Evidence that Places OJ Simpson at the Crime Scene [Archive] - Page 7

bobaugust

12-16-2006, 07:17 AM

So, they were not concerned with any danger to Simpson or anyone at Simpson's estate between 2 and 4;30 and deliberately disobeyed their commanders orders, according to your post.

When the detectives were at Bundy they never had any concerns about Simpson's welfare. Commander Bushey asked Phillips to notify Simpson in person as a courtesy to Simpson instead of him having to learn about the death of his ex wife in the media..

I assume that when you say they disobeyed their commander's orders you are referring to Phillips and Fuhrman, right? No, they didn't disobey the order, they had more important things to do at the crime scene first and by about 2:30 AM Phillips learned they no longer had the case. It was up to the Robbery Homicide detectives who assumed responsibility for the case to fulfill Commander Bushey's order and that's what Lange and Vannatter did.

February 15, 1995 Ronald Phillips
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND AFTER HAVING RECEIVED THAT INFORMATION, SIR, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I WALKED BACK INTO THE RESIDENCE AND INFORMED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS A POLICE OFFICER WITH HIM, THAT THE CASE NOW BELONGED TO ROBBERY-HOMICIDE, IT WAS NO LONGER OUR INVESTIGATIVE RESPONSIBILITY AND THAT WE WERE GOING TO LEAVE THE RESIDENCE AND GO BACK OUT TO DOROTHY AND BUNDY AND AWAIT THE ARRIVAL OF THE ROBBERY-HOMICIDE DETECTIVES.
Q SO YOU NOTIFIED THE UNIFORMED OFFICER AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHO WERE INSIDE THE HOUSE?
A YES.
Q AND DID THEY THEN COME OUT WITH YOU?
A YES.
Q AND WHERE DID YOU GO?
A WALKED BACK SOUTHBOUND IN THE ALLEY TO DOROTHY AND THEN BACK OUT TO DOROTHY AND BUNDY WHERE THE POLICE CARS WERE PARKED AND THE OTHER SUPERVISORS WERE STANDING AROUND.
Q SO AT THAT POINT, WAS THERE ANYONE LEFT IN THE SCENE, THE CRIME SCENE?
A NOT IN THE CRIME SCENE ITSELF, NO. THE PERIMETER WAS STILL ESTABLISHED.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-16-2006, 08:30 AM

When the detectives were at Bundy they never had any concerns about Simpson's welfare. Commander Bushey asked Phillips to notify Simpson in person as a courtesy to Simpson instead of him having to learn about the death of his ex wife in the media..

I assume that when you say they disobeyed their commander's orders you are referring to Phillips and Fuhrman, right? No, they didn't disobey the order, they had more important things to do at the crime scene first and by about 2:30 AM Phillips learned they no longer had the case. It was up to the Robbery Homicide detectives who assumed responsibility for the case to fulfill Commander Bushey's order and that's what Lange and Vannatter did.

February 15, 1995 Ronald Phillips
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND AFTER HAVING RECEIVED THAT INFORMATION, SIR, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I WALKED BACK INTO THE RESIDENCE AND INFORMED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS A POLICE OFFICER WITH HIM, THAT THE CASE NOW BELONGED TO ROBBERY-HOMICIDE, IT WAS NO LONGER OUR INVESTIGATIVE RESPONSIBILITY AND THAT WE WERE GOING TO LEAVE THE RESIDENCE AND GO BACK OUT TO DOROTHY AND BUNDY AND AWAIT THE ARRIVAL OF THE ROBBERY-HOMICIDE DETECTIVES.
Q SO YOU NOTIFIED THE UNIFORMED OFFICER AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHO WERE INSIDE THE HOUSE?
A YES.
Q AND DID THEY THEN COME OUT WITH YOU?
A YES.
Q AND WHERE DID YOU GO?
A WALKED BACK SOUTHBOUND IN THE ALLEY TO DOROTHY AND THEN BACK OUT TO DOROTHY AND BUNDY WHERE THE POLICE CARS WERE PARKED AND THE OTHER SUPERVISORS WERE STANDING AROUND.
Q SO AT THAT POINT, WAS THERE ANYONE LEFT IN THE SCENE, THE CRIME SCENE?
A NOT IN THE CRIME SCENE ITSELF, NO. THE PERIMETER WAS STILL ESTABLISHED.

bobaugust

He did not tell them to await the arrival or robbery homocide. He ordered them to go and make the notification, not stand around drinking coffee and eating doughnuts, and talking about the last person the blankety blank MF framed. The other officers there coud have protected the integrity of the already contamined crime scene, while they went to make notification. I believe they were upset and disobeyed orders. I think the blankety blank went along because he wanted to be part of the investigation, arrest, if any, and the trial. I am sure that they could have found out Simpson's address, which was only a five minute drive away, without the assistance of the blankety blank MF. When they got no answer, they thought Simpson had fled or was fleeing and needed to make a fast and, imo, an unconstitutional search of his estate. The red spot could have been ketchup, paint, fingernail polish, or a mark from a crayon or magic marker. How did they know the manner in which Simpson normally parked on the street? It may have not been the way any of them parked their cars, but, could have been Simpson's normal parking manner. They were not in a hurry to make notification and showed no concern for his children or anyone else after they were pulled from the case. Why did they not show concern that Simpson could be another victim, immediately after discovering that Nicole was Simpson's ex-wife, instead of standing in the street drinking coffee, eating doughnuts and chatting about their past unlawfull conduct? Remember, we are speculating.

William Anthony

12-16-2006, 09:03 AM

I have not read anything about this, but would you or any of your comrades care to explain the absence of MF's fingerprints on the bloody glove that he supposedly planted at Rockingham? I mean, you'd have all us believe that MF just picked up the bloody glove at Bundy with his bare hands and stuffed that same bloody glove into one of his pockets to take to Rockingham to be planted. Yeah, right!

Is there any evidence, testimony or proof that MF was walking around Bundy from Minute 1 wearing latex gloves and carrying in his pocket(s) some plastic bags? Was MF wearing these same latex gloves driving over to Rockingham with Vanatter? Was MF wearing these same latex gloves climbing over the wall at Rockingham? If he wasn't, what happened to his used latex gloves? Just curious! :confused:

JMO and MOO!

Bailey, as an ex-marine, during his questioning told of how marines carry items in bags and in their socks. This would also explain why the glove appeared wet/shinny when it was collected. It would have been easy for him at Bundy to dispose of the latex gloves he used to collect the glove, after placing the glove in a bag and inside his sock. Once gaining, imo, illegal entry into Simpson's estate, and hearing the statement of the thumps, he could have on his solo jouney to the dark area behind Kato's quarters to look for a suspect, without his weapon drawn, gotten laytex gloves from his inside his suit jacket pocket or other sock, or pants pocket, withdrawn the glove from the bag, planted it, placed the laytes gloves inside the bag and back into his socks. Speaking of socks, since the blankety blank wore a suit, it is reasonable to speculate that he wore dress socks. Were there any pictures taken of the blankety blanks ankles prior to his departure from Rockingham? That last question is made in jest, even if the speculation is not unreasonable.:)

William Anthony

12-16-2006, 09:24 AM

Just because you start a Thread, doesn't mean that it belongs to you and you're the Boss. Coldwater locks Threads over at CTV if they go O/T. I am sure that the same rules that apply to CTV apply here at the Crime Library. If you don't agree, ask Freshwater.

It makes it easier for future reference when the Threads are started according to the subject matter and stay on subject and don't go O/T, especially if they end up on Page 2 or are Archived. Kinda like a checks and balance system if and when you want to refer back to the Thread.

That is my only reason for being so "topic oriented!" Sorry you don't get it, but I will just consider the source!

JMO and MOO!!

I have not taken ownership of any thread and only suggested how other topics may enter into a thread. It would appear that you are attempting to take control by telling posters what they should and should not post. The title of the thread does not change because other issues are on it and I fail to see how this would deter referencing of the thread. As I think you have an unnatural desire to be a moderator, I have considered the souce.

bobaugust

12-16-2006, 09:39 AM

Bailey, as an ex-marine, during his questioning told of how marines carry items in bags and in their socks. This would also explain why the glove appeared wet/shinny when it was collected. It would have been easy for him at Bundy to dispose of the latex gloves he used to collect the glove, after placing the glove in a bag and inside his sock. Once gaining, imo, illegal entry into Simpson's estate, and hearing the statement of the thumps, he could have on his solo jouney to the dark area behind Kato's quarters to look for a suspect, without his weapon drawn, gotten laytex gloves from his inside his suit jacket pocket or other sock, or pants pocket, withdrawn the glove from the bag, planted it, placed the laytes gloves inside the bag and back into his socks. Speaking of socks, since the blankety blank wore a suit, it is reasonable to speculate that he wore dress socks. Were there any pictures taken of the blankety blanks ankles prior to his departure from Rockingham? That last question is made in jest, even if the speculation is not unreasonable.:)

Fung testified that when he saw the glove there were areas on it that had a sheen or shininess. Fung testified based on his experience with blooded clothing and their appearance, it appeared to him to be dry.

Bailey's speculation is based only on speculation . Not facts. There isn't one single fact or one single shred of evidence that supports that speculation. It's absurd and discredited. Fuhrman was not wearing a jacket at Rockingham.

Triumph of Justice,
No one ever saw a second glove at Bundy. Cops were crawling all over this crime scene for two full hours before Fuhrman arrived. They found one glove only, not two. There was no second glove at Bundy to plant at Rockingham.

For many hours after the discovery of the bodies, police were canvassing the Bundy neighborhood, knocking on doors, asking what people had seen and heard. How did Fuhrman know what this would reveal? What if someone had said, "I saw four short men with ski masks come tearing out of the condo and go running south on Bundy at 10:45'? Or, It was three white guys. One had red hair, one was blond, the third was six foot eight and had rings in his nose. Their car was blocking my driveway and I go the license plate'? Where's the frame job then? How did Fuhrman know an eyewitness would not walk right up to the police and say, "I saw the murders"? If he'd planted the glove at Rockingham and they'd caught a different killer, Fuhrman would go to jail, conceivably for life.

The crime scene was swimming with blood. How did Fuhrman know whose blood that was? The real killer could have dropped gallons all over the garden. It could have been anyone's blood. The killer would have been positively identified by this blood, clearing Simpson and leaving Fuhrman exposed.

What if the glove Fuhrman supposedly planted at Rockingham was covered with someone's blood other than Simpson's? To frame Simpson you need Simpson's blood at Simpson's home. How could Fuhrman possibly know the blood on the glove was Simpson's.

What if Simpson had an air tight alibi? Fuhrman was sleeping when the cops caught the call. How did he know Simpson wasn't on an airplane or at a restaurant or making a television appearance at the time of the murders?

There are no answers to these and many, many more questions except to say that this theory of the planted glove is absurd and discredited. It didn't happened. The glove was found at Rockingham for one reason" O.J. Simpson dropped it there falling against a wall in the dark when returning from killing Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-16-2006, 10:10 AM

Mr. August,

There were at least two jurors who felt the gloves did fit and he was acting. There were other jurors felt the gloves didn't fit. However, all of them did agree that the actual fit of the gloves didn't matter. Not one juror has ever said that the glove demonstration was based on the fit of the gloves.

And, be fair Mr. August, the state had years and years of experience with evidence, do you mean to tell us that they did not know the gloves could shrink? And the DA's never counted the defense's expert on this issue. They relied on a salesman or a former salesman as their expert. The defense did not. They had a witness who conducted experiments and the results of those experiments were presented to the jury.

Like or not Mr. August, the defense matched witness for witness, expert for expert and if these experts were lying, surely the DA's could have produced witnesses who would testify to that.

Dear Limakey,

Perhaps, the most colossal blunder the prosecution made, other than the glove demonstration, was allowing Rubin to testify about his manipulation of the gloves. I wondered why JC did not object to the demonstration more vigorously. The question was not how the gloves would have fit if they were in a condition near to their original condition, but would the gloves fit him in the condition they were. His entire testimony was, imo, irrelevant, immaterial and superfluous to the issue. After his testimony, I realized how wise JC was. He trusted the jury to see the lengths the prosecution would go to in order to place Simpson's hands in those gloves. His manipulation of the gloves maligned his testimony and mutilated the prosecution's case, imo.

bobaugust

12-16-2006, 10:13 AM

He did not tell them to await the arrival or robbery homocide. He ordered them to go and make the notification, not stand around drinking coffee and eating doughnuts, and talking about the last person the blankety blank MF framed. The other officers there coud have protected the integrity of the already contamined crime scene, while they went to make notification. I believe they were upset and disobeyed orders. I think the blankety blank went along because he wanted to be part of the investigation, arrest, if any, and the trial. I am sure that they could have found out Simpson's address, which was only a five minute drive away, without the assistance of the blankety blank MF. When they got no answer, they thought Simpson had fled or was fleeing and needed to make a fast and, imo, an unconstitutional search of his estate. The red spot could have been ketchup, paint, fingernail polish, or a mark from a crayon or magic marker. How did they know the manner in which Simpson normally parked on the street? It may have not been the way any of them parked their cars, but, could have been Simpson's normal parking manner. They were not in a hurry to make notification and showed no concern for his children or anyone else after they were pulled from the case. Why did they not show concern that Simpson could be another victim, immediately after discovering that Nicole was Simpson's ex-wife, instead of standing in the street drinking coffee, eating doughnuts and chatting about their past unlawfull conduct? Remember, we are speculating.

After the case was assigned to Robbery Homicide, Philips as a West LA detective had neither the responsibility nor the authority to notify Simpson without approval from the Robbery Homicide detectives who were responsible for this case.

Lange asked both Phillips and Fuhrman to come to Rockingham with them because Fuhrman knew where Simpson's house was. Having someone lead them to the house was a lot faster than trying to find it on their own. Lange told Phillips that after they made the notification Phillips and Fuhrman could stay with Simpson and help him recover his two small children who were taken to their police station so that he and Vannatter could get back to the Bundy as quickly as possible. Lange thought they should be back in about twenty minutes or less. That plan was approved by Lange and Vannatter's supervisor.

The West LA detectives as well as the Robbery Homicide detectives didn't have any concern that Simpson could be another victim before they went to Rockingham. They had no reason to think that. It was only after how the situation developed at Rockingham that gave them that concern.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-16-2006, 10:26 AM

Fung testified based on his experience with blooded clothing and their appearance, it appeared to him to be dry.

Fuhrman was not wearing a jacket at Rockingham.

Triumph of Justice,

How did Fuhrman know an eyewitness would not walk right up to the police and say, "I saw the murders"? If he'd planted the glove at Rockingham and they'd caught a different killer, Fuhrman would go to jail, conceivably for life.

The crime scene was swimming with blood. How did Fuhrman know whose blood that was?

What if Simpson had an air tight alibi? Fuhrman was sleeping when the cops caught the call. How did he know Simpson wasn't on an airplane or at a restaurant or making a television appearance at the time of the murders?

snipped
bobaugust

We do not need Fung to tell us that dry blood does not appear shiny. Did it ever occur to you that the blankety blank MF did not wear his jacket, in order to cover up his unlawful conduct? Furman testified he saw "them". You can believe that he did not understand the question, but remember LE is trained how to testify. Others can speculate that he was lying as he admitted he would do.

He waited around to hear what the neighbors had seen. He would have only gone to jail if they could prove he planted the glove. The blankety blank was not concerned with whose blood it was; only planting evidence that would give Simpson complicity in the murders. He learned what Simpson had done and the last time he was seen from Kato, before going to plant the glove.

bobaugust

12-16-2006, 10:27 AM

Dear Limakey,

Perhaps, the most colossal blunder the prosecution made, other than the glove demonstration, was allowing Rubin to testify about his manipulation of the gloves. I wondered why JC did not object to the demonstration more vigorously. The question was not how the gloves would have fit if they were in a condition near to their original condition, but would the gloves fit him in the condition they were. His entire testimony was, imo, irrelevant, immaterial and superfluous to the issue. After his testimony, I realized how wise JC was. He trusted the jury to see the lengths the prosecution would go to in order to place Simpson's hands in those gloves. His manipulation of the gloves maligned his testimony and mutilated the prosecution's case, imo.

Rubin didn't refurbish the gloves in the criminal trial, he did that in the civil trial. Before Simpson tried the gloves on over latex gloves they had been sitting in evidence for about a year.

The condition of the gloves doesn't mean anything. What matters is would those gloves fit Simpson. They were made to fit skin tight and the only way that skin tight gloves fit properly is if they are pulled on ones fingers. Simpson didn't do that because he didn't want them to fit. But if he had wanted them to fit they would have. Please don't tell me that Simpson actually fooled you? I thought you said you had some personal experience with expensive thin leather skin tight dress gloves?

These gloves were extra large Aris Lights, the largest size manufactured in that style. The same exact same style gloves that photographs showed Simpson previously wearing several different pairs of.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-16-2006, 10:38 AM

We do not need Fung to tell us that dry blood does not appear shiny. Did it ever occur to you that the blankety blank MF did not wear his jacket, in order to cover up his unlawful conduct? Furman testified he saw "them". You can believe that he did not understand the question, but remember LE is trained how to testify. Others can speculate that he was lying as he admitted he would do.

He waited around to hear what the neighbors had seen. He would have only gone to jail if they could prove he planted the glove. The blankety blank was not concerned with whose blood it was; only planting evidence that would give Simpson complicity in the murders. He learned what Simpson had done and the last time he was seen from Kato, before going to plant the glove.

Fung did say that dried blood can have a sheen or a shine. If you think you know of any evidence that proves him false please post it. No it never occurred to me that Fuhrman didn't wear his jacket to cover up any unlawful conduct, it occurred to me that Bailey was speculating about something he didn't know very much about.

Fuhrman never said "they" referring to two gloves. He said "they" referring to two items of evidence, a glove and a hat that he saw under the plant at Bundy.

If I may I will tell you the same think you told 2. There is no evidence that there was more than one glove at Bundy and there is no evidence that Fuhrman planted any evidence in this case. If anyone states there is such evidence, then I will stand corrected, provided they post the evidence.

bobaugust

martin II

12-16-2006, 10:40 AM

martin II

12-16-2006, 10:45 AM

William Anthony

12-16-2006, 10:53 AM

Fung did say that dried blood can have a sheen or a shine. If you think you know of any evidence that proves him false please post it. No it never occurred to me that Fuhrman didn't wear his jacket to cover up any unlawful conduct, it occurred to me that Bailey was speculating about something he didn't know very much about.

Fuhrman never said "they" referring to two gloves. He said "they" referring to two items of evidence, a glove and a hat that he saw under the plant at Bundy.

If I may I will tell you the same think you told 2. There is no evidence that there was more than one glove at Bundy and there is no evidence that Fuhrman planted any evidence in this case. If anyone states there is such evidence, then I will stand corrected, provided they post the evidence.

bobaugust

I see and am delighted that you read and quote my posts. However, I was responding to her remark about standing corrected if any G said she was wrong. You and I had an agreement to engage in speculation, not to provide proof of our specualtions. Both Bailey and blankety blank were marines and Bailey knew how marined carried things. We have had the discussion and transcripts of the bankety blank's use of the word them. You can speculae that he was referring to two separate items and I can speculate that, as the transcript showed, he was speaking of two gloves. The problem is that you believe that he could have not planted the glove, because of the questions you posed from the work of fiction. However, no one ever considered that, he was planting the evidence, not to prove Simpson was the Killer, only that he was somehow involved. If Simpson had an airtight alibi, he could have said the killer came to kill Simpson, but when he fell into the wall and droped the glove and heard someone talking on the phone, the killer changed his mind. It was/could have been easy for the blankety blank MF to have planted the glove and avoided detection, as speculation shows he did.

William Anthony

12-16-2006, 10:57 AM

Rubin didn't refurbish the gloves in the criminal trial, he did that in the civil trial. Before Simpson tried the gloves on over latex gloves they had been sitting in evidence for about a year.

The condition of the gloves doesn't mean anything. What matters is would those gloves fit Simpson. They were made to fit skin tight and the only way that skin tight gloves fit properly is if they are pulled on ones fingers. Simpson didn't do that because he didn't want them to fit. But if he had wanted them to fit they would have. Please don't tell me that Simpson actually fooled you? I thought you said you had some personal experience with expensive thin leather skin tight dress gloves?

These gloves were extra large Aris Lights, the largest size manufactured in that style. The same exact same style gloves that photographs showed Simpson previously wearing several different pairs of.

bobaugust

Rubin turned those gloves inside out and manipulated the lining in the criminal trial. I said manipulate not refurbish. The condition does mean something, because they were collected in that condition on the night of the murders and, the prosecution's theory was that they were worn by the murderer on that night. The condition they would have been in, when they were comparatively new, or less worn, meant nothing.

William Anthony

12-16-2006, 11:04 AM

william

re; Rubin manipulating the gloves on the stand.

I am wondering if a judge would allow a plaintiff witness (Rubin)to stretch and manipulate EVIDENCE thereby changing the physical character of the EVIDENCE from its current or original condition when found and then allow the plaintiff to use this EVIDENCE as proof of anything in a demonstration.

martin II

No, that is why the chain of custody is required and the item is identified to be the item collected and untampered with, other than for testing, which is accounted for. The item should reflect the condition, as close to possible, as it was found; not what it would have looked like several years ago. A judge might allow it, but it is a serious appellate issue. If you are a defendant and I ask you to try on a pair of shoes and they did not fit, and, then I stretched them with a shoe stretcher and said they should fit now, do you think or anyone else that a judge should allow that. Martin, since this is your question, I think it would make an excellent new thread. Should Rubin have been allowed to manipulate the gloves?

William Anthony

12-16-2006, 11:09 AM

After the case was assigned to Robbery Homicide, Philips as a West LA detective had neither the responsibility nor the authority to notify Simpson without approval from the Robbery Homicide detectives who were responsible for this case.

Lange asked both Phillips and Fuhrman to come to Rockingham with them because Fuhrman knew where Simpson's house was. Having someone lead them to the house was a lot faster than trying to find it on their own. Lange told Phillips that after they made the notification Phillips and Fuhrman could stay with Simpson and help him recover his two small children who were taken to their police station so that he and Vannatter could get back to the Bundy as quickly as possible. Lange thought they should be back in about twenty minutes or less. That plan was approved by Lange and Vannatter's supervisor.

The West LA detectives as well as the Robbery Homicide detectives didn't have any concern that Simpson could be another victim before they went to Rockingham. They had no reason to think that. It was only after how the situation developed at Rockingham that gave them that concern.

bobaugust

That is what you believe and I watched the testimony and is not what I believe. You like to use the words common sense. They could have sent anyone to make notification and it was not dependent on who was in charge.

martin II

12-16-2006, 12:30 PM

martin II

12-16-2006, 12:47 PM

see your pm
martin II

martin II

12-16-2006, 12:52 PM

regardless of the level of quality control in the manufacturing process no two pair of any item with the same size tag is EXACTLY the same. It can be as much as a inch difference under the best circumstances especially since the gloves were sewn by a operator using a sewing machine.imo
martin ii

ojisinnocent

12-16-2006, 05:51 PM

martin II, no I never argued what you think I argued. When Simpson scaled his fence there was thick shrubbery near the fence and thick hanging foliage over the top of the fence.

When Simpson made his interview tape that foliage had been all trimmed back revealing not only the bent wire but showing that there was nothing on the Salingers side of the fence that would have prevented Simpson from getting to the fence that some people tried to argue. Only foliage and shrubbery.

bobaugust

People:

All of you need to go to wagnerandson.com and read the sections "Petrocellie's Goofy Idea" and "petrocelli's goofy idea (part 2). BA's idaea of OJ jumign over the fence is totally destroyed, eaten for lunch, obliterati4ed. This is the most disgusting art of BA's whole theory, though not the only one.

BA is the type of guy who would say "All crows ore blck" and, when you put a white crow on a talbe in front of him will then say "All crows are black"..Not that that white bird is not a crow, mind you, or that you dyed the fow white, and certainly not admitting he is wrong. No, instead BA would look straight at the crow and waky, "What crow? Where?"

bobaugust

12-16-2006, 08:12 PM

People:

All of you need to go to wagnerandson.com and read the sections "Petrocellie's Goofy Idea" and "petrocelli's goofy idea (part 2). BA's idaea of OJ jumign over the fence is totally destroyed, eaten for lunch, obliterati4ed. This is the most disgusting art of BA's whole theory, though not the only one.

John, anyone who reads what Wagner wrote will see for themselves that Wagner in no way destroys anything I've said here. Wagner used an old trick of attributing things to me that I never said and the proceeding to write how I was wrong. Wagner's arguments were based on why Simpson couldn't scale the fence at a different place than where he actually scaled it.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-16-2006, 08:57 PM

I see and am delighted that you read and quote my posts. However, I was responding to her remark about standing corrected if any G said she was wrong. You and I had an agreement to engage in speculation, not to provide proof of our specualtions. Both Bailey and blankety blank were marines and Bailey knew how marined carried things. We have had the discussion and transcripts of the bankety blank's use of the word them. You can speculae that he was referring to two separate items and I can speculate that, as the transcript showed, he was speaking of two gloves. The problem is that you believe that he could have not planted the glove, because of the questions you posed from the work of fiction. However, no one ever considered that, he was planting the evidence, not to prove Simpson was the Killer, only that he was somehow involved. If Simpson had an airtight alibi, he could have said the killer came to kill Simpson, but when he fell into the wall and droped the glove and heard someone talking on the phone, the killer changed his mind. It was/could have been easy for the blankety blank MF to have planted the glove and avoided detection, as speculation shows he did.

As I understand it, we have an agreement to discuss this case courteously. That does not change the fact that speculation based on speculation based on speculation is certainty not as credible as speculation based on facts and evidence.

The difference is an unlikely possibility compared to a likely possibility.

The transcripts clearly show that Fuhrman was speaking about two pieces of evidence when he said "them" Before and after word both he and Uelmen, who was questioning him, were both referring to ONE glove not two.

The defense later took that word out of context and put their own meanings on it as to what they wanted it to mean. That is certainly not evidence of two gloves only evidence of how a dishonest tactic can be used to deceive and distort to fit false accusations. The same false accusations you keep repeating.

The questions I posed were not from a work of fiction. They were common sense questions from Petrocelli for people who have common sense and are capable of understanding how absurd and ridiculous the claim is that Fuhrman planted the glove. The claim that Fuhrman planted evidence is based solely on the fact that he was accused of being a rac-st and supposedly would be capable of doing anything. So people who believe that claim also believe every other claim about him no matter how unsupported, unsubstantiated, or absurd and ridiculous it is.

There is not one shred of real evidence to support the claim that glove was planted and there is no doubt that when Fuhrman said "them" he was referring to a glove and a hat, not two gloves.

July 5, Mark Fuhrman
Q FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT, LOOKING DOWN ON THE VICTIMS, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY ITEMS OF EVIDENCE?
A YES, LOOKING DOWN, DIRECTLY BELOW THE LANDING, THERE -- I BELIEVE AT THAT POINT THERE WAS A HEEL PRINT WHICH APPEARED TO BE GOING IN A WESTBOUND DIRECTION, AWAY FROM THE BODIES, TOWARDS THE ALLEY. THERE WAS ALSO A KNIT CAP OR WHAT
APPEARED TO BE A KNIT CAP, DARK CAP-TYPE OBJECT, AND WHAT LOOKED LIKE A GLOVE AT THE FEET OF THE MALE VICTIM IN THE SHRUBBERY AREA JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE FEMALE VICTIM.
Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE GLOVE ANY BETTER?
A AT THAT TIME, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO SEE IT. THERE WAS ANOTHER LOCATION FROM THE NORTH RESIDENCE THAT I GOT A BETTER VIEW OF IT, A LITTLE LATER. AND THEN I NOTICED THAT IT WAS A DARK BROWN -- OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN EVEN BLACK IN THE LIGHT THAT I WAS LOOKING AT IT -- AND IT DID APPEAR TO BE A STOCKING CAP WHEN I GOT A CLOSER LOOK.
Q SO IT WAS A -- IT LOOKED TO YOU TO BE A DARK BROWN OR EVEN BLACK LEATHER GLOVE, AND A -- DID YOU SAY WHAT COLOR THE HAT WAS?
A IT WAS VERY DARK. MAYBE DARK BLUE OR BLACK.
Q KNIT CAP?
A IT APPEARED TO BE KNIT, YES.
*
Q How far would you say you were from where the bodies were located?
A I was directly above the female victim, which was probably three feet. The male victim would have been ten feet, twelve feet.
Q All right.
And from that vantage point, you first observed the glove that you told us about?
A Not first, no.
Q When did you first observe it?
A We had flashlights. We were looking at the female victim. We looked at the male victim. I noticed the glove when I walked around to the -- after I exited the residence the first time and walked around to the side -- or the north side, north perimeter of 875 Bundy. There's an iron fence and through that iron fence you can get very close to the male victim. And looking there I could see them down at his feet.
Q All right.
The glove was located at the feet of the male
victim?
A Yes.
Q What --
A At the foot. At one of the feet.
Q Was it obscured by any sort of plant?
A There was a plant that kind of cascaded over the top of one portion of it, yes. That's why it was easier to see from that location to the north.

bobaugust

deputydi

12-16-2006, 09:00 PM

We do not need Fung to tell us that dry blood does not appear shiny. Did it ever occur to you that the blankety blank MF did not wear his jacket, in order to cover up his unlawful conduct? Furman testified he saw "them". You can believe that he did not understand the question, but remember LE is trained how to testify. Others can speculate that he was lying as he admitted he would do.

He waited around to hear what the neighbors had seen. He would have only gone to jail if they could prove he planted the glove. The blankety blank was not concerned with whose blood it was; only planting evidence that would give Simpson complicity in the murders. He learned what Simpson had done and the last time he was seen from Kato, before going to plant the glove.
Just a suggestion, William. Your constant reference to Mark Fuhrman as that "blankety blank Furman" is a little childish and I'm sorry to say, it's also annoying.

How would planting the glove implicate OJ if MF didn't know it was OJs glove and he didn't know whose blood was on it. If all he wanted to do was give OJ complicity in the murders, he sure picked a risky way to do it.

limakey

12-16-2006, 10:05 PM

jotun

12-16-2006, 11:17 PM

Coldwater locks Threads over at CTV if they go O/T. I am sure that the same rules that apply to CTV apply here at the Crime Library. If you don't agree, ask Freshwater.

It makes it easier for future reference when the Threads are started according to the subject matter and stay on subject and don't go O/T, especially if they end up on Page 2 or are Archived.

2--All:
Totally agree. Why have different threads if they are ALL THE SAME ???
Apparently the LOCK rule doesn't apply here.Wish some WATER would lock the threads if O/T. Never heard that before. Sure isn't practiced on the O.J.BOARD. Have been complaining about it since June.
Very frustrating.
jotun

limakey

12-16-2006, 11:39 PM

Mr. August,

This where you run into problems on this issue.

You say they had no reason to suspect him---so why the delay on going over to Rockingham?

You say that they were sent there because of a very humane and valid reason, that they did not want Mr. Simpson to find out through the media.

However, where is this same humanity and concern for Sydney and Justin who were sitting a police station?

Also, you forget what each of the detectives testified about when they arrived at Bundy---all of them testified that they didn't know what they had, however, I believe some of them, testified that they thought is was possible, that because of brutality of the scene and the fame of OJ Simpson, that he could have been a victim as well.

Mr. August, I'm not questioning the reasons they went over there, I question their reasons for lying about it. They had at least three valid reasons for going over there, two backed up the laws they knew. The delay of going to Rockingham does not make sense because of their testimony and their actions.

A reality check here, Commander Bushey's job title, experience and responsibilities do not include compassion for the ex-spouse. His responsibility is to focus on solving the crime, not worring about the media. IMO.

Big Ben

12-17-2006, 02:15 AM

Ben,

Has your group ever investigated why Steven Swab's was even open to cross regarding the time issue? It never made any sense that after the defense suggested that perhaps Swab was wrong, that the police who he encountered did not testify on what time their encounter happened.

I have often wondered on how cops just happened to be driving up the very street on which Nicole was killed? I also wonder why Westec just happened to be around the estate when the police needed them.

limakey, We didn't find out about the shocking, initial, 11:15 PM statement by Steven Schwab, about the sighting of the Akita, until we heard Marcia Clark speaking about it on the taped audio version of her first N.Y. Times best seller on the Simpson case. That was a couple of years after both trials had ended.

My group was under the gun, attempting to find a cause of action that would help further Simpson's appeal of the Santa Monica civil verdict, within the federal court system, with no time for nothing else. We felt that there was a Const. violation of Simpson's 7th Amendment rights in as much as the 7th Amendment requires that all civil trials conducted in the U.S. must be conducted in accordance with the Rules of (English) Common Law.

Our argument was that the Judge's use of Section 1.02 of the Cal. Book of Approved Jury Instructions, which forbid the jury its exclusive right and obligation to examine the actual Juditha Brown telephone records, constituted a major abuse of discretion, and willful abrogation of the exclusive rights of the "trier of fact" (jury), to determine Simpson's fate in the Santa Monica civil trial. Thus, depriving the civil jury the right to examine the Juditha Brown telephone records, was a mechanism to deprive Simpson of his Federally protected guarantees under the 7th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and deprived him of a fair trial in the civil court.

Big Ben

12-17-2006, 02:44 AM

william

re; Rubin manipulating the gloves on the stand.

I am wondering if a judge would allow a plaintiff witness (Rubin)to stretch and manipulate EVIDENCE thereby changing the physical character of the EVIDENCE from its current or original condition when found and then allow the plaintiff to use this EVIDENCE as proof of anything in a demonstration.

martin II

Yeah! Judge bobaugust would. He doesn't have any problem with that.
The shoes to short for Simpson's feet? No Problem! Judge bobaugust's solution: Cut the toes out of the shoes and let the defendant wear them like house shoes to the gallows. Can't hold up a good hanging.

Gloves don't fit? Judge bobaugust's solution: Keep the lights down low, got to put his neck in the noose, you know.

Doesn't matter that everybody witnessing the execution may have on the same U2887 soles on 19 different pair of shoes, as long as the bottom of Simpson's feet are wearing U2887 SILGA shoe soles, adjusted to fit Simpson's extremely large feet by Judge bob, and ex-FBI scoundrel Bodziak, American justice will have been served.

2L8 4A D8

12-17-2006, 06:48 AM

I have not taken ownership of any thread and only suggested how other topics may enter into a thread. It would appear that you are attempting to take control by telling posters what they should and should not post. The title of the thread does not change because other issues are on it and I fail to see how this would deter referencing of the thread. As I think you have an unnatural desire to be a moderator, I have considered the souce.

Get off of it! CTV doesn't hire Moderators from Posters on their Forums and you would know that if you had any ******!

Going Off Topic and bringing that fact to the Poster's attention is not "telling posters what they should and should not post." Sorry that you don't agree. You just don't want to have a paper trail following you that can be used against you later. Kinda like when Netta and Rayray (Martin) were caught lying in a couple of posts! :cuss:

JMO and MOO!!

Oh, and please give my regards to Talisman29!

2L8 4A D8

12-17-2006, 06:50 AM

2L8 4A D8

12-17-2006, 06:55 AM

People:

All of you need to go to wagnerandson.com and read the sections "Petrocellie's Goofy Idea" and "petrocelli's goofy idea (part 2). BA's idaea of OJ jumign over the fence is totally destroyed, eaten for lunch, obliterati4ed. This is the most disgusting art of BA's whole theory, though not the only one.

BA is the type of guy who would say "All crows ore blck" and, when you put a white crow on a talbe in front of him will then say "All crows are black"..Not that that white bird is not a crow, mind you, or that you dyed the fow white, and certainly not admitting he is wrong. No, instead BA would look straight at the crow and waky, "What crow? Where?"

Good Gawd! 8 misspellings in 2 paragraphs. You need to be doing a lot more than reading wagnerandson.com IMO!

bobaugust

12-17-2006, 08:44 AM

bobaugust

12-17-2006, 09:04 AM

Rubin turned those gloves inside out and manipulated the lining in the criminal trial. I said manipulate not refurbish. The condition does mean something, because they were collected in that condition on the night of the murders and, the prosecution's theory was that they were worn by the murderer on that night. The condition they would have been in, when they were comparatively new, or less worn, meant nothing.

No one knows the condition the gloves were in before the murders, only that they were old gloves. The gloves were extra large the largest size manufactured in that style and the same exact style Simpson was shown in photographs to have previously worn.

The question was could Simpson have worn these skin tight extra large gloves? The answer is yes if he put them on properly and pulled them on his fingers as he would have to do with all skin tight gloves. And even then they still wouldn't have fit him like they did the night of the murders unless Simpson was wearing latex gloves underneath them at Bundy. Pulling them on ones fingers stretches the leather to make them fit better even when they were new and more so as they got older. In the demonstration Simpson never pulled them on to fit better because he didn't want them to look like they fit him.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-17-2006, 09:09 AM

bobaugust

12-17-2006, 09:28 AM

Mr. August,

It was the DA's who made the request that Simpson put the latex gloves on the first place. There is not one reason why Simpson couldn't have been made to put the gloves back on, with the latex gloves off.

Latex gloves are nothing more then a very thin but reliable second skin. Other wise, why would be be worn by doctors and surgeons?

However, you still not have addressed the real issue, why did the DA's and the civil trial lawyers use a former salesman rather then a witness who could at least be put on the level of the defense's experts?

You also bring up another point----if Simpson had several pairs of the same type of gloves, why did the DA's only focus on gloves in a pictures? I would think that if they took several very similar types of gloves from Simpson's home, it would have been a lot more convincing then Mr. Rubin.

Another point, the DA's never knew what the defense was going to do about the gloves. The insides of the gloves was a mess because of the testing that was performed. Why didn't the DA's prepare those gloves to make sure that no reason could be given on why the gloves didn't fit?

Mr. August, just for the sake of argument---lets say that you found out that the gloves that were found at both crime scenes, that, in fact, they belong to some else, would that change your mind on who was wearing those gloves that night? Would that make you change your mind on what was found on them? I really can't see you conceding the point, that if the gloves were not OJ's, then that means he didn't wear them night, that his blood then had to planted on them. I just imagine you saying this............IMO

limakey, it was Simpson's defense attorneys who demanded that Simpson wear latex gloves on underneath or they would not let him try them on.

Richard Rubin had far superior knowledge about these gloves than the defense witness, MacDonell, who used new gloves to perform some home experiments on to compare to the killer's gloves when in fact the killer's gloves were old gloves, not new gloves.

The only gloves that were found in the search of Simpson house was a pair of Aris gloves but a different style than the killer's gloves.

I doubt if the defense would have allowed the prosecutors do do anything to the gloves since they didn't want them to fit Simpson. That's why the prosecutors planned to have Simpson try on a new pair of the exact same size and style Aris gloves as the killer's gloves. Simpson would not have had to wear latex gloves under them.

I am not going to answer meaningless hypothetical questions. The fact is that Simpson was shown in photographs previously wearing the exact make and style gloves the killer wore. The fact is that all of the blood, and fiber evidence found on the killer's gloves points to Simpson, not to anyone else.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-17-2006, 09:47 AM

limakey, We didn't find out about the shocking, initial, 11:15 PM statement by Steven Schwab, about the sighting of the Akita, until we heard Marcia Clark speaking about it on the taped audio version of her first N.Y. Times best seller on the Simpson case. That was a couple of years after both trials had ended.

My group was under the gun, attempting to find a cause of action that would help further Simpson's appeal of the Santa Monica civil verdict, within the federal court system, with no time for nothing else. We felt that there was a Const. violation of Simpson's 7th Amendment rights in as much as the 7th Amendment requires that all civil trials conducted in the U.S. must be conducted in accordance with the Rules of (English) Common Law.

Our argument was that the Judge's use of Section 1.02 of the Cal. Book of Approved Jury Instructions, which forbid the jury its exclusive right and obligation to examine the actual Juditha Brown telephone records, constituted a major abuse of discretion, and willful abrogation of the exclusive rights of the "trier of fact" (jury), to determine Simpson's fate in the Santa Monica civil trial. Thus, depriving the civil jury the right to examine the Juditha Brown telephone records, was a mechanism to deprive Simpson of his Federally protected guarantees under the 7th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and deprived him of a fair trial in the civil court.

Big Ben, Marcia Clark may have only been estimating the 11:15 time because of the two time estimates Schwab told the police. Schwab testified as to what he told the police and why he called them to correct it. It's funny how you believe Marcia Clark about this but call her a liar and a criminal about everything else.

It may be your opinion that Simpson was deprived of a fair trial in the civil trial but not the opinion of any of Simpson's defense attorneys. Your opinion isn't very credible Big Ben, since every claim you have made about this has been shown to be false. If your group represented the opinions you have posted here, it's understandable why you never succeeded.

February 8, 1995 Steven Schwab
Q AND SO WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU TOLD THE POLICE AT THAT TIME WHEN YOU WERE CONFUSED AND DISORIENTED -- WHAT TIME DID YOU TELL THE POLICE THAT YOU HAD GONE -- YOU HAD FOUND THE DOG?
A FIRST -- THE FIRST TIME THAT I MENTIONED WAS 11:30 AND THEN I SAID NO, IT WAS -- IT MUST HAVE BEEN AROUND 11:00. I WAS TRYING TO GET A FIX ON IT VAGUELY. AND AS I SAID, BETTINA AND SUKRU AND MY WIFE WERE THERE AND THERE WAS A LOT OF CROSSING AND CROSS TALKING GOING ON, YOU KNOW, NO, I SAW THEN, THAT KIND OF STUFF. SO I WASN'T CLEAR. BUT THOSE WERE THE TIMES I MENTIONED INITIALLY.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-17-2006, 09:56 AM

Mr. August,

A reality check here, Commander Bushey's job title, experience and responsibilities do not include compassion for the ex-spouse. His responsibility is to focus on solving the crime, not worring about the media. IMO.

limakey, you are being very naive. Commander Bushey wasn't thinking about Simpson's feelings or compassion for him when he gave that order. He was only thinking of Simpson's celebrity and how the media would attack the police allowing this beloved African American hero to find out his exwife had been murdered from the media.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-17-2006, 09:59 AM

That is what you believe and I watched the testimony and is not what I believe. You like to use the words common sense. They could have sent anyone to make notification and it was not dependent on who was in charge.

You may have watched as well as I did but your memory for what was said is questionable. That's why the transcripts are so important.

bobaugust

martin II

12-17-2006, 10:50 AM

martin II, he either bought them, or someone else bought them and gave them to him. He evidently really liked them since they fit him skin tight and looked good.

bobaugust

bob
so you believe oj had other brand name gloves that were not Aris light gloves. What does this have to do with the murder gloves in question?
Absolutely nothing. imo
So since you have no proof you say well, he either baught them or someone MUST have given them to him.

Whatr do you think the jury was suppose to do with this MUST HAVE piece of info.

martin II

limakey

12-17-2006, 12:36 PM

Mr. August,

Wasn't it Marcia Clark who made this request after Chris Darden forced the demonstration? And there was nothing preventing the DA's for making Simpson take off the latex gloves and put the gloves back on.

Mr. Simpson's defense lawyers knew, they knew before Simpson even tried the gloves they weren't going to fit because they tried the gloves on. Shapiro and Cochran both said this in interviews.

And after the jurors and the media left the courtroom, Simpson did try the gloves on again, without the latex gloves and there was no change to the fit.

Since you refuse to answer the question, then you must feel if those gloves were not bought for Simpson, given to Simpson and owned by Simpson, then they can't possibly have been worn by Simpson to committ the murders. Interesting, very interesting.......

limakey

12-17-2006, 12:44 PM

martin II

12-17-2006, 12:59 PM

limakey

the width of oj's palm was just too wide to allow his fingers to fit into the glove. Darden got caught in some kind of macho argument with Bailey on this demonstration but he should have never made the demonstration if he did not know if the glove would fit or not. 101 lawyering.

After the glove did not fit Darden started yelling about how oj put them on but he had failed to examine ojs PALM. If he had he would have been informed as the defense was that the glove was much too small.
martin II

limakey

12-17-2006, 01:07 PM

martin II

12-17-2006, 01:27 PM

Martin,

Don't forget about the other "excuses" the media came up with the gloves not fitting----Simpson's lawyers told him to stop taking his medication so hands would swell up again--to make sure the gloves didn't fit.

limakey
I bet when darden first started preparing for the glove demonstration some media thought, YES, they have caught oj dead to right and Darden had visions of being the hero of the trial. Some in the media then gave all kinds of
reasons they glove did not fit and blamed it on j.c. and o.j. others blamed it on darden. M Clarke the lead prosecutor received little blame although she was in charge of the team.imo
martin II

martin II

12-17-2006, 01:31 PM

martin II, he either bought them, or someone else bought them and gave them to him. He evidently really liked them since they fit him skin tight and looked good.

bobaugust

bob
i would think oj had golf gloves --work gloves -football gloves --and other dress gloves. you cannot say because he owned other fitted gloves, that he owned and used the Airis gloves to murder his wife. gees.
martin II

socaldiva

12-17-2006, 01:41 PM

*snip*
Oh, and please give my regards to Talisman29!

I see you & I think alike in this regard. Don't forget "Lionthrone" ;)

martin II

12-17-2006, 02:05 PM

Good Gawd! 8 misspellings in 2 paragraphs. You need to be doing a lot more than reading wagnerandson.com IMO!

try to follow what the poster is saying instead of trying to be the spell checker. how about that?
martin II

socaldiva

12-17-2006, 02:11 PM

try to follow what the poster is saying instead of trying to be the spell checker. how about that?
martin II

Kinda hard to follow if it doesn't make any sense.

martin II

12-17-2006, 04:52 PM

Mr Rubin in his efforts to streatch the gloves, sat in court manipulating the gloves trying to "warm the gloves" in a effort to increase their size. The gloves were 'EVIDENCE". Should the judge have allowed this manipulation of the "evidence" in the civil trial. If so please explain why.
martin II

bobaugust

12-17-2006, 08:26 PM

bob
so you believe oj had other brand name gloves that were not Aris light gloves. What does this have to do with the murder gloves in question?
Absolutely nothing. imo
So since you have no proof you say well, he either baught them or someone MUST have given them to him.

Whatr do you think the jury was suppose to do with this MUST HAVE piece of info.

martin II

martin II, All of the photographs showed Simpson wearing Aris Light gloves, the same exact make and style as the killer's gloves, some in black, some in brown.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-17-2006, 08:27 PM

bob
i would think oj had golf gloves --work gloves -football gloves --and other dress gloves. you cannot say because he owned other fitted gloves, that he owned and used the Airis gloves to murder his wife. gees.
martin II

martin II, All of the photographs showed Simpson wearing Aris Light gloves, the same exact make and style as the killer's gloves, some in black, some in brown.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-17-2006, 08:34 PM

Mr. August,

You change you reasoning for the police's actions faster then the DA's and the civil trial lawyers changed the timeline!

First you say Commander Bushy's order was a humane one, to ensure Simpson didn't find out about the murders through the media.

Then you say that Commander Bushy knew Simpson was the prime suspect, knew because of the color of his skin that the media would attack his police force because of Mr. Simpson's fame.

Tell me where in Commander Bushy's job description his primary focus is to be on the media and the fame status of victims and/or suspects? Where is it written that when bodies are discovered and one of the victims is the spouse or ex-spouse of a celebrity, that celebrity status should be protected at all times? Where is the wavier that allows celebrity to over ride the rules of evidence, the stats, and every other routine procedure in conducting an investigation?

Where, prove that Commander Bushy was acting on a an established SOP? Prove it.

limakey, The notification was made for humane reasons as well as concerns about the media.

September 20, 1995
MS. CLARK: And who was in charge of that crime scene when you spoke to him at approximately 2:30 on the early morning hours of June 13th?
COMMANDER BUSHEY: He was, Detective Phillips.
MS. CLARK: And he--why did he call you?
COMMANDER BUSHEY: I was called as part of the notification process. Within the police department when certain things occur, certain notifications need to be made, and the instance of a particularly noteworthy crime, one that is likely to attract media attention, one of the things that takes place is the bureau is notified and I was the right person to notify.
MS. CLARK: Okay. So was that standard operating procedure then?
COMMANDER BUSHEY: Yes.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

12-17-2006, 10:59 PM

try to follow what the poster is saying instead of trying to be the spell checker. how about that?
martin II

If you can't read it and you can't understand it, how in the h311 can you follow it SFB? I am sure that you got the message because you're just as bad as they are when it comes to spelling errors, etc. Duh!

JMO and MOO!!

martin II

12-17-2006, 11:18 PM

I have noticed that you have problems with post from ngs that have no typos. so i do understand why you would have problems with a post exposing bob.
martinII

2L8 4A D8

12-17-2006, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by martin II

william

re; Rubin manipulating the gloves on the stand.

I am wondering if a judge would allow a plaintiff witness (Rubin)to stretch and manipulate EVIDENCE thereby changing the physical character of the EVIDENCE from its current or original condition when found and then allow the plaintiff to use this EVIDENCE as proof of anything in a demonstration.
martin II
Originally Posted by bobaugust

martin II, no one knows the original condition the gloves were in before the murders, only that they were old gloves. Stretching them would not change the size they were when they were manufactured and new. You're argument is ridiculous unless you are saying that the gloves could be stretched to a larger size then when they were manufactured or new. Is that what you're saying, martin?
bobaugust

Just thought that I would add these posts to start off your new Thread! :tongue:

JMO and MOO!!

socaldiva

12-17-2006, 11:26 PM

I have noticed that you have problems with post from ngs that have no typos. so i do understand why you would have problems with a post exposing bob.
martinII

That rambling post didn't "expose" anything about Bob. I think you are confused again.

2L8 4A D8

12-17-2006, 11:41 PM

That is what you believe and I watched the testimony and is not what I believe. You like to use the words common sense. They could have sent anyone to make notification and it was not dependent on who was in charge.

Oh, oh, don't tell me. Not only are you attending "college" to become a lawyer, but you also attended the Police Academy and that's how you know the procedures of the Police Department re: "notification!" :eek:

Yeah, right! GMAB! JMO and MOO!!

jotun

12-17-2006, 11:56 PM

The same exact same style gloves that photographs showed Simpson previously wearing several different pairs of.

bobaugust

bob

I thought nicole only baught two pairs of the gloves and she gave one pair to a friend so where did this 'SEVERAL DIFFERENT PAIRS OF' gloves come from.

Martin,
Nicole bought 2 pair of gloves.Both pair were given to Tom McCollum.He turned them over to the da's and maybe the defence.Was in 'American Tragedy' Neither ever said anything about that. Many photos of O.J in gloves were shown on tv.Most bulky gloves not tight.Dress gloves all look similar,no matter the brand.
Doubt O.J.would wear those RAGGED-gloves.Have always believed they were Nicole's gardening gloves drying on that plant.
No KILLERS wore them!!!
We were told to believe that A killer dons a knit cap and gloves.Then somehow manages to leave them all behind. Makes no sence.

jotun

limakey

12-18-2006, 12:10 AM

limakey

12-18-2006, 12:17 AM

Mr. August,

Your double talk is getting harder and harder to understand. You say no one knows the condition of the gloves were, accept they were old. If that is the case, then how do you know what size, as in measurements they were before the murders---or did all the shrinkage take place after the murders.

To say that the DA's witness was much better then the defense's witness is just fantasy on your part. The defense witness was an expert on these types of tests, his ability to make the money he charges is based on his reputation and skill.

And again Mr. August, where was the DA's expert on how blood, the freezing and unfreezing of the glove could have caused the shrinkage?

A major problem with the DA's case was that of their own witnesses. People who claimed they were professionals, yet were destroyed on the stand. It is a completely fair question to ask why the gloves, when they were collected and logged into the "murder book" were not measured. Yet, there is no way to prove that they weren't measured and that these measurements were never revealed or were lost---or they weren't written down.

limakey

12-18-2006, 12:21 AM

limakey

12-18-2006, 12:26 AM

2L8 4A D8

12-18-2006, 12:45 AM

I see you & I think alike in this regard. Don't forget "Lionthrone" ;)

:beer: Thanks for reminding me about that reincarnated nic Diva! LOL!

bobaugust

12-18-2006, 06:37 AM

Mr. August,

Again, since when do human acts and media concerns over ride a murder investigation? Commander Bushy had no obligation or duty to let these factors enter into his reasoning. His responsibilty was to the victims and at least one victim's children. IMO.

According to you, there was no wrong doing by the detectives or the cops, so why would Bushey be concerned about the media? And again, if it was for humane reason and Simpson wasn't a suspect, why the delay of going over there?

limakey, As a commanding officer in the LAPD humane treatment and media perceptions were evidently part of Commander Bushey's responsibilities. Since the Rodney King incident the LAPD became very sensitive to how they were being perceived by the media.

I have already explained to you that the delay was based on the change of responsibility for the murders from the West LA division to Robbery Homicide. The Robbery Homicide detectives came up with a plan to make the notification shortly after they learned about the order to do so.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-18-2006, 06:56 AM

Martin,

I don't know if you saw the glove demo the first time it played out. IMO, the only one who was shocked that the gloves didn't fit was Darden. Marcia Clark kept her head down and away from the camera, she knew they weren't going to fit---IMO.

While I believe Chris Darden can whine better then a two year old, I must say that it was wrong that Clark didn't even suggest to him that the gloves might fit and it was wrong the way he was froze out after that, according to him. IMO.

limakey, in her book Clark wrote that she pleaded with Darden not to do it. They had originally planned to have Simpson try on a new pair of Aris Lights extra large because they knew that since the AIDS crisis, anything bloodstained required protection. They believed the court would never let anyone try on the bloody gloves without wearing latex beneath them. And latex would screw up the fit.

When the a cardboard box arrived in court with the duplicate gloves during Rubin's testimony, Darden was to establish the fact that they were exactly the same as the killer's glove, but he had never checked them out before. When he took them out of he box and showed them to Rubin, Rubin said that they were Aris gloves, but not Aris Lights. That's when Clark told Darden to forget it they could do it another time. Clark wrote Darden would not listen to her and believed he had to have Simpson put on the killer's gloves instead of letting the defense do it.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-18-2006, 10:52 AM

Oh, oh, don't tell me. Not only are you attending "college" to become a lawyer, but you also attended the Police Academy and that's how you know the procedures of the Police Department re: "notification!" :eek:

Yeah, right! GMAB! JMO and MOO!!

No, my dear

Just common sense. I do not think that it would specifically reqiure a detective or a detective on the case. I would think that they would have followed orders, instead of chewing the fat and doughnuts and washing them down with coffee, just mo, based on common sense.

William Anthony

12-18-2006, 10:54 AM

You may have watched as well as I did but your memory for what was said is questionable. That's why the transcripts are so important.

bobaugust

I do not need to know what is said once, I have formed the opinion, that they are not telling the truth, and, as I recall, they offered sevral reasons for what remains, imho, an illegal search.

William Anthony

12-18-2006, 11:05 AM

Just a suggestion, William. Your constant reference to Mark Fuhrman as that "blankety blank Furman" is a little childish and I'm sorry to say, it's also annoying.

How would planting the glove implicate OJ if MF didn't know it was OJs glove and he didn't know whose blood was on it. If all he wanted to do was give OJ complicity in the murders, he sure picked a risky way to do it.

I am sorry that my reference to the MF annoys you. However, his actions and words annoy me. I suppose that we will have to live with the annoyance.
To espouse a theory that a race of people should be burned, is ridiculous and past childish, imh&ro. Complicity can mean accessory, solicitation, conspiracy. He could have suggested that the glove was dropped by the killer, who wanted to notify Simpson that the job was done, or show evidence that Simpson was present, if not directly involved in the killings? The fact that a glove that allegedly matched the one at the scene of the murders, despite whose blood was only it, is suspicious enough to incriminate Simpson as to having some involvement in the crime.

William Anthony

12-18-2006, 11:08 AM

Get off of it! CTV doesn't hire Moderators from Posters on their Forums and you would know that if you had any ******!

Going Off Topic and bringing that fact to the Poster's attention is not "telling posters what they should and should not post." Sorry that you don't agree. You just don't want to have a paper trail following you that can be used against you later. Kinda like when Netta and Rayray (Martin) were caught lying in a couple of posts! :cuss:

JMO and MOO!!

Oh, and please give my regards to Talisman29!

Well, if you know that they do not hire from posters, why do you continue to waste your time applying, imho&ro.

William Anthony

12-18-2006, 11:17 AM

Just thought that I would add these posts to start off your new Thread! :tongue:

JMO and MOO!!

Originally Posted by bobaugust

martin II, no one knows the original condition the gloves were in before the murders, only that they were old gloves. Stretching them would not change the size they were when they were manufactured and new. You're argument is ridiculous unless you are saying that the gloves could be stretched to a larger size then when they were manufactured or new. Is that what you're saying, martin?
bobaugust

Just thought that I would add these posts to start off your new Thread!

Again, Martin,

They did not find new gloves. They collected the gloves in the condition they were presented to Simpson to try on. There was no point to, and, imo, should not have been allowed, Rubin's manipulation. The point was not whether he ever owned a new pair of gloves that would have fit him; but whether the evidence gloves, in the condition they were collected, would have fit him on the night of the murders. Whether he was the killer or not, Rubin's unlawful demonstration represented the desperateness of the prosecution's

martin II

12-18-2006, 11:34 AM

william

Rubin could not have been on the stand when he manipulated the glove because this would mean that the judge allowed this activity.imo
martin II

William Anthony

12-18-2006, 11:55 AM

william

Rubin could not have been on the stand when he manipulated the glove because this would mean that the judge allowed this activity.imo
martin II

As I recall the testimony, he either manipulated them or told how he did from the stand. In etither event, the neither the demonstration or testimony should have been allowed, imho. I do not remember if the defense objected to it.

William Anthony

12-18-2006, 12:17 PM

William,

The defense had a huge advantage in this trial when it came to several evidence items and, IMO, they played it wisely. IMO, the defense knew the gloves weren't going to fit, they didn't anything else. Why bring up an issue that they didn't need? IMO.

Dear Limakey,

As usual you and I have found a point of agreement. JC was a master of the courtroom, and the prosecutors were his puppets.

Kayleighjo

12-18-2006, 01:52 PM

As I recall the testimony, he either manipulated them or told how he did from the stand. In etither event, the neither the demonstration or testimony should have been allowed, imho. I do not remember if the defense objected to it.

He was on the stand.

Manipulated the gloves? Come on, the condition the gloves were in when collected would not be the same condition as they were in during the course of the trial or did you miss all of the testimony on this point?

2L8 4A D8

12-18-2006, 02:01 PM

No, my dear

Just common sense. I do not think that it would specifically reqiure a detective or a detective on the case. I would think that they would have followed orders, instead of chewing the fat and doughnuts and washing them down with coffee, just mo, based on common sense.

Oh, now you say that "I would think that they would have followed orders..." That isn't what you said in your original post! JMO and MOO!!

Originally Posted by William Anthony
That is what you believe and I watched the testimony and is not what I believe. You like to use the words common sense. They could have sent anyone to make notification and it was not dependent on who was in charge.
Make up your mind!

martin II

12-18-2006, 02:18 PM

if rubin was on the stand when he as bob says "manipulated and wormed the gloves", this means that the judge allowed him manipulate the 'EVIDENCE' in the court. Does this happen frequently with evidence or was this unique to the civil trial.
martin II

2L8 4A D8

12-18-2006, 02:21 PM

Dear Limakey,

As usual you and I have found a point of agreement. JC was a master of the courtroom, and the prosecutors were his puppets.

Yeah, JC sure was because he also bamboozled all of you NG's into his puppets too! :eek:

JMO and MOO!!

William Anthony

12-18-2006, 03:11 PM

Yeah, JC sure was because he also bamboozled all of you NG's into his puppets too! :eek:

JMO and MOO!!

I have never stated that Simpson is innocent. I admire the strategy that JC used and his ability to control a courtroom. I can only recall one or two times when he showed how upset he was during the trial and, even, when engaged in heated discussions, conducted himself with a modicum of professionalism that was admirable and which I want to learn

William Anthony

12-18-2006, 03:15 PM

Oh, now you say that "I would think that they would have followed orders..." That isn't what you said in your original post! JMO and MOO!!

[/i][/b]
Make up your mind!

They could have followed orders or delegated the responsibility, instead of taking a delegation. :)

socaldiva

12-18-2006, 03:28 PM

*snip*
I am sorry that my reference to the MF annoys you. However, his actions and words annoy me. I suppose that we will have to live with the annoyance.

Why do we have to "live with the annoyance"? Aren't you able to control what you post? Your adjectives for Fuhrman are repetitive, redundant & boring at this point.

bobaugust

12-18-2006, 03:45 PM

I do not need to know what is said once, I have formed the opinion, that they are not telling the truth, and, as I recall, they offered sevral reasons for what remains, imho, an illegal search.

Actually what you think was said once. Unfortunately you have been shown to be wrong about many things you think you remembered what was said.

bobaugust

Kate Sachel

12-18-2006, 03:48 PM

Kate,

I think that he did receive favorable treatment from some of LE. Given the fact that Furman had been involved in one incident of spousal abuse and Simpson was the ex, he became an immediate suspect. If he did not become a suspect at that time, then Furman is a lousier detective than I think him to be. I think that Simpson was wrong in believing he had favorable relations with LE: it was more of a quid pro quo situation, imo. Shipp made the nature of their relationship obvious on the stand, imo. People often are confused about the nature of relationships and sometimes need to have the nature defined, imo.

If I am correct, Furman only observed one drop of blood on the Bronco, and, imho, that would not have been enough to say there was another possible victim. If they believed him to be a suspect, given the delay in their arrival time, the evidence would have most likely been destroyed by then. I honestly believe that he was a suspect and, when they did not get an answer thought he fled, and created a reason to justify their unlawful entry onto his estate.

I don't believe that the one drop blankets the entire reasoning behind why they may have assumed there was another victim inside. The detectives were told by the alarm company that someone should have been home. Given the murder of OJ Simpson's ex-wife, blood on his vehicle, and no one answering a door when someone should have been home is valid reason for alarm in my opinion.

Kate

Kate Sachel

12-18-2006, 03:54 PM

Kate,

Here is the problem of the "star struck" or the "love fest with OJ" theory. Everday "fans" of OJ Simpson or any superstar for that matter, have the luxury of being able to say, "he would never do this", "it makes no sense, he had it all"---the police on the other hand do not have this luxury. With their experience and in the area where they performed their jobs, they have seen it all. Every cop and detective knowthat domestic violence or crimes of passion, or just about any crime has no color borders, has no gender borders, has no wealth borders. And while personally these same cops and detectives might be wishing with all their might that they didn't even have to consider this person a prime suspect, it is their job.

I also find it impossible to believe that this same star would still have the same cop and detective "fans" after they arrive at the scene and see what these officers saw. IMO.

We hear stories all of the time regarding how LE allows celebrities to break the law or "get away" with things that normal civilians do not.

Vanatter made the statement that "a domestic call from ten years ago sure doesn't add up to what we saw at Bundy". That tells me that he was not finding a connection between the call that Fuhrman responded to in 1985 and Nicole's murder. I believe the comment indicated that he was not believing that OJ Simpson was a killer right away.

Kate

William Anthony

12-18-2006, 04:02 PM

I don't believe that the one drop blankets the entire reasoning behind why they may have assumed there was another victim inside. The detectives were told by the alarm company that someone should have been home. Given the murder of OJ Simpson's ex-wife, blood on his vehicle, and no one answering a door when someone should have been home is valid reason for alarm in my opinion.

Kate

It is not uncommon for people to be out and I do not know the habits of Simpson as to informing the alarm company about his, his family’s or his employee's whereabouts. Given that the drop had not been identified as blood, the whole thing does not add up to probable cause to justify the entry, therefore, the need to create exigent circumstances. Is their explanation plausible, yes? Did it ring true to me, no. As I watched them explain their reason for the entry, did I find them credible, no. Alarm is one thing, violating rights granted by case law, not the Constitution (as I misspoke) is another.

William Anthony

12-18-2006, 04:04 PM

Why do we have to "live with the annoyance"? Aren't you able to control what you post? Your adjectives for Fuhrman are repetitive, redundant & boring at this point.

Was he able to control his tongue? I like what I post and am not posting for your approval.

2L8 4A D8

12-18-2006, 04:06 PM

I have never stated that Simpson is innocent. I admire the strategy that JC used and his ability to control a courtroom. I can only recall one or two times when he showed how upset he was during the trial and, even, when engaged in heated discussions, conducted himself with a modicum of professionalism that was admirable and which I want to learn

You don't have to because you are constantly shoving that down our throats. However, as far as I am concerned (and I am sure others would agree) you do THINK that OJ is INNOCENT just as much as all of the other NG's on this Board do! JC is not an admirable role model IMO. JC knew that OJ was guilty and he played dirty and played the race card to get him off. It doesn't surprise me that you want to learn from him! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

12-18-2006, 04:10 PM

They could have followed orders or delegated the responsibility, instead of taking a delegation. :)

Oh yeah and if they did that, it could be considered "insubordination" which is grounds for termination IIRC! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

William Anthony

12-18-2006, 04:13 PM

Oh yeah and if they did that, it could be considered "insubordination" which is grounds for termation IIRC! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

And if they drank coffee and ate doughnuts and talked about planting/fabricating/tampering with evidence or otherwise ignored the order, what would that have been, iyo?

2L8 4A D8

12-18-2006, 04:16 PM

Was he able to control his tongue? I like what I post and am not posting for your approval.

No, just Kate's! :rolleyes:

weezer

12-18-2006, 04:17 PM

Why do we have to "live with the annoyance"? Aren't you able to control what you post? Your adjectives for Fuhrman are repetitive, redundant & boring at this point. there is evidence that orenthal butchered two people and they're going to give him the benefit of reasonable doubt and defend his right to walk around a free man -- there is no proof that Fuhrman did not do any of the stuff he talked about on the screenplay tapes, but we're going to persecute him. Go figure.

weezer

12-18-2006, 04:18 PM

And if they drank coffee and ate doughnuts and talked about planting/fabricating/tampering with evidence or otherwise ignored the order, what would that have been, iyo?
you keep repeating this post -- where in the world are you coming up with this scenario?

2L8 4A D8

12-18-2006, 04:19 PM

And if they drank coffee and ate doughnuts and talked about planting/fabricating/tampering with evidence or otherwise ignored the order, what would that have been, iyo?

The above is nothing but your ridiculous imagination, coupled with your hatred and distrust of LE and the LAPD IMO! :rolleyes:

William Anthony

12-18-2006, 04:21 PM

No, just Kate's! :rolleyes:

No, I do not post for anyone's approval other than the moderators. I will conduct myself in a fashion in which Kate conducts herself. We have had our disagreements, through misunderstanding. She has been civil to me and I have been likewise civil to her. It is something called human decency and respect. I did not have to earn it, she gave it and I gave her mine and she has proven to deserve it. You seem to misconstrue a lot of things, imho.

William Anthony

12-18-2006, 04:23 PM

William Anthony

12-18-2006, 04:25 PM

The above is nothing but your ridiculous imagination, coupled with your hatred and distrust of LE and the LAPD IMO! :rolleyes:

You still did not answer the question!!!

William Anthony

12-18-2006, 04:26 PM

The above is nothing but your ridiculous imagination, coupled with your hatred and distrust of LE and the LAPD IMO! :rolleyes:

Forget the first part. What do you think about them ignoring the orders?

2L8 4A D8

12-18-2006, 04:29 PM

No, I do not post for anyone's approval other than the moderators. I will conduct myself in a fashion in which Kate conducts herself. We have had our disagreements, through misunderstanding. She has been civil to me and I have been likewise civil to her. It is something called human decency and respect. I did not have to earn it, she gave it and I gave her mine and she has proven to deserve it. You seem to misconstrue a lot of things, imho.

You know who's *** to **** and that's exactly what you've did and done ~ since Day 1. This is just another pre-requisite of becoming a defense attorney.

You must be a whiz at "college!" You've been on these Boards 24/7 and still were able to study for finals. Yeah, right! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

12-18-2006, 04:33 PM

I am perfectly capable of saying what I mean. Your opiinion seems to stem not for your opinion of JC's performance as it does from the fact that he was successful, imho.

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. My opinions state no such thing and you know it! You are the ONE that thinks JC is/was successful, not me! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

12-18-2006, 04:37 PM

:punch: I am not interested in answering your baiting questions nor playing your baiting games! Go back to the sandbox and play with Martin. He's so lonesome without you!

JMO and MOO!!

socaldiva

12-18-2006, 08:41 PM

*snip*
You must be a whiz at "college!" You've been on these Boards 24/7 and still were able to study for finals. Yeah, right! :rolleyes:

I know what you mean. I didn't realize that studying law only required an hour or so a day of study/attendance. :biggrin:

sassylassy

12-18-2006, 08:54 PM

No, I do not post for anyone's approval other than the moderators. I will conduct myself in a fashion in which Kate conducts herself. We have had our disagreements, through misunderstanding. She has been civil to me and I have been likewise civil to her. It is something called human decency and respect. I did not have to earn it, she gave it and I gave her mine and she has proven to deserve it. You seem to misconstrue a lot of things, imho.

I must say->I think you and kate are 2 of the best posters here.you are always respectful to everyone even under fire.:beer: i enjoy reading what u both add to the simpson thread.

socaldiva

12-18-2006, 09:08 PM

Was he able to control his tongue? I like what I post and am not posting for your approval.

Yes he was able to "hold his tongue" & I find him to be quite articulate. He was speaking relative to a screenplay, but I guess you don't understand that no matter how many times you are told. Even Orenthal said "who cares if he used the n word" whilst driving around with that guy that was filming him & I've never heard Orenthal say that MF planted anything. During the Bronco ride he apologized to the officer he was speaking to & basically said they treated him well IIRC. I guess you missed that too. He only came up with the police misconduct, police conspiracy theory when it was spoon fed to him by lawyers that knew it was his only way out of murder that he obviously carried out. I guess you also missed the other poster that said your MF adjectives are tiring & childish.

bobaugust

12-18-2006, 09:24 PM

Forget the first part. What do you think about them ignoring the orders?

Who do you think ignored an order?

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

12-18-2006, 10:25 PM

I know what you mean. I didn't realize that studying law only required an hour or so a day of study/attendance. :biggrin:

:beer: Right on Diva! IMO, if that's all it takes maybe we should ALL become attorneys! LOL! I admire Vince Bugliosi and I would want to be just like him!

limakey

12-18-2006, 10:49 PM

limakey

12-18-2006, 10:56 PM

2Late,

Prove that JC thought OJ was guilty while he was representing him? JC was no different then many lawyers who interviewed in the early stages of the trial. When the story was leaked that Simpson's blood was found at the scene, most lawyers declared the case was over. However, that was before Simpson assembled his full team, that was before the problems of evidence were known. In fact, the former Attorney General for the US declared Simpson guilty before the prelim hearing was over.

When Mr. Simpson died, his daughter said that he always believed Simpson was innocent. When he was on Catherine Crier Live, he made a statement that he was something like 95% sure Simpson was innocent, but, as he stated, he wasn't there that night and neither was she. He also made the comment that he felt that there were two killers, which there are legal G commentators who also feel one person could not have done this alone. At least get rid of the evidence.

The only lawyer that I know of that was said to have doubts about Simpson's innocence was Robert Shapiro.

limakey

12-18-2006, 11:14 PM

Kate,

I do agree with you that many celebrities are allowed to get away things that non-celebrities wouldn't. A perfect example is how many young stars are pictured in bars well before they reach the legal age to drink. However, we are not talking about these seemingly "petty" crimes.

As for Vanatter, IMO, I believe he had a lot of problems with the evidence and with Mark Fuhrman. If you read Mark Fuhrman's book, IMO, he proves this over and over again while he is slamming Vanatter and Lange. Perfect example, Fuhrman says that he had to make decisions based on his experience and the apparent lack of response he got from Vanatter, namely when impounding the Bronco. He claims that he ordered the Bronco to be sealed off and impounded, Vanatter when over him and stopped this.

Another point, there was more then enough time for Vanatter to have been told that there was at least one more 911 phone call regarding the Simpsons.

Last point, I think it is fair to say that no detective would have been at fault for believing that his was a crime passion. The way the inside of the condo was, the way that Nicole was dressed and that there was another man who had come to see Nicole.

Kate, you have done a lot of research on this subject and I would think that many people would be surprised by how many domestic murders take place when there is no history of actual physical abuse. However, emotional abuse is another story--emotional abuse is often a trigger for many of these types of murders.

Detective Vanatter as well as the other detectives know this.

2L8 4A D8

12-18-2006, 11:41 PM

I am perfectly capable of saying what I mean. Your opiinion seems to stem not for your opinion of JC's performance as it does from the fact that he was successful, imho.

Successful isn't the word that I would use to describe JC! If JC had played fair and not played dirty, then I would agree with you. But he didn't. That's why I posted that it doesn't surprise me that you want to "learn" from him. I just consider the source and that Birds of a Feather, Flock Together!

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

12-19-2006, 12:03 AM

Mr. August,

You can't be serious! The AIDS crisis? Are you kidding me? Marcia Clard didn't plead with Darden because, IMO, in order to plead, you have to tell the truth. When does she say to him, "Chris, they aren't going to fit?"

In fact, saying that they would do it later or let the defense do it makes no sense if you are telling this jury that those gloves are in fact, OJ Simpson's. No, again, Clark played games with her co-counsel, a co-counsel who was really getting it from all insides, however, as much as I think Chris Darden was a whiner, I do believe that he was truly tormented over this case.

By allowing Darden to do the demonstration, she was the one who put the final nail in Darden's coffin in the eyes of many people---of all races. And really, Mr. August, when did Clark take responsibililty for anything in that trial?

limakey, I don't know how old you are but back in the nineties the AIDS crisis was a big deal and it was understood that it could be spread by coming in contact with infected blood. That's the reason Simpson wore latex gloves underneath the bloody gloves.

Clark knew that latex gloves would affect the fit and that if they let Simpson try on the bloody gloves no one could have kept him from pulling the shenanigans that he did. Simpson splayed his hands like a two year old to keep the gloves from being pulled down over his fingers. The only people he fooled were very gullible people, evidently like you.

Clark warned Darden and told him not to do it but she couldn't dissuade him. He was determined telling her Rubin was his witness not hers.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

12-19-2006, 04:55 AM

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 09:00 AM

Successful isn't the word that I would use to describe JC! If JC had played fair and not played dirty, then I would agree with you. But he didn't. That's why I posted that it doesn't surprise me that you want to "learn" from him. I just consider the source and that Birds of a Feather, Flock Together!

JMO and MOO!!

The court system is not the forum for deciding what is fair, except theoretically in a suit in equity. The system is designed to bring a resolution to disputes based on the ability of the adversaries to meet their respective burdens of production and persuasion. The concept of playing dirty does not enter into it. If he had done something unlawful, then I could understand. However, since he did not, I fail to understand your post.

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 09:03 AM

Forget the first part. What do you think about them ignoring the orders?

Typical!!! Cannot answer, call it baiting, imh&ro.

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 09:13 AM

Who do you think ignored an order?

bobaugust

Here is your post;

"There was no reason for Commander Bushey to lie. He explained why he gave that order to Phillips and when the case was turned over to Robbery Homicide he testified he reiterated his order that Simpson be notified as soon as possible."

Thus, it made no difference which LE department was in charge. The commander gave an order, which was not obey and he had to reiterate that order.

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 09:19 AM

He was on the stand.

Manipulated the gloves? Come on, the condition the gloves were in when collected would not be the same condition as they were in during the course of the trial or did you miss all of the testimony on this point?

Then there is addition reasons not to allow the testimony, as the evidence did not reflect the conditon it was in when collected, unless he had some manner of restoring them to that condition. He testified to shrinkage, but had no way of knowing what these gloves had undergone, prior to the murders. His entire testimony was a sham and the jury picked up on it, imho.

martin II

12-19-2006, 09:54 AM

Then there is addition reasons not to allow the testimony, as the evidence did not reflect the conditon it was in when collected, unless he had some manner of restoring them to that condition. He testified to shrinkage, but had no way of knowing what these gloves had undergone, prior to the murders. His entire testimony was a sham and the jury picked up on it, imho.

Correct
Rubin testified to the lenghts of the gloves but never to the WIDTH of the glove at the palm area. Oj's palm was wider than normal. I agree with you on the issue of what was the condition of the gloves when they were collected on 6/13. That is the only condition that was important.imo
Rubin tried to bum rush the jury and they saw straight through this.Whe he had to admit that 3 cc of liquid would not change the glove he was done.

Martin II

martin II

12-19-2006, 09:58 AM

my quesiton is

What basis did the judge use to justify, by law, to allow rubin to manipulate EVIDENCE on the stand.

martin II

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 09:58 AM

The above is nothing but your ridiculous imagination, coupled with your hatred and distrust of LE and the LAPD IMO! :rolleyes:

You are doomed not to believe me, as I have made it clear, I do not hate anyone. It is a wasted emotion. I do distrust and dislike, even hate, people's actions. I place my trust in Him to whom it rightly belongs. Does this mean that I question reports and testimony, yes?

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 10:03 AM

my quesiton is

What basis did the judge use to justify, by law, to allow rubin to manipulate EVIDENCE on the stand.

martin II

Martin,

The judge has a wide lattitude in admitting evidence, rightly and wrongly, and, normally, his decision will not be overturned unless it is "clearly erroneous" and resulted in "harmful error". What constitutes those phrases is the subject matter of numerous appeals.

Kate Sachel

12-19-2006, 10:37 AM

Kate, you have done a lot of research on this subject and I would think that many people would be surprised by how many domestic murders take place when there is no history of actual physical abuse. However, emotional abuse is another story--emotional abuse is often a trigger for many of these types of murders.

Detective Vanatter as well as the other detectives know this.

According to The Commission on Domestic Homicide Fatalities, a pattern of physical violence precedes the homicide in 70% of cases. That leaves only 30% with no known history of physical abuse.

70% is a remarkably high number, and my guess is that the percantage is even higher since information obtained and researched is based on known facts, but how many physically abusive relationships are kept private? Many.

Kate

martin II

12-19-2006, 11:10 AM

Martin,

The judge has a wide lattitude in admitting evidence, rightly and wrongly, and, normally, his decision will not be overturned unless it is "clearly erroneous" and resulted in "harmful error". What constitutes those phrases is the subject matter of numerous appeals.

william
would this be the same if one side had manipulated blood samples. or a cap.
martinii

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 11:23 AM

william
would this be the same if one side had manipulated blood samples. or a cap.
martinii

I do not understand your question as to blood samples. If someone does something to alrter the sizs of an item, other than for testing, I think there may be a serious issue for appeal.

martin II

12-19-2006, 11:27 AM

I do not understand your question as to blood samples. If someone does something to alrter the sizs of an item, other than for testing, I think there may be a serious issue for appeal.

is there a difference in altering evidence based on that the evidence is?
Is altering a blood sample the same as altering the fit of a glove.
martin II

martin II

12-19-2006, 11:31 AM

is altering the size of a glove the same as altering a blood sample.
martin II

martin II

12-19-2006, 11:35 AM

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 11:57 AM

is there a difference in altering evidence based on that the evidence is?
Is altering a blood sample the same as altering the fit of a glove.
martin II

I think where I had confusion was with your meaning of altering and manipulating. The experts manipulate blood stains for the purpose of testing (RFLP). Altering to me means to change the evidence in some manner, as by streching. That form of altering would also be manipulation. I do not think that RFLP changes the sample but only amplifies it. Also, I think that some manipulation of the evidence may be permitted, depending on what the evidence is and the purpose of the manipulation. The purpose of the manipulating the glove was, imho, irrelevant, because it did not show how the glove fit on the night of the murders, only that it should have fit him if they were in a condition that was nearly new. The evidence was that these gloves were old and had been worn. No, I do not think that sort of manipulation and testimony should have been allowed. If memory serves me, Simpson was asked to put the gloves on while Rubin was on the stand, and Rubin was to testify as to the fit. I think that the other testimony he provided was not proper, in that the prosecution was impeaching their own witness, or they could have been trying to rehabilitate him. In any event, I do not see him being able to testify that the gloves should have fit, only whether they did or not when Simpson put them on.

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 12:02 PM

William

for me all evidence has the same status. No evidence is to be tampered with especially in a cout room on the stand. I think this would be standard rules of evidence handeling.

So i am surprised that this would be allowed.
martin II

Martin,

Most evidence is tampered with on the stand; either by touching or moving or inspecting. Manipulation and altering of evidence is different from tampering to me. The form of manipulation/altering/tampering that Rubin engaged in should never have been allowed for the purposes that he manipulated/altered/ tampered with the evidence, imho.

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 12:53 PM

there is evidence that orenthal butchered two people and they're going to give him the benefit of reasonable doubt and defend his right to walk around a free man -- there is no proof that Fuhrman did not do any of the stuff he talked about on the screenplay tapes, but we're going to persecute him. Go figure.

Your post is entirely true. Thank you.

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 12:58 PM

You know who's *** to **** and that's exactly what you've did and done ~ since Day 1. This is just another pre-requisite of becoming a defense attorney.

You must be a whiz at "college!" You've been on these Boards 24/7 and still were able to study for finals. Yeah, right! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

You are right again. Although my GPA this semister will not be as high as it was at the collge I attended, when I obtained my degree, it will still be high enough for the dean's list, I believe. I have devoted too much time to this board, but that is for other reasons that do not concern you. I find debate better than drinking, in my case.

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 01:06 PM

Yes he was able to "hold his tongue" & I find him to be quite articulate. He was speaking relative to a screenplay, but I guess you don't understand that no matter how many times you are told. Even Orenthal said "who cares if he used the n word" whilst driving around with that guy that was filming him & I've never heard Orenthal say that MF planted anything. During the Bronco ride he apologized to the officer he was speaking to & basically said they treated him well IIRC. I guess you missed that too. He only came up with the police misconduct, police conspiracy theory when it was spoon fed to him by lawyers that knew it was his only way out of murder that he obviously carried out. I guess you also missed the other poster that said your MF adjectives are tiring & childish.

You must have missed the criminal trial. He was not speaking to the screen play when he said, if he went down the case goes down. I am amazed at how you will try to circumvent what he said and admitted to. I do not care what the other poster said and will continue to state what the blankety blank admitted to, and, you can choose to believe it was in the context of a screen play, if that will allow you to sleep better (less tired). I do not care what Simpson said, as I do not have his feelings. I know how hearing the words affected me.

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 01:11 PM

:beer: Right on Diva! IMO, if that's all it takes maybe we should ALL become attorneys! LOL! I admire Vince Bugliosi and I would want to be just like him!

I think that depends on a lot of things, such as one's experience, reading comprehension, background, ability to remember, and ability to weed out the irrelevant. I am not surprised that you would not understand this. I admire JC and Morris Dees and desire to be like them.

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 01:17 PM

I must say->I think you and kate are 2 of the best posters here.you are always respectful to everyone even under fire.:beer: i enjoy reading what u both add to the simpson thread.

My lovely lassy,

I have saved the best for last in order to savor every precious morsel. Oh boy, I'll bet they will say that is childish. I thank you for the recognition and hope that you will post here more frequently. I am sure that, because Kate has proven to be a LADY, she will also thank you. While I enjoy the discussions of women, I relish in the conversations of LADIES.

THANKS AGAIN,

LOVELY LADY

martin II

12-19-2006, 01:21 PM

:beer: Right on Diva! IMO, if that's all it takes maybe we should ALL become attorneys! LOL! I admire Vince Bugliosi and I would want to be just like him!

2l

some retain information with less effort than others. Since i now know that old vince is your hero, i now understand your post more clearly.imo
martin II

martin II

12-19-2006, 01:24 PM

martin II

12-19-2006, 01:27 PM

I must say->I think you and kate are 2 of the best posters here.you are always respectful to everyone even under fire.:beer: i enjoy reading what u both add to the simpson thread.

SASSY
Dont leave yourself out. I enjoy your post also.

:beer:
martin II

bobaugust

12-19-2006, 01:38 PM

Here is your post;

"There was no reason for Commander Bushey to lie. He explained why he gave that order to Phillips and when the case was turned over to Robbery Homicide he testified he reiterated his order that Simpson be notified as soon as possible."

Thus, it made no difference which LE department was in charge. The commander gave an order, which was not obey and he had to reiterate that order.

Commander Bushey did not reiterate his order to Phillips, he reiterated his order to Captain Dial after being informed that the case was being turned over to Robbery Homicide to investigate.

COMMANDER BUSHEY: I explained to Captain Dial that even though robbery/homicide had taken over the investigation and even though robbery/homicide was not in the--the chain of command of West Bureau, as a staff officer of the Los Angeles Police Department I reiterated my order and I wanted robbery/homicide to find Mr. Simpson as soon as possible and ensure that the notification took place, and I reiterated my rationale as to why I insisted that occur.

I ask you again, who do you think ignored or disobeyed Commander Bushey's order?

bobaugust

martin II

12-19-2006, 01:41 PM

I think where I had confusion was with your meaning of altering and manipulating. The experts manipulate blood stains for the purpose of testing (RFLP). Altering to me means to change the evidence in some manner, as by streching. That form of altering would also be manipulation. I do not think that RFLP changes the sample but only amplifies it. Also, I think that some manipulation of the evidence may be permitted, depending on what the evidence is and the purpose of the manipulation. The purpose of the manipulating the glove was, imho, irrelevant, because it did not show how the glove fit on the night of the murders, only that it should have fit him if they were in a condition that was nearly new. The evidence was that these gloves were old and had been worn. No, I do not think that sort of manipulation and testimony should have been allowed. If memory serves me, Simpson was asked to put the gloves on while Rubin was on the stand, and Rubin was to testify as to the fit. I think that the other testimony he provided was not proper, in that the prosecution was impeaching their own witness, or they could have been trying to rehabilitate him. In any event, I do not see him being able to testify that the gloves should have fit, only whether they did or not when Simpson put them on.

william
thanks that is my point also.
martin II

bobaugust

12-19-2006, 02:07 PM

Martin,

Most evidence is tampered with on the stand; either by touching or moving or inspecting. Manipulation and altering of evidence is different from tampering to me. The form of manipulation/altering/tampering that Rubin engaged in should never have been allowed for the purposes that he manipulated/altered/ tampered with the evidence, imho.

I disagree with your opinion and evidently so did the judge. All Rubin did was work the gloves back close to the shape they had previously been when they were worn by the killer. The fact is that the killer's gloves were the exact same make and style that Simpson was shown previously wearing in photographs. They were also the largest size glove manufactured in that style.

In the criminal trial when Simpson originally tried them on they fit him. Not a great fit because he didn't make any attempt to make them fit better, but they went on his hands. In the civil trial Simpson and his attorneys understood that if he tried the gloves on after Rubin refurbished them and again made no attempt to make them fit they would have still fit better than they did before. So they played the criminal trial glove demonstration video instead.

bobaugust

martin II

12-19-2006, 02:38 PM

I disagree with your opinion and evidently so did the judge. All Rubin did was work the gloves back close to the shape they had previously been when they were worn by the killer. The fact is that the killer's gloves were the exact same make and style that Simpson was shown previously wearing in photographs. They were also the largest size glove manufactured in that style.

In the criminal trial when Simpson originally tried them on they fit him. Not a great fit because he didn't make any attempt to make them fit better, but they went on his hands. In the civil trial Simpson and his attorneys understood that if he tried the gloves on after Rubin refurbished them and again made no attempt to make them fit they would have still fit better than they did before. So they played the criminal trial glove demonstration video instead.

bobaugust

bob
ok so what was the exact size of the gloves on the morning they were collected. The morning after the killer used them.
martin II

bobaugust

12-19-2006, 02:44 PM

bob
ok so what was the exact size of the gloves on the morning they were collected. The morning after the killer used them.
martin II

martin II, all we know about the size of the gloves when they were collected was they were extra large gloves.

bobaugust

martin II

12-19-2006, 02:49 PM

martin II, all we know about the size of the gloves when they were collected was they were extra large gloves.

bobaugust

extra large gloves but not to original extra large specs. So on the morning
of 6/12 the gloves could have shrunk 10- 11% from the original size as you think and would have been too small for ojs extra wide hands on the night of 6/12
martin II

bobaugust

12-19-2006, 02:56 PM

extra large gloves but not to original extra large specs. So on the morning
of 6/12 the gloves could have shrunk 10- 11% from the original size as you think and would have been too small for ojs extra wide hands on the night of 6/12
martin II

martin II, Rubin measured the gloves in the criminal trial a year after the murders and found then to be between 10 and 11 percent smaller than the standard extra large size they would have been manufactured to.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 03:03 PM

I disagree with your opinion and evidently so did the judge. All Rubin did was work the gloves back close to the shape they had previously been when they were worn by the killer. The fact is that the killer's gloves were the exact same make and style that Simpson was shown previously wearing in photographs. They were also the largest size glove manufactured in that style.

In the criminal trial when Simpson originally tried them on they fit him. Not a great fit because he didn't make any attempt to make them fit better, but they went on his hands. In the civil trial Simpson and his attorneys understood that if he tried the gloves on after Rubin refurbished them and again made no attempt to make them fit they would have still fit better than they did before. So they played the criminal trial glove demonstration video instead.

bobaugust

As I have stated the judge's rulings can be wrong. There was no way for Rubin or anyone else to know what size the gloves were on the day of the murders. The defense understood that the manipulation was improper and irrelevant. This is not to say that I do not respect or understand from where your opinion comes.

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 03:08 PM

Commander Bushey did not reiterate his order to Phillips, he reiterated his order to Captain Dial after being informed that the case was being turned over to Robbery Homicide to investigate.

COMMANDER BUSHEY: I explained to Captain Dial that even though robbery/homicide had taken over the investigation and even though robbery/homicide was not in the--the chain of command of West Bureau, as a staff officer of the Los Angeles Police Department I reiterated my order and I wanted robbery/homicide to find Mr. Simpson as soon as possible and ensure that the notification took place, and I reiterated my rationale as to why I insisted that occur.

I ask you again, who do you think ignored or disobeyed Commander Bushey's order?

bobaugust

:read: your own post.

martin II

12-19-2006, 03:14 PM

martin II, Rubin measured the gloves in the criminal trial a year after the murders and found then to be between 10 and 11 percent smaller than the standard extra large size they would have been manufactured to.

bobaugust

so then i must assume that this was the size fo the gloves on 6/12/ night
which would have made then too small for oj's extra large wide hands
martin II

bobaugust

12-19-2006, 03:26 PM

:read: your own post.

I guess you must be afraid to name the person you are accusing of disobeying an order since you probably realized you don't really know that he did. Let me help you out here. I assume you are referring to Phillips, right?

Phillips did not disobey the order, he never had a chance to comply with it. The situation changed when the case was given to Robbery Homicide.

September 20, 1995
MR. COCHRAN: Now, at some point you became aware that Ron Phillips and mark Fuhrman were taken off this case; isn't that correct? It was taken over by robbery/homicide downtown?
COMMANDER BUSHEY: Taken over by robbery/homicide would be a better term.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Taken over by them?
COMMANDER BUSHEY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: So they were basically off the case at that point? It was handled by Vannatter and Lange, right?
COMMANDER BUSHEY: Well, they would continue to assist subordinate to Vannatter and Lange. That would be our common practice.
MR. COCHRAN: They would then be in charge, right?
COMMANDER BUSHEY: Vannatter and Lange would, that's correct.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

12-19-2006, 03:32 PM

I think that depends on a lot of things, such as one's experience, reading comprehension, background, ability to remember, and ability to weed out the irrelevant. I am not surprised that you would not understand this. I admire JC and Morris Dees and desire to be like them.

You can cut with the "Holier Than Thou" attitude and the sooner, the better. It's right up there with the "Blankety Blank Blank Mark Fuhrman!" However, I know that it's not going to happen, as it did no good for Deputy Di to say anything to you about it. I just consider the source and the fact that Talisman29 is alive and well!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

12-19-2006, 03:35 PM

I like Morris Dees also.
MARTIN ii:beer:

Ah, I was wondering how long it was going to take to hear from WA's Puppet again! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 03:38 PM

You can cut with the "Holier Than Thou" attitude and the sooner, the better. It's right up there with the "Blankety Blank Blank Mark Fuhrman!" However, I know that it's not going to happen, as it did no good for Deputy Di to say anything to you about it. I just consider the source and the fact that Talisman29 is alive and well!

JMO and MOO!!

I will stop when you and others do. Deputy di has a right to his feelings and I have a righ to mine. Here is what started the alleged hollier than thou attitude;

Originally Posted by 2L8 4A D8
*snip*
You must be a whiz at "college!" You've been on these Boards 24/7 and still were able to study for finals. Yeah, right!

I know what you mean. I didn't realize that studying law only required an hour or so a day of study/attendance.

If you do not want to be posted to in the manner that I did, then remember the Golden Rule, and, I hope that you have been taught it.

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 03:44 PM

I guess you must be afraid to name the person you are accusing of disobeying an order since you probably realized you don't really know that he did. Let me help you out here. I assume you are referring to Phillips, right?

Phillips did not disobey the order, he never had a chance to comply with it. The situation changed when the case was given to Robbery Homicide.

September 20, 1995
MR. COCHRAN: Now, at some point you became aware that Ron Phillips and mark Fuhrman were taken off this case; isn't that correct? It was taken over by robbery/homicide downtown?
COMMANDER BUSHEY: Taken over by robbery/homicide would be a better term.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Taken over by them?
COMMANDER BUSHEY: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: So they were basically off the case at that point? It was handled by Vannatter and Lange, right?
COMMANDER BUSHEY: Well, they would continue to assist subordinate to Vannatter and Lange. That would be our common practice.
MR. COCHRAN: They would then be in charge, right?
COMMANDER BUSHEY: Vannatter and Lange would, that's correct.

bobaugust

And what does who is in charge of a crime scene or investigation have to do with obeying a prior order from your commander. The fact that they were off the case gave them more opportunity to follow the orders, as JC's questions implied.

bobaugust

12-19-2006, 03:49 PM

so then i must assume that this was the size fo the gloves on 6/12/ night
which would have made then too small for oj's extra large wide hands
martin II

martin II, the gloves could very well have been the same size before the murders as they were found to be later. They were old gloves. The only difference is that when Simpson put them on before committing the murders he would have pulled them on his fingers stretching them to fit. Just as Rubin did when he refurbished them in the civil trial.

The gloves were extra large and were never too small for Simpson's hands. He just made it look that way to fool gullible people. Not only would the fingers stretch to fit skin tight, so would the palm.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 03:52 PM

bobaugust

12-19-2006, 03:56 PM

And what does who is in charge of a crime scene or investigation have to do with obeying a prior order from your commander. The fact that they were off the case gave them more opportunity to follow the orders, as JC's questions implied.

When the case was turned over to Robbery Homicide the responsibility to notify was their decision, not Phillips responsibly. He understood that as well as Commander Bushey understood that. That's why he reiterated the order to Captain Dial to inform Robbery Homicide.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

12-19-2006, 03:57 PM

I will stop when you and others do. Deputy di has a right to his feelings and I have a righ to mine. Here is what started the alleged hollier than thou attitude;

Originally Posted by 2L8 4A D8
*snip*
You must be a whiz at "college!" You've been on these Boards 24/7 and still were able to study for finals. Yeah, right!

I know what you mean. I didn't realize that studying law only required an hour or so a day of study/attendance.

If you do not want to be posted to in the manner that I did, then remember the Golden Rule, and, I hope that you have been taught it.

From Day 1 on this Board and these Threads, you started with your "Holier Than Thou" attitude. It hasn't just been recently, Talisman29!

JMO and MOO!!

martin II

12-19-2006, 04:02 PM

Ah, I was wondering how long it was going to take to hear from WA's Puppet again! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

you should curb you need to make these personal attacks on me and others. It adds nothing to the discussion. imo
martin II

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 04:07 PM

From Day 1 on this Board and these Threads, you started with your "Holier Than Thou" attitude. It hasn't just been recently, Talisman29!

JMO and MOO!!

I beg to differ. I have not authoratatively said that anyone is anything, other than the blankety blank MF and that is because he admitted to those things. If my refusal to label people is a hollier than thou attitude, iyo, then so be it.

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 04:10 PM

When the case was turned over to Robbery Homicide the responsibility to notify was their decision, not Phillips responsibly. He understood that as well as Commander Bushey understood that. That's why he reiterated the order to Captain Dial to inform Robbery Homicide.

bobaugust

He gave a direct order to Phillips and there was nothing preventing him from complying other than, imo, his jealousness over being dismissed. What did you truly expect Bushey to say, after no disciplining him. In your words, use common sense. A celebrity should not be immediately notified when you are afraid of the media attention?

martin II

12-19-2006, 04:18 PM

martin II, the gloves could very well have been the same size before the murders as they were found to be later. They were old gloves. The only difference is that when Simpson put them on before committing the murders he would have pulled them on his fingers stretching them to fit. Just as Rubin did when he refurbished them in the civil trial.

The gloves were extra large and were never too small for Simpson's hands. He just made it look that way to fool gullible people. Not only would the fingers stretch to fit skin tight, so would the palm.

bobaugust

bob

i gave you a link and a picture of what the important glove measurement are.

one was a measurement of the palm of the hand inside the thumb area to the outter edge of the hand. This area dictates whether the fingers can move to the tip of the glove. Rubin gave no measurement for this area of the glove. He measured only from the top to the tip of the fingers.

so you repeating the gloves were extra large means absolutely nothing. Oj's hand was larger than the extra large glove rubin played with. it is that simple.

The prosecution thought that the jury could be sandagged by MR RUBIN the EX vp of the company. he thought that he was talking about stuff that they would give him a pass on. It didn't work.
He was a hired gun came all the way to la to get his name in the papers and establish himself as a glove expert. what he really wanted was to mix and mingle at the prosecutions victory party which never happened. imo
martin II:lol:

martin II

12-19-2006, 04:24 PM

If they fit Rubin, then perhaps he is the murderer.

rubin measured the lenght of the gloves at 93/4 inches top to tip.
i never saw any measurement he made for the width of the hand/glove.

He was a total flake for a expert. A hired gun looking for a party.
martin II

bobaugust

12-19-2006, 04:25 PM

He gave a direct order to Phillips and there was nothing preventing him from complying other than, imo, his jealousness over being dismissed. What did you truly expect Bushey to say, after no disciplining him. In your words, use common sense. A celebrity should not be immediately notified when you are afraid of the media attention?

Bushey's order was not because he was afraid of media attention He testified that based on his experience in a previously celebrity case he was trying to prevent the same problems from happening again. His order did not put a time limit on the notification, only as soon as possible.

Phillips and Fuhrman were still conducting their initial investigation when Phillips was told the case was turned over to Robbery Homicide. He knew that he had no more authority or responsibility and stopped everything they were doing until the detectives who were responsible for the case arrived.

Commander Bushey agreed that Phillips did the right thing.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-19-2006, 04:29 PM

Bushey's order was not because he was afraid of media attention He testified that based on his experience in a previously celebrity case he was trying to prevent the same problems from happening again. His order did not put a time limit on the notification, only as soon as possible.

Phillips and Fuhrman were still conducting their initial investigation when Phillips was told the case was turned over to Robbery Homicide. He knew that he had no more authority or responsibility and stopped everything they were doing until the detectives who were responsible for the case arrived.

Commander Bushey agreed that Phillips did the right thing.

bobaugust

What did you expect him to testify to? I think we all know what ASAP means.

bobaugust

12-19-2006, 04:33 PM

rubin measured the lenght of the gloves at 93/4 inches top to tip.
i never saw any measurement he made for the width of the hand/glove.

martin II, Rubin was an expert about Aris gloves. He didn't have to measure the width of the glove, He knew these gloves would stretch to fit Simpson's extra wide palm. That's what thin leather does to fit skin tight.

Simpson evidently wore these kind of gloves because they fit his extra wide palm better than other gloves. Evidence of that are the different photographs showing Simpson wearing different pairs of the exact same gloves in different colors.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-19-2006, 04:38 PM

What did you expect him to testify to? I think we all know what ASAP means.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You are disappointed he didn't do it right away; isn't that correct, also?
COMMANDER BUSHEY: Well, the--there is a lot of other things that needed to be done. That was not the only thing that needed to be done. And remember, I said as soon as possible and "Possible" means when it is practicable within the scope of the investigation.

bobaugust

sassylassy

12-19-2006, 09:07 PM

My lovely lassy,

I have saved the best for last in order to savor every precious morsel. Oh boy, I'll bet they will say that is childish. I thank you for the recognition and hope that you will post here more frequently. I am sure that, because Kate has proven to be a LADY, she will also thank you. While I enjoy the discussions of women, I relish in the conversations of LADIES.

THANKS AGAIN,

LOVELY LADY

awww thanks!

your just to sweet :)

sassylassy

12-19-2006, 09:09 PM

SASSY
Dont leave yourself out. I enjoy your post also.

:beer:
martin II

right back at ya Martin!:seeya:

2L8 4A D8

12-19-2006, 10:26 PM

you should curb you need to make these personal attacks on me and others. It adds nothing to the discussion. imo
martin II

And you think that you add anything to the discussions on this Board? Again, it is my opinion. Sorry that you don't like it, but if the truth hurts...

JMO and MOO!!

socaldiva

12-19-2006, 10:54 PM

*snip*You must have missed the criminal trial. He was not speaking to the screen play when he said, if he went down the case goes down.

WTH are you talking about now? I didn't miss the criminal trial, but based on your posts I know you did. My post was NOT in relation to the statement you are talking about here. You are confused.

socaldiva

12-19-2006, 10:57 PM

:beer: Right on Diva! IMO, if that's all it takes maybe we should ALL become attorneys! LOL! I admire Vince Bugliosi and I would want to be just like him!

I agree. I think Mr Bugliosi is a brilliant man & I have the utmost respect for him. Too bad he & Nancy Grace didn't prosecute Orenthal's sorry azz.

2L8 4A D8

12-19-2006, 11:12 PM

I agree. I think Mr Bugliosi is a brilliant man & I have the utmost respect for him. Too bad he & Nancy Grace didn't prosecute Orenthal's sorry azz.

Very good Diva! :beer: God have mercy on anyone who came before them to be prosecuted! LOL!

sassylassy

12-19-2006, 11:20 PM

If he collided with that wall hard enough to make Kato think there had been an earthquake and on three occasions, there would have been some bruising.

you would think so!

that would have been some fall!:beer:

AmyW

12-19-2006, 11:50 PM

Wow, I'm making my way through the mess that is this thread. My first comment is to "Big Ben".... Plug much? Geez...:punch:

2L8 4A D8

12-20-2006, 01:19 AM

The court system is not the forum for deciding what is fair, except theoretically in a suit in equity. The system is designed to bring a resolution to disputes based on the ability of the adversaries to meet their respective burdens of production and persuasion. The concept of playing dirty does not enter into it. If he had done something unlawful, then I could understand. However, since he did not, I fail to understand your post.

I am sure that you won't fail to understand this ~ He must have done something unlawful because he was too young to have died. But to have died of what he did, was even worse! It's called Karma: What goes around, Comes around!

JMO and MOO!!

Kate Sachel

12-20-2006, 08:28 AM

I must say->I think you and kate are 2 of the best posters here.you are always respectful to everyone even under fire.:beer: i enjoy reading what u both add to the simpson thread.

Thank you.

I just believe that everyone starts out deserving the utmost respect, and even if I am faced with someone who chooses not to be respectful in return I still practice tolerance.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and as such is entitled to defend it passionately and certainly would have no right to defend my own and expect anyone to listen if I am unwillingly to extend the same courtesy.

There are posters that make me angry, and there are posters who are never respectful to me no matter how I present myself, and I feel that I respond accordingly but I try my best never to lose my compassion or my temper.

This is for you: :beer:

Kate

Kate Sachel

12-20-2006, 08:29 AM

I agree. I think Mr Bugliosi is a brilliant man & I have the utmost respect for him. Too bad he & Nancy Grace didn't prosecute Orenthal's sorry azz.

I also love Vincent Bugliosi, and find him to be wise and intelligent. Arrogant yes, but the best in those fields normally are.

Kate

William Anthony

12-20-2006, 08:58 AM

WTH are you talking about now? I didn't miss the criminal trial, but based on your posts I know you did. My post was NOT in relation to the statement you are talking about here. You are confused.

Your quote was in relation to the statements made on the tapes and all of his statements made on the tapes, including the one I referenced, were played in the criminal trial outside the presence of the jury. I will agree that one of us is confused. I will not attempt to start another thread as Freshwater has announced her (I guess) intentions to merge the threads. However, do you think the tapes should have been played in their entirety in the presence of the jury, after the blankety blank MF took the 5th?

martin II

12-20-2006, 09:21 AM

you would think so!

that would have been some fall!:beer:

and all the old leaves on the ground would not look like no one had fallen there.

martin II

William Anthony

12-20-2006, 09:42 AM

I am sure that you won't fail to understand this ~ He must have done something unlawful because he was too young to have died. But to have died of what he did, was even worse! It's called Karma: What goes around, Comes around!

JMO and MOO!!

This is the problem with inferences and I truly appreciate this post. As I understand your post you are linking his untimely and unfortunate death to his profession and claiming that he "must have done something unlawful". The fact is that he may have done everything lawful but some things that were immoral. He may not have done anything immoral or unlawful. If we link your theory of Karma to the Bible, which tells us that the sins of the parents will be revisted on the children, we can assume that others, who died horable deaths in this case, were paying for the sins of their parents. The problem with inferences are that they all to often derive from facts that are true, i.e. he died young, but then espouse a postulate that may or may not be true, stemming from one's frame of reference, which can lead to a faulty conclusion.

William Anthony

12-20-2006, 09:47 AM

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You are disappointed he didn't do it right away; isn't that correct, also?
COMMANDER BUSHEY: Well, the--there is a lot of other things that needed to be done. That was not the only thing that needed to be done. And remember, I said as soon as possible and "Possible" means when it is practicable within the scope of the investigation.

bobaugust

And of course you believe this over common sense. He could have delegated the responsiblity of notification to anyone and continued the investigation. I think the jury, as I did, used common sense and saw through this facade.

William Anthony

12-20-2006, 10:33 AM

snipped
Simpson evidently wore these kind of gloves because they fit his extra wide palm better than other gloves. Evidence of that are the different photographs showing Simpson wearing different pairs of the exact same gloves in different colors.

bobaugust

Could it be evidence that he liked the style, or more on point, Nicole liked the style better than any other style sold at the store?

weezer

12-20-2006, 10:47 AM

Could it be evidence that he liked the style, or more on point, Nicole liked the style better than any other style sold at the store?
5. Glove evidence: "(1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994."

weezer

12-20-2006, 10:55 AM

for the admirers of cochran: A Lawyer's Life (Paperback) - $0.49 (Amazon)

William Anthony

12-20-2006, 11:00 AM

5. Glove evidence: "(1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994."

Thank you. So, there is no evidence as to whether or not he liked the fit of the gloves on his palm. Only that he wore the gloves his wife purchased, and, the gloves in evidence seeminglydid not fit. I have worn clothing items that women purchased for me so that I would not offend their sensibilities or tendencies. :)

weezer

12-20-2006, 11:03 AM

Thank you. So, there is no evidence as to whether or not he liked the fit of the gloves on his palm. Only that he wore the gloves his wife purchased, and, the gloves in evidence seeminglydid not fit. I have worn clothing items that women purchased for me so that I would not offend their sensibilities or tendencies. :) Either that or he was too lazy to go buy gloves he wanted. Four years is a long time to wear a pair of gloves you don't like or that you think don't fit.

Big Ben

12-20-2006, 11:11 AM

You don't have to because you are constantly shoving that down our throats. However, as far as I am concerned (and I am sure others would agree) you do THINK that OJ is INNOCENT just as much as all of the other NG's on this Board do! JC is not an admirable role model IMO. JC knew that OJ was guilty and he played dirty and played the race card to get him off. It doesn't surprise me that you want to learn from him! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

This level of discussion, i.e. your answer to W.H., and even his rebuttals to you, show me that America is doomed to be treated like a herd of cattle. A bunch of clones, to be duped, to be tricked, and to be led around, like cattle, by the rings through their noses, over and over again.

These people, including Johnnie C., set you up with the so called "race card". Blinded by the diversion and deception of the so called play on race, you continue to be led down that trail, discussing how J.C. impacted the jury based upon that strategy.

Amomg many things, I've shared with you the fact that Johnnie Cochran knew about and stated, on camera, that the telephone records that would have exonerated O.J. Simpson were intentionally not shown to the jury. He stated this in the midst of this trial about evidence that would have obviated the need to conduct this grotesque event.

I guess I continue to overrate the level of intelligence in our nation, when we continue to allow people to gorde us into a fight, using superficial deceptions, and laugh at us while slipping away back into the woodwork.

I'm being as straightforward as I possibly can, I don't give a damn about what you think about me, my race, my ethnicity, religion, etc. I don't want to date your daughters, sisters, or look at your wives. Whatever the extent of your distate for me, I'm here to say that you have been duped by a sham that was intended to provoke these types of reactions.

These people knew, when they agreed to conceal crucial evidence, that America is so blinded by race that they could get away with this scam. They knew that we would be so consumed with such Lillyputian
ideas that they could float this scam right by us without the threat of thorough examination. I've contributed what I've been asked, I leave you to carry on. You can continue on this trail of debating the deception and diversion of race, or, as I would hope, you can challenge these people through public action by demanding that:

1.) They (State of California) produce a certified copy of the Juditha Brown telephone records from the GTE archive and data bank for the date, June 12, 1994 to provide closure as to whether Simpson was or was not available to commit the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson on the the night of June 12, 1994. Anybody that lives in southern California is shocked when given the time parameters provided in trial testimony to allow the Brown's to commute from Brentwood to their home in Dana Point, California. The actual telephone records were concealed from the jury.

2.) They (State of California) honor previous requests to review the criminal files of Ronald Lyle Goldman and any invovement with law enforcement as a confidential informant. Unlike Faye Resnick, who the state asserts the same privilege of protection pursuant to the confidential informant's clauses under the California Public Records Act, Ron is now deceased. It, in no way, serves the public's interest to continue to conceal the contents of his file.

3.) They (State of California) honor previous requests to review all files sealed by Judge John A. Reid relative to convicted murderer, and former confidential informant, Glen Edward Rogers, and Deputy D.A. Lea D'Agostino, regarding the proximity of Mr. Rogers to Nicole Brown Simpson around the date of June 12, 1994. In a letter from the Florida State Prison, Mr. Roger's has acknowlegded that he "knew these people and that they knew him". His family has asserted that Rogers was a painting contractor who painted Nicole's condominium and alleged that pay stubs would reveal this as well. Roger's brother has stated that Glen Rogers was dating Nicole and that he had given a copy of a photo taken of them at the House of Blues to Simpson's civil defense team, Baker et al. When they asked for the photo back, the lawyers allegedly claimed that the photo had been misplaced.

If the production of these documents make us look foolish we are prepared to accept the embarrassment, but the public's call for production needs to be made to put this contraversy regarding Simpson's location, etc. to rest. There are many "Whys" as to why these people would pull a scam of this magnitude. The worst "Why", in my minor opinion, was to divert the American public's attention away from the calls for help from the mass genocide of 900 thousand people who were killed in just 100 days in 1994 in Ruwanda, East Africa. Again, those same type of events are on the horizon in the Sudan, and yet what preoccupies our minds. Au Revoir, Big Ben

martin II

12-20-2006, 11:12 AM

Either that or he was too lazy to go buy gloves he wanted. Four years is a long time to wear a pair of gloves you don't like or that you think don't fit.

fbg
i have two pair of brown light leather gloves. had then for 4-5 years. i have worn tham in the rain and snow . they are the same size as when i baught them.
martin II

William Anthony

12-20-2006, 11:13 AM

Either that or he was too lazy to go buy gloves he wanted. Four years is a long time to wear a pair of gloves you don't like or that you think don't fit.

There is no evidence that the gloves entered into evidence are the ones Nicole purchased or that he wore the same pair for four years. I wonder, if she had paid cash for a pair of gloves after 1990, would that have shown up. So, he should take a pair of gloves that he liked and fit well to kill someone, knowing that he would have to dispose of them? Should this be another thread?:)

weezer

12-20-2006, 11:16 AM

fbg
i have two pair of brown light leather gloves. had then for 4-5 years. i have worn tham in the rain and snow . they are the same size as when i baught them.
martin II I don't own anything that's the same size it was 4 years ago....................

martin II

12-20-2006, 11:20 AM

Either that or he was too lazy to go buy gloves he wanted. Four years is a long time to wear a pair of gloves you don't like or that you think don't fit.

fbg\
the problem with what you think is that you are not able to put the gloves of6/12 in the posession of oj simpson. In his back yard does not satisfy reasonabole doubt. imo
martin II

martin II

12-20-2006, 11:23 AM

I don't own anything that's the same size it was 4 years ago....................

maby not. i do.
martin II

martin II

12-20-2006, 11:25 AM

There is no evidence that the gloves entered into evidence are the ones Nicole purchased or that he wore the same pair for four years. I wonder, if she had paid cash for a pair of gloves after 1990, would that have shown up. So, he should take a pair of gloves that he liked and fit well to kill someone, knowing that he would have to dispose of them? Should this be another thread?:)

if oj was going to kill nicole i think he wouild have used a gun and some work gloves he must have had.
imo
martin II

martin II

12-20-2006, 11:27 AM

I don't own anything that's the same size it was 4 years ago....................

i would think that you do
martin II

martin II

12-20-2006, 11:30 AM

for the admirers of cochran: A Lawyer's Life (Paperback) - $0.49 (Amazon)

Your point is??

martin II

William Anthony

12-20-2006, 11:43 AM

This level of discussion, i.e. your answer to W.H., and even his rebuttals to you, show me that America is doomed to be treated like a herd of cattle. A bunch of clones, to be duped, to be tricked, and to be led around, like cattle, by the rings through their noses, over and over again.

These people, including Johnnie C., set you up with the so called "race card". Blinded by the diversion and deception of the so called play on race, you continue to be led down that trail, discussing how J.C. impacted the jury based upon that strategy.

Amomg many things, I've shared with you the fact that Johnnie Cochran knew about and stated, on camera, that the telephone records that would have exonerated O.J. Simpson were intentionally not shown to the jury. He stated this in the midst of this trial about evidence that would have obviated the need to conduct this grotesque event.

I guess I continue to overrate the level of intelligence in our nation, when we continue to allow people to gorde us into a fight, using superficial deceptions, and laugh at us while slipping away back into the woodwork.

I'm being as straightforward as I possibly can, I don't give a damn about what you think about me, my race, my ethnicity, religion, etc. I don't want to date your daughters, sisters, or look at your wives. Whatever the extent of your distate for me, I'm here to say that you have been duped by a sham that was intended to provoke these types of reactions.

These people knew, when they agreed to conceal crucial evidence, that America is so blinded by race that they could get away with this scam. They knew that we would be so consumed with such Lillyputian
ideas that they could float this scam right by us without the threat of thorough examination. I've contributed what I've been asked, I leave you to carry on. You can continue on this trail of debating the deception and diversion of race, or, as I would hope, you can challenge these people through public action by demanding that:

1.) They (State of California) produce a certified copy of the Juditha Brown telephone records from the GTE archive and data bank for the date, June 12, 1994 to provide closure as to whether Simpson was or was not available to commit the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson on the the night of June 12, 1994. Anybody that lives in southern California is shocked when given the time parameters provided in trial testimony to allow the Brown's to commute from Brentwood to their home in Dana Point, California. The actual telephone records were concealed from the jury.

2.) They (State of California) honor previous requests to review the criminal files of Ronald Lyle Goldman and any invovement with law enforcement as a confidential informant. Unlike Faye Resnick, who the state asserts the same privilege of protection pursuant to the confidential informant's clauses under the California Public Records Act, Ron is now deceased. It, in no way, serves the public's interest to continue to conceal the contents of his file.

3.) They (State of California) honor previous requests to review all files sealed by Judge John A. Reid relative to convicted murderer, and former confidential informant, Glen Edward Rogers, and Deputy D.A. Lea D'Agostino, regarding the proximity of Mr. Rogers to Nicole Brown Simpson around the date of June 12, 1994. In a letter from the Florida State Prison, Mr. Roger's has acknowlegded that he "knew these people and that they knew him". His family has asserted that Rogers was a painting contractor who painted Nicole's condominium and alleged that pay stubs would reveal this as well. Roger's brother has stated that Glen Rogers was dating Nicole and that he had given a copy of a photo taken of them at the House of Blues to Simpson's civil defense team, Baker et al. When they asked for the photo back, the lawyers allegedly claimed that the photo had been misplaced.

If the production of these documents make us look foolish we are prepared to accept the embarrassment, but the public's call for production needs to be made to put this contraversy regarding Simpson's location, etc. to rest. There are many "Whys" as to why these people would pull a scam of this magnitude. The worst "Why", in my minor opinion, was to divert the American public's attention away from the calls for help from the mass genocide of 900 thousand people who were killed in just 100 days in 1994 in Ruwanda, East Africa. Again, those same type of events are on the horizon in the Sudan, and yet what preoccupies our minds. Au Revoir, Big Ben

The trials and tribulations of distant countries seem to be to remote to enter into our every day American thoughts, imho. While there is much truth in your post as to the feelings produced from racial divisions in America, we as a nation cannot, with any degree of credibility, espouse to be the leaders in the areas of equality, civil rights, and democracy, until we have cured the disease that continues to plague this great nation. The ferociousness of the debate over this trial and the degree to which, if any, race played a part is a testament to America's ongoing racial divide. A problem left to itself will most likely not resolve itself. To the contrary, a problem left alone will more than likely worsen. I appreciate your feelings and understand your frustrations and respect your beliefs. Where you and I differ is that I believe that we should all have certain privileges/alleged rights promised to us in the Constitution and those privileges/alleged rights should not be conditioned on a person's race. Until the time that those privileges/alleged rights are fulfilled as promised, I think that we must take an active part in ensuring that they are. Any forum that exposes America's unfulfilled promises and causes debate about them serves a purpose not only to this nation but to the world in which America functions as a leader. You have contributed vastly to this forum and I wish you would reconsider your goodbye.

weezer

12-20-2006, 11:54 AM

Your point is??

martin II no point -- just letting cochran admirers know where they can buy his book.

weezer

12-20-2006, 11:55 AM

if oj was going to kill nicole i think he wouild have used a gun and some work gloves he must have had.
imo
martin II well, he did half of it -- he work his work gloves.

William Anthony

12-20-2006, 12:01 PM

no point -- just letting cochran admirers know where they can buy his book.

Do you know how much the blankety blank MF admirers pay for his?

martin II

12-20-2006, 12:17 PM

Do you know how much the blankety blank MF admirers pay for his?

fbg
marcia clarks book is at .30 amazone in case you need it as christmas gifts.
great stocking stuffer.
martin II

martin II

12-20-2006, 12:33 PM

for the admirers of cochran: A Lawyer's Life (Paperback) - $0.49 (Amazon)

fbg

j.c received many awards by some leading lawyer organizations in the u.s.for his work as a defense lawyer and for his humaniterian work in favor of the poor. Why would one be inclined to accept your opinion of him over what so many lawyer organizations and other citizens think about his work?
martin II

weezer

12-20-2006, 12:45 PM

Do you know how much the blankety blank MF admirers pay for his?
Murder In Brentwood (Paperback)
by Mark Fuhrman
(84 customer reviews)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List Price: $6.99
Price: $6.99 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details

weezer

12-20-2006, 12:46 PM

*Snipped*and I wish you would reconsider your goodbye. Oh don't sing for him argentina -- he'll be back. trust me.

martin II

12-20-2006, 01:22 PM

Murder In Brentwood (Paperback)
by Mark Fuhrman
(84 customer reviews)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List Price: $6.99
Price: $6.99 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details

weezer

\here is one review on furhmans book

Could not finish reading this GARBAGE!, February 14, 2006
Reviewer: A. Rose (Slaughter, LA United States) - See all my reviews

Let me start out by saying before reading this book, I like many others thought Mr. Furhman was just another casualty in the O.J. trial. Now that I actually read only half of the book, before I threw it in the trash, I have to say that this was the worst book I have ever read. Mr. Furhman lives his life by blaming other it seems. I have read Marcia Clark's and Christopher Darden's version of this trial and the thing I noticed is that they both admitted their mistakes. I did not read one thing that Mr. Furhman wrote that said he did one thing wrong it was everyone else in the case. I have no doubt that O.J. Simpson is guilty of double homicide but it all boils down to a almost black jury who stuck it to the people who in their minds had stuck it to their people for so long. The prosecution did not have a chance from the start. PLEASE DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS WHINNING, CRYBABY GARBAGE!

Comment | Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)

weezer

12-20-2006, 01:32 PM

*Snipped*\here is one review on furhmans book
LOL -- 80 plus reviews (majority favorable) but you post this one. LOL

William Anthony

12-20-2006, 01:40 PM

*Snipped* Oh don't sing for him argentina -- he'll be back. trust me.

Would you like for me to sing it to you?:)

weezer

12-20-2006, 01:48 PM

Would you like for me to sing it to you?:) only if it's your swan song.

sorry, couldn't resist.

William Anthony

12-20-2006, 02:02 PM

only if it's your swan song.

sorry, couldn't resist.

Not a problem. I like the response.

bobaugust

12-20-2006, 02:40 PM

Could it be evidence that he liked the style, or more on point, Nicole liked the style better than any other style sold at the store?

Maybe, but the fact is that Simpson was shown to have previously worn the exact same kind of gloves that the killer wore. The fact is that the blood and fiber evidence found on the killer's glove points to Simpson. All of this is just additional evidence that all points to Simpson as the killer.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-20-2006, 02:49 PM

Maybe, but the fact is that Simpson was shown to have previously worn the exact same kind of gloves that the killer wore. The fact is that the blood and fiber evidence found on the killer's glove points to Simpson. All of this is just additional evidence that all points to Simpson as the killer.

bobaugust

The one thing that is missing bobaugust is that the gloves did not fit Simpson's hands and the blankety blank MF could have handled all the evidence at the murder scene and transfered the trace onto the glove when he planted them, imho. This would still allow him to claim that Simpson had some complicity in the murders. This would allow him to write his fiction in a book, to attempt to correct the fiction he told from the stand.

weezer

12-20-2006, 02:51 PM

bobaugust

12-20-2006, 02:57 PM

fbg\
the problem with what you think is that you are not able to put the gloves of6/12 in the posession of oj simpson. In his back yard does not satisfy reasonabole doubt. imo
martin II

martin II, no the problem is yours not understanding what circumstantial evidence is or what reasonable doubt is.

The fact is that Simpson was shown in photographs to have worn the exact same gloves the killer wore. The fact is that Simpson's blood was found on one of the killer's gloves. The fact is the same exact fibers found on one of the killer's gloves were also found on Ron's shirt and on Simpson's socks. The fact is that a fiber consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpet was found on one of the killer's gloves. The fact is that one of the killer's gloves was found on Simpson's property.

All of this is just additional circumstantial evidence that points to Simpson as the killer. None of it eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

martin II

12-20-2006, 03:03 PM

You do understand that there is and has never been any evidence that Furhman planted any evidence in this case, don't you?

there is no evdience that oj dropped it behind his house either
martin II

William Anthony

12-20-2006, 03:04 PM

You do understand that there is and has never been any evidence that Furhman planted any evidence in this case, don't you?

Did you see the imho? Bobaugust and I have agreed to speculate. If this does not agree with you, then please let us know?

William Anthony

12-20-2006, 03:09 PM

martin II, no the problem is yours not understanding what circumstantial evidence is or what reasonable doubt is.

The fact is that Simpson was shown in photographs to have worn the exact same gloves the killer wore. The fact is that Simpson's blood was found on one of the killer's gloves. The fact is the same exact fibers found on one of the killer's gloves were also found on Ron's shirt and on Simpson's socks. The fact is that a fiber consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpet was found on one of the killer's gloves. The fact is that one of the killer's gloves was found on Simpson's property.

All of this is just additional circumstantial evidence that points to Simpson as the killer. None of it eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

I am afraid that you do not understand reasonable doubt. If three people come in from the car with wet clothing and say that they got caught in a down pour ten miles away and one person testifies that they saw the three people jump into a stream with clothes on 15 minutes before the time they told you it was raining and told you the license plate number of the car they drove off in , who do you believe?

tazzybaby

12-20-2006, 03:11 PM

Big Ben,

I recently heard the radio interview that OJ gave regarding the whole book issue. He "says" he did it for the money for his kids blah, blah, blah. And, you seem to have communicated with him because he repeated some of your accusations/comments. So, why wouldn't he, this whole time, be raising money to find the true killers? He has had MANY people offer to do legal work for him for free. He has had a team of lawyers who offered to help him locate the "real killers". If he would have been using this money that he has collected by autographs, video's and etc to actually locate the "real killers" then he would be held in a more legitimate view. Why hasn't he raised public awareness by talking about leads he may have? He said in the interview he has his own theory about who is responsible. But, he's going to publish a book about this and try to make some money. Does he not realize that if he is truly serious he is going about this the wrong way? His image was his money. He has been ostracized though. So, how does he get his image back? His ability to earn money? He finds the "real" killer/s. Or he at least tries. And, he doesn't exploit his childrens mothers murder. The video tapes that should be leaking out should be of him talking about evidence, inside things he knows and his heart ache over this. Not him joking about the murders, going to halloween conventions, taking "blood money" for exploiting the murders or acting like he's stabbing someone with a banana. Why would he think anything like that is appropriate? Or, would make him look like anything other than a joke? When he does deny that he is guilty all he does is blame other people. You can't just say it is in the "world of Faye Resnick" for years and years without some type of proof/lead. Why weren't private investigators on this years ago? Why hasn't he set up a fund for a lawyer to help him investigate and locate the real killer? If he can't take the money himself then why not have it go to a fund for lawyers? I am sure there are people like yourself and the other NG's on this board that would help him. Did he ever go to jail and talk to William Wasz? What did he find out? Even with William Wasz's documentation of following Nicole he still thinks it was in "Fayes world"? The documentation that William Wasz had indicates that it was in "OJ's world". That should be the "biggest lead" that he has. Of course, William Wasz is dead now. But, he had many years to do this. So, why didn't he?

bobaugust

12-20-2006, 03:34 PM

The one thing that is missing bobaugust is that the gloves did not fit Simpson's hands and the blankety blank MF could have handled all the evidence at the murder scene and transfered the trace onto the glove when he planted them, imho. This would still allow him to claim that Simpson had some complicity in the murders. This would allow him to write his fiction in a book, to attempt to correct the fiction he told from the stand.

No, the gloves did go on Simpson's hands even over the latex gloves he wore underneath them. Just because Simpson did not pull them on his fingers to make them fit properly like skin tight gloves should fit does not mean they didn't fit him only that some gullible people may fallen for his act.

If you were looking for a rubber band to put around something do you think that by looking at it in it's normal size it won't work because it's smaller than what you want to put it around? Or do you have the common sense to understand that it will stretch to fit?

I'm sorry to say but your obsession with Mark Fuhrman only denigrates what ever credibility your opinions might have about these murders.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-20-2006, 03:43 PM

I am afraid that you do not understand reasonable doubt. If three people come in from the car with wet clothing and say that they got caught in a down pour ten miles away and one person testifies that they saw the three people jump into a stream with clothes on 15 minutes before the time they told you it was raining and told you the license plate number of the car they drove off in , who do you believe?

If on closer examination of their clothing some fish and and and some vegetation that grew only in that stream were found in their pockets and in checking weather reports found that it did not rain that day than I would believe they jumped in the stream.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-20-2006, 03:52 PM

If on closer examination of their clothing some fish and and and some vegetation that grew only in that stream were found in their pockets and in checking weather reports found that it did not rain that day than I would believe they jumped in the stream.

bobaugust

I think you did not understand. I said testify. The examination or investigation is over at that point and no further evidence has been submitted. So, I repeat, who do you believe or are you agreeable to saying the evidence is inconclusive and there is reasonable doubt that they may have jumped into the stream or that it rained on them?

bobaugust

12-20-2006, 04:03 PM

I think you did not understand. I said testify. The examination or investigation is over at that point and no further evidence has been submitted. So, I repeat, who do you believe or are you agreeable to saying the evidence is inconclusive and there is reasonable doubt that they may have jumped into the stream or that it rained on them?

Your example has nothing to do with martin's opinion that just becuase no one saw Simpson wearing those gloves the night of the murders than that raises reasaonble doubt to him that he wore them.

But taking your story on the conditions you set baring any additonal evidence being presented it's not possible to know one way or the other what actaully happened.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-20-2006, 04:08 PM

Your example has nothing to do with martin's opinion that just becuase no one saw Simpson wearing those gloves the night of the murders than that raises reasaonble doubt to him that he wore them.

But taking your story on the conditions you set baring any additonal evidence being presented it's not possible to know one way or the other what actaully happened.

bobaugust

Thank you and that is reasonable doubt. The defense presented an explaination as to how the glove could have gotten there with the trace, due to the sloppy handling of the murder scene and presented evidence of the fact that the blankety blank MF had motive and opportunity to plant the glove.

weezer

12-20-2006, 04:15 PM

there is no evdience that oj dropped it behind his house either
martin II you mean to say that there's no evidence that you accept . . .

weezer

12-20-2006, 04:16 PM

Did you see the imho? Bobaugust and I have agreed to speculate. If this does not agree with you, then please let us know? ohh -- well a reality check never hurt anyone!

martin II

12-20-2006, 04:18 PM

ohh -- well a reality check never hurt anyone!

TAKE ONE
MARTINii

William Anthony

12-20-2006, 04:19 PM

ohh -- well a reality check never hurt anyone!

Consider yourself checked or did you mean that for bobaugust and me?

martin II

12-20-2006, 04:23 PM

you mean to say that there's no evidence that you accept . . .

I am saying that no one saw oj at bundy or in his back walkway on 6/12 with any glove. faced with this, you are free to continue to make up all kinds of stuff regardless of how nutty it actually is.imo
martin II

bobaugust

12-20-2006, 04:27 PM

Thank you and that is reasonable doubt. The defense presented an explaination as to how the glove could have gotten there with the trace, due to the sloppy handling of the murder scene and presented evidence of the fact that the blankety blank MF had motive and opportunity to plant the glove.

No the defense never gave any realistic or legitimate explanation as to how all the blood and fiber evidence could have gotten on the glove and neither did they show that Fuhrman had motive or opportunity to plant the glove. The fact is that there was no second glove at Bundy for anyone to plant.

All the defense did was present speculation based on speculation based on speculation. No evidence, no proof, only imagination at the best based on some minor mistakes. It takes more than imagination to contradict the reality of physical evidence to create reasonable doubt for me but evidently not for you.

bobaugust

bobaugust

12-20-2006, 08:16 PM

And of course you believe this over common sense. He could have delegated the responsiblity of notification to anyone and continued the investigation. I think the jury, as I did, used common sense and saw through this facade.

Maybe Phillips could have delegated the notification to someone else but he didn't. Maybe since Commander Bushey talked directly to him he felt he had to make the notification himself. Only he never had the chance. Shortly after Phillips started his investigation of the murder scene he was informed that the case was turned over to Robbery Homicide and he no longer had any authority or responsibility.

bobaugust

martin II

12-20-2006, 08:34 PM

*Snipped* LOL -- 80 plus reviews (majority favorable) but you post this one. LOL

That was the best review. The others may have been written by you.
imo
martin II

martin II

12-20-2006, 09:00 PM

Maybe Phillips could have delegated the notification to someone else but he didn't. Maybe since Commander Bushey talked directly to him he felt he had to make the notification himself. Only he never had the chance. Shortly after Phillips started his investigation of the murder scene he was informed that the case was turned over to Robbery Homicide and he no longer had any authority or responsibility.

bobaugust

MABY

bob
there were more than 20 lapd guys at bundy. Vanhatter and lang, were therte to control the crime scene, investigate the scene, send officers to interview neighbors, look for all visable evidence and prevent the crime scene
from being disturbed.

Furhman and his partner were off the case, vanhatter had plenty of work to do at bundy.

There is no logical reason why another detective could not have been sent to make this notification.

It was not necessary for four of the most important detectives to leave their post for this simple task.

It has been said that the message board in nicole kitchen that listed her parents, and DADDYS along with other numbers. This board was next to the telephone that the detective used to make calls from nicoles condo.

So why not call DADDYS number. They would have found that oj was not home and there would not have been necessary for the four to go to rockingham imo
unless the real reason for leaving was that they wanted to stop by Dunkin Dougnut on the way.
martin II

socaldiva

12-20-2006, 09:09 PM

*Snipped* LOL -- 80 plus reviews (majority favorable) but you post this one. LOL

I know, but at least the reader was smart enough to figure out that OJ is a double murderer & understands that race is what lead that jury to acquit. Maybe he could explain it to Martin :D

socaldiva

12-20-2006, 09:13 PM

*snip*Your quote was in relation to the statements made on the tapes and all of his statements made on the tapes

My post was NOT in relation to the tapes. You are the one that is confused in that regard, not I.

bobaugust

12-20-2006, 09:38 PM

MABY

bob
there were more than 20 lapd guys at bundy. Vanhatter and lang, were therte to control the crime scene, investigate the scene, send officers to interview neighbors, look for all visable evidence and prevent the crime scene
from being disturbed.

Furhman and his partner were off the case, vanhatter had plenty of work to do at bundy.

There is no logical reason why another detective could not have been sent to make this notification.

It was not necessary for four of the most important detectives to leave their post for this simple task.

It has been said that the message board in nicole kitchen that listed her parents, and DADDYS along with other numbers. This board was next to the telephone that the detective used to make calls from nicoles condo.

So why not call DADDYS number. They would have found that oj was not home and there would not have been necessary for the four to go to rockingham imo
unless the real reason for leaving was that they wanted to stop by Dunkin Dougnut on the way.
martin II

martin II, Bushey's order was to notify Simpson in person, not by telephone. Again based on the fact that this order was coming directly down from on high the Robbery Homicide detectives most likely felt they had to do it themselves.

Phillips and Fuhrman were not important detectives at that point. They had no authority and no responsibility except for what the Robbery Homicide detectives decided to have them do. Lange came up with the plan for the two West LA detectives to go with them because this was their territory and they knew where Simpson lived. They could then remain with Simpson after the notification and help him recover his two children being held at their police station.

Lieutenant Rogers was Lange and Vannatter's supervisor. He not only approved of the plan but then took charge of the securing the Bundy murder scene until they returned. Commander Bushey testified that he approved of the plan.

bobaugust

martin II

12-20-2006, 10:12 PM

martin II, Bushey's order was to notify Simpson in person, not by telephone. Again based on the fact that this order was coming directly down from on high the Robbery Homicide detectives most likely felt they had to do it themselves.

Phillips and Fuhrman were not important detectives at that point. They had no authority and no responsibility except for what the Robbery Homicide detectives decided to have them do. Lange came up with the plan for the two West LA detectives to go with them because this was their territory and they knew where Simpson lived. They could then remain with Simpson after the notification and help him recover his two children being held at their police station.

Lieutenant Rogers was Lange and Vannatter's supervisor. He not only approved of the plan but then took charge of the securing the Bundy murder scene until they returned. Commander Bushey testified that he approved of the plan.

bobaugust

bob
yapyapyap

They took the search team of four detectives to invade ojs property/home
in the hope that if he was destroying evidence etc, they would have caught him. As the ex of the woman murdered he was the first suspect. All this other stuff is just crap and excuses. If they were just trying to see if anyone was home why was split tounge fur man out in the street searching the bronco?
He did not know who the vehicle belonged to. imo
martin II

William Anthony

12-21-2006, 09:48 AM

William Anthony

12-21-2006, 10:01 AM

My post was NOT in relation to the tapes. You are the one that is confused in that regard, not I.

My Dear Diva,

I have not found your post as offensive as some and, I do understand that in the heat of battle one sometimes forgets. I will beg to differ as to who was confused and show you your post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by socaldiva
Yes he was able to "hold his tongue" & I find him to be quite articulate. He was speaking relative to a screenplay, but I guess you don't understand that no matter how many times you are told. Even Orenthal said "who cares if he used the n word" whilst driving around with that guy that was filming him & I've never heard Orenthal say that MF planted anything. During the Bronco ride he apologized to the officer he was speaking to & basically said they treated him well IIRC. I guess you missed that too. He only came up with the police misconduct, police conspiracy theory when it was spoon fed to him by lawyers that knew it was his only way out of murder that he obviously carried out. I guess you also missed the other poster that said your MF adjectives are tiring & childish.

As you claim "He was speaking relative to a screenplay", and we know that the tapes were made in relation to the screen play. Ergo, he was speaking in relation to and on the tapes. I will agree that his statement was about the trial, which is my concern, but it was made on the tapes. I think you were confused thinking I was talking about the blankety blank's use of the N word, as so much of your post is devoted to it. I was speaking of his comment about his demise and the demise of the case.

William Anthony

12-21-2006, 10:06 AM

I know, but at least the reader was smart enough to figure out that OJ is a double murderer & understands that race is what lead that jury to acquit. Maybe he could explain it to Martin :D

I am looking forward to discussing this comment with you and, in order not to offend anyone, will ask, if you would like to discuss it on the thread the role of race? What I will say now, is that it is common misconception that Blacks are out to acquit other Blacks, because of their race.

William Anthony

12-21-2006, 10:16 AM

No the defense never gave any realistic or legitimate explanation as to how all the blood and fiber evidence could have gotten on the glove and neither did they show that Fuhrman had motive or opportunity to plant the glove. The fact is that there was no second glove at Bundy for anyone to plant.

All the defense did was present speculation based on speculation based on speculation. No evidence, no proof, only imagination at the best based on some minor mistakes. It takes more than imagination to contradict the reality of physical evidence to create reasonable doubt for me but evidently not for you.

bobaugust

You will never understand, the defense only has to offer a plausible/believable explanation and there was testimony on the ease with which trace evidence is transferable. The defense did not have to prove anything. We should convict a defendant based on LE's, what you now claim, as "minor mistakes". You have previously admitted that a defendant should not be convicted on LE's mistakes. If those mistakes lead to a plausible explanation as to why blood and trace is found on an evidentiary item, then the evidence should not be trusted, imho.

bobaugust

12-21-2006, 02:02 PM

You will never understand, the defense only has to offer a plausible/believable explanation and there was testimony on the ease with which trace evidence is transferable. The defense did not have to prove anything. We should convict a defendant based on LE's, what you now claim, as "minor mistakes". You have previously admitted that a defendant should not be convicted on LE's mistakes. If those mistakes lead to a plausible explanation as to why blood and trace is found on an evidentiary item, then the evidence should not be trusted, imho.

My standards as most reasonable thinking person's standards as to what is credible are evidently far different than yours. For speculation to be plausible or believable I believe it has to be supported by more than just speculation. It has to be supported by evidence.

I agree that the defense has no obligation to prove anything but if they can't point to any evidence to support their arguments then other explanations that are supported by evidence are more credible. That's where common sense opinions from reasonable thinking people differ from people who base their opinions only on what they want to believe.

Mistakes are a reality of life. Every human makes them. Simpson's defense found many mistakes made by many people in this case. Minor mistakes. Bookkeeping mistakes. Mistaken recollections. Admitted mistakes. Every time the defense found a mistake they claimed it wasn't a mistake at all, it was done intentionally to deceive. A defense based only on human error because they could not account for the evidence that proved their client guilty. Not one mistake made by anyone in this case ever changed one single piece of evidence. Every claim made by the defense of evidence tampering or evidence planting was shown to be false. Proved false by other evidence.

Just because the Simpson's defense team offered a hugh amount of unsupported speculation does not make any of that speculation more credible or plausible it only shows how gullible some people are who were overwhelmed by it and wanted to believe it.

bobaugust

socaldiva

12-21-2006, 02:11 PM

*snip*
My Dear Diva,

I have not found your post as offensive as some and, I do understand that in the heat of battle one sometimes forgets. I will beg to differ as to who was confused and show you your post.

Ok, you were right & I was the one confused. My appologies.

William Anthony

12-21-2006, 02:12 PM

My standards as most reasonable thinking person's standards as to what is credible are evidently far different than yours. Snipped
I agree that the defense has no obligation to prove anything Snipped

.Every time the defense found a mistake they claimed it wasn't a mistake at all, it was done intentionally to deceive. .

Just because the Simpson's defense team offered a hugh amount of unsupported speculation does not make any of that speculation more credible or plausible it only shows how gullible some people are who were overwhelmed by it and wanted to believe it.

bobaugust

The standard is to convict someone you have to produce proof of the charges, The defense does not have to produce/prove anything/evidence. They only need to discredit the evidence. With that said, you tend to call most peole who agree with you as reasonable thinking and those who disagree as gullible and or biased. If you do not understand the standard, I think you should refrain from usiing adjectives.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all the posters, regarless of their persuassion on the issue of G or NG, a merry Christmas and a prosperous and productive New Year. I would also like to say that I enjoy the debates and learn a lot through the experience and thank CTV for providing this forum.

bobaugust

12-21-2006, 02:15 PM

And maybe, if a bird had a jukebox up his a**, there would be sweet music in the sky.

Good one, I'll be sure to remember it when you use the word maybe.

bobaugust

William Anthony

12-21-2006, 02:15 PM

Ok, you were right & I was the one confused. My appologies.

Diva,

No problem. Merry X-mas and many happy New Years.

bobaugust

12-21-2006, 02:30 PM

The standard is to convict someone you have to produce proof of the charges, The defense does not have to produce/prove anything/evidence. They only need to discredit the evidence. With that said, you tend to call most peole who agree with you as reasonable thinking and those who disagree as gullible and or biased. If you do not understand the standard, I think you should refrain from usiing adjectives.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all the posters, regarless of their persuassion on the issue of G or NG, a merry Christmas and a prosperous and productive New Year. I would also like to say that I enjoy the debates and learn a lot through the experience and thank CTV for providing this forum.

That's right I do tend to call people who base their opinions on evidence and not on imagined speculation as reasonable thinking people. If there was any evidence that proved Simpson was not the killer, I would base my opinions on that also.

I don't believe imagined speculation discredits evidence. Reasonable explanations discredit imagined speculation.

The reality is that all of the relevant physical evidence in this case points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. None of it points to anyone else. Nothing eliminates Simpson.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too.

bobaugust

martin II

12-21-2006, 02:47 PM

TO ALL

May your Holiday Season be wrapped with cheer and filled with celebration for the NewYear!

Martin II

martin II

12-21-2006, 02:50 PM

TO ALL

May your Holiday Season be wrapped with cheer and filled with celebration for the NewYear!

MARTIN ii

martin II

12-21-2006, 02:59 PM

I am looking forward to discussing this comment with you and, in order not to offend anyone, will ask, if you would like to discuss it on the thread the role of race? What I will say now, is that it is common misconception that Blacks are out to acquit other Blacks, because of their race.

one point.
Juries with black women on them have a history of sending blacks to prison when the prosecution proves their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

They are known to be very religious and very consevative when it comes to crime in their communities.
martin II

bobaugust

12-21-2006, 03:04 PM

one point.
Juries with black women on them have a history of sending blacks to prison when the prosecution proves their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

They are known to be very religious and very consevative when it comes to crime in their communities.
martin II

martin II, and in focus groups conducted by jury consultants for the Simpson criminal trial, it was found that "Virtually every middle aged African American woman in the focus group supported Simpson and resented the murder victim."

bobaugust

martin II

12-21-2006, 03:12 PM

martin II, and in focus groups conducted by jury consultants for the Simpson criminal trial, it was found that "Virtually every middle aged African American woman in the focus group supported Simpson and resented the murder victim."

bobaugust

As you know the response of focus groups depends on the structure of the questions. I am not arguing with THAT focus group's results.

I am talking about the conviction rate historically of juries with black women on them. They are very conservatice when it comes to crime and do not automatically aquit blacks. imo jmo.

bobaugust

12-21-2006, 03:20 PM

As you know the response of focus groups depends on the structure of the questions. I am not arguing with THAT focus group's results.

martin II, no I don't know that and evidently neither do you.

American Tragedy,
On Saturday, August 27, 1994 the criminal defense jury consultant "worked with about seventy five people divided equally among three rooms. In each room she showed slides and asked questions, with an assistant. The groups were splitting along ethnic lines almost without exception - but more surprising was this: Black middle aged women were Simpson's most aggressive champions.

"Her questions encouraged in depth answers. The feelings and prejudices of the group emerged as if in a therapy session." Cochran and others who were observing unseen behind the one way glass were startled. They'd assumed African American women would dislike Simpson for marrying white.

"Instead, black women hated her."

"They resented Nicole's lifestyle. The big house, the servants, the travel, the jewelry - all from a black man's money. The attorneys felt the envy. they didn't criticize Simpson for living an upscale white lifestyle, leaving his community behind. That wasn't important. He'd left them long ago."

"The gut issue was Nicole. This white woman had lived their fantasy. She had things they should have had. The team was stunned. The women came close to calling Nicole a wh-re. They came right to the edge of suggesting she got what she deserved. Everybody had assumed that black women would be risky jurors. They might easily turn against O.J. Clearly, the lawyers had been wrong. Virtually every middle aged African American woman in the focus group supported Simpson and resented the murder victim."

bobaugust

martin II

12-21-2006, 03:49 PM

martin II, no I don't know that and evidently neither do you.

American Tragedy,
On Saturday, August 27, 1994 the criminal defense jury consultant "worked with about seventy five people divided equally among three rooms. In each room she showed slides and asked questions, with an assistant. The groups were splitting along ethnic lines almost without exception - but more surprising was this: Black middle aged women were Simpson's most aggressive champions.

"Her questions encouraged in depth answers. The feelings and prejudices of the group emerged as if in a therapy session." Cochran and others who were observing unseen behind the one way glass were startled. They'd assumed African American women would dislike Simpson for marrying white.

"Instead, black women hated her."

"They resented Nicole's lifestyle. The big house, the servants, the travel, the jewelry - all from a black man's money. The attorneys felt the envy. they didn't criticize Simpson for living an upscale white lifestyle, leaving his community behind. That wasn't important. He'd left them long ago."

"The gut issue was Nicole. This white woman had lived their fantasy. She had things they should have had. The team was stunned. The women came close to calling Nicole a wh-re. They came right to the edge of suggesting she got what she deserved. Everybody had assumed that black women would be risky jurors. They might easily turn against O.J. Clearly, the lawyers had been wrong. Virtually every middle aged African American woman in the focus group supported Simpson and resented the murder victim."

bobaugust

This is one focus group and involved a black man and white woman.

It has nothing to do with the historical record of black women being conservative in their views and their record of sending blacks to jail jmo imo
Historically they have not acquited blacks because of their race.
martin II