really intending to go out and get some food why ask Kaelin for smaller bills when he could have gotten change when he went to eat.

They returned from McDonalds shortly after 9:30. Simpson had plenty of time to go to the bathroom since he was still at his house at 10:03 when he said he called Paula while standing on his driveway.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-08-2006, 05:46 PM

Were you an athlete? I cannot speak for everyone, but I bought my sneakers a size larger than my dress shoes, because I sometimes wore two pairs of athletic socks for cushion and sometimes for style. When wearing dress shoes, I wear one pair of thin socks.

Yes I am. And the fact is that the size of shoes depends on the make and style of shoes. I personally wear Nike's. Some styles of Nike's fit my feet better in different sizes based on the style. The same with dress shoes. There is no hard fast rule.

The fact is that Bodziak found that Simpson's size 12 Reeboks were almost exactly the same size outside and inside the shoe as size 12 Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes.

bobaugust

Big Ben

12-08-2006, 09:59 PM

Yes I am. And the fact is that the size of shoes depends on the make and style of shoes. I personally wear Nike's. Some styles of Nike's fit my feet better in different sizes based on the style. The same with dress shoes. There is no hard fast rule.

The fact is that Bodziak found that Simpson's size 12 Reeboks were almost exactly the same size outside and inside the shoe as size 12 Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes.

bobaugust

bobaugust, you are trying to become one of the biggest flim flam artists in the world. I will put it to you straight! You, nor anyone else, has bought a pair of shoes that is one inch shorter than their foot. We measured Simpson's foot and it is between 1/8" and 1/16" shorter than 13 inches. The total length of the SILGA, U2887 size 46 shoe sole, is 12 1/4 inches. Stop this flim flam, ridiculous madness, bobaugust. The FBI knew this and created diversions for a bunch of preoccupied lynchmen, so that you and others could focus on the word size in your kangaroo court of public opinion. You keep circumventing the question that I put to you. Specifically, how many inches is represented by size 12? The answer is that it is a trick question, because not every size 12 shoe has the same length measurement. So answer the question or get your behind out of the kitchen if its too hot for you, B.A. Stop trying to be a flim flam artist because, in my opinion, you are failing miserably.

The FBI agent, Bodziak, sounded like the most pathetic fool that I've ever heard, while trying to give an explanation as to why he couldn't go out to Simpson's house and examine all of O.J.'s shoes. When have you ever heard of the FBI not stepping up to take charge, if they are asked to come in to an investigation. Just because you juimp up, with your pompous sillyness, and state that the LAPD detectives gave the FBI agent one of Simpson's shoes, I'm supposed to be impressed and say, Yeah! You're right, bobaugust, I need not ask any further questions.

If the FBI thought that they had enough jurisdiction to get involved in this case they would have asked for a warrant and gone over to Simpson's house and taken out a bag full of shoes, especially as we now see how corrupt the LAPD has continued to be. However, the FBI seems to have parted company with the 46 year old, Mr. Bodziak. Pretty young to be retiring from a good job, don't you think?

Now, that clown, Bodziak has got to answer not only for why he didn't tell us and the criminal jury about the 19 other (Bruno Magli type) shoe sole possibilities, he's got to now account for why he believes a man would buy some expensive casual shoes that would be, extremely, too tight for him to possibly wear. But knowing you, you'll start trying to convince your Neanderthalic group that Simpson just cut the toes out of his Bruno Maglis and wore them out to the murder site like a pair of sandals or house shoes, so that you can say you have your man, and the lynching is still on schedule. Believe me, you are a piece of work, B.A.

Big Ben

12-08-2006, 10:09 PM

Big Ben, you're the one claiming Juditha Brown called Nicole at 11:00 to tell her that the restaurant had found her eyeglasses, yet Ron Goldman left the restaurant at about 9:50 carrying those eyeglasses. You can't explain that because Juditha never called Nicole at 11:00, she called her at 9:40 and she testified that was that last time she ever spoke with Nicole.

That's what Karen Crawford who talked to Nicole right after that telephone call testified to. That's what Juditha Brown's telephone records document. That 's what Simpson's attorneys believed when they stipulated those times were accurate. And that's what the evidence is in this case.

The prosecution exhibit was an enlarged copy of the Brown's telephone bill. It showed exactly what was on the original. only with some telephone numbers blocked out that were not relevant to this case as requested by Simpson's attorneys. Those were the only telephone records the jury saw.

As I understand it the other brands of shoes that had the same Silga sole that was made for Bruno Magli were sold outside this country. Could some of these shoes have been brought back into this country, probably. But that doesn't change the fact that Simpson was shown in over thirty authenticated photographs wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes with Silga soles that made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. And it doesn't change the fact that Simpson wore the same size shoes as the killer who left those prints. And it doesn't change the fact that Simpson lied about ever wearing those shoes. And it doesn't change the fact that Simpson's blood drops were found on the walkway in conjunction with those bloody shoe prints.

Yes the Mezzaluna restaurant had a problem with the NCR machine that printed the guest checks having the incorrect time of day. Karen Crawford testified that it had never been accurate and everyone knew that so no one relied on it to fix the time that a particular party was served. But that has nothing to do with your false claim that the time clock didn't have the correct time.

The evidence is that the time clock at the Mezzaluna Restaurant was set to the correct time. Your argued and answered response is as lame as it is wrong. Not only are your claims about this false but you didn't even get the time differences right when you claimed that Juditha Brown's 9:37 call was really made at 10:37. Wrong.

John DeBello, Karen Crawford, and Tia Gavin all testified the time clock was set to the correct time. No one ever presented any evidence that contradicted that reality.

bobaugust

Can you say, CON-SPIR-A-CY!

Heyes

12-08-2006, 11:12 PM

So, does that mean that Kato hallucinated about thumps on the wall and the blankety blank seized the opportunity to plant the glove?

No, I would think kato was dropped back at the house. Then simpson went to Nicoles.
Just a theory!

Heyes

12-08-2006, 11:13 PM

so do you think kato lied when he said he returned with his food in a bag and went to his room and ate it??

ps: oj's blood test showed that he had TRACES of marijuana in his system. not DRUGS.

martin II

Here we go... lol
some drugs leave the system quickly

Heyes

12-08-2006, 11:16 PM

What type of drugs did they go get?
Heck I don't know, which drugs seem to help escalate violence? Especially if one has been proven to already have a violent streak? We know alcohol is one. Which of the street drugs?
Crack?
meth?

Heyes

12-08-2006, 11:18 PM

hayes
if kato would lie about he and oj geting a burger, then maby he would be lying about other stuff for some reason. If you want to streatch it more maby kato was at bundy.
martin II

I don't think it needs to be stretched THAT far. :)

2L8 4A D8

12-09-2006, 01:25 AM

I see this as a baiting Thread, proceeded with a baiting question. Just another ruse for the Thread Starter and his comrades to continue with their off-the-wall theories and their incessant tirades that OJ is definitely innocent because he supposedly had something to eat before he committed a double-murder. OMG! How could that be possible? GMAB!

I think that OJ was beginning to establish his alibi and was caught off guard when Kato asked to go with him ~ just like he wasn't expecting to deal with Ron Goldman. Only OJ and Kato know if they actually went to McDonald's or not.

I never thought of the two of them going out and purchasing drugs, but it's a good possibility that that is just what happened. It sure would explain OJ's mega rage that night against Nicole and it sure would explain Kato's explanation of 3 thumps against his bedroom wall as an earthquake!

JMO and MOO!!

Ames

12-09-2006, 01:29 AM

I am NOT and NEVER have imitated any of your posts because they are NOT worth imitating. I have always considered the source as far as the NG's are concerned.

Ames knows my post wasn't rude ~ you know it and every other NG on this Board knows it! I am sick and tired of dealing with children and walking on eggshells everytime that I post to an NG. You all are offended by everything! Unless, of course, you are the ones doing the "offending!" IMO, the fortes of the NG's is pettiness, snide comments, baiting questions, making mountains out of molehills, and making false statements/information, et al.

The G's did NOT find my post to Ames to be rude because it wasn't. Thus, they didn't respond to me as I requested.

JMO and MOO!!

Whats really pretty "funny" here....is that I think that OJ is guilty. I am a "G"...too. Why are you being so rude to a fellow "G"....I just don't get it. Answer this question and I will decide whether or not to put you on Ignore. Go back and read your first post to me...it WAS rude. And considering I too, am a "G"....I don't understand all of your animosity toward me. What in the world have I EVER done to you? All I did was asked a simple question about the recital, and the dinner that OJ wasn't invited to, and you posted me back with what I interpreted as rude remarks...if you didn't mean it that way..then I totally apologize. Relax...I am on YOUR side, here. (IMO) I am now thinking that you may have thought that I was a "NG"...and maybe thats why you posted what you did. (Now, THAT would make sense).