A Silent Murder?

[William Anthony]

Fung and Mazzola were together when they returned to Piper Tech after leaving Rockingham with all the collected evidence and they were together when they prepared the collected blood samples for testing.

You continue to raise imaginary possibilities and then falsely argue that inferences drawn from them are reasonable and may lead to reasonable doubt. The only doubt that can be drawn from imaginary possibilities is imaginary doubt, not reasonable doubt. That's the flaw in all of your arguments. Imaginary possibilities based on imaginary evidence. In other words bull crap.

The accusations you make about what you think Fuhrman admitted are based on fiction not fact.

bobaugust

They were not together when they collected the samples as the DF testified there were some samples that Mazzola collected of which he was unaware. He later recalled that she did collect them. Do I sense that you are becoming a little testy? It would appear to me that you continue to want to insult me when I raise issues. I think the rubric of common sense will tell us that, although two people work together, they are not inseparable, unless they are Siamese twins. I think the fiber of logic tells us that there were times when the DF and Mazzola went to the restroom alone. I would request you to cease with the insults as I do not want to involve the moderator in our discussions if we can resolve the issue.

[William Anthony]

Post the testimony where Dennis Fung said that the small brush marks Fuhrman testified to seeing on the door sill could not have been seen unless the door was open. Fung testified that Vannatter pointed out the blood on the Bronco to him, not Fuhrman.

No one testified the Bronco was not locked. Fung testified that when he went to the Print shed to collect the blood in the Bronco, the Bronco was locked.

bobaugust

I will search for the testimony. It may have been Vanatter. I have notes on the subject, which I do not have handy. However, after I review them, I will try to locate the relevant and material testimonies and post them.

[martin II]

I will search for the testimony. It may have been Vanatter. I have notes on the subject, which I do not have handy. However, after I review them, I will try to locate the relevant and material testimonies and post them.

if my memory is correct there was a man at the bronco garage that sat in the bronco and looked in the glove compartment and found some parking tickets or something.
martin II

[William Anthony]

Post the testimony where Dennis Fung said that the small brush marks Fuhrman testified to seeing on the door sill could not have been seen unless the door was open. Fung testified that Vannatter pointed out the blood on the Bronco to him, not Fuhrman.

No one testified the Bronco was not locked. Fung testified that when he went to the Print shed to collect the blood in the Bronco, the Bronco was locked.

bobaugust

Here is some of the relevant part of Vanatter's testimony in regard to the blood on the bottom of the Bronco door, which the MF alleged he saw, but denied seeing blood in the vehicle.

Q: NOW, AT SOME POINT, DID YOU NOTICE A BLOOD SPOT --
A: YES.
Q: -- ON THE BRONCO?
A: YES. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN CAME TO ME AND TOLD ME THAT THE VEHICLE WAS REGISTERED TO HORTZ -- TO HERTZ CORPORATION. WHILE I WAS STANDING IN THE STREET, HE WALKED BACK TO THE BRONCO, WAS THERE A VERY SHORT TIME AND WALKED A LITTLE WAY BACK UP THE STREET AND CALLED ME TO COME BACK TO THE BRONCO.
Q: AND DID YOU GO OVER TO THE BRONCO?
A: I DID.
Q: ABOUT WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU WENT TO THE BRONCO THE SECOND TIME?
A: APPROXIMATELY 5:30 IN THE MORNING.
Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU VIEW A SPOT ON THE BRONCO?
A: HE POINTED OUT A SPOT ABOVE THE DRIVER'S DOOR HANDLE THAT APPEARED TO BE A REDDISH BROWNISH TYPE STAIN THAT LOOKED LIKE BLOOD TO ME.
A: AT THAT POINT, I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS OTHER EVIDENCE THERE.
Q: OKAY. THIS WAS ALL YOU KNEW ABOUT THEN, THAT IS THE BLOOD ON THE SIDE OF THE BRONCO.
A: WELL, SEEING THE -- WHAT APPEARED TO BE ANOTHER BLOOD TRAIL, I WALKED TO THE BRONCO TO HAVE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE BRONCO TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY OTHER BLOOD I COULD SEE THERE. I LOOKED IN FROM THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE AND I OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE A BLOOD SMEAR ALONG THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE CONSOLE AND WHAT APPEARED TO BE BLOOD ON THE INSIDE OF THE DRIVER'S DOOR OF THE VEHICLE.
Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT, DETECTIVE?
A: I THEN WALKED BACK EAST IN THE DRIVEWAY AGAIN LOOKING AT THE -- WHAT APPEARED TO BE BLOOD DROPS, AND FOLLOWED THEM TO THE -- FOUND AN ADDITIONAL THREE OR FOUR DROPS THAT LED TO THE FRONT DOOR OF THE LOCATION.
Q: WHAT ARE THEY INTENDED TO INDICATE, DETECTIVE?
A: THAT WOULD INDICATE THE START OF THE TRAIL AT THE BACK OF THE BRONCO WHICH WAS PARKED ON THE STREET, LEADS INTO THE DRIVEWAY AND RIGHT TO THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOME.
Q: DID YOU SEE THAT BLOOD IN THE BRONCO?
A: I SAW -- I SAW BLOOD INSIDE THE BRONCO ON THE DRIVER'S DOOR HERE ALONG THE TOP, (INDICATING), AND ALONG THIS AREA HERE, (INDICATING).
Q: DID YOU EVER SEE ANYONE OPEN THE DOOR TO THE BRONCO THAT MORNING?
A: NO.
Q: SO WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME IS THERE ARE FOUR DETECTIVES, TWO LEAD DETECTIVES THAT ARE THERE, AND NONE OF YOU EXAMINED THE TRUCK, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: HE WAS THE FIRST ONE THAT DID, YES.
Q: AND HE IS THE ONE WHO DISCOVERED THE BLOOD DROP ON THE DOOR HANDLE?
A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
Q: NOW, YOU HEARD HIM TESTIFY THAT THERE WERE BLOOD SMEARS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR, DIDN'T YOU?
A: I DID, YES.
Q: DID YOU SEE THOSE?
A: I DID AT A LATER TIME. I DON'T RECALL HIM SHOWING THEM TO ME THAT NIGHT.
Q: YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED YOU DIDN'T SEE THEM, HAVEN'T YOU?
A: WELL, I SAW A REPORT THAT WAS DONE BY THE CRIMINALIST. I DON'T RECALL SEEING THEM THAT -- THAT EVENING OR THAT MORNING.
Q: IN FACT, YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY BLOOD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO, DIDN'T YOU?
A: THAT I DIDN'T?
Q: DID NOT?
A: I -- I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANY BLOOD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO.
Q: AND WHERE IN YOUR REPORT DID YOU INDICATE THAT THERE WAS -- IN ADDITION TO A SPOT ON THE DOOR HANDLE, THAT THERE WAS BLOOD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO, SIR?
A: WHERE DID I INDICATE THAT?
Q: YES.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU INDICATE IT IN YOUR REPORT?
A: I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD -- I WOULD HAVE TO READ THE ENTIRE REPORT TO TELL YOU THAT.
Q: WELL, I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT THE VALUABLE JURY TIME NOW. MAYBE YOU CAN DO THAT TONIGHT AND READ THAT REPORT AND GIVE US THAT ANSWER TOMORROW. WE WILL GO ON TO SOMETHING ELSE.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION AND A MOTION TO STRIKE.
THE COURT: THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE COMMENT.
Q: YESTERDAY YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WOULD LIKE SOME TIME TO REVIEW YOUR REPORTS TO SEE IF YOU MADE ANY INDICATION IN ANY OF YOUR RECORDS AS TO WHETHER YOU WERE SHOWN ANY BLOOD SMEARS BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT, SIR?
A: YES. I DON'T RECALL HIM SHOWING ME ANY BLOOD SMEARS THAT MORNING.
Q: AND THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT YOU WERE SHOWN ANY BLOOD SMEARS BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A: NO. I COULDN'T FIND ANY, NO.

[William Anthony]

Post the testimony where Dennis Fung said that the small brush marks Fuhrman testified to seeing on the door sill could not have been seen unless the door was open. Fung testified that Vannatter pointed out the blood on the Bronco to him, not Fuhrman.

No one testified the Bronco was not locked. Fung testified that when he went to the Print shed to collect the blood in the Bronco, the Bronco was locked.

bobaugust

Here is the rest of the testimony

Q: AND IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED THAT THERE WERE BLOOD SMEARS ON THE DOOR, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO POINT OUT TO YOU, WOULD IT NOT?
A: HE MAY HAVE POINTED THEM OUT. I DON'T RECALL HIM DOING THAT.
Q: WELL, THIS IS SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT, IS IT NOT, WHAT BLOOD YOU SAW ON THE BRONCO AT ROCKINGHAM?
A: PARDON, SIR? I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOU.
Q: IS THE OBSERVATION OF BLOOD ON THE BRONCO SOMETHING THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT IN A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION LIKE THIS?
A: YES, SIR.
Q: AND IF YOU WERE SHOWN BLOOD SMEARS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO, ISN'T THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD REMEMBER?
A: I -- I -- I DON'T RECALL HIM SHOWING THEM TO ME. HE COULD HAVE. I DON'T RECALL IT.
Q: MY QUESTION IS ISN'T THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD REMEMBER, IF THOSE WERE SHOWN TO YOU?
A: I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT SINCE I DON'T RECALL THEM BEING SHOWN TO ME.
Q: THAT IS THE BEST ANSWER YOU GIVE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD REMEMBER BLOOD SMEARS AT ROCKINGHAM?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID IT EVER DAWN ON YOU, SIR, THAT IF THERE WERE BLOOD SMEARS AT THE -- WELL, YOU SAW BLOOD SMEARS INSIDE THE DOOR ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO, DIDN'T YOU?
A: TOWARD THE TOP, TOWARD THE WINDOW, YES.
Q: DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR?
A: DOWN INSIDE THE VEHICLE?
Q: YES.
A: NO.
Q: DID IT EVER DAWN ON YOU THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MUST HAVE GONE INSIDE THAT CAR FOR HIM TO SEE THOSE BLOOD SPOTS?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT IS VAGUE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED THAT HE SAW BLOOD SMEARS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO AND YOUR RECOLLECTION IS YOU DID NOT SEE BLOOD SMEARS AND THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DIDN'T SHOW THEM TO YOU, DID IT DAWN ON YOU THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MUST HAVE GONE INSIDE THE BRONCO TO MAKE THESE OBSERVATIONS?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. MISSTATES THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED ON THAT GROUND.
THE WITNESS: AS I RECALL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY, THE BLOOD SMEARS HE SAW WERE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE; NOT INSIDE.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID THAT RAISE A QUESTION IN YOUR MIND, SINCE YOU NEVER SAW BLOOD SMEARS OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID IT CAUSE YOU CONCERN, SINCE YOU DON'T REMEMBER SEEING ANY BLOOD STAINS OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE?
A: NO. THERE WAS A LOT OF BLOOD THERE THAT I DIDN'T SEE ORIGINALLY.
Q: I'M TALKING ABOUT OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE. WAS THERE A LOT OF BLOOD ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE THAT YOU DIDN'T SEE AT ANY POINT IN TIME?
A: YES. I DON'T RECALL SEEING THE BLOOD SMEARS ALONG THE PANEL OF THE DOOR AT THE BOTTOM.
Q: DID YOU EVER SEE THOSE BLOOD SMEARS?
A: I SAW A REPORT THAT THEY WERE TESTED PRESUMPTIVE FOR BLOOD.
Q: DID YOU EVER SEE THOSE BLOOD SMEARS YOURSELF?
A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING THEM, NO, SIR.
Q: DID YOU TESTIFY YESTERDAY THAT YOU DID SEE THEM?
A: NO, SIR, I DID NOT.
Q: DID YOU TESTIFY YESTERDAY THAT YOU DID NOT RECALL SEEING THE BLOOD SMEARS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO THAT NIGHT BUT YOU DID SEE THEM AT SOME LATER TIME?
A: I DON'T BELIEVE I SAID THAT. I DON'T RECALL SEEING THOSE SMEARS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR.
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I SHOW YOU YOUR TESTIMONY OF YESTERDAY WE HAVE TAKEN THIS OFF A COMPUTER AND PERHAPS I CAN READ IT TO HIM. THESE ARE OFF THE LIVE NOTES BUT WE CAN MAYBE LOCATE IT FROM THE TRANSCRIPT.
THE COURT: I WOULD PREFER THE TRANSCRIPT, WHICH WE HAVE GONE TO --
MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL MOVE ON TO ANOTHER MATTER.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHEN CRIMINALIST FUNG CAME OUT AT YOUR ORDER, DID HE TEST ANYTHING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO FOR BLOOD?
A: I BELIEVE THAT TESTING WAS DONE AT A LATER DATE.
Q: DID YOU PHOTOGRAPH HIM POINTING OUT ANY BLOOD AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO OR CAUSE HIM TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED DOING THAT?
A: NO. I WASN'T THERE WHEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE DONE.
Q: DID YOU ORDER PHOTOGRAPHS TO BE TAKEN?
A: YES, SIR, I DID.
Q: WHAT DID YOU ORDER TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED?
A: THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT I WAS AWARE OF.
Q: AND DID YOU ORDER THE BLOOD -- THAT BLOOD STAIN THAT YOU HAVE REFERRED TO ON THE DOOR HANDLE OF THE BRONCO, THAT WAS PRETTY SMALL?
A: YES. AND IT WAS ABOVE THE DOOR HANDLE, NOT ACTUALLY ON THE HANDLE.
Q: ABOVE THE DOOR HANDLE?
A: YES, SIR.
Q: AND YOU ORDERED CRIMINALIST FUNG TO DO A PHENOTHALINE TEST?
A: YES. A PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TEST, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: AND A PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TEST ONLY SHOWS THAT THE SUBSTANCE COULD POSSIBLY BE BLOOD; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: IT COULD ALSO BE VEGETABLE SUBSTANCES THAT WOULD GIVE A POSITIVE READING?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. CALLS FOR --
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE COULD GIVE A POSITIVE READING?
A: NO, I AM NOT AN EXPERT IN THAT.
Q: YOU DIDN'T HEAR THE TESTIMONY OF THE EXPERTS AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WHEN YOU WERE SITTING THERE?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU HEAR THE TESTIMONY -- HAVE YOU HEARD EXPERTS TESTIFY AS TO WHAT A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD IS?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER ANY OTHER SUBSTANCES, BASED ON TESTIMONY YOU'VE HEARD FROM OTHER EXPERTS, FROM EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, COULD BE A SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN BLOOD?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I THINK IT IS A 352 PROBLEM.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: LET ME NOW GO BACK TO YOUR TRANSCRIPT OF YESTERDAY. I WANT TO DRAW THE COURT'S ATTENTION TO PAGE 19556, LINES 1 AND 10, SIR, AND ASK YOU TO READ THAT YOURSELF.
A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I PUT THIS UP ON THE ELMO, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. SHAPIRO: OKAY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. SHAPIRO: GO DOWN A LITTLE BIT, MR. HARRIS, PLEASE. (BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. DARDEN: COULD THE COURT --
THE COURT: I'M SORRY?
MR. DARDEN: I WANT TO ASK THAT THE COURT REQUIRE MR. SHAPIRO TO SHOW THE DETECTIVE --
THE COURT: I'M GOING TO GIVE DETECTIVE VANNATTER THE COURT'S COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO LOOK AT THE MONITOR.
MR. DARDEN: MAY HE BE ALLOWED TO READ ALL THE WAY DOWN TO LINE 22?
THE COURT: WE HAVE THE WHOLE --
MR. DARDEN: THE WHOLE EXCHANGE?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS, YOU NEED TO BACK OUT JUST A LITTLE THERE. ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED THE QUESTION REGARDING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THAT YOU HEARD HIM TESTIFY THAT THERE WERE BLOOD SMEARS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR, DIDN'T YOU?
A: I HEARD HIM TESTIFY TO THAT, YES.
Q: AND YOUR ANSWER WAS, "I DID, YES"; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: AND THEN YOU WERE ASKED: "DID YOU SEE THOSE?" DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A: YES.
Q: AND DID YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION: "I DID AT A LATER TIME. I DON'T RECALL HIM SHOWING THEM TO ME THAT NIGHT."
A: YES.

[William Anthony]

Here is a part of the DF's testimony

Q: SIR, ON JUNE THE 13TH OF 1994, WERE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM AND 875 BUNDY IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES?
A: YES.
Q: AND LATER ON JUNE THE 14TH, WERE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING CERTAIN EVIDENCE IN A BRONCO THAT HAD BEEN IMPOUNDED FROM THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?
Q: OKAY. NOW, AFTER YOU ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION AT ROCKINGHAM AT APPROXIMATELY YOU SAID 7:10 A.M., WHAT WAS THE VERY FIRST THING YOU DID WHEN YOU GOT THERE?
A: FIRST THING I DID WAS, I WAS MET BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER, AND HE GAVE ME A BRIEFING AS TO WHAT HE HAD AT THE CRIME SCENE AND WHAT HE WANTED ME TO DO.
Q: DID HE SHOW YOU ANY EVIDENCE?
A: YES, HE DID.
Q: WHAT DID HE SHOW YOU?
A: HE SHOWED ME A RED STAIN ON THE DRIVER DOOR OF THE BRONCO AND A BLOOD TRAIL LEADING FROM THE BRONCO TOWARDS THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF THE RESIDENCE.
Q: OKAY. YOU CAN RESUME YOUR SEAT. NOW, DID YOU COLLECT A STAIN ON THE CAR DOOR OF A BRONCO THAT WAS LOCATED AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?
A: YES.
Q: NOW, WHEN YOU WERE AT THE BRONCO THAT MORNING, COULD YOU SEE ANY OTHER BLOOD INSIDE OF THE BRONCO?
A: I DID SEE WHAT APPEARED TO BE STAINS IN THE INTERIOR PORTION OF THE VEHICLE.
Q: WHERE WERE YOU STANDING WHEN YOU SAW THOSE?
A: I WAS STANDING AT THE FRONT PASSENGER WINDOW.
Q: NOW, YOU TESTIFIED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT AS TO ONE OF THESE ITEMS AT BUNDY, NUMBER -- WELL, 52, THAT YOU WERE NOT PRESENT WHEN THAT WAS COLLECTED.
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: AND YOU TESTIFIED, DID YOU NOT, IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR AT A PROCEEDING. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
A: OH, YES.
Q: AND WERE YOU ASKED THESE QUESTIONS AND DID YOU GIVE THESE ANSWERS?
MR. SCHECK: I'M NOW AT PAGE 531, MR. GOLDBERG.
MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT TO GET THAT?
THE COURT: I THINK YOU MISSPOKE YOURSELF, AUGUST OF THIS YEAR. AUGUST OF LAST YEAR.
MR. SCHECK: DID I SAY AUGUST OF THIS YEAR? IT'S GETTING DIFFICULT, JUDGE. IT WAS AUGUST OF LAST YEAR.
THE COURT: LET'S NOT MAKE IT TRUE.
MR. GOLDBERG: SORRY, COUNSEL.
MR. SCHECK: STARTING AT PAGE 531.
MR. GOLDBERG: WHICH HEARING? THE GRIFFEN HEARING?
MR. SCHECK: YEAH.
"QUESTION: MR. FUNG, YOU WERE THE CRIMINALIST WHO COLLECTED THE ALLEGED DROPS OF BLOOD FOUND AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT?
"ANSWER: I WAS ONE OF TWO CRIMINALISTS WHO WAS THERE COLLECTING EVIDENCE, YES.
"QUESTION: OKAY. AND DID YOU PERSONALLY COLLECT THE STAINS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE ITEM NOS. 47, 48, 49, 50 AND 52?
"ANSWER: I WAS PRESENT DURING THE COLLECTION OF THEM AND ASSISTED IN -- ASSISTED IN THOSE -- THE COLLECTION OF THOSE STAINS, YES." WERE YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS, DID YOU GIVE THOSE ANSWERS?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: AND IN THAT ANSWER, YOU INCLUDED ITEM NO. 52?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: AND THEN AT PAGE 536 OF THAT SAME PROCEEDING, YOU WERE ASKED THESE QUESTIONS AND GAVE THESE ANSWERS:
"QUESTION: MR. FUNG, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU WERE COLLECTING THE BLOOD SPECIMENS WITH A COLLEAGUE NAMED MISS MAZZOLA?
"ANSWER: YES.
"QUESTION: AND WITH RESPECT TO THE ENUMERATED SPECIMENS, NO. 47 THROUGH 52, I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT SHE DID THE COLLECTION AND YOU OBSERVED HER, AND IF NEED BE, ASSISTED HER?
"ANSWER: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES." WERE YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS, DID YOU GIVE THOSE ANSWERS?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: AND IN THE SAME PROCEEDING AGAIN AT PAGE 538:
"QUESTION: FOR EACH AND EVERY SPECIMEN THAT I JUST GAVE YOU AS KEY NUMBERS THERE, DID YOU PERSONALLY OBSERVE HER COLLECT THEM THERE OR WERE THERE THREE TIMES WHERE YOU WERE OFF COLLECTING OR WERE THERE TIMES THAT YOU WERE OFF COLLECTING SOME SPECIMENS AND SHE WAS COLLECTING THINGS AT SOME DISTANCE FROM YOU?
"ANSWER: THERE WERE TIMES THAT -- WHEN I WASN'T WATCHING HER ALL THE TIME, NO.
"QUESTION: AND SO SHE WOULD BE COLLECTING SOME OF THESE BLOOD -- WITHDRAW.
"AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, DO YOU HAVE A VIVID MEMORY AS TO WHICH OF THE 60 OR SO ITEMS THAT YOU COLLECTED AT BUNDY SHE COLLECTED IN YOUR PRESENCE AS OPPOSED TO THOSE WHICH WERE COLLECTED OUTSIDE YOUR PRESENCE?
"ANSWER: I DO REMEMBER THAT THE BLOODSTAINS LEADING FROM WHERE THE VICTIMS WERE ALONG THE ESCAPE ROUTE AS IT HAS BEEN REFERRED TO IN THE PAST AS, I WAS THERE WITH HER PERSONALLY SUPERVISING HER.
"QUESTION: FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE?
"ANSWER: I BELIEVE SO, YES." WERE YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS, DID YOU GIVE THOSE ANSWERS?
MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR, TO LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT BEFORE HE ANSWERS?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD JUST ASK THAT HE READ DOWN THROUGH LINE 10 OF THE TRANSCRIPT SO THAT MAY BE COMPLETE ON PAGE 539, COUNSEL.
MR. SCHECK: WELL, I WILL. I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY, BUT I WILL FOR HIS BENEFIT.
"QUESTION: WERE THERE OTHER BLOODSTAINS, HOWEVER, THAT SHE COLLECTED AT THAT SCENE WHICH YOU PERSONALLY DID NOT SUPERVISE?
"ANSWER: YES.
"QUESTION: AND AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, DO YOU KNOW WHICH ONES THOSE WERE?
"ANSWER: NOT SPECIFICALLY, NO." OKAY?
A: YES.
Q: MR. FUNG, I NOTICED THAT ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, YOU WERE NOT ASKED WHETHER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SHOWED YOU FOUR RED STAINS ON THE BOTTOM EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH.
MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT TO THAT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. IT'S NOT A QUESTION, COUNSEL. IT'S TESTIFYING. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THAT LAST QUESTION. ASK A QUESTION, MR. SCHECK.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU ASKED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION IF YOU RECALL ABOUT WHETHER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SHOWED YOU FOUR RED STAINS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH?
MR. GOLDBERG: NOT RELEVANT.
THE COURT: AS PHRASED, THAT'S CORRECT. SUSTAINED. ASK HIM IF THE EVENTS OCCURRED ON JUNE THE 13TH, NOT WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS ASKED THE QUESTIONS. THAT'S IRRELEVANT.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU SPENT IN YOUR PREPARATION TIME WITH PROSECUTORS SOME HOURS DISCUSSING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT FOUR RED STAINS WERE SEEN BY YOU ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR?
A: I WOULDN'T SAY HOURS. I WOULDN'T EVEN SAY ONE HOUR. I WOULDN'T EVEN SAY MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES.
Q: THE ISSUE, HOWEVER, AROSE?
A: YES.

[William Anthony]

Q: All Right. Was There Any Discussion With You As To Whether Or Not You Should Discuss The Question Of Whether You Saw Four Red Stains On The Exterior Of The Bronco Door On The Morning Of June 13th?
A: I Don't Understand That Question.
Q: Was There Any Discussion Of Whether Or Not You Should Testify On Direct Examination As To Whether Or Not You Saw Four Red Stains On The Exterior Of The Bronco Door On The Morning Of June 13th?
A: I Don't Know Or I Didn't Tell Mr. Goldberg And He Didn't Tell Me That He Would Be Asking Me Those Questions Specifically.
Q: So In Other Words, In Your Review Sessions For Your Direct Examination, You Did Not Anticipate Being Asked That Question On Direct?
Mr. Goldberg: Your Honor, That's Irrelevant.
The Court: Sustained.
Q: By Mr. Scheck: You Testified At The Preliminary Hearing In This Case On July 6 And July 7th?
A: Yes.
Q: Prior To Your Testimony On July 6th, Do You Recall That Detective Fuhrman Testified On July 5th?
A: I Know That He Testified Before Me, But To The Date, I'm Not Exactly Sure.
Q: Do You Recall That Prior To Your Testimony At The Preliminary Hearing, Detective Fuhrman Testified That He Did Not Direct You Or A Photographer To Take Any Pictures Of Four Red Stains On The Exterior Of The Bronco Door?
A: I Don't Recall Any Of His Testimony From The Preliminary Hearing.
Q: Are You Aware At This Trial Detective Fuhrman Testified That He Did Show You Four Red Stains At The Bottom Exterior Of The Bronco Door On The Morning Of June 13th?
Mr. Goldberg: That Misstates The Testimony.
The Court: Sustained.
Q: By Mr. Scheck: Are You Aware That Detective Fuhrman Testified At This Trial That He Directed Your Attention To Four -- Three Or Four Little Marks, Little Lines, Translucent, Red On The Door Sill Of The Driver's Door On June 13th?
A: I Don't Know What His Testimony Was.
Q: No One Told You From The District Attorney's Office That He Testified To That Effect At This Trial?
A: No.
Q: Did Any Detective Tell You That Detective Fuhrman Had Testified To This Jury About Showing You Those Four Lines The Bottom Of The Bronco Door Before You Came In Here To Testify?
A: No.
Q: Did Anyone At The Crime Lab Tell You About It?
Mr. Goldberg: Your Honor, It Assumes Facts Not In Evidence. It Also Misstates The Testimony.
The Court: Overruled.
The Witness: No.
Mr. Goldberg: Your Honor, If Counsel Is Going To Read From --
Mr. Scheck: If You Want To Consult The Testimony, It's At Page 18550.
Ms. Clark: Are We Testifying Here?
The Court: Proceed.
Mr. Scheck: Thank You, Your Honor.
Q: By Mr. Scheck: Okay, Mr. Fung. Let Me Ask You Directly, On June 13th In The Morning, Did Detective Fuhrman Point Out Four Red Lines, Red Stains To You On The Bottom Of The Bronco Door?
A: I Don't Recall Him Doing So.
Q: When You Say You Don't Recall, Are You Saying It Didn't Happen?
A: I'm Not Saying That. I'm Saying I Don't Recall If He Did Or If He Didn't.
Q: All Right. If You Had Seen Four Red Stains On The Exterior Of The Bronco Door On The Morning Of June 13th, You Would Have Taken A Photograph Of Them; Would You Not?
A: That Would Depend, But I Don't Know. But That Would Depend On The Circumstances.
Q: Let's Try These Circumstances. You Were Pointed Out A Red Stain By The Door Handle?
A: Yes.
Q: You Were Photographed Pointing To That Red Stain, Correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And You're The Person That's Supposed To Direct The Photographer During The Collection Process?
A: Yes.
Q: You're Supposed To Photograph Items Of Evidence Of Some Importance That Are Pointed Out To You By The Detectives?
A: Yes.
Q: In The Circumstances Of This Case, If You Had Seen Four Red Stains On The Exterior Of The Bronco Door, Would You Not Have Directed The Photographer To Take A Picture Of It?
A: It Would Be Likely. Yes.
Q: If You Had Seen Four Red Stains On The Exterior Of The Bronco Door, Would You Have Not Done A Presumptive Test On June 13th?
A: Possibly. I -- If It Was Necessary, I Would Have.
Q: If You Had Seen Four Red Stains On The Exterior Of The Bronco Door, Would You Have Not Swatched Them?
A: I Would -- I Would Possibly Have Swatched Them.
Q: If You Had Seen Four Red Stains On The Exterior Of The Bronco Door, Would You Not Have Included That Observation In Your Reports For That Day?
A: If I Thought It Was Important To The Investigation, I Would Have Included It In My Notes, Yes.
Q: Looking Back At The Circumstances Of This Case, Would Not Those Four Red Stains Have Been An Important Detail That You Would Have Certainly Included In Your Notes?
Mr. Goldberg: Calls For Speculation.
The Court: Overruled.
The Witness: From My Perspective Now?
Q: By Mr. Scheck: Let's Try Your Perspective Then.
A: I Don't Recall My Exact State Of Mind Then, But It -- I Don't Know Exactly If I Would Have Put It Down Or Not.
Q: On June 14th, You Conducted This Examination Of The Bronco At The Print Shed?
A: Yes.
Q: And You Were Looking For Any Evidence Of Blood In The Bronco?
A: I Was Looking For Blood Evidence, Yes.
Q: Red Stains?
A: Yes.

Let me apologize if there is any duplication as his inconsitentcies were hard to follow.

[martin II]

Q: All Right. Was There Any Discussion With You As To Whether Or Not You Should Discuss The Question Of Whether You Saw Four Red Stains On The Exterior Of The Bronco Door On The Morning Of June 13th?
A: I Don't Understand That Question.
Q: Was There Any Discussion Of Whether Or Not You Should Testify On Direct Examination As To Whether Or Not You Saw Four Red Stains On The Exterior Of The Bronco Door On The Morning Of June 13th?
A: I Don't Know Or I Didn't Tell Mr. Goldberg And He Didn't Tell Me That He Would Be Asking Me Those Questions Specifically.
Q: So In Other Words, In Your Review Sessions For Your Direct Examination, You Did Not Anticipate Being Asked That Question On Direct?
Mr. Goldberg: Your Honor, That's Irrelevant.
The Court: Sustained.
Q: By Mr. Scheck: You Testified At The Preliminary Hearing In This Case On July 6 And July 7th?
A: Yes.
Q: Prior To Your Testimony On July 6th, Do You Recall That Detective Fuhrman Testified On July 5th?
A: I Know That He Testified Before Me, But To The Date, I'm Not Exactly Sure.
Q: Do You Recall That Prior To Your Testimony At The Preliminary Hearing, Detective Fuhrman Testified That He Did Not Direct You Or A Photographer To Take Any Pictures Of Four Red Stains On The Exterior Of The Bronco Door?
A: I Don't Recall Any Of His Testimony From The Preliminary Hearing.
Q: Are You Aware At This Trial Detective Fuhrman Testified That He Did Show You Four Red Stains At The Bottom Exterior Of The Bronco Door On The Morning Of June 13th?
Mr. Goldberg: That Misstates The Testimony.
The Court: Sustained.
Q: By Mr. Scheck: Are You Aware That Detective Fuhrman Testified At This Trial That He Directed Your Attention To Four -- Three Or Four Little Marks, Little Lines, Translucent, Red On The Door Sill Of The Driver's Door On June 13th?
A: I Don't Know What His Testimony Was.
Q: No One Told You From The District Attorney's Office That He Testified To That Effect At This Trial?
A: No.
Q: Did Any Detective Tell You That Detective Fuhrman Had Testified To This Jury About Showing You Those Four Lines The Bottom Of The Bronco Door Before You Came In Here To Testify?
A: No.
Q: Did Anyone At The Crime Lab Tell You About It?
Mr. Goldberg: Your Honor, It Assumes Facts Not In Evidence. It Also Misstates The Testimony.
The Court: Overruled.
The Witness: No.
Mr. Goldberg: Your Honor, If Counsel Is Going To Read From --
Mr. Scheck: If You Want To Consult The Testimony, It's At Page 18550.
Ms. Clark: Are We Testifying Here?
The Court: Proceed.
Mr. Scheck: Thank You, Your Honor.
Q: By Mr. Scheck: Okay, Mr. Fung. Let Me Ask You Directly, On June 13th In The Morning, Did Detective Fuhrman Point Out Four Red Lines, Red Stains To You On The Bottom Of The Bronco Door?
A: I Don't Recall Him Doing So.
Q: When You Say You Don't Recall, Are You Saying It Didn't Happen?
A: I'm Not Saying That. I'm Saying I Don't Recall If He Did Or If He Didn't.
Q: All Right. If You Had Seen Four Red Stains On The Exterior Of The Bronco Door On The Morning Of June 13th, You Would Have Taken A Photograph Of Them; Would You Not?
A: That Would Depend, But I Don't Know. But That Would Depend On The Circumstances.
Q: Let's Try These Circumstances. You Were Pointed Out A Red Stain By The Door Handle?
A: Yes.
Q: You Were Photographed Pointing To That Red Stain, Correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And You're The Person That's Supposed To Direct The Photographer During The Collection Process?
A: Yes.
Q: You're Supposed To Photograph Items Of Evidence Of Some Importance That Are Pointed Out To You By The Detectives?
A: Yes.
Q: In The Circumstances Of This Case, If You Had Seen Four Red Stains On The Exterior Of The Bronco Door, Would You Not Have Directed The Photographer To Take A Picture Of It?
A: It Would Be Likely. Yes.
Q: If You Had Seen Four Red Stains On The Exterior Of The Bronco Door, Would You Have Not Done A Presumptive Test On June 13th?
A: Possibly. I -- If It Was Necessary, I Would Have.
Q: If You Had Seen Four Red Stains On The Exterior Of The Bronco Door, Would You Have Not Swatched Them?
A: I Would -- I Would Possibly Have Swatched Them.
Q: If You Had Seen Four Red Stains On The Exterior Of The Bronco Door, Would You Not Have Included That Observation In Your Reports For That Day?
A: If I Thought It Was Important To The Investigation, I Would Have Included It In My Notes, Yes.
Q: Looking Back At The Circumstances Of This Case, Would Not Those Four Red Stains Have Been An Important Detail That You Would Have Certainly Included In Your Notes?
Mr. Goldberg: Calls For Speculation.
The Court: Overruled.
The Witness: From My Perspective Now?
Q: By Mr. Scheck: Let's Try Your Perspective Then.
A: I Don't Recall My Exact State Of Mind Then, But It -- I Don't Know Exactly If I Would Have Put It Down Or Not.
Q: On June 14th, You Conducted This Examination Of The Bronco At The Print Shed?
A: Yes.
Q: And You Were Looking For Any Evidence Of Blood In The Bronco?
A: I Was Looking For Blood Evidence, Yes.
Q: Red Stains?
A: Yes.

Let me apologize if there is any duplication as his inconsitentcies were hard to follow.

william

Fung is clearly trying to be evasive to this simple question. If i were a jury member and heard fung testifying, i would put his testimony down as being suspect and evasive.
martin II

[William Anthony]

william

Fung is clearly trying to be evasive to this simple question. If i were a jury member and heard fung testifying, i would put his testimony down as being suspect and evasive.
martin II

Martin,

The problem is as Marcia realized the MF could not have seen the smears/stains at the bottom of the drive door unless he had been in the car or placed them there. Hence, there is the need for the DF and Vanatter to be evasive.

[martin II]

Martin,

The problem is as Marcia realized the MF could not have seen the smears/stains at the bottom of the drive door unless he had been in the car or placed them there. Hence, there is the need for the DF and Vanatter to be evasive.

william

This is correct. I think J Cochran brought this out in his cross of one of these
le detectives.

This is the kind of testimony that the jury heard which alereted them to the idea that " SOMEONE IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH HERE"
martin II

[bobaugust]

??????????????? It has everything to do with when Vanatter delivered it to Rockingham, because he could not explain the disparity in the time from when the blood was collected and when he arrived at Rockingham. Could he have been in his office, yes? Could he have driven to Bundy, in light of the missing blood, before going to Rockingham, yes. The turning point is his credibility, which Ito commented that Vanatter has a reckless disregard for the truth.

There was no discrepancy between the time the blood was drawn and when Vannatter arrived at Rockingham.

After Simpson had given his blood, his fingerprints and photographs taken the detectives arrived back at their office with Simpson at about 3:30 P.M. where they met with Weitzman and Taft. After they left Vannatter met with Captain Gartland and then returned to his desk where he continued to work on the case. Vannatter learned that Fung had gone to Rockingham after the Bundy crime scene was shut down at 3:45 P.M. Vannatter remained in his office, working on the case, until he and Lange left for Rockingham at about 4:30 P.M..

Your question that Vannatter could have driven to Bundy doesn't make any sense. Not only is it contradicted by Vannatter's testimony and the reality of the driving time but by the fact that all of the blood at Bundy had been collected before Fung and Mazzola left for Rockingham.

There was no missing blood. No blood was ever found to have been planted in this case.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

They were not together when they collected the samples as the DF testified there were some samples that Mazzola collected of which he was unaware. He later recalled that she did collect them. Do I sense that you are becoming a little testy? It would appear to me that you continue to want to insult me when I raise issues. I think the rubric of common sense will tell us that, although two people work together, they are not inseparable, unless they are Siamese twins. I think the fiber of logic tells us that there were times when the DF and Mazzola went to the restroom alone. I would request you to cease with the insults as I do not want to involve the moderator in our discussions if we can resolve the issue.

Please, I never said that Fung and Mazzola were together every second of time that day. They worked together, they rode together.

I don't insult you only your insinuations that the LAPD were the criminals in this case. If you feel that reasonable explanations that contradict your imaginary criminal acts insulting then I'm sorry to say that you will probably be insulted every time you make them.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Here is some of the relevant part of Vanatter's testimony in regard to the blood on the bottom of the Bronco door, which the MF alleged he saw, but denied seeing blood in the vehicle.

Q: NOW, AT SOME POINT, DID YOU NOTICE A BLOOD SPOT --
A: YES.
Q: -- ON THE BRONCO?
A: YES. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN CAME TO ME AND TOLD ME THAT THE VEHICLE WAS REGISTERED TO HORTZ -- TO HERTZ CORPORATION. WHILE I WAS STANDING IN THE STREET, HE WALKED BACK TO THE BRONCO, WAS THERE A VERY SHORT TIME AND WALKED A LITTLE WAY BACK UP THE STREET AND CALLED ME TO COME BACK TO THE BRONCO.
Q: AND DID YOU GO OVER TO THE BRONCO?
A: I DID.
Q: ABOUT WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU WENT TO THE BRONCO THE SECOND TIME?
A: APPROXIMATELY 5:30 IN THE MORNING.
Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU VIEW A SPOT ON THE BRONCO?
A: HE POINTED OUT A SPOT ABOVE THE DRIVER'S DOOR HANDLE THAT APPEARED TO BE A REDDISH BROWNISH TYPE STAIN THAT LOOKED LIKE BLOOD TO ME.
A: AT THAT POINT, I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS OTHER EVIDENCE THERE.
Q: OKAY. THIS WAS ALL YOU KNEW ABOUT THEN, THAT IS THE BLOOD ON THE SIDE OF THE BRONCO.
A: WELL, SEEING THE -- WHAT APPEARED TO BE ANOTHER BLOOD TRAIL, I WALKED TO THE BRONCO TO HAVE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE BRONCO TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY OTHER BLOOD I COULD SEE THERE. I LOOKED IN FROM THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE AND I OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE A BLOOD SMEAR ALONG THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE CONSOLE AND WHAT APPEARED TO BE BLOOD ON THE INSIDE OF THE DRIVER'S DOOR OF THE VEHICLE.
Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT, DETECTIVE?
A: I THEN WALKED BACK EAST IN THE DRIVEWAY AGAIN LOOKING AT THE -- WHAT APPEARED TO BE BLOOD DROPS, AND FOLLOWED THEM TO THE -- FOUND AN ADDITIONAL THREE OR FOUR DROPS THAT LED TO THE FRONT DOOR OF THE LOCATION.
Q: WHAT ARE THEY INTENDED TO INDICATE, DETECTIVE?
A: THAT WOULD INDICATE THE START OF THE TRAIL AT THE BACK OF THE BRONCO WHICH WAS PARKED ON THE STREET, LEADS INTO THE DRIVEWAY AND RIGHT TO THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOME.
Q: DID YOU SEE THAT BLOOD IN THE BRONCO?
A: I SAW -- I SAW BLOOD INSIDE THE BRONCO ON THE DRIVER'S DOOR HERE ALONG THE TOP, (INDICATING), AND ALONG THIS AREA HERE, (INDICATING).
Q: DID YOU EVER SEE ANYONE OPEN THE DOOR TO THE BRONCO THAT MORNING?
A: NO.
Q: SO WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME IS THERE ARE FOUR DETECTIVES, TWO LEAD DETECTIVES THAT ARE THERE, AND NONE OF YOU EXAMINED THE TRUCK, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: HE WAS THE FIRST ONE THAT DID, YES.
Q: AND HE IS THE ONE WHO DISCOVERED THE BLOOD DROP ON THE DOOR HANDLE?
A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
Q: NOW, YOU HEARD HIM TESTIFY THAT THERE WERE BLOOD SMEARS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR, DIDN'T YOU?
A: I DID, YES.
Q: DID YOU SEE THOSE?
A: I DID AT A LATER TIME. I DON'T RECALL HIM SHOWING THEM TO ME THAT NIGHT.
Q: YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED YOU DIDN'T SEE THEM, HAVEN'T YOU?
A: WELL, I SAW A REPORT THAT WAS DONE BY THE CRIMINALIST. I DON'T RECALL SEEING THEM THAT -- THAT EVENING OR THAT MORNING.
Q: IN FACT, YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY BLOOD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO, DIDN'T YOU?
A: THAT I DIDN'T?
Q: DID NOT?
A: I -- I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANY BLOOD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO.
Q: AND WHERE IN YOUR REPORT DID YOU INDICATE THAT THERE WAS -- IN ADDITION TO A SPOT ON THE DOOR HANDLE, THAT THERE WAS BLOOD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO, SIR?
A: WHERE DID I INDICATE THAT?
Q: YES.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU INDICATE IT IN YOUR REPORT?
A: I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD -- I WOULD HAVE TO READ THE ENTIRE REPORT TO TELL YOU THAT.
Q: WELL, I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT THE VALUABLE JURY TIME NOW. MAYBE YOU CAN DO THAT TONIGHT AND READ THAT REPORT AND GIVE US THAT ANSWER TOMORROW. WE WILL GO ON TO SOMETHING ELSE.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION AND A MOTION TO STRIKE.
THE COURT: THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE COMMENT.
Q: YESTERDAY YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WOULD LIKE SOME TIME TO REVIEW YOUR REPORTS TO SEE IF YOU MADE ANY INDICATION IN ANY OF YOUR RECORDS AS TO WHETHER YOU WERE SHOWN ANY BLOOD SMEARS BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT, SIR?
A: YES. I DON'T RECALL HIM SHOWING ME ANY BLOOD SMEARS THAT MORNING.
Q: AND THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT YOU WERE SHOWN ANY BLOOD SMEARS BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A: NO. I COULDN'T FIND ANY, NO.

What part of this testimony supports your claim that Fung said that blood on the door sill could not be seen unless the door was open?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Here is the rest of the testimony

Q: AND IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED THAT THERE WERE BLOOD SMEARS ON THE DOOR, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO POINT OUT TO YOU, WOULD IT NOT?
A: HE MAY HAVE POINTED THEM OUT. I DON'T RECALL HIM DOING THAT.
Q: WELL, THIS IS SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT, IS IT NOT, WHAT BLOOD YOU SAW ON THE BRONCO AT ROCKINGHAM?
A: PARDON, SIR? I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOU.
Q: IS THE OBSERVATION OF BLOOD ON THE BRONCO SOMETHING THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT IN A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION LIKE THIS?
A: YES, SIR.
Q: AND IF YOU WERE SHOWN BLOOD SMEARS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO, ISN'T THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD REMEMBER?
A: I -- I -- I DON'T RECALL HIM SHOWING THEM TO ME. HE COULD HAVE. I DON'T RECALL IT.
Q: MY QUESTION IS ISN'T THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD REMEMBER, IF THOSE WERE SHOWN TO YOU?
A: I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT SINCE I DON'T RECALL THEM BEING SHOWN TO ME.
Q: THAT IS THE BEST ANSWER YOU GIVE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD REMEMBER BLOOD SMEARS AT ROCKINGHAM?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID IT EVER DAWN ON YOU, SIR, THAT IF THERE WERE BLOOD SMEARS AT THE -- WELL, YOU SAW BLOOD SMEARS INSIDE THE DOOR ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO, DIDN'T YOU?
A: TOWARD THE TOP, TOWARD THE WINDOW, YES.
Q: DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR?
A: DOWN INSIDE THE VEHICLE?
Q: YES.
A: NO.
Q: DID IT EVER DAWN ON YOU THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MUST HAVE GONE INSIDE THAT CAR FOR HIM TO SEE THOSE BLOOD SPOTS?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT IS VAGUE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED THAT HE SAW BLOOD SMEARS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO AND YOUR RECOLLECTION IS YOU DID NOT SEE BLOOD SMEARS AND THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DIDN'T SHOW THEM TO YOU, DID IT DAWN ON YOU THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MUST HAVE GONE INSIDE THE BRONCO TO MAKE THESE OBSERVATIONS?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. MISSTATES THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED ON THAT GROUND.
THE WITNESS: AS I RECALL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY, THE BLOOD SMEARS HE SAW WERE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE; NOT INSIDE.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID THAT RAISE A QUESTION IN YOUR MIND, SINCE YOU NEVER SAW BLOOD SMEARS OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID IT CAUSE YOU CONCERN, SINCE YOU DON'T REMEMBER SEEING ANY BLOOD STAINS OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE?
A: NO. THERE WAS A LOT OF BLOOD THERE THAT I DIDN'T SEE ORIGINALLY.
Q: I'M TALKING ABOUT OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE. WAS THERE A LOT OF BLOOD ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE THAT YOU DIDN'T SEE AT ANY POINT IN TIME?
A: YES. I DON'T RECALL SEEING THE BLOOD SMEARS ALONG THE PANEL OF THE DOOR AT THE BOTTOM.
Q: DID YOU EVER SEE THOSE BLOOD SMEARS?
A: I SAW A REPORT THAT THEY WERE TESTED PRESUMPTIVE FOR BLOOD.
Q: DID YOU EVER SEE THOSE BLOOD SMEARS YOURSELF?
A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING THEM, NO, SIR.
Q: DID YOU TESTIFY YESTERDAY THAT YOU DID SEE THEM?
A: NO, SIR, I DID NOT.
Q: DID YOU TESTIFY YESTERDAY THAT YOU DID NOT RECALL SEEING THE BLOOD SMEARS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO THAT NIGHT BUT YOU DID SEE THEM AT SOME LATER TIME?
A: I DON'T BELIEVE I SAID THAT. I DON'T RECALL SEEING THOSE SMEARS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR.
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I SHOW YOU YOUR TESTIMONY OF YESTERDAY WE HAVE TAKEN THIS OFF A COMPUTER AND PERHAPS I CAN READ IT TO HIM. THESE ARE OFF THE LIVE NOTES BUT WE CAN MAYBE LOCATE IT FROM THE TRANSCRIPT.
THE COURT: I WOULD PREFER THE TRANSCRIPT, WHICH WE HAVE GONE TO --
MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL MOVE ON TO ANOTHER MATTER.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHEN CRIMINALIST FUNG CAME OUT AT YOUR ORDER, DID HE TEST ANYTHING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO FOR BLOOD?
A: I BELIEVE THAT TESTING WAS DONE AT A LATER DATE.
Q: DID YOU PHOTOGRAPH HIM POINTING OUT ANY BLOOD AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO OR CAUSE HIM TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED DOING THAT?
A: NO. I WASN'T THERE WHEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE DONE.
Q: DID YOU ORDER PHOTOGRAPHS TO BE TAKEN?
A: YES, SIR, I DID.
Q: WHAT DID YOU ORDER TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED?
A: THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT I WAS AWARE OF.
Q: AND DID YOU ORDER THE BLOOD -- THAT BLOOD STAIN THAT YOU HAVE REFERRED TO ON THE DOOR HANDLE OF THE BRONCO, THAT WAS PRETTY SMALL?
A: YES. AND IT WAS ABOVE THE DOOR HANDLE, NOT ACTUALLY ON THE HANDLE.
Q: ABOVE THE DOOR HANDLE?
A: YES, SIR.
Q: AND YOU ORDERED CRIMINALIST FUNG TO DO A PHENOTHALINE TEST?
A: YES. A PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TEST, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: AND A PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TEST ONLY SHOWS THAT THE SUBSTANCE COULD POSSIBLY BE BLOOD; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: IT COULD ALSO BE VEGETABLE SUBSTANCES THAT WOULD GIVE A POSITIVE READING?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. CALLS FOR --
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE COULD GIVE A POSITIVE READING?
A: NO, I AM NOT AN EXPERT IN THAT.
Q: YOU DIDN'T HEAR THE TESTIMONY OF THE EXPERTS AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WHEN YOU WERE SITTING THERE?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU HEAR THE TESTIMONY -- HAVE YOU HEARD EXPERTS TESTIFY AS TO WHAT A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD IS?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER ANY OTHER SUBSTANCES, BASED ON TESTIMONY YOU'VE HEARD FROM OTHER EXPERTS, FROM EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, COULD BE A SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN BLOOD?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I THINK IT IS A 352 PROBLEM.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: LET ME NOW GO BACK TO YOUR TRANSCRIPT OF YESTERDAY. I WANT TO DRAW THE COURT'S ATTENTION TO PAGE 19556, LINES 1 AND 10, SIR, AND ASK YOU TO READ THAT YOURSELF.
A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I PUT THIS UP ON THE ELMO, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. SHAPIRO: OKAY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. SHAPIRO: GO DOWN A LITTLE BIT, MR. HARRIS, PLEASE. (BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. DARDEN: COULD THE COURT --
THE COURT: I'M SORRY?
MR. DARDEN: I WANT TO ASK THAT THE COURT REQUIRE MR. SHAPIRO TO SHOW THE DETECTIVE --
THE COURT: I'M GOING TO GIVE DETECTIVE VANNATTER THE COURT'S COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO LOOK AT THE MONITOR.
MR. DARDEN: MAY HE BE ALLOWED TO READ ALL THE WAY DOWN TO LINE 22?
THE COURT: WE HAVE THE WHOLE --
MR. DARDEN: THE WHOLE EXCHANGE?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS, YOU NEED TO BACK OUT JUST A LITTLE THERE. ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED THE QUESTION REGARDING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THAT YOU HEARD HIM TESTIFY THAT THERE WERE BLOOD SMEARS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR, DIDN'T YOU?
A: I HEARD HIM TESTIFY TO THAT, YES.
Q: AND YOUR ANSWER WAS, "I DID, YES"; IS THAT CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: AND THEN YOU WERE ASKED: "DID YOU SEE THOSE?" DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A: YES.
Q: AND DID YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION: "I DID AT A LATER TIME. I DON'T RECALL HIM SHOWING THEM TO ME THAT NIGHT."
A: YES.


What part of this testimony supports your claim that Fung said that blood on the door sill could not be seen unless the door was open?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Here is a part of the DF's testimony

Q: SIR, ON JUNE THE 13TH OF 1994, WERE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM AND 875 BUNDY IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES?
A: YES.
Q: AND LATER ON JUNE THE 14TH, WERE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING CERTAIN EVIDENCE IN A BRONCO THAT HAD BEEN IMPOUNDED FROM THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?
Q: OKAY. NOW, AFTER YOU ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION AT ROCKINGHAM AT APPROXIMATELY YOU SAID 7:10 A.M., WHAT WAS THE VERY FIRST THING YOU DID WHEN YOU GOT THERE?
A: FIRST THING I DID WAS, I WAS MET BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER, AND HE GAVE ME A BRIEFING AS TO WHAT HE HAD AT THE CRIME SCENE AND WHAT HE WANTED ME TO DO.
Q: DID HE SHOW YOU ANY EVIDENCE?
A: YES, HE DID.
Q: WHAT DID HE SHOW YOU?
A: HE SHOWED ME A RED STAIN ON THE DRIVER DOOR OF THE BRONCO AND A BLOOD TRAIL LEADING FROM THE BRONCO TOWARDS THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF THE RESIDENCE.
Q: OKAY. YOU CAN RESUME YOUR SEAT. NOW, DID YOU COLLECT A STAIN ON THE CAR DOOR OF A BRONCO THAT WAS LOCATED AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?
A: YES.
Q: NOW, WHEN YOU WERE AT THE BRONCO THAT MORNING, COULD YOU SEE ANY OTHER BLOOD INSIDE OF THE BRONCO?
A: I DID SEE WHAT APPEARED TO BE STAINS IN THE INTERIOR PORTION OF THE VEHICLE.
Q: WHERE WERE YOU STANDING WHEN YOU SAW THOSE?
A: I WAS STANDING AT THE FRONT PASSENGER WINDOW.
Q: NOW, YOU TESTIFIED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT AS TO ONE OF THESE ITEMS AT BUNDY, NUMBER -- WELL, 52, THAT YOU WERE NOT PRESENT WHEN THAT WAS COLLECTED.
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: AND YOU TESTIFIED, DID YOU NOT, IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR AT A PROCEEDING. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
A: OH, YES.
Q: AND WERE YOU ASKED THESE QUESTIONS AND DID YOU GIVE THESE ANSWERS?
MR. SCHECK: I'M NOW AT PAGE 531, MR. GOLDBERG.
MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT TO GET THAT?
THE COURT: I THINK YOU MISSPOKE YOURSELF, AUGUST OF THIS YEAR. AUGUST OF LAST YEAR.
MR. SCHECK: DID I SAY AUGUST OF THIS YEAR? IT'S GETTING DIFFICULT, JUDGE. IT WAS AUGUST OF LAST YEAR.
THE COURT: LET'S NOT MAKE IT TRUE.
MR. GOLDBERG: SORRY, COUNSEL.
MR. SCHECK: STARTING AT PAGE 531.
MR. GOLDBERG: WHICH HEARING? THE GRIFFEN HEARING?
MR. SCHECK: YEAH.
"QUESTION: MR. FUNG, YOU WERE THE CRIMINALIST WHO COLLECTED THE ALLEGED DROPS OF BLOOD FOUND AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT?
"ANSWER: I WAS ONE OF TWO CRIMINALISTS WHO WAS THERE COLLECTING EVIDENCE, YES.
"QUESTION: OKAY. AND DID YOU PERSONALLY COLLECT THE STAINS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE ITEM NOS. 47, 48, 49, 50 AND 52?
"ANSWER: I WAS PRESENT DURING THE COLLECTION OF THEM AND ASSISTED IN -- ASSISTED IN THOSE -- THE COLLECTION OF THOSE STAINS, YES." WERE YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS, DID YOU GIVE THOSE ANSWERS?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: AND IN THAT ANSWER, YOU INCLUDED ITEM NO. 52?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: AND THEN AT PAGE 536 OF THAT SAME PROCEEDING, YOU WERE ASKED THESE QUESTIONS AND GAVE THESE ANSWERS:
"QUESTION: MR. FUNG, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU WERE COLLECTING THE BLOOD SPECIMENS WITH A COLLEAGUE NAMED MISS MAZZOLA?
"ANSWER: YES.
"QUESTION: AND WITH RESPECT TO THE ENUMERATED SPECIMENS, NO. 47 THROUGH 52, I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT SHE DID THE COLLECTION AND YOU OBSERVED HER, AND IF NEED BE, ASSISTED HER?
"ANSWER: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES." WERE YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS, DID YOU GIVE THOSE ANSWERS?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: AND IN THE SAME PROCEEDING AGAIN AT PAGE 538:
"QUESTION: FOR EACH AND EVERY SPECIMEN THAT I JUST GAVE YOU AS KEY NUMBERS THERE, DID YOU PERSONALLY OBSERVE HER COLLECT THEM THERE OR WERE THERE THREE TIMES WHERE YOU WERE OFF COLLECTING OR WERE THERE TIMES THAT YOU WERE OFF COLLECTING SOME SPECIMENS AND SHE WAS COLLECTING THINGS AT SOME DISTANCE FROM YOU?
"ANSWER: THERE WERE TIMES THAT -- WHEN I WASN'T WATCHING HER ALL THE TIME, NO.
"QUESTION: AND SO SHE WOULD BE COLLECTING SOME OF THESE BLOOD -- WITHDRAW.
"AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, DO YOU HAVE A VIVID MEMORY AS TO WHICH OF THE 60 OR SO ITEMS THAT YOU COLLECTED AT BUNDY SHE COLLECTED IN YOUR PRESENCE AS OPPOSED TO THOSE WHICH WERE COLLECTED OUTSIDE YOUR PRESENCE?
"ANSWER: I DO REMEMBER THAT THE BLOODSTAINS LEADING FROM WHERE THE VICTIMS WERE ALONG THE ESCAPE ROUTE AS IT HAS BEEN REFERRED TO IN THE PAST AS, I WAS THERE WITH HER PERSONALLY SUPERVISING HER.
"QUESTION: FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE?
"ANSWER: I BELIEVE SO, YES." WERE YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS, DID YOU GIVE THOSE ANSWERS?
MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR, TO LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT BEFORE HE ANSWERS?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD JUST ASK THAT HE READ DOWN THROUGH LINE 10 OF THE TRANSCRIPT SO THAT MAY BE COMPLETE ON PAGE 539, COUNSEL.
MR. SCHECK: WELL, I WILL. I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY, BUT I WILL FOR HIS BENEFIT.
"QUESTION: WERE THERE OTHER BLOODSTAINS, HOWEVER, THAT SHE COLLECTED AT THAT SCENE WHICH YOU PERSONALLY DID NOT SUPERVISE?
"ANSWER: YES.
"QUESTION: AND AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, DO YOU KNOW WHICH ONES THOSE WERE?
"ANSWER: NOT SPECIFICALLY, NO." OKAY?
A: YES.
Q: MR. FUNG, I NOTICED THAT ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, YOU WERE NOT ASKED WHETHER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SHOWED YOU FOUR RED STAINS ON THE BOTTOM EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH.
MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT TO THAT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. IT'S NOT A QUESTION, COUNSEL. IT'S TESTIFYING. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THAT LAST QUESTION. ASK A QUESTION, MR. SCHECK.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU ASKED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION IF YOU RECALL ABOUT WHETHER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SHOWED YOU FOUR RED STAINS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH?
MR. GOLDBERG: NOT RELEVANT.
THE COURT: AS PHRASED, THAT'S CORRECT. SUSTAINED. ASK HIM IF THE EVENTS OCCURRED ON JUNE THE 13TH, NOT WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS ASKED THE QUESTIONS. THAT'S IRRELEVANT.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU SPENT IN YOUR PREPARATION TIME WITH PROSECUTORS SOME HOURS DISCUSSING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT FOUR RED STAINS WERE SEEN BY YOU ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR?
A: I WOULDN'T SAY HOURS. I WOULDN'T EVEN SAY ONE HOUR. I WOULDN'T EVEN SAY MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES.
Q: THE ISSUE, HOWEVER, AROSE?
A: YES.


What part of this testimony supports your claim that Fung said that blood on the door sill could not be seen unless the door was open?

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Please, I never said that Fung and Mazzola were together every second of time that day. They worked together, they rode together.

I don't insult you only your insinuations that the LAPD were the criminals in this case. If you feel that reasonable explanations that contradict your imaginary criminal acts insulting then I'm sorry to say that you will probably be insulted every time you make them.

bobaugust

:beer: Excellent! :beer:

[William Anthony]

What part of this testimony supports your claim that Fung said that blood on the door sill could not be seen unless the door was open?

bobaugust

The part where he saw it-duh.

[William Anthony]

There was no discrepancy between the time the blood was drawn and when Vannatter arrived at Rockingham.

After Simpson had given his blood, his fingerprints and photographs taken the detectives arrived back at their office with Simpson at about 3:30 P.M. where they met with Weitzman and Taft. After they left Vannatter met with Captain Gartland and then returned to his desk where he continued to work on the case. Vannatter learned that Fung had gone to Rockingham after the Bundy crime scene was shut down at 3:45 P.M. Vannatter remained in his office, working on the case, until he and Lange left for Rockingham at about 4:30 P.M..

Your question that Vannatter could have driven to Bundy doesn't make any sense. Not only is it contradicted by Vannatter's testimony and the reality of the driving time but by the fact that all of the blood at Bundy had been collected before Fung and Mazzola left for Rockingham.

There was no missing blood. No blood was ever found to have been planted in this case.

bobaugust

So what, if the blood was collected at Bundy? Vanatter's testimony was that he was in his office maybe drinking Coffee. What was he working on in the case at his office-trying to figure out how he could clean up the mess the MF placed him in? Was this when he decided to take some of the blood or tell the DF to place some of the blood on evidence?

[martin II]

So what, if the blood was collected at Bundy? Vanatter's testimony was that he was in his office maybe drinking Coffee. What was he working on in the case at his office-trying to figure out how he could clean up the mess the MF placed him in? Was this when he decided to take some of the blood or tell the DF to place some of the blood on evidence?

william
i read that SID control number could be gotton by a phone call to SID.

martin II

[William Anthony]

Please, I never said that Fung and Mazzola were together every second of time that day. They worked together, they rode together.

I don't insult you only your insinuations that the LAPD were the criminals in this case. If you feel that reasonable explanations that contradict your imaginary criminal acts insulting then I'm sorry to say that you will probably be insulted every time you make them.

bobaugust

All your claims and circular arguments and denials of what is plain on the nose on your face are worthy of insults, imho. However, I am wise and intelligent enough to consider the source and the motivation of the insulting individual. If you persist, we will see what the moderator has to say.

[William Anthony]

What part of this testimony supports your claim that Fung said that blood on the door sill could not be seen unless the door was open?

bobaugust

Here is the testimony.

MR. SCHECK: "Question: My question, sir, is it your testimony that you saw four red stains on the exterior of the Bronco door on June 14th, but you thought they were not heavy enough, and therefore you did not direct the photographer to take a picture? Is that what happened? "Answer: I can't--I don't know if there were four or not. I--the number four is the problem with the answer. "Question: You saw three on the exterior of the Bronco on June--"Answer: I don't recall the number. "Question: Are you saying that you saw three red strains on the morning of June 14th?"

MR. GOLDBERG: Stains.

MR. SCHECK: "Stains on the morning of June 14th? "Answer: No, I'm not saying that. "Are you saying you saw two red stains? "Answer: I do remember that there was either a stain or two stains that were very light along the sill area that I did not collect." Asked those questions, did you give those answers?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, after the weekend and looking at photographs, you're now prepared to say that 197-b shows four red stains that you saw on the morning of June 14th?

MR. FUNG: Those are areas that were present that I--well, I don't specifically remember these stains, but I do remember stains present on the vehicle at--in that--in those locations approximately and these are consistent with those areas.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you're telling us that you have an independent recollection of seeing four stains on June 14th?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, your Honor.

MR. FUNG: No, that's not what I'm saying.

MR. SCHECK: You're not saying that?

MR. FUNG: I'm not saying that.

MR. SCHECK: All right. So basically what you are telling us is that you looked at this photograph and you're now reconstructing the fact that those must be four red stains?

MR. FUNG: I knew that I--I remember seeing stains on this door sill that day, and looking at the photograph, I'm identifying these as possible red stains.

MR. SCHECK: Now, three of the items that you've circled here can only be seen if the door is open?

MR. FUNG: The two--the very top one and the one to the right, that's correct.

MR. SCHECK: So to see these items, someone would have to open the door of the car?

MR. FUNG: To see those, yes.

[bobaugust]

The part where he saw it-duh.

Another false claim from you. Fung never said the blood on the door sill could not be seen unless the door was open.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

So what, if the blood was collected at Bundy? Vanatter's testimony was that he was in his office maybe drinking Coffee. What was he working on in the case at his office-trying to figure out how he could clean up the mess the MF placed him in? Was this when he decided to take some of the blood or tell the DF to place some of the blood on evidence?

So what if the blood had already been collected at Bundy? That's funny. First you claim that Vannatter went to Bundy with Simpson's blood sample and when you are shown that claim is false you say, so what.

That's about par for most of you ridiculous claims. When they are proven wrong you simply drop them and create new ones that are just as ridiculous without ever admitting that you were wrong. Good job William

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Here is the testimony.

MR. SCHECK: "Question: My question, sir, is it your testimony that you saw four red stains on the exterior of the Bronco door on June 14th, but you thought they were not heavy enough, and therefore you did not direct the photographer to take a picture? Is that what happened? "Answer: I can't--I don't know if there were four or not. I--the number four is the problem with the answer. "Question: You saw three on the exterior of the Bronco on June--"Answer: I don't recall the number. "Question: Are you saying that you saw three red strains on the morning of June 14th?"

MR. GOLDBERG: Stains.

MR. SCHECK: "Stains on the morning of June 14th? "Answer: No, I'm not saying that. "Are you saying you saw two red stains? "Answer: I do remember that there was either a stain or two stains that were very light along the sill area that I did not collect." Asked those questions, did you give those answers?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, after the weekend and looking at photographs, you're now prepared to say that 197-b shows four red stains that you saw on the morning of June 14th?

MR. FUNG: Those are areas that were present that I--well, I don't specifically remember these stains, but I do remember stains present on the vehicle at--in that--in those locations approximately and these are consistent with those areas.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you're telling us that you have an independent recollection of seeing four stains on June 14th?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, your Honor.

MR. FUNG: No, that's not what I'm saying.

MR. SCHECK: You're not saying that?

MR. FUNG: I'm not saying that.

MR. SCHECK: All right. So basically what you are telling us is that you looked at this photograph and you're now reconstructing the fact that those must be four red stains?

MR. FUNG: I knew that I--I remember seeing stains on this door sill that day, and looking at the photograph, I'm identifying these as possible red stains.

MR. SCHECK: Now, three of the items that you've circled here can only be seen if the door is open?

MR. FUNG: The two--the very top one and the one to the right, that's correct.

MR. SCHECK: So to see these items, someone would have to open the door of the car?

MR. FUNG: To see those, yes.


Evidently some stains could be seen when the door was closed and some could be seen when the door was open. Fuhrman saw the stains that could be seen when the door was closed.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Evidently some stains could be seen when the door was closed and some could be seen when the door was open. Fuhrman saw the stains that could be seen when the door was closed.

bobaugust

EVIDENTLY???

MARTIN ii

[bobaugust]

EVIDENTLY???

MARTIN ii

Yes, evidently. Fung never said specifically what stains he saw, only that he saw stains on the door sill on the exterior of the of the Bronco. Based on photographs there were also additional stains that could be seen when the door was open.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Yes, evidently. Fung never said specifically what stains he saw, only that he saw stains on the door sill on the exterior of the of the Bronco. Based on photographs there were also additional stains that could be seen when the door was open.

bobaugust

FUNG WAS FUDGING. AGAIN

martin II

[bobaugust]

FUNG WAS FUDGING. AGAIN

martin II

Fung was not fudging, you just can't accept the truth.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Fung was not fudging, you just can't accept the truth.

bobaugust

So CAN'T a lot of them! Shall we start naming them alphabetically? Nah, WE all know who they are and they ALL know who they are and who really wants to waste the bandwidth ~ not me!

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

Evidently some stains could be seen when the door was closed and some could be seen when the door was open. Fuhrman saw the stains that could be seen when the door was closed.

bobaugust

That's what I mean by testimony not giving the true picture. It was obvious from photos of the Bronco that the sposts could not be seen.

[martin II]

That's what I mean by testimony not giving the true picture. It was obvious from photos of the Bronco that the sposts could not be seen.

william

you are correct
Fung tried to confuse the issue by pretending that he did not know which spots the defense was focusing on.

martin II

[William Anthony]

william

you are correct
Fung tried to confuse the issue by pretending that he did not know which spots the defense was focusing on.

martin II

The only person he confused was the MF.

[bobaugust]

The only person he confused was the MF.

I think both you and martin are the ones who are confused. You claimed that Fung testified that the stains could not be seen on the Bronco door sill unless the door was open. That's not true. In the testimony you posted Fung agreed that two of the stains showed in a photograph could not be seen unless the door was open, not all of the stains. Fung testified that he saw stains on the exterior of the Bronco door sill.

Please post the date of the testimony that you have previously posted when Scheck was asking about these Bronco stains and in the future as a common courtesy please include he date of any testimony you post.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I think both you and martin are the ones who are confused. You claimed that Fung testified that the stains could not be seen on the Bronco door sill unless the door was open. That's not true. In the testimony you posted Fung agreed that two of the stains showed in a photograph could not be seen unless the door was open, not all of the stains. Fung testified that he saw stains on the exterior of the Bronco door sill.

Please post the date of the testimony that you have previously posted when Scheck was asking about these Bronco stains and in the future as a common courtesy please include he date of any testimony you post.

bobaugust

I do not believe that you have the right to request any courtesy of me, be it common or otherwise, as a matter of common decency. You have the testimony and I would object to providing the information you seek on the basis that it is readily accessible to you. The testimony has been posted and it is clear to me that the DF was talking about the stains at the top of the door sill, although he was specifically asked about the stains on the bottom of the driver's door. His evasive answers only made his testimony less credible, imho. When the testimony of Vanatter and the DF are correlated, it is obvious that there was a problem with the testimony of the liar, the MF.

[bobaugust]

I do not believe that you have the right to request any courtesy of me, be it common or otherwise, as a matter of common decency. You have the testimony and I would object to providing the information you seek on the basis that it is readily accessible to you. The testimony has been posted and it is clear to me that the DF was talking about the stains at the top of the door sill, although he was specifically asked about the stains on the bottom of the driver's door. His evasive answers only made his testimony less credible, imho. When the testimony of Vanatter and the DF are correlated, it is obvious that there was a problem with the testimony of the liar, the MF.

You do not believe that I have the right to request the courtesy from you to include the date of any testimony you post? That's funny. Of course I have the right to request that courtesy from you or anyone who posts portions of testimony. By posting the date of the testimony it makes it possible for all posters to find the transcript that the portion was taken from and verify that not only what is posted is correct but what the testimony is before and after the portion posted.

You claimed that Fung testified that the stains on the Bronco door sill could not be seen unless the door was open. That's not true. The testimony you posted does not support your claim. Nothing Vannatter, Fuhrman, or Fung said about this changes the reality of the blood evidence found in Simpson's Bronco.

Post the date of the testimony, please.

bobaugust

[martin II]

You do not believe that I have the right to request the courtesy from you to include the date of any testimony you post? That's funny. Of course I have the right to request that courtesy from you or anyone who posts portions of testimony. By posting the date of the testimony it makes it possible for all posters to find the transcript that the portion was taken from and verify that not only what is posted is correct but what the testimony is before and after the portion posted.

You claimed that Fung testified that the stains on the Bronco door sill could not be seen unless the door was open. That's not true. The testimony you posted does not support your claim. Nothing Vannatter, Fuhrman, or Fung said about this changes the reality of the blood evidence found in Simpson's Bronco.

Post the date of the testimony, please.

bobaugust

links are not required anymore. that is my understanding. you have all of the testimony on your hard drive, i think
martin

[bobaugust]

links are not required anymore. that is my understanding. you have all of the testimony on your hard drive, i think
martin

martin II, This has nothing to do with links or if transcripts are on someone's computer or on the net. Witnesses, such as Fung, testified for many days. If someone posts a selected portion of that testimony it's only common courtesy to at least include the date that testimony was given. That narrows the search down considerably for other posters who want to read the transcript for themselves.

Do you have a problem with that?

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

I do not believe that you have the right to request any courtesy of me, be it common or otherwise, as a matter of common decency. You have the testimony and I would object to providing the information you seek on the basis that it is readily accessible to you. The testimony has been posted and it is clear to me that the DF was talking about the stains at the top of the door sill, although he was specifically asked about the stains on the bottom of the driver's door. His evasive answers only made his testimony less credible, imho. When the testimony of Vanatter and the DF are correlated, it is obvious that there was a problem with the testimony of the liar, the MF.

You do not believe that I have the right to request the courtesy from you to include the date of any testimony you post? That's funny. Of course I have the right to request that courtesy from you or anyone who posts portions of testimony. By posting the date of the testimony it makes it possible for all posters to find the transcript that the portion was taken from and verify that not only what is posted is correct but what the testimony is before and after the portion posted.

You claimed that Fung testified that the stains on the Bronco door sill could not be seen unless the door was open. That's not true. The testimony you posted does not support your claim. Nothing Vannatter, Fuhrman, or Fung said about this changes the reality of the blood evidence found in Simpson's Bronco.

Post the date of the testimony, please.

bobaugust

links are not required anymore. that is my understanding. you have all of the testimony on your hard drive, i think
martin

martin II, This has nothing to do with links or if transcripts are on someone's computer or on the net. Witnesses, such as Fung, testified for many days. If someone posts a selected portion of that testimony it's only common courtesy to at least include the date that testimony was given. That narrows the search down considerably for other posters who want to read the transcript for themselves.

Do you have a problem with that?

bobaugust

I wouldn't think that anyone would have a problem with that, but you do know who we are dealing with, right? Thus, I think that this matter needs to be brought to the Moderator's attention to clarify the purpose of "Links" and "Testimony" once and for all! Since one Poster jumped into the fray trying to save face of the other Poster, he will also be included in my PM to the Moderator. Both of these Posters seem to feel that it is not necessary to substantiate anything (testimony included) that they post, so let's make the Moderator the bad guy and let her decide if it's common courtesy or not.

I am fed up and will ask the Moderator. It's amazing that these two Posters feel that they can just throw out gossip, innuendoes, falsehoods and unsubstantiated information and don't have to do anything whatsoever, whether it's common courtesy or not! I am sure that these two Posters don't have the dates of the testimony that they are posting. I have found that when you paint them into a corner, you either get: (1) no answer at all, no matter how many times that you ask; (2) baffling bull**** to change the subject and turn it completely around to make you look like the "bad guy"; or (3) they don't have to show anyone common courtesy because they don't have any, so how could anyone want anything from them that they don't have? :mad:

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

You do not believe that I have the right to request the courtesy from you to include the date of any testimony you post? That's funny. Of course I have the right to request that courtesy from you or anyone who posts portions of testimony. By posting the date of the testimony it makes it possible for all posters to find the transcript that the portion was taken from and verify that not only what is posted is correct but what the testimony is before and after the portion posted.

You claimed that Fung testified that the stains on the Bronco door sill could not be seen unless the door was open. That's not true. The testimony you posted does not support your claim. Nothing Vannatter, Fuhrman, or Fung said about this changes the reality of the blood evidence found in Simpson's Bronco.

Post the date of the testimony, please.

bobaugust

You have the right and I have the right to refuse on the grounds that the information sought is readily accessible to you. Its a legal basis.

You must corrrelate the testimonies of the witnesses, if you are honestly searching for the truth. So, I took parts out of my other posts to make your alleged search easier.

Q: AND IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED THAT THERE WERE BLOOD SMEARS ON THE DOOR, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO POINT OUT TO YOU, WOULD IT NOT?
A: HE MAY HAVE POINTED THEM OUT. I DON'T RECALL HIM DOING THAT.
Q: WELL, THIS IS SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT, IS IT NOT, WHAT BLOOD YOU SAW ON THE BRONCO AT ROCKINGHAM?
A: PARDON, SIR? I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOU.
Q: IS THE OBSERVATION OF BLOOD ON THE BRONCO SOMETHING THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT IN A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION LIKE THIS?
A: YES, SIR.
Q: AND IF YOU WERE SHOWN BLOOD SMEARS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO, ISN'T THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD REMEMBER?
A: I -- I -- I DON'T RECALL HIM SHOWING THEM TO ME. HE COULD HAVE. I DON'T RECALL IT.
Q: MY QUESTION IS ISN'T THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD REMEMBER, IF THOSE WERE SHOWN TO YOU?
A: I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT SINCE I DON'T RECALL THEM BEING SHOWN TO ME.
Q: THAT IS THE BEST ANSWER YOU GIVE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD REMEMBER BLOOD SMEARS AT ROCKINGHAM?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID IT EVER DAWN ON YOU, SIR, THAT IF THERE WERE BLOOD SMEARS AT THE -- WELL, YOU SAW BLOOD SMEARS INSIDE THE DOOR ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO, DIDN'T YOU?
A: TOWARD THE TOP, TOWARD THE WINDOW, YES.
Q: DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR?
A: DOWN INSIDE THE VEHICLE?
Q: YES.
A: NO.
Q: DID IT EVER DAWN ON YOU THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MUST HAVE GONE INSIDE THAT CAR FOR HIM TO SEE THOSE BLOOD SPOTS?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT IS VAGUE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED THAT HE SAW BLOOD SMEARS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO AND YOUR RECOLLECTION IS YOU DID NOT SEE BLOOD SMEARS AND THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DIDN'T SHOW THEM TO YOU, DID IT DAWN ON YOU THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MUST HAVE GONE INSIDE THE BRONCO TO MAKE THESE OBSERVATIONS?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. MISSTATES THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED ON THAT GROUND.
THE WITNESS: AS I RECALL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY, THE BLOOD SMEARS HE SAW WERE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE; NOT INSIDE.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID THAT RAISE A QUESTION IN YOUR MIND, SINCE YOU NEVER SAW BLOOD SMEARS OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID IT CAUSE YOU CONCERN, SINCE YOU DON'T REMEMBER SEEING ANY BLOOD STAINS OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE?
A: NO. THERE WAS A LOT OF BLOOD THERE THAT I DIDN'T SEE ORIGINALLY.
Q: I'M TALKING ABOUT OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE. WAS THERE A LOT OF BLOOD ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE THAT YOU DIDN'T SEE AT ANY POINT IN TIME?
A: YES. I DON'T RECALL SEEING THE BLOOD SMEARS ALONG THE PANEL OF THE DOOR AT THE BOTTOM.
Q: DID YOU EVER SEE THOSE BLOOD SMEARS?
A: I SAW A REPORT THAT THEY WERE TESTED PRESUMPTIVE FOR BLOOD.
Q: DID YOU EVER SEE THOSE BLOOD SMEARS YOURSELF?
A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING THEM, NO, SIR.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

Do you think too much time is wasted in accusations of our conduct on this board? The blah, blah, blah seems unendiing. I have requested some posters to not post to or about me, which seems to be ignored. I wonder what the moderator will think of that?

[martin II]

Martin,

Do you think too much time is wasted in accusations of our conduct on this board? The blah, blah, blah seems unendiing. I have requested some posters to not post to or about me, which seems to be ignored. I wonder what the moderator will think of that?

william

although i have informed two posters that they are on ignore and requested that they not post to me or use my nic in their post to others, they have refused to do so. Posting negative comments to and about me should be against the rules.
Knowing that i have them on ignore they still post TO me after most all of my post. Looking for arguments or just to say something mean.i consider it to be STALKING.
martin II

[bobaugust]

You have the right and I have the right to refuse on the grounds that the information sought is readily accessible to you. Its a legal basis.

You must corrrelate the testimonies of the witnesses, if you are honestly searching for the truth. So, I took parts out of my other posts to make your alleged search easier.




The truth is that the Bronco was locked when it was seen by the police at Rockingham. You're the one trying to search for something that contradicts that truth only there is nothing that does, except in the imagination of the defense attorneys. The photograph that was taken later that Fung testified about showed that some of the brush marks on the doorsill could be seen when the door was closed.

Fuhrman wrote that he was on his hands and knees when he discovered the small brush marks on the doorsill that appeared to be blood. When Fuhrman called Vannatter and Lange over to the Bronco, he wrote that he pointed out the awkward position of the car, the splintered piece of wood on the parkway, and the spot on the door. He never said anything about the small brush marks on the door sill.

The testimony you posted, without any date, does not change that fact, it only confirms the truth. Vannatter testified Fuhrman never showed him the brush marks and he never saw them, only that he later read a report that they were tested presumptive for blood.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The truth is that the Bronco was locked when it was seen by the police at Rockingham. You're the one trying to search for something that contradicts that truth only there is nothing that does, except in the imagination of the defense attorneys. The photograph that was taken later that Fung testified about showed that some of the brush marks on the doorsill could be seen when the door was closed.

Fuhrman wrote that he was on his hands and knees when he discovered the small brush marks on the doorsill that appeared to be blood. When Fuhrman called Vannatter and Lange over to the Bronco, he wrote that he pointed out the awkward position of the car, the splintered piece of wood on the parkway, and the spot on the door. He never said anything about the small brush marks on the door sill.

The testimony you posted, without any date, does not change that fact, it only confirms the truth. Vannatter testified Fuhrman never showed him the brush marks and he never saw them, only that he later read a report that they were tested presumptive for blood.

bobaugust

The photos never showed blood where the MF could have seen them and post the testimony where the MF showed them to anyone. The fact is that LE was placed in an awkward position by the MF's testimony. Why was he on his hands and knees? How hard was it for the MF to unlock and unlock a vehicle door? We all know that LE carry tools just for that purpose. "He wrote"...he lied, the prosecution and the families cried.

[William Anthony]

A: WELL, AT FIRST, IT JUST LOOKED LIKE A SPOT OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN. WHEN I TOOK THE FLASHLIGHT OUT, I LOOKED AT IT AND IT LOOKED REDDISH BROWN AND TRANSLUCENT QUALITIES TO IT AND APPEARED TO BE DRY BLOOD.

Q: AFTER YOU SAW THAT, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: THEN I CONTINUED TO LOOK FARTHER AROUND THE VEHICLE. AT ONE POINT, I ACTUALLY GOT DOWN ON MY HANDS AND KNEES AND LOOKED IN THE COMPLETE DOOR AREA, AND DOWN ON THE DOOR SILL I FOUND THREE OR FOUR SMALL LITTLE LINES WITH THE SAME COLOR AND QUALITIES THAT WERE EXHIBITED ABOVE THE DOOR HANDLE.

Q: OKAY. AND THOSE -- WHAT AREA OF THE DOOR? WAS THAT THE DRIVER'S DOOR, SIR?

A: YES.

So, we are able to see that at least one or two of the three of four smears he claimed to have seen were not visible unless the door was opened. If you find part of the testimony less than credible, you may chose not to believe any of it.

[bobaugust]

The photos never showed blood where the MF could have seen them and post the testimony where the MF showed them to anyone. The fact is that LE was placed in an awkward position by the MF's testimony. Why was he on his hands and knees? How hard was it for the MF to unlock and unlock a vehicle door? We all know that LE carry tools just for that purpose. "He wrote"...he lied, the prosecution and the families cried.

In Fung's testimony that you previously posted, he was shown a photograph of some stains and he testified that two of them could only be seen if the door was open, not all of them.

Why was Fuhrman on his hands and knees? Ask Fuhrman, that's what he wrote he did when he inspected the door after seeing the stain by the handle. You have his book, read it for yourself.

First you claim that Fung testified that the stains on the doorsill could only be seen when the door was open. That claim is incorrect. Now you ask how hard would it have been for Fuhrman to unlock and lock the Bronco? Probably not hard at all if he took the time to go back to his vehicle and find a tool to do it, but that never happened. Nothing is hard to do in imagination. Just because you can imagine it doesn't make it real. That's the problem with all of your speculation, it's pure imagination.

All of the evidence is that the Bronco was locked when the police saw it and not unlocked until the next day when the criminalist collected the blood evidence.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

A: WELL, AT FIRST, IT JUST LOOKED LIKE A SPOT OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN. WHEN I TOOK THE FLASHLIGHT OUT, I LOOKED AT IT AND IT LOOKED REDDISH BROWN AND TRANSLUCENT QUALITIES TO IT AND APPEARED TO BE DRY BLOOD.

Q: AFTER YOU SAW THAT, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: THEN I CONTINUED TO LOOK FARTHER AROUND THE VEHICLE. AT ONE POINT, I ACTUALLY GOT DOWN ON MY HANDS AND KNEES AND LOOKED IN THE COMPLETE DOOR AREA, AND DOWN ON THE DOOR SILL I FOUND THREE OR FOUR SMALL LITTLE LINES WITH THE SAME COLOR AND QUALITIES THAT WERE EXHIBITED ABOVE THE DOOR HANDLE.

Q: OKAY. AND THOSE -- WHAT AREA OF THE DOOR? WAS THAT THE DRIVER'S DOOR, SIR?

A: YES.

So, we are able to see that at least one or two of the three of four smears he claimed to have seen were not visible unless the door was opened. If you find part of the testimony less than credible, you may chose not to believe any of it.

Fuhrman saw the stains on the exterior of the Bronco before the Bronco was moved. Fung testified he saw stains on the exterior doorsill that were too light to be collected the next day after the Bronco was towed to the print shed and when the photographs were taken. It's very possible that what Fung saw and what was photographed was not the same as what Fuhrman saw.

I see you found Fuhrman's testimony that he got down on his hands and knees just as he wrote in his book. I also see that you are still being discourteous by purposely not including the date of the testimony you post. We all thank you for that.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

In Fung's testimony that you previously posted, he was shown a photograph of some stains and he testified that two of them could only be seen if the door was open, not all of them.

Why was Fuhrman on his hands and knees? Ask Fuhrman, that's what he wrote he did when he inspected the door after seeing the stain by the handle. You have his book, read it for yourself.

First you claim that Fung testified that the stains on the doorsill could only be seen when the door was open. That claim is incorrect. Now you ask how hard would it have been for Fuhrman to unlock and lock the Bronco? Probably not hard at all if he took the time to go back to his vehicle and find a tool to do it, but that never happened. Nothing is hard to do in imagination. Just because you can imagine it doesn't make it real. That's the problem with all of your speculation, it's pure imagination.

All of the evidence is that the Bronco was locked when the police saw it and not unlocked until the next day when the criminalist collected the blood evidence.

bobaugust

You seem to want to be able to read between the lines of testimony when you can use the insertions to prove Simpson guilty but not when it points to something other than guilt. The fact is that the DF testified that only two of the stains could be seen when the door was closed. The MF testified to seeing three or four. There is an obvious discrepancy which leads to the reasonable inference, when no one but the MF remembered seeing them, that something was askew.

I raise reasonable inferences from the testimony and read between the lines. If the MF did not unlock and lock the door, then the blood was left there after the Bronco was impounded and left unsecured in the tow pound. Hence, since the MF, who admitted to evidence tampering/planting/fabricating/destruction, was the only person to recall seeing the stains/smears, the reasonable inference is that he placed them there. I think you can read between the lines. You ask me to post dates for things and then say that I can read for myself. You also jump to erroneous conclusions on me having the MF's book. I borrowed it from the library and returned it. It is not worth me spending money to read, although I am sure you have that work of fiction in the treasured part of your personal library. If I am wrong then I apologize and suggest you use it in your fireplace.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
links are not required anymore. that is my understanding.

Since when???? You are now claiming that you can state things as fact without backing them up with a link or similar source reference? I don't think so.

[bobaugust]

You seem to want to be able to read between the lines of testimony when you can use the insertions to prove Simpson guilty but not when it points to something other than guilt. The fact is that the DF testified that only two of the stains could be seen when the door was closed. The MF testified to seeing three or four. There is an obvious discrepancy which leads to the reasonable inference, when no one but the MF remembered seeing them, that something was askew.

I raise reasonable inferences from the testimony and read between the lines. If the MF did not unlock and lock the door, then the blood was left there after the Bronco was impounded and left unsecured in the tow pound. Hence, since the MF, who admitted to evidence tampering/planting/fabricating/destruction, was the only person to recall seeing the stains/smears, the reasonable inference is that he placed them there. I think you can read between the lines. You ask me to post dates for things and then say that I can read for myself. You also jump to erroneous conclusions on me having the MF's book. I borrowed it from the library and returned it. It is not worth me spending money to read, although I am sure you have that work of fiction in the treasured part of your personal library. If I am wrong then I apologize and suggest you use it in your fireplace.

The fact is that Fuhrman testified he saw some stains on the doorsill on the exterior of the parked Bronco the morning of June 13. Fung testified he saw some light stains on the doorsill on the exterior of the Bronco and photographs taken on June 14. Between those two times the Bronco had been towed to the print shed. Based on the fact that the questioned stains were on the exterior near the bottom of the Bronco they could very well have diminished by the time Fung saw them.

I suggested you to read what Fuhrman wrote for yourself because you have previously posted that you were reading his book. If you wish to read for yourself what Fuhrman wrote about getting down on his hands and knees it's on page 27. Since you posted Fuhrman's testimony, purposely not including the date, where Fuhrman testified to the same thing, what's your point?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The fact is that Fuhrman testified he saw some stains on the doorsill on the exterior of the parked Bronco the morning of June 13. Fung testified he saw some light stains on the doorsill on the exterior of the Bronco and photographs taken on June 14. Between those two times the Bronco had been towed to the print shed. Based on the fact that the questioned stains were on the exterior near the bottom of the Bronco they could very well have diminished by the time Fung saw them.

I suggested you to read what Fuhrman wrote for yourself because you have previously posted that you were reading his book. If you wish to read for yourself what Fuhrman wrote about getting down on his hands and knees it's on page 27. Since you posted Fuhrman's testimony, purposely not including the date, where Fuhrman testified to the same thing, what's your point?

bobaugust

I see that you only read what you like. The date is included in the title of the post. I suggest that you read everything with understanding, which may prevent you from reaching erroneous conclusions. I feel that I should inform you that it was not your demand, but a respectful request from another poster, who I admire, that caused me to post the date.

The fact is that the MF testified to seeing 3 or 4 smears at the bottom of the door. I consider the source when reading anything. The post that I posted clearly states the MF testified that HE GOT DOWN ON HIS HANDS AND KNEES.

It is interesting that you say that the smears the DF saw could have diminished when the DF saw them, but the spots on the gate contained more DNA than other spots collected at Bundy, even though they were collected at a later date. Even given the unlikely possibility that they did diminish, there is nothing that would make them change location.

[bobaugust]

I see that you only read what you like. The date is included in the title of the post. I suggest that you read everything with understanding, which may prevent you from reaching erroneous conclusions. I feel that I should inform you that it was not your demand, but a respectful request from another poster, who I admire, that caused me to post the date.

The fact is that the MF testified to seeing 3 or 4 smears at the bottom of the door. I consider the source when reading anything. The post that I posted clearly states the MF testified that HE GOT DOWN ON HIS HANDS AND KNEES.

It is interesting that you say that the smears the DF saw could have diminished when the DF saw them, but the spots on the gate contained more DNA than other spots collected at Bundy, even though they were collected at a later date. Even given the unlikely possibility that they did diminish, there is nothing that would make them change location.

Looking back at your posting I do see that you included the date in the title not the message, that's how I missed it. I've never seen anyone do that before, but at least you made an attempt. Thank you. I never demanded you include the date, I requested you include the the date using the word "please." I also requested you to post the dates of the testimony that you have previously posted without a date. If you also took that as a demand and ignored it maybe the poster you admire will hopefully make the same request.

Since you posted Fuhrman testified he got down on his hands and knees why did you make a big deal out of the post I made about Fuhrman writing the same thing in his book?

The stains on the exterior near the bottom of the Bronco have nothing to do with the stains that were found on the rear gate. Fung testified that when he saw the stains on the Bronco they were too light to collect, that only a presumptive test for blood was made. Simpson's blood on the rear gate at Bundy were less degraded than his blood on the walkway based on the difference in surfaces. The difference between a porous cement walkway and a painted metal gate.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Looking back at your posting I do see that you included the date in the title not the message, that's how I missed it. I've never seen anyone do that before, but at least you made an attempt. Thank you. I never demanded you include the date, I requested you include the the date using the word "please." I also requested you to post the dates of the testimony that you have previously posted without a date. If you also took that as a demand and ignored it maybe the poster you admire will hopefully make the same request.

Since you posted Fuhrman testified he got down on his hands and knees why did you make a big deal out of the post I made about Fuhrman writing the same thing in his book?

The stains on the exterior near the bottom of the Bronco have nothing to do with the stains that were found on the rear gate. Fung testified that when he saw the stains on the Bronco they were too light to collect, that only a presumptive test for blood was made. Simpson's blood on the rear gate at Bundy were less degraded than his blood on the walkway based on the difference in surfaces. The difference between a porous cement walkway and a painted metal gate.

bobaugust

There was testimony and I will try to locate it that those substraits did not matter as to the degredation of the blood. You have posted, I believe, that the blood on the bottom was Simpson's. If it was not collected and tested, then it is irrelevant and immaterial. However, we do not know, if that blood may have eliminated Simpson or whether it was wiped off by someone other than Simpson. I will try to locate the testimony about the blood on the outside of Simpson's blood vial. How do you think that got there?

[bobaugust]

There was testimony and I will try to locate it that those substraits did not matter as to the degredation of the blood. You have posted, I believe, that the blood on the bottom was Simpson's. If it was not collected and tested, then it is irrelevant and immaterial. However, we do not know, if that blood may have eliminated Simpson or whether it was wiped off by someone other than Simpson. I will try to locate the testimony about the blood on the outside of Simpson's blood vial. How do you think that got there?

The blood on the doorsill of the Bronco was probably Nicole's blood that came from the bottom of Simpson's shoes when he got into or out of his Bronco. I do not recall any testimony about blood on the outside of Simpson's blood vial except from Yamauchi who testified that when he opened the vial some blood got on the cap and the chem wipes that he used around the cap as well as some blood got on his gloves that he then changed.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The blood on the doorsill of the Bronco was probably Nicole's blood that came from the bottom of Simpson's shoes when he got into or out of his Bronco. I do not recall any testimony about blood on the outside of Simpson's blood vial except from Yamauchi who testified that when he opened the vial some blood got on the cap and the chem wipes that he used around the cap as well as some blood got on his gloves that he then changed.

bobaugust

That is rather convenient that Yamauchi claimed to have spilled blood when there was blood missing. A little reading between the lines may be necessary.

[bobaugust]

That is rather convenient that Yamauchi claimed to have spilled blood when there was blood missing. A little reading between the lines may be necessary.

It seems you're very quick to jump to false conclusions before you even know what happened. Yamauchi didn't spill any blood. He testified that he wrapped some chem wipes around the cap of the vile before he removed it because of the possibility of aerosols or sprays when a vacutainer tube is opened. Any aerosol would be trapped in the chem wipes, And that's what happened but some blood also got on his gloves. So he changed his gloves and disposed of the contaminated ones.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

It seems you're very quick to jump to false conclusions before you even know what happened. Yamauchi didn't spill any blood. He testified that he wrapped some chem wipes around the cap of the vile before he removed it because of the possibility of aerosols or sprays when a vacutainer tube is opened. Any aerosol would be trapped in the chem wipes, And that's what happened but some blood also got on his gloves. So he changed his gloves and disposed of the contaminated ones.

bobaugust

I do not quickly jump to conclusions, but only interpreted what you posted, which was;

"I do not recall any testimony about blood on the outside of Simpson's blood vial except from Yamauchi..."

You are correct and I took that to mean an accidental spillage. However, it could have been done intentionally to cover up for the missing blood.

[bobaugust]

I do not quickly jump to conclusions, but only interpreted what you posted, which was;

"I do not recall any testimony about blood on the outside of Simpson's blood vial except from Yamauchi..."

You are correct and I took that to mean an accidental spillage. However, it could have been done intentionally to cover up for the missing blood.

There was no missing blood. There was no cover up. There was no spillage only an aerosol spray when a vacutainer tube is first opened and Yamauchi's explanation of how he used chem wipes to prevent the aerosol spray from contaminating anything else.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

There was no missing blood. There was no cover up. There was no spillage only an aerosol spray when a vacutainer tube is first opened and Yamauchi's explanation of how he used chem wipes to prevent the aerosol spray from contaminating anything else.

bobaugust

That still does not explain your post, unless you Freudianly know the truth. Here is some more testimony of Andrea Mazzola taken I believe on April 25th about some blood that may have been planted.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, let me ask you a hypothetical, Miss Mazzola. You actually have seen the car, right? You've been out there?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You've seen the car when the door was open on the driver's side and when the door was closed?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Here's the hypothetical. If Detective Fuhrman said that he saw four brush marks on the lower area of the driver's door--now, what I want you to assume for this hypothetical, Miss Mazzola, is that these four marks that are circled in that picture are the same four marks that Detective Fuhrman claims he saw. Would Detective Fuhrman have had to open the driver's door to see at least two of those four marks?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this isn't a proper hypothetical. It's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. It's argumentative.

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

THE COURT: Rephrase it.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, ma'am, do you see the location of the various specks that are circled in that photograph?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: To see the two specks on the upper circle--you see where the two circles are?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: --would the door, the driver's door have to be in the open position to see those two specks?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, calls for speculation, no personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. You can answer that question.

MS. MAZZOLA: I--I'm not sure. I'm not sure if they have to be open or closed.

MR. NEUFELD: Well--

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Next in order is?

THE COURT: 1114. All right. Defense 1114.

(Deft's 1114 for id = photograph)

MR. NEUFELD: Going to show you what's been marked as Defendant's exhibit 1114. And--

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Appears to be a photograph of the Bronco.

MR. NEUFELD: And I will show you--

THE COURT: Driver's side.

MR. NEUFELD: --a duplicate copy of the same photograph--here you go--so you can see it close up.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Have you had a chance to look at them both? If you want more time, just tell me.

MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. A little bit more time.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, can we approach for a moment on this?

THE COURT: Either counsel. No. Just the two attorneys.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object under evidence code section 352. Also calls for opinion and conclusion. All she's doing is interpreting photographs. She has no recollection of seeing--

THE COURT: No. But that's--the clear issue here is whether or not she saw these stains.

MR. GOLDBERG: She just got through saying she had no independent recollection seeing them.

THE COURT: He's entitled to ask, "Looking at this photograph, does it refresh your recollection as to configuration--the matter in which the car's assembled, would you have been able to see--can you tell me if you would have been able to see these stains with the door closed? Yes or no?"

MR. GOLDBERG: Still calls for speculation.

THE COURT: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: She can't interpret photographs.

THE COURT: Does it refresh her recollection what the car looked like, he can ask that question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Whether it refreshes her recollection? Okay.

[William Anthony]

(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)

THE COURT: All right. Miss Mazzola, have you had enough time to look at that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I have.

THE COURT: All right. Do you need a magnifying class or anything like that?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you had an opportunity to look at the photograph of the Bronco?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And that is a photograph of the Bronco at the print shed, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.

MR. NEUFELD: And that is the way it appeared on June 14th?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And, ma'am, now that you've had a chance to look at that photograph of the Bronco, I now ask you once again--actually--

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Having looked at that photograph and now also once again looking at 1097, can you see that on the monitor?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that if the--have you seen that long enough?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, would you agree that in order to see the specks that are in the upper of the two circles--see the two circles, one on top of each other?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: --that in order to see those two specks, the door would have to be in the open position?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for opinion, conclusion, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question. Foundation.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

MR. NEUFELD: When you went out to the scene on the 14th, you systematically examined the Bronco exterior; did you not?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to systematically.

THE COURT: Overruled. As to scene, do you mean the print shed?

MR. NEUFELD: At the print shed.

MR. NEUFELD: Right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, that's what your vehicle search inspection list requires you to do, to make a systematic examination of the exterior of the car; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it does.

MR. NEUFELD: And you did that with Dennis Fung?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you examined the door of the car, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you examined it both in the closed position and the open position, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And based on--now, what you examined that day, in the open position and closed position of the door and having looked at these photographs, would you agree that in order to see the specks in the upper circle, that the door would have to be in the open position?

MR. GOLDBERG: Still calls for conclusion, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: It's hard to say. I'm not sure how far the bottom of the Bronco flares out from the pictures. I can't say if it would have to be open or closed.

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, in the pictures that you have in front of you, doesn't the door of the Bronco come down flush with the outer edge of that sill in the pictures that you have?

MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure if it's flush or not. There's a bottom strip that could be out a little further. In the picture, it's a little hard to tell.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: By the way, Miss Mazzola--to the--to the best of your recollection, ma'am, you didn't even see the specks in that upper circle on the 14th, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: To the best of my recollection, I did not.

MR. NEUFELD: And you did not see the speck in the lower circle, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And you did not see the smear or grayish or--I am sorry--discoloration indicated in the third circle, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: You didn't see any of those on the 14th, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: To the best of my recollection, I did not.

MR. NEUFELD: Right. Miss Mazzola, you didn't see them on the morning of the 13th either, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: I wasn't--

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact that she looked.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: On the 13th, I don't believe I was looking that carefully.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you were shown the car on the 13th by the detectives, didn't you? Weren't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you walked over with the detectives and Dennis Fung to examine the Bronco, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, I think you said that you personally even swatched the stain on the handle of the Bronco, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And that stain was pointed out to you by Detective Fuhrman, wasn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure which one pointed it out.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you were there when Detective Fuhrman pointed it out to--oh, I'm sorry. Withdrawn. You were at the Bronco with Dennis Fung and the detectives when one of the detectives pointed out a small speck near the handle on the driver's door; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And at that point in time, when that speck was pointed out to you and Dennis Fung, no other speck was pointed out to you and Dennis Fung on the exterior of the car; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember. I just remember the one on the driver's handle.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, with respect to your independent recollection, Miss Mazzola, as it stands today, is it fair to say that you have no independent recollection of any detective showing you any other speck or stain on that car other than the speck next to the driver's handle?

MS. MAZZOLA: That I can recall, no.

MR. NEUFELD: That's what I'm asking you. Your independent recollection, from what you can recall.

MS. MAZZOLA: My independent recollection, no.

[martin II]

You seem to want to be able to read between the lines of testimony when you can use the insertions to prove Simpson guilty but not when it points to something other than guilt. The fact is that the DF testified that only two of the stains could be seen when the door was closed. The MF testified to seeing three or four. There is an obvious discrepancy which leads to the reasonable inference, when no one but the MF remembered seeing them, that something was askew.

I raise reasonable inferences from the testimony and read between the lines. If the MF did not unlock and lock the door, then the blood was left there after the Bronco was impounded and left unsecured in the tow pound. Hence, since the MF, who admitted to evidence tampering/planting/fabricating/destruction, was the only person to recall seeing the stains/smears, the reasonable inference is that he placed them there. I think you can read between the lines. You ask me to post dates for things and then say that I can read for myself. You also jump to erroneous conclusions on me having the MF's book. I borrowed it from the library and returned it. It is not worth me spending money to read, although I am sure you have that work of fiction in the treasured part of your personal library. If I am wrong then I apologize and suggest you use it in your fireplace.

william
i have read that furhman had completed a lapd locksmith type course. To teach one how to pick a lock.

martin II

[William Anthony]

william
i have read that furhman had completed a lapd locksmith type course. To teach one how to pick a lock.

martin II

I would not doubt it. A detective who believes that he knows who is guilty and shows a propensity to disregard the law will arm himself with tools of the trade, imho.

[bobaugust]

That still does not explain your post, unless you Freudianly know the truth. Here is some more testimony of Andrea Mazzola taken I believe on April 25th about some blood that may have been planted.




The photographs Scheck was showing Mazzola are the same photographs that Fung was shown. Photographs taken the day after the Bronco had been towed to the print shed. Photographs that show some stains inside the Bronco that could not be seen when the door was closed and some stains on the exterior of the Bronco that could be seen when the door was closed.

Tell us please what part of Mazzola's testimony leads you to believe that blood may possibly have been planted and what blood are you talking about?

bobaugust

[martin II]

I would not doubt it. A detective who believes that he knows who is guilty and shows a propensity to disregard the law will arm himself with tools of the trade, imho.

william
If furhman did have this skill, he could have opened the bronco door at anytime that vanhatter and the others were at Ashford area.
MARTIN ii

[William Anthony]

The photographs Scheck was showing Mazzola are the same photographs that Fung was shown. Photographs taken the day after the Bronco had been towed to the print shed. Photographs that show some stains inside the Bronco that could not be seen when the door was closed and some stains on the exterior of the Bronco that could be seen when the door was closed.

Tell us please what part of Mazzola's testimony leads you to believe that blood may possibly have been planted and what blood are you talking about?

bobaugust

I am talking about the blood at the bottom of the door, which no one recalled seeing-Mazzola did not recall seeing it at anytime although she was sent to systematically make a check for blood. It is not a stretch of the imagination to consider that the date of photos could be altered. It is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that the MF, the only one who claimed to have seen them on the dates mentioned above, placed LE in an awkward position due to his demonstrated and admitted proclivity to fabricate/falsify/plant/tamper with evidence and to lie.

[bobaugust]

I am talking about the blood at the bottom of the door, which no one recalled seeing-Mazzola did not recall seeing it at anytime although she was sent to systematically make a check for blood. It is not a stretch of the imagination to consider that the date of photos could be altered. It is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that the MF, the only one who claimed to have seen them on the dates mentioned above, placed LE in an awkward position due to his demonstrated and admitted proclivity to fabricate/falsify/plant/tamper with evidence and to lie.

Right, blood planted and then it disappears and crime photographs of evidence are doctored. Every one in the LAPD is a liar and a criminal and the killer is innocent.

I'm sorry to say that your arguments William have deteriorated into ridiculous paranoid fantasies. Nothing you suggest has any basis in fact and has absolutely no credibility. You have truly gone to la la land.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Right, blood planted and then it disappears and crime photographs of evidence are doctored. Every one in the LAPD is a liar and a criminal and the killer is innocent.

I'm sorry to say that your arguments William have deteriorated into ridiculous paranoid fantasies. Nothing you suggest has any basis in fact and has absolutely no credibility. You have truly gone to la la land.

bobaugust

I may be in la la land, but, if I am, I will always be accompanied by you in your delusional obsession. The reasonable inferences, since I do not have the monopoly you have on truth and facts, are there, if you choose to decipher the testimony. No, not everyone in LE are liars. There were some, who rushed to judgment and who wanted to save their faces and the faces of the prosecution. Those, imho, were placed in an untenable position by the antics of the MF, imho.

[bobaugust]

I may be in la la land, but, if I am, I will always be accompanied by you in your delusional obsession. The reasonable inferences, since I do not have the monopoly you have on truth and facts, are there, if you choose to decipher the testimony. No, not everyone in LE are liars. There were some, who rushed to judgment and who wanted to save their faces and the faces of the prosecution. Those, imho, were placed in an untenable position by the antics of the MF, imho.

The inferences you make from imaginary evidence are not reasonable inferences. They're meaningless imaginary inferences that are contradicted by the actual evidence. Your claim that blood may have been planted because Mazzola didn't recall seeing the small blood stains on the bottom of the Bronco that crime photographs document and Fuhrman and Fung testified to seeing is completely ridiculous. Your claim that the dates on crime photographs may have been changed is equally as ridiculous and just another false accusation by you to try and justify your uncredible paranoid beliefs.

I'm sorry to say that you're the one obsessed. Obsessed with Mark Fuhrman. You blame him for everything you can't seem to understand in this case and use that obsession along with false accusations as excuses to deny the truth that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Right, blood planted and then it disappears and crime photographs of evidence are doctored. Every one in the LAPD is a liar and a criminal and the killer is innocent.

I'm sorry to say that your arguments William have deteriorated into ridiculous paranoid fantasies. Nothing you suggest has any basis in fact and has absolutely no credibility. You have truly gone to la la land.

bobaugust

Very true and thank you for stating it so eloquently Bob! :beer:

[sassylassy]

links are not required anymore. that is my understanding. you have all of the testimony on your hard drive, i think
martin

Martin,

personally...I dont know where things stand with Links :shrug:

did freshwater address this issue? if she/hasnt then I would'nt believe it :read:

imo moo

[martin II]

Martin,

personally...I dont know where things stand with Links :shrug:

did freshwater address this issue? if she/hasnt then I would'nt believe it :read:

imo moo

sassy hi

you may be right. A poster informed us that links were no longer required and i should have considered the source.
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

william
i have read that furhman had completed a lapd locksmith type course. To teach one how to pick a lock.

martin II

Uh huh! Another one of those "I have read..." posts! Anybody else out there read about the above? Just curious! :shrug:

[weezer]

Uh huh! Another one of those "I have read..." posts! Anybody else out there read about the above? Just curious! :shrug:

I don't recall having ever read about it but what would it matter? orenthal had a key to Nicole's home. Remember? It was the missing key she asked everyone about and the same one found with orenthal's stuff in the Bronco when he made his run.

[socaldiva]

sassy hi

you may be right. A poster informed us that links were no longer required and i should have considered the source.
martin II


You are the only one I saw that posted that links were no longer required. :rolleyes:

[2L8 4A D8]

<snipped>

...If the MF did not unlock and lock the door, then the blood was left there after the Bronco was impounded and left unsecured in the tow pound. Hence, since the MF, who admitted to evidence tampering/planting/fabricating/destruction, was the only person to recall seeing the stains/smears, the reasonable inference is that he placed them there...

<snipped>

william
i have read that furhman had completed a lapd locksmith type course. To teach one how to pick a lock.

martin II

I would not doubt it. A detective who believes that he knows who is guilty and shows a propensity to disregard the law will arm himself with tools of the trade, imho.

william
If furhman did have this skill, he could have opened the bronco door at anytime that vanhatter and the others were at Ashford area.
MARTIN ii

I don't recall having ever read about it but what would it matter? orenthal had a key to Nicole's home. Remember? It was the missing key she asked everyone about and the same one found with orenthal's stuff in the Bronco when he made his run.

Hi Weezer! Yes, I remember the "lost or stolen" keys from Nicole's Condo, but as you can see the two Posters were talking about Marc Fuhrman's opening the locked Bronco. After Martin's post, that's why I asked if "Anybody else out there read about the above? Just curious!" because I have never heard of such a ridiculous thing! :shrug:

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

The inferences you make from imaginary evidence are not reasonable inferences. They're meaningless imaginary inferences that are contradicted by the actual evidence. Your claim that blood may have been planted because Mazzola didn't recall seeing the small blood stains on the bottom of the Bronco that crime photographs document and Fuhrman and Fung testified to seeing is completely ridiculous. Your claim that the dates on crime photographs may have been changed is equally as ridiculous and just another false accusation by you to try and justify your uncredible paranoid beliefs.

I'm sorry to say that you're the one obsessed. Obsessed with Mark Fuhrman. You blame him for everything you can't seem to understand in this case and use that obsession along with false accusations as excuses to deny the truth that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

I will admit to being obsessed. I am obsessed with the concept of "with liberty and justice for all." Because of that obsession, I seek to understand the rudimental elements of our judicial system. There have been many in LE that have taken the oath to serve and protect, but instead, for whatever reason have chosen to frame and prosecute. You hesitance to consider the history of LE and to take in to account the discrepancies in testimonies (which you choose to call human error and mistake when it comes to LE), but so quickly lable Simpson as a liar, while dismissing the MF's lies as irrelevant and the obstinate refusal to admit that the MF, as a member of LE, admitted framing people, shows your delusional obsession with LE and your hatred for Simpson for some reason, imho. Mazzola testified that she did not recall seeing the gate at Bundy. If you still do not see something askew with the testimonies, then I hesitate to believe that you ever believe a member of LE ever did anything wrong.

[weezer]

Hi Weezer! Yes, I remember the "lost or stolen" keys from Nicole's Condo, but as you can see the two Posters were talking about Marc Fuhrman's opening the locked Bronco. After Martin's post, that's why I asked if "Anybody else out there read about the above? Just curious!" because I have never heard of such a ridiculous thing! :shrug:

JMO and MOO!!

thanks -- my only point was that the one person obviously looking for unauthorized access to anyone else's property that night was orenthal since he had the stolen key to Nicole's home. There has never been any evidence that the Bronco was broken into.

[bobaugust]

I will admit to being obsessed. I am obsessed with the concept of "with liberty and justice for all." Because of that obsession, I seek to understand the rudimental elements of our judicial system. There have been many in LE that have taken the oath to serve and protect, but instead, for whatever reason have chosen to frame and prosecute. You hesitance to consider the history of LE and to take in to account the discrepancies in testimonies (which you choose to call human error and mistake when it comes to LE), but so quickly lable Simpson as a liar, while dismissing the MF's lies as irrelevant and the obstinate refusal to admit that the MF, as a member of LE, admitted framing people, shows your delusional obsession with LE and your hatred for Simpson for some reason, imho. Mazzola testified that she did not recall seeing the gate at Bundy. If you still do not see something askew with the testimonies, then I hesitate to believe that you ever believe a member of LE ever did anything wrong.

Based on you obsession you can't seem to tell the difference between what some LAPD personnel may have done in other cases and what the detectives did in the Simpson case.

Did the detectives and the criminalists in the Simpson case make some mistakes? Yes. Did any of these mistakes change one single piece of evidence in this case? No. Was any evidence tampered with or planted in this case? No. That's reality not the crimes and fantasies you keep imagining and accuse LE of committing.

You also can't seem to tell the difference between mistaken testimony and a lie. Some LAPD witnesses did make mistakes in their testimony and when these mistakes were pointed out they were explained and testimony was corrected. That's far different than what Simpson did. When Simpson was confronted with indisputable evidence that contradicted his claims, he simply said don't believe your eyes and don't believe what all the other witnesses said, just believe me and he continued to make the same lying claims.

Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and outright lies confirmed his guilt.

bobaugust

[martin II]

thanks -- my only point was that the one person obviously looking for unauthorized access to anyone else's property that night was orenthal since he had the stolen key to Nicole's home. There has never been any evidence that the Bronco was broken into.

weezer
a exprienced crooked cop with evidence planting skills would not be worth his handcuffs if he did not know how to pick a car lock without leaving evidence of his deed. Especially one that hated women.
martin II

[martin II]

I will admit to being obsessed. I am obsessed with the concept of "with liberty and justice for all." Because of that obsession, I seek to understand the rudimental elements of our judicial system. There have been many in LE that have taken the oath to serve and protect, but instead, for whatever reason have chosen to frame and prosecute. You hesitance to consider the history of LE and to take in to account the discrepancies in testimonies (which you choose to call human error and mistake when it comes to LE), but so quickly lable Simpson as a liar, while dismissing the MF's lies as irrelevant and the obstinate refusal to admit that the MF, as a member of LE, admitted framing people, shows your delusional obsession with LE and your hatred for Simpson for some reason, imho. Mazzola testified that she did not recall seeing the gate at Bundy. If you still do not see something askew with the testimonies, then I hesitate to believe that you ever believe a member of LE ever did anything wrong.

william
Mazzola lied about her signature on the bendels. fung lied about the blood spots on the bronco sill, vanhatter lied to get the search warrant, Parentas lied about the blood he drew. Park gave false testimony about what he saw. etc etc etc.

The jury saw straight through it all.

martin II

[bobaugust]

william
Mazzola lied about her signature on the bendels. fung lied about the blood spots on the bronco sill, vanhatter lied to get the search warrant, Parentas lied about the blood he drew. Park gave false testimony about what he saw. etc etc etc.

The jury saw straight through it all.

martin II

martin II, Mazzola didn't lie. Peratis didn't lie. Park didn't give any false testimony. You can't seem to be able to tell the difference between a mistake and a lie.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, Mazzola didn't lie. Peratis didn't lie. Park didn't give any false testimony. You can't seem to be able to tell the difference between a mistake and a lie.

bobaugust

bob

you seem to ignore a lie and call it a mistake where the prosecution witness is concerned.

martin II

[bobaugust]

bob

you seem to ignore a lie and call it a mistake where the prosecution witness is concerned.

martin II

martin II, no I don't ignore real lies told by the one witness who did tell lies, demonstrative lies, without ever claiming he was mistaken and that was Orenthal James Simpson. You're the one who ignores these lies and still can't tell the difference between a mistake and a lie.

The witnesses you falsely claimed lied were mistaken, admitted that they were mistaken, and explained why they were mistaken.

bobaugust

[weezer]

weezer
a exprienced crooked cop with evidence planting skills would not be worth his handcuffs if he did not know how to pick a car lock without leaving evidence of his deed. Especially one that hated women.
martin II

you obviously know more about this than I do. I'm wondering who you're going to call for help when you need it? surely not LE.............hmmm, guess that leaves. . . .

[martin II]

you obviously know more about this than I do. I'm wondering who you're going to call for help when you need it? surely not LE.............hmmm, guess that leaves. . . .

wezer
as long as you are willing to support and show your love for a racist cop that
also hates women and works to prevent women from holding positions of power in the lapd, help your self.

martin II

[weezer]

wezer
as long as you are willing to support and show your love for a racist cop that
also hates women and works to prevent women from holding positions of power in the lapd, help your self.

martin II

I don't support or love any racist -- whether it's a cop or a poster on this board -- whether they are white, brown, black or green.

I also don't believe Fuhrman to be a racist or a woman hater. You have let your hate for Fuhrman and LE distort your view of the testimony and evidence in the simpson case. IMO

[martin II]

I don't support or love any racist -- whether it's a cop or a poster on this board -- whether they are white, brown, black or green.

I also don't believe Fuhrman to be a racist or a woman hater. You have let your hate for Fuhrman and LE distort your view of the testimony and evidence in the simpson case. IMO

weezer

I did not put racist words in furhmans mouth and i did not cause him to join MAW.(MEN AGAINST WOMEN) He did both all on his own.

martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

weezer

I did not put racist words in furhmans mouth and i did not cause him to join MAW.(MEN AGAINST WOMEN) He did both all on his own.

martin II

To me, it doesn't look like Weezer asked you for your opinion of Marc Fuhrman. It has been obvious to all of us for much too long now! We don't need to be constantly reminded! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

weezer

I did not put racist words in furhmans mouth and i did not cause him to join MAW.(MEN AGAINST WOMEN) He did both all on his own.

martin II

I can tell who has racist views & negative views against women & I don't think it's MF ;)

[2L8 4A D8]

I can tell who has racist views & negative views against women & I don't think it's MF ;)

And I think that you are right, Diva! :beer:

[William Anthony]

Based on you obsession you can't seem to tell the difference between what some LAPD personnel may have done in other cases and what the detectives did in the Simpson case.

Did the detectives and the criminalists in the Simpson case make some mistakes? Yes. Did any of these mistakes change one single piece of evidence in this case? No. Was any evidence tampered with or planted in this case? No. That's reality not the crimes and fantasies you keep imagining and accuse LE of committing.

You also can't seem to tell the difference between mistaken testimony and a lie. Some LAPD witnesses did make mistakes in their testimony and when these mistakes were pointed out they were explained and testimony was corrected. That's far different than what Simpson did. When Simpson was confronted with indisputable evidence that contradicted his claims, he simply said don't believe your eyes and don't believe what all the other witnesses said, just believe me and he continued to make the same lying claims.

Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and outright lies confirmed his guilt.

bobaugust

You may chose to believe that Simpson possibly got away with murder, and I may choose to believe that he possibly got away with it because LE possibly tampered with, planted, fabricated, and invented evidence and that both Simpson and LE were possibly clever enough not to be exposed.

[William Anthony]

martin II, no I don't ignore real lies told by the one witness who did tell lies, demonstrative lies, without ever claiming he was mistaken and that was Orenthal James Simpson. You're the one who ignores these lies and still can't tell the difference between a mistake and a lie.

The witnesses you falsely claimed lied were mistaken, admitted that they were mistaken, and explained why they were mistaken.

bobaugust

They were mistaken because they were caught.

[bobaugust]

They were mistaken because they were caught.

That's how most people realize when they're mistaken, but not Simpson.

bobaugust

[martin II]

They were mistaken because they were caught.

wiliam
exactly.

When Mazzola (sp) was caught she just said "i don't know" vanhatter did not fess up to lying about the search warrant. Furhman certainly did not say he made a mistake and neither did Fung.
martin II

[bobaugust]

wiliam
exactly.

When Mazzola (sp) was caught she just said "i don't know" vanhatter did not fess up to lying about the search warrant. Furhman certainly did not say he made a mistake and neither did Fung.
martin II

martin II, Mazzola explained why she was mistaken when she testified in the Griffin Hearing that she had initialed bindles. Peratis explained why he was mistaken when he estimated the amount of blood he drew from Simpson. Vannatter didn't lie in his search warrant. Fung clarified his testimony explaining how he and Mazzola were working as a team collecting blood evidence..

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

That's how most people realize when they're mistaken, but not Simpson.

bobaugust

Simpson was caught but released. Their mistakes/lies serve to most reasonable thinking people as to the preposterouness that LE will stoop to sustain a case.

[weezer]

Simpson was caught but released. Their mistakes/lies serve to most reasonable thinking people as to the preposterouness that LE will stoop to sustain a case.

I'm beginning to feel sorry for you william and I question why you would want to become an attorney in a system that you obviously have such disregard for.

[bobaugust]

Simpson was caught but released. Their mistakes/lies serve to most reasonable thinking people as to the preposterouness that LE will stoop to sustain a case.

The police didn't have to stoop to anything to sustain their case, the physical evidence collected from both crime scenes and Simpson's Bronco proved Simpson was the killer. Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and outright lies confirmed his guilt.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The police didn't have to stoop to anything to sustain their case, the physical evidence collected from both crime scenes and Simpson's Bronco proved Simpson was the killer. Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and outright lies confirmed his guilt.

bobaugust

Yes, and I suppose you wholeheartedly believe that Thano did not know how much blood he drew, the missing blood behind the quarters was not relevant, the missing blood in the bronco was not relevant, the magical socks were not relevant, the blood on the outside of Simpson's blood vial was not material, the fact that Mazzola did not see the gate was not relevant, the fact that the blood from the gate was not collected until weeks later was not material, the fact that there was contamination in the lab was not material, the fact that the blanket was placed in the scene was not relevant and material, the fact that the picture of the MF pointing at the Bundy was taken at night was irrelevant, the fact that the glove had been moved was immaterial and the fact that there was a photo of the gloveon the blanket was immaterial, the fact that the EDTA results were testified to by a person who by medical and scientific evidence should have been dead was immaterial and irrelevant, just to name a few.

[bobaugust]

Yes, and I suppose you wholeheartedly believe that Thano did not know how much blood he drew, the missing blood behind the quarters was not relevant, the missing blood in the bronco was not relevant, the magical socks were not relevant, the blood on the outside of Simpson's blood vial was not material, the fact that Mazzola did not see the gate was not relevant, the fact that the blood from the gate was not collected until weeks later was not material, the fact that there was contamination in the lab was not material, the fact that the blanket was placed in the scene was not relevant and material, the fact that the picture of the MF pointing at the Bundy was taken at night was irrelevant, the fact that the glove had been moved was immaterial and the fact that there was a photo of the gloveon the blanket was immaterial, the fact that the EDTA results were testified to by a person who by medical and scientific evidence should have been dead was immaterial and irrelevant, just to name a few.

Peratis didn't know the exact amount of blood he drew, only that it was enough.
There was no missing blood in the Bronco.
The socks were not magical. You claim is ridiculous.
There was no blood on the outside of Simpson's blood vial, only some blood aerosol on the chem wipes used to open the vial and some on Yamauchi's gloves that were then disposed of.
The fact that blood on the rear gate was missed and not collected for several weeks doesn't change the fact that it was Simpson's blood.
Contamination doesn't change DNA.
The blanket didn't change any of the evidence.
Fuhrman was photographed pointing at the glove later in the morning when he returned to Bundy.
There was no photo of the glove on the blanket.
There was no EDTA preserved blood found in any tested blood sample.

Your false and misinformation doesn't change one single piece of evidence that proves Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. Your false and misinformation doesn't change any of Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and outright lies.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Peratis didn't know the exact amount of blood he drew, only that it was enough.
There was no missing blood in the Bronco.
The socks were not magical. You claim is ridiculous.
There was no blood on the outside of Simpson's blood vial, only some blood aerosol on the chem wipes used to open the vial and some on Yamauchi's gloves that were then disposed of.
The fact that blood on the rear gate was missed and not collected for several weeks doesn't change the fact that it was Simpson's blood.
Contamination doesn't change DNA.
The blanket didn't change any of the evidence.
Fuhrman was photographed pointing at the glove later in the morning when he returned to Bundy.
There was no photo of the glove on the blanket.
There was no EDTA preserved blood found in any tested blood sample.

Your false and misinformation doesn't change one single piece of evidence that proves Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. Your false and misinformation doesn't change any of Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and outright lies.

bobaugust

peratis told a big fat lie about the blood but only after JC notified everyone that BLOOD WAS MISSING
MARTINii

[martin II]

martin II, Mazzola explained why she was mistaken when she testified in the Griffin Hearing that she had initialed bindles. Peratis explained why he was mistaken when he estimated the amount of blood he drew from Simpson. Vannatter didn't lie in his search warrant. Fung clarified his testimony explaining how he and Mazzola were working as a team collecting blood evidence..

bobaugust

She was told she had to bite the bullet and lie or she told the lie on her own.
Everone knows Peratis lied so you need to stop trying to clean up his lie.

Vanhatter lied and the judge told him so. Fung lied so much he tried to apologize to the defense after testifying by walking over and shaking their hands
martin II

[bobaugust]

She was told she had to bite the bullet and lie or she told the lie on her own.
Everone knows Peratis lied so you need to stop trying to clean up his lie.

Vanhatter lied and the judge told him so. Fung lied so much he tried to apologize to the defense after testifying by walking over and shaking their hands
martin II

martin II, that's funny, you seem to think your imagination is evidence. You prove my point that you have no idea what a lie is.

Mazzola admitted to making a mistake and explained why she was mistaken. That's not a lie.
Peratis always estimated the amount of blood he drew from Simpson and later admitted that his estimation was a mistake. He also explained why he was mistaken.

Vannatter was never found to be lying by Judge Ito. Fung was never found to have lied and he didn't apologize to the defense by shaking their hands.

The Prosecution Responds, Hank Goldberg.
"What happened to Dennis Fung? After the lengthiest ordeal of any witness on the stand in this case, the judge finally told him matter-of-factly, "Mr. Fung, I'm going to excuse you from further testimony in this case at this time."

From the expression on Dennis's face, one would have thought that Judge Ito had just announced that he had won the Irish Sweepstakes. He almost leaped from the stand and bolted for the exit. But his path was blocked by a smiling Johnnie Cochran, Robert Shapiro, and other members of the defense team - and a smiling Orenthal James Simpson. The team that had tried to assassinate his character by branding him a coconspirator and bungler was now extending its hands outward toward Dennis. My mouth open, I witnessed Dennis, with a warm grin, accept their handshake and Shapiro's hug.

I cannot understand how Dennis - after being dragged through the mud in a public character assassination viewed by countless millions portrayed as an incompetent buffoon at best and a lying. perjuring coconspirator at worst - could have accepted the handshakes and embraces of those who had demeaned him.

The next day, Bill asked me about the handshaking incident. Raising my arms in mock surrender, I said, "Okay, I admit it. I forgot to tell Dennis not to shake their hands and hug the defense attorneys on the way out." Bill laughed.

"Really," I continued, "I think it's great. It shows just how insincere they are. If they really believed half the allegations about Dennis Fung, If they believed their attacks were warranted, how could they have embraced him when he left the stand?"

Bill smiled, "I agree."

Months late, Dennis and I returned to the scene of the crime - to Bundy - to prepare a chart of the footprints for shoe print expert Bill Bodziak's testimony. En route we stopped for lunch. Dennis and I were seated on bar stools at the counter. Over hamburgers and fries, Dennis raised the issue, "I bet you were wondering why I shook the hands of the defense team on my way out." I shrugged. "Well it crossed my mind." But I basically knew why. He was so eager to get off the stand, he would have run into anyone's arms.

He said, "I was in somewhat of a daze after leaving the stand. I really wasn't aware of what was happening."

After swallowing a bit of hamburger, I turned to him and smiled. "You're okay, Dennis."

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, that's funny, you seem to think your imagination is evidence. You prove my point that you have no idea what a lie is.

Mazzola admitted to making a mistake and explained why she was mistaken. That's not a lie.
Peratis always estimated the amount of blood he drew from Simpson and later admitted that his estimation was a mistake. He also explained why he was mistaken.

Vannatter was never found to be lying by Judge Ito. Fung was never found to have lied and he didn't apologize to the defense by shaking their hands.

The Prosecution Responds, Hank Goldberg.
"What happened to Dennis Fung? After the lengthiest ordeal of any witness on the stand in this case, the judge finally told him matter-of-factly, "Mr. Fung, I'm going to excuse you from further testimony in this case at this time."

From the expression on Dennis's face, one would have thought that Judge Ito had just announced that he had won the Irish Sweepstakes. He almost leaped from the stand and bolted for the exit. But his path was blocked by a smiling Johnnie Cochran, Robert Shapiro, and other members of the defense team - and a smiling Orenthal James Simpson. The team that had tried to assassinate his character by branding him a coconspirator and bungler was now extending its hands outward toward Dennis. My mouth open, I witnessed Dennis, with a warm grin, accept their handshake and Shapiro's hug.

I cannot understand how Dennis - after being dragged through the mud in a public character assassination viewed by countless millions portrayed as an incompetent buffoon at best and a lying. perjuring coconspirator at worst - could have accepted the handshakes and embraces of those who had demeaned him.

The next day, Bill asked me about the handshaking incident. Raising my arms in mock surrender, I said, "Okay, I admit it. I forgot to tell Dennis not to shake their hands and hug the defense attorneys on the way out." Bill laughed.

"Really," I continued, "I think it's great. It shows just how insincere they are. If they really believed half the allegations about Dennis Fung, If they believed their attacks were warranted, how could they have embraced him when he left the stand?"

Bill smiled, "I agree."

Months late, Dennis and I returned to the scene of the crime - to Bundy - to prepare a chart of the footprints for shoe print expert Bill Bodziak's testimony. En route we stopped for lunch. Dennis and I were seated on bar stools at the counter. Over hamburgers and fries, Dennis raised the issue, "I bet you were wondering why I shook the hands of the defense team on my way out." I shrugged. "Well it crossed my mind." But I basically knew why. He was so eager to get off the stand, he would have run into anyone's arms.

He said, "I was in somewhat of a daze after leaving the stand. I really wasn't aware of what was happening."

After swallowing a bit of hamburger, I turned to him and smiled. "You're okay, Dennis."

bobaugust

bob
a very dramatic excuse
martinII

[William Anthony]

Peratis didn't know the exact amount of blood he drew, only that it was enough.
There was no missing blood in the Bronco.
The socks were not magical. You claim is ridiculous.
There was no blood on the outside of Simpson's blood vial, only some blood aerosol on the chem wipes used to open the vial and some on Yamauchi's gloves that were then disposed of.
The fact that blood on the rear gate was missed and not collected for several weeks doesn't change the fact that it was Simpson's blood.
Contamination doesn't change DNA.
The blanket didn't change any of the evidence.
Fuhrman was photographed pointing at the glove later in the morning when he returned to Bundy.
There was no photo of the glove on the blanket.
There was no EDTA preserved blood found in any tested blood sample.

Your false and misinformation doesn't change one single piece of evidence that proves Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. Your false and misinformation doesn't change any of Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and outright lies.

bobaugust

Peratis didn't know the exact amount of blood he drew, only that it was enough.
The whole world knew that he staged the video and at one point he was seen mouthing the words I forgot (his script).

There was no missing blood in the Bronco.
You dismiss the testimony of Blazini, Mazzola, Vanatter and Fung.

The socks were not magical. You claim is ridiculous.
Alakazam!!

There was no blood on the outside of Simpson's blood vial, only some blood aerosol on the chem wipes used to open the vial and some on Yamauchi's gloves that were then disposed of.
I will locate the testimony when I have time.

The fact that blood on the rear gate was missed and not collected for several weeks doesn't change the fact that it was Simpson's blood.
No, only that it was not collected until after they had his sample.

Contamination doesn't change DNA.
No, but it places it where it should not be.

The blanket didn't change any of the evidence.
That's right, you were there when they gathered it and threw it into the crime scene.

Fuhrman was photographed pointing at the glove later in the morning when he returned to Bundy.
Not according to the photographer who took the photo and the use of flash bulbs, even Ito commented on the fact that the jury could see that it was taken at night.

There was no photo of the glove on the blanket.
By photo I meant a still from the video.

There was no EDTA preserved blood found in any tested blood sample.
Now, you are calling Martz a liar.

[bobaugust]

Peratis didn't know the exact amount of blood he drew, only that it was enough.
The whole world knew that he staged the video and at one point he was seen mouthing the words I forgot (his script).

There was no missing blood in the Bronco.
You dismiss the testimony of Blazini, Mazzola, Vanatter and Fung.

The socks were not magical. You claim is ridiculous.
Alakazam!!

There was no blood on the outside of Simpson's blood vial, only some blood aerosol on the chem wipes used to open the vial and some on Yamauchi's gloves that were then disposed of.
I will locate the testimony when I have time.

The fact that blood on the rear gate was missed and not collected for several weeks doesn't change the fact that it was Simpson's blood.
No, only that it was not collected until after they had his sample.

Contamination doesn't change DNA.
No, but it places it where it should not be.

The blanket didn't change any of the evidence.
That's right, you were there when they gathered it and threw it into the crime scene.

Fuhrman was photographed pointing at the glove later in the morning when he returned to Bundy.
Not according to the photographer who took the photo and the use of flash bulbs, even Ito commented on the fact that the jury could see that it was taken at night.

There was no photo of the glove on the blanket.
By photo I meant a still from the video.

There was no EDTA preserved blood found in any tested blood sample.
Now, you are calling Martz a liar.

The video was a reenactment of how Peratis drew blood from Simpson and demonstrated why he didn't know a specific amount of blood he had drawn. It was very obvious the video was not rehearsed.

No witness testified to missing blood. Not Blasini, not Mazzola, Not Vannatter, and not Fung.

Your claim that the socks were magical only show us your inability to comprehend reality.

There was no blood on the outside of Simpson's blood sample.

The fact is that the blood collected from the rear gate was seen by seven witnesses the morning after the murders and photographed.

DNA doesn't fly through the air.

The blanket didn't contaminate anything.

The photographer was confused as to when he took the photograph of Fuhrman. Fuhrman and other witnesses testified that the photograph was taken when Fuhrman returned from Rockingham later that morning.

The glove wasn't on the blanket.

Martz testified that he found no EDTA preserved blood in the gate blood or the sock blood that he tested.

bobaugust

[martin II]

The video was a reenactment of how Peratis drew blood from Simpson and demonstrated why he didn't know a specific amount of blood he had drawn. It was very obvious the video was not rehearsed.

No witness testified to missing blood. Not Blasini, not Mazzola, Not Vannatter, and not Fung.

Your claim that the socks were magical only show us your inability to comprehend reality.

There was no blood on the outside of Simpson's blood sample.

The fact is that the blood collected from the rear gate was seen by seven witnesses the morning after the murders and photographed.

DNA doesn't fly through the air.

The blanket didn't contaminate anything.

The photographer was confused as to when he took the photograph of Fuhrman. Fuhrman and other witnesses testified that the photograph was taken when Fuhrman returned from Rockingham later that morning.

The glove wasn't on the blanket.

Martz testified that he found no EDTA preserved blood in the gate blood or the sock blood that he tested.

bobaugust

bbob
martz was demoted by the FBI for testifying above his expertise level. So i have no idea as to why you continue to use him as a valid source. HE LIED.
martin II

[bobaugust]

bbob
martz was demoted by the FBI for testifying above his expertise level. So i have no idea as to why you continue to use him as a valid source. HE LIED.
martin II

martin II, Martz did not lie in the Simpson case. What ever happened to Martz after the Simpson case had nothing to do with his work he did in the Simpson case. Martz's work was extensively reviewed by The Department of Justice and their investigation and conclusion supported Martz's conclusions.

"At the outset, we observe that contrary to the suggestion of the defense, Martz's analysis was sound. Martz employed well-established analytical techniques to isolate and identify EDTA in dried blood, and he answered the specific question raised in the case. While Martz came under intense questioning by the defense for not conducting various additional studies, we are not critical of Martz on these grounds. Given an unlimited amount of time and resources, the FBI Laboratory could have conducted all sorts of studies on myriad related and tangential issues. But the reality is that Martz's role was to generate probative information based on the limited samples provided and return the samples for further independent analysis if necessary. He accomplished that task, and it does not appear that any other expert in the case repeated his work and came to any other conclusions.

We find no basis to conclude that Martz committed perjury or misled the trier of facts or defense in the Simpson case."

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/fbilab1/07simpso.htm


July 25, 1995
MS. CLARK: Good afternoon. Agent Martz, first of all, based on all of the testing that you conducted in this case, did you come to a conclusion as to whether or not the evidence bloodstains taken from the rear gate and taken from the socks found in the Defendant's bedroom had blood that came from the tube with the preservative known as EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And what conclusion was that?
MR. MARTZ: I concluded based on the work that I'd done on the 19th, the 22nd and the 28th that the bloodstains in question did not come from preserved blood, they did not come from blood that was preserved with EDTA.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The video was a reenactment of how Peratis drew blood from Simpson and demonstrated why he didn't know a specific amount of blood he had drawn. It was very obvious the video was not rehearsed.

No witness testified to missing blood. Not Blasini, not Mazzola, Not Vannatter, and not Fung.

Your claim that the socks were magical only show us your inability to comprehend reality.

There was no blood on the outside of Simpson's blood sample.

The fact is that the blood collected from the rear gate was seen by seven witnesses the morning after the murders and photographed.

DNA doesn't fly through the air.

The blanket didn't contaminate anything.

The photographer was confused as to when he took the photograph of Fuhrman. Fuhrman and other witnesses testified that the photograph was taken when Fuhrman returned from Rockingham later that morning.

The glove wasn't on the blanket.

Martz testified that he found no EDTA preserved blood in the gate blood or the sock blood that he tested.

bobaugust

The video was a reenactment of how Peratis drew blood from Simpson and demonstrated why he didn't know a specific amount of blood he had drawn. It was very obvious the video was not rehearsed.
If this is you opinion/delusion, so be it.

No witness testified to missing blood. Not Blasini, not Mazzola, Not Vannatter, and not Fung.
If this is you opinion/delusion, so be it.

Your claim that the socks were magical only show us your inability to comprehend reality.
If this is the way you escape reality, so be it.

The fact is that the blood collected from the rear gate was seen by seven witnesses the morning after the murders and photographed.
If this is the way you escape reality, so be it.

DNA doesn't fly through the air.
What do you call hair and trace?

The blanket didn't contaminate anything.
If this is the way you escape reality, so be it.

The photographer was confused as to when he took the photograph of Fuhrman. Fuhrman and other witnesses testified that the photograph was taken when Fuhrman returned from Rockingham later that morning.
If this is the way you escape reality, so be it.

The glove wasn't on the blanket.
If this is the way you escape reality, so be it.

There was no blood on the outside of Simpson's blood sample.
If this is you opinion/delusion, so be it.

[bobaugust]

The video was a reenactment of how Peratis drew blood from Simpson and demonstrated why he didn't know a specific amount of blood he had drawn. It was very obvious the video was not rehearsed.
If this is you opinion/delusion, so be it.

No witness testified to missing blood. Not Blasini, not Mazzola, Not Vannatter, and not Fung.
If this is you opinion/delusion, so be it.

Your claim that the socks were magical only show us your inability to comprehend reality.
If this is the way you escape reality, so be it.

The fact is that the blood collected from the rear gate was seen by seven witnesses the morning after the murders and photographed.
If this is the way you escape reality, so be it.

DNA doesn't fly through the air.
What do you call hair and trace?

The blanket didn't contaminate anything.
If this is the way you escape reality, so be it.

The photographer was confused as to when he took the photograph of Fuhrman. Fuhrman and other witnesses testified that the photograph was taken when Fuhrman returned from Rockingham later that morning.
If this is the way you escape reality, so be it.

The glove wasn't on the blanket.
If this is the way you escape reality, so be it.

There was no blood on the outside of Simpson's blood sample.
If this is you opinion/delusion, so be it.


My responses were simple explanations to your list of false claims.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

My responses were simple explanations to your list of false claims.

bobaugust

:beer: Excellent Post! Short, Sweet, Simple and Definitely to the Point!

[bobaugust]

I will agree that your responses were unsophisticated and represent your delusional/obssesive views of what the evidence proved, if that is what your post should mean to convey.

My responses were simply to correct your list of false and misinformation, just to keep the record straight.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

My responses were simply to correct your list of false and misinformation, just to keep the record straight.

bobaugust

The record is a thing of res ipsa loquitor and, as such, does not need the benefit of your input. However, feel free to promulgate your views as I believe all are begining to see that you misconstrue even the minutest details in order to do the impossible, convict Simpson.

[bobaugust]

The record is a thing of res ipsa loquitor and, as such, does not need the benefit of your input. However, feel free to promulgate your views as I believe all are begining to see that you misconstrue even the minutest details in order to do the impossible, convict Simpson.

Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer in the civil trial and given the maximum punishment available. You're continuous arguments based on false and misinformation is not that unusual for a minority of fanatics who are ether not capable of or willing to accept that realty.

When you post false or misinformation, I will correct it. When you make false accusations, I will point them out. When you outright lie, I will point that out. Just to keep the record straight.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer in the civil trial and given the maximum punishment available. You're continuous arguments based on false and misinformation is not that unusual for a minority of fanatics who are ether not capable of or willing to accept that realty.

When you post false or misinformation, I will correct it. When you make false accusations, I will point them out. When you outright lie, I will point that out. Just to keep the record straight.

bobaugust

Your insistent assertion that the civil trial proved Simpson to be a killer shows how unclear you are on the issue and that you are obssed with doing the impossible, convicting Simpson. There is no doubt that he was found liable for the wrongful deaths and a judgment entered against him. There in no doubt that he was found not guilty of the murders.

[William Anthony]

william
bob thinks oj was foung GUILTY in the criminal trial and received the judgement to keep from going to jail.

martin II

Martin,

Thanks for pointing this out. Now, I understand.

[bobaugust]

Your insistent assertion that the civil trial proved Simpson to be a killer shows how unclear you are on the issue and that you are obssed with doing the impossible, convicting Simpson. There is no doubt that he was found liable for the wrongful deaths and a judgment entered against him. There in no doubt that he was found not guilty of the murders.

There is no doubt that Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer in the civil trial. There is no doubt that the civil trial jury concluded that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole and agreed to the maximum punishment available to them.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

There is no doubt that Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer in the civil trial. There is no doubt that the civil trial jury concluded that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole and agreed to the maximum punishment available to them.

bobaugust

:beer: :) :beer:

[William Anthony]

There is no doubt that Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer in the civil trial. There is no doubt that the civil trial jury concluded that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole and agreed to the maximum punishment available to them.

bobaugust

The maximum punishment available to them is based upon a calculation of the worth of the lives of the victims. I do not think the judgment reflects the maximum or, if it does, it speaks poorly of the value of two lives. However, with that said, the civil jury could only conclude, as they did, that Simpson was liable for their deaths, not that he murdered them. This could mean that Simpson knew they were going to be killed but failed to warn them. Before you speak of the battery, let me say that the verdict only shows that he beat them and may have left them in a condition to be unable to ward of the attacker(s) who subsequently killed them.

[bobaugust]

The maximum punishment available to them is based upon a calculation of the worth of the lives of the victims. I do not think the judgment reflects the maximum or, if it does, it speaks poorly of the value of two lives. However, with that said, the civil jury could only conclude, as they did, that Simpson was liable for their deaths, not that he murdered them. This could mean that Simpson knew they were going to be killed but failed to warn them. Before you speak of the battery, let me say that the verdict only shows that he beat them and may have left them in a condition to be unable to ward of the attacker(s) who subsequently killed them.

That's funny. No one ever suggested Simpson warned the victims or that someone else subsequently killed them after Simpson beat them.

Your interpretation of the words that were used in the civil trial verdict shows how unrealistic and ridiculous your arguments are. The civil trial jurors concluded Simpson was a liar and a killer based on the evidence that was presented. Their affirmative answer to the first question on the verdict form makes that perfectly clear.

1. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman? Yes.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

That's funny. No one ever suggested Simpson warned the victims or that someone else subsequently killed them after Simpson beat them.

Your interpretation of the words that were used in the civil trial verdict shows how unrealistic and ridiculous your arguments are. The civil trial jurors concluded Simpson was a liar and a killer based on the evidence that was presented. Their affirmative answer to the first question on the verdict form makes that perfectly clear.

1. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman? Yes.

bobaugust

Do you understand the meaning of the words willfully and wrongfully?

[bobaugust]

Do you understand the meaning of the words willfully and wrongfully?

Intentionally and unlawfully.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Sounds like a lot of "baiting" questions going on here. Now we got OJ beating the victims! Posters, please ~ If it is absolutely so ridiculous and assinine and so far from reality to be delusional, then please don't take the bait!

If you don't have anything but TRASH to add to the mix, how about just not posting anything for gawd's sake and give all of us a freaking break! :punch:

JMO and MOO!!

[AmyW]

Sounds like a lot of "baiting" questions going on here. Now we got OJ beating the victims! Posters, please ~ If it is absolutely so ridiculous and assinine and so far from reality to be delusional, then please don't take the bait!

If you don't have anything but TRASH to add to the mix, how about just not posting anything for gawd's sake and give all of us a freaking break! :punch:

JMO and MOO!!

Well said and thank you. :beer:

I'm one of the "OJ lurkers" who has posted very few times, but has been reading for weeks trying to make sense of all the bickering, baiting, and nonsense mixed in with the decent debate.

As for this: (By William Anthony)

Before you speak of the battery, let me say that the verdict only shows that he beat them and may have left them in a condition to be unable to ward of the attacker(s) who subsequently killed them.

Are you saying that you know for certain that he was there and that he beat them and then possibly left the scene? That is utterly ridiculous, in my opinion.

[William Anthony]

Well said and thank you. :beer:

I'm one of the "OJ lurkers" who has posted very few times, but has been reading for weeks trying to make sense of all the bickering, baiting, and nonsense mixed in with the decent debate.

As for this: (By William Anthony)

Before you speak of the battery, let me say that the verdict only shows that he beat them and may have left them in a condition to be unable to ward of the attacker(s) who subsequently killed them.

Are you saying that you know for certain that he was there and that he beat them and then possibly left the scene? That is utterly ridiculous, in my opinion.

I am speaking of what the verdict meant. I am not saying he was there at all. The jury said he battered them based on the evidence presented in the trial. The word willfully could mean knowingly as well as intentionally.

If you agreed with the person who claims that my question was a baiting one, then you are incorrect. I would first like to know if the person who used the words was speaking of legal teminology, so that there can be no misunderstanding as to the use of the words. I see by his reply that he was.

I do not need others to try to negatively spin my posts, and, should ask me what I meant, before making false accusations about me.

[bobaugust]

I am speaking of what the verdict meant. I am not saying he was there at all. The jury said he battered them based on the evidence presented in the trial. The word willfully could mean knowingly as well as intentionally.

If you agreed with the person who claims that my question was a baiting one, then you are incorrect. I would first like to know if the person who used the words was speaking of legal teminology, so that there can be no misunderstanding as to the use of the words. I see by his reply that he was.


You pick and choose what meanings you think a word means with a complete disregard for the context it was used. That's why your argument of what you think Fuhrman meant when he said the word "them" is so ridiculous and your argument that the civil trial jury verdict means that Simpson only beat the victims but didn't kill them is also so ridiculous. Both of your definitions are contradicted by the reality of the evidence.

bobaugust

[AmyW]

I do not need others to try to negatively spin my posts, and, should ask me what I meant, before making false accusations about me.

I did ask you what you meant and your reply makes no sense to me. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

I did ask you what you meant and your reply makes no sense to me. :shrug:

This is your post, "Are you saying that you know for certain that he was there and that he beat them and then possibly left the scene? That is utterly ridiculous, in my opinion." You did not ask me what I meant but asked did I mean something. I do believe I understand why you could not make sense of my post.

[William Anthony]

You pick and choose what meanings you think a word means with a complete disregard for the context it was used. That's why your argument of what you think Fuhrman meant when he said the word "them" is so ridiculous and your argument that the civil trial jury verdict means that Simpson only beat the victims but didn't kill them is also so ridiculous. Both of your definitions are contradicted by the reality of the evidence.

bobaugust

I do not pick and choose anything but do include all possible meanings of words and events. This is why you and I disagree, because, imho, you selectively limit what words and events mean.

[bobaugust]

I do not pick and choose anything but do include all possible meanings of words and events. This is why you and I disagree, because, imho, you selectively limit what words and events mean.

Of course you pick and choose meanings of words without an regard for the context the words were used. The two examples I gave are proof of that.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Of course you pick and choose meanings of words without an regard for the context the words were used. The two examples I gave are proof of that.

bobaugust

Oh contraire, it is you that pick and choose meanings of words as indiciated by your post. Take a look "Of course you pick and choose meanings of words without an regard..." Please, explain the meaning and context of your use of the word in bold. Thank you.

[bobaugust]

Oh contraire, it is you that pick and choose meanings of words as indiciated by your post. Take a look "Of course you pick and choose meanings of words without an regard..." Please, explain the meaning and context of your use of the word in bold. Thank you.

That's funny William. Just a simple typo that should have had a "y" on the end. That has nothing to do with your post claiming that the the words in the civil trial jury verdict meant that Simpson only beat the victims but didn't kill them. Or your posting that when Fuhrman said the word them referring to the documented evidence in this case of a knit cap and a hat found under the plant at Goldman's feet, you claim he really meant there were two gloves under that plant.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

That's funny William. Just a simple typo that should have had a "y" on the end. That has nothing to do with your post claiming that the the words in the civil trial jury verdict meant that Simpson only beat the victims but didn't kill them. Or your posting that when Fuhrman said the word them referring to the documented evidence in this case of a knit cap and a hat found under the plant at Goldman's feet, you claim he really meant there were two gloves under that plant.

bobaugust

Oh, I see human error and mistake on your part, but, according to you, I have something sinister in mind. I posted what the MF said and Bailey pointed out that the questions on that page and the preceeding page of the transcript had to do with the glove when the prevaricating MF used the word them. There was no mention of the knit cap in two pages. You may chose to believe a proven prevaricated and I may choose not two. The fact that there are two reasonable inferences that can be drawn means reasonable doubt.

[bobaugust]

Oh, I see human error and mistake on your part, but, according to you, I have something sinister in mind. I posted what the MF said and Bailey pointed out that the questions on that page and the preceeding page of the transcript had to do with the glove when the prevaricating MF used the word them. There was no mention of the knit cap in two pages. You may chose to believe a proven prevaricated and I may choose not two. The fact that there are two reasonable inferences that can be drawn means reasonable doubt.

Fuhrman's testimony about this evidence was on direct questioning and it wasn't until Uelmen started his cross examination that he brought the subject up again. The number of pages between those questions is meaningless.

Your interpretation is not reasonable it's stupid. About the only defense I can imagine for your false interpretation is that it is made with a complete ignorance of what the evidence is in this case and what Fuhrman and every other witness testified to about what was under the plant. Because you have been discussing this case on this discussion group and you are aware of the evidence I don't believe you have something sinister in mind I think you're intentionally playing dumb.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Fuhrman's testimony about this evidence was on direct questioning and it wasn't until Uelmen started his cross examination that he brought the subject up again. The number of pages between those questions is meaningless.

Your interpretation is not reasonable it's stupid. About the only defense I can imagine for your false interpretation is that it is made with a complete ignorance of what the evidence is in this case and what Fuhrman and every other witness testified to about what was under the plant. Because you have been discussing this case on this discussion group and you are aware of the evidence I don't believe you have something sinister in mind I think you're intentionally playing dumb.

bobaugust

My interpretation is to what was said by the MF. It is stupid to believe that someone who was talking about gloves would go back two pages of testimony and claim to have referred to a cap and a glove. He used the word them in response to a portion of Ulemen's cross. However, it was Bailey who exposed the fact that the MF had not been asked about the cap in two pages and that the question presented to the prevaricating MF dealt with the glove (and only the glove) he claimed to have seen. The prevaricating MF then said he saw them. When you place his use of the word them in context with the video of a glove on the blanket, you can see the possibility of two gloves, or are you playing dumb.

As much as I know you do not want to think there was any reasonable doubt in the case, I realize that you intentionally avoid looking at the evidence in any reasonable light that would tend to show that Simpson, the Black All American, was not guilty of mudering two Whites that tend to resemble Ken and Barbie.

[martin II]

My interpretation is to what was said by the MF. It is stupid to believe that someone who was talking about gloves would go back two pages of testimony and claim to have referred to a cap and a glove. He used the word them in response to a portion of Ulemen's cross. However, it was Bailey who exposed the fact that the MF had not been asked about the cap in two pages and that the question presented to the prevaricating MF dealt with the glove (and only the glove) he claimed to have seen. The prevaricating MF then said he saw them. When you place his use of the word them in context with the video of a glove on the blanket, you can see the possibility of two gloves, or are you playing dumb.

As much as I know you do not want to think there was any reasonable doubt in the case, I realize that you intentionally avoid looking at the evidence in any reasonable light that would tend to show that Simpson, the Black All American, was not guilty of mudering two Whites that tend to resemble Ken and Barbie.

william

Thanks

martin II

[bobaugust]

My interpretation is to what was said by the MF. It is stupid to believe that someone who was talking about gloves would go back two pages of testimony and claim to have referred to a cap and a glove. He used the word them in response to a portion of Ulemen's cross. However, it was Bailey who exposed the fact that the MF had not been asked about the cap in two pages and that the question presented to the prevaricating MF dealt with the glove (and only the glove) he claimed to have seen. The prevaricating MF then said he saw them. When you place his use of the word them in context with the video of a glove on the blanket, you can see the possibility of two gloves, or are you playing dumb.

As much as I know you do not want to think there was any reasonable doubt in the case, I realize that you intentionally avoid looking at the evidence in any reasonable light that would tend to show that Simpson, the Black All American, was not guilty of mudering two Whites that tend to resemble Ken and Barbie.

"When you place Fuhrman's use of the word them in context with the video of a glove on the blanket, you can see the possibility of two gloves." Wow, you amaze me William. Maybe you aren't playing dumb after all, maybe you're just dumb.

Not only was the claim that the dark object the video showed was a glove ever substantiated no one ever argued or suggested that it was a second glove. First you falsely argue that the video is proof of tampering since Scheck argued that the it might have been the left hand glove and it was moved when Ron's body was dragged, and now you argue that the video somehow supports your false claim there may have been two gloves under the plant. Funny. The fact is that video was shot hours after Simpson's right hand glove was found and collected at Rockingham. Your doubt is not reasonable doubt, it's ignorant doubt.

In the preliminary hearing Fuhrman testified under direct questioning there was a glove and a hat under the plant. In cross examination Uelmen was questioning Fuhrman about the glove. Fuhrman used the word them describing the evidence he saw under the plant, a knit cap and a glove that he previously testified to seeing, and then continued to talk about the glove. Anyone who reads the testimony and knows the evidence in this case and read Fuhrman's previous testimony under direct questioning understood that, including Uelmen. No one was fooled later by Bailey's ridiculous false insinuations in the criminal trial when he took this testimony out of context except for possibly someone very ignorant or very gullible. False insinuations that neither Bailey or any of Simpson's defense attorneys ever made again. Only you William. Good job.

July 5, 1994 Fuhrman
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

[2L8 4A D8]

<snipped>

Because you have been discussing this case on this discussion group and you are aware of the evidence I don't believe you have something sinister in mind I think you're intentionally playing dumb.

bobaugust

Correct, both of them offer absolutely NOTHING to this discussion group and never have. All they are is troublemakers, make mountains out of molehills and are the Kings of Pettiness! He brings you to task for the word "an" and then brings me to task for the word "A". Uh huh! Anything to give the both of us a "stab" because they both have nothing else to offer!

I agree. The both of them are intentionally playing dumb which is not difficult to do for the both of them! :punch:

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

"When you place Fuhrman's use of the word them in context with the video of a glove on the blanket, you can see the possibility of two gloves." Wow, you amaze me William. Maybe you aren't playing dumb after all, maybe you're just dumb.

Not only was the claim that the dark object the video showed was a glove ever substantiated no one ever argued or suggested that it was a second glove. First you falsely argue that the video is proof of tampering since Scheck argued that the it might have been the left hand glove and it was moved when Ron's body was dragged, and now you argue that the video somehow supports your false claim there may have been two gloves under the plant. Funny. The fact is that video was shot hours after Simpson's right hand glove was found and collected at Rockingham. Your doubt is not reasonable doubt, it's ignorant doubt.

In the preliminary hearing Fuhrman testified under direct questioning there was a glove and a hat under the plant. In cross examination Uelmen was questioning Fuhrman about the glove. Fuhrman used the word them describing the evidence he saw under the plant, a knit cap and a glove that he previously testified to seeing, and then continued to talk about the glove. Anyone who reads the testimony and knows the evidence in this case and read Fuhrman's previous testimony under direct questioning understood that, including Uelmen. No one was fooled later by Bailey's ridiculous false insinuations in the criminal trial when he took this testimony out of context except for possibly someone very ignorant or very gullible. False insinuations that neither Bailey or any of Simpson's defense attorneys ever made again. Only you William. Good job.

July 5, 1994 Fuhrman
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

I did not go to any underated school that you may have attended, nor was I influenced by being reared by your parents. Again, I will accept the fact that you believe I may be dumb as a compliment, because I consider the source. I seem to forget that you feign that you cannot understand inferences/implications and everything must be spelled out to you. No wonder you give such credibility to the MF's book. I know you do not, but are simply trying to bait me and others with your derrogatory nouns and adjectives.

[bobaugust]

I did not go to any underated school that you may have attended, nor was I influenced by being reared by your parents. Again, I will accept the fact that you believe I may be dumb as a compliment, because I consider the source. I seem to forget that you feign that you cannot understand inferences/implications and everything must be spelled out to you. No wonder you give such credibility to the MF's book. I know you do not, but are simply trying to bait me and others with your derrogatory nouns and adjectives.

No, I'm not trying to bait you, only point our how ridiculous your false accusations are.

I have no idea what school you're going to but I doubt if they teach the unethical tactic of taking words out of context and then putting ridiculous interpretations on what was said, like you do here.

I apologize for suggesting you might really be dumb. I don't think you're dumb at all, I just think you say dumb things.

bobaugust

[weezer]

I did not go to any underated school that you may have attended, nor was I influenced by being reared by your parents. Again, I will accept the fact that you believe I may be dumb as a compliment, because I consider the source. I seem to forget that you feign that you cannot understand inferences/implications and everything must be spelled out to you. No wonder you give such credibility to the MF's book. I know you do not, but are simply trying to bait me and others with your derrogatory nouns and adjectives.

:no: personal attacks aren't permitted

[William Anthony]

:no: personal attacks aren't permitted

I have not personally attacked anyone, only indicated that sphere of knowledge and tutilage is different from theirs and my knowledge and tutilage does not allow me to refer to others as being possibly dumb. Perhaps, you should have made your warning to the poster who referred to me as being possibly dumb.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by William Anthony
"I did not go to any underated school that you may have attended, nor was I influenced by being reared by your parents."

sounds pretty personal to me

[William Anthony]

Yes William, we do have some different spheres of education, primarily life experience.

That doesn't change the fact that you have said some pretty dumb things.

bobaugust

That may be true but I know of no other way to respond to what I consider to be your rude and absurd pronouncements (fight fire with fire).

[bobaugust]

That may be true but I know of no other way to respond to what I consider to be your rude and absurd pronouncements (fight fire with fire).

You just beat around the path while I tell it like it is.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You just beat around the path while I tell it like it is.

bobaugust

You tell what sounds good to you and others you have deceived.

[bobaugust]

You tell what sounds good to you and others you have deceived.

No I tell it like reasonable thinking people understand it not like those who use any excuse they can imagine to ignore the reality of the evidence and ignore the many lies the killer Simpson told.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No I tell it like reasonable thinking people understand it not like those who use any excuse they can imagine to ignore the reality of the evidence and ignore the many lies the killer Simpson told.

bobaugust

But you choose to believe the many lies told by the prosecution witnesses or to dismiss them as human error or mistakes. Why? I think I know.

[bobaugust]

But you choose to believe the many lies told by the prosecution witnesses or to dismiss them as human error or mistakes. Why? I think I know.

More false accusations from you. The criminal trial prosecutors didn't tell any lies. No prosecution witness lied except for the one insignificant irrelevant lie Mark Fuhrman told about never saying the "n" word in the last ten years.

All the documented lies relating to the murders in this case were told by Orenthal James Simpson as well as his daughter Arnelle.

bobaugust

[martin II]

More false accusations from you. The criminal trial prosecutors didn't tell any lies. No prosecution witness lied except for the one insignificant irrelevant lie Mark Fuhrman told about never saying the "n" word in the last ten years.

All the documented lies relating to the murders in this case were told by Orenthal James Simpson as well as his daughter Arnelle.

bobaugust

bob
actually i think oj made some correcitons to his testimony as he began to have better recall to some events after such a long period of time between
6/12 and the civil trial. He also had to be concerned about the trickster Petrocelli laying out the mindfields with trick quesitons. It is unfortunate that you are not able to call them mistakes as you do with all the prosecution witnesses and LAPD employees. But i do understand why.
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
actually i think oj made some correcitons to his testimony as he began to have better recall to some events after such a long period of time between
6/12 and the civil trial.


"He began to have better recall"? It doesn't work that way.A person's memory would be more accurate around the time of the event. Memory doesn't improve with time, it typically deteriorates. His "corrections" were just an attempt to come up with a more believable version. imo

[William Anthony]

More false accusations from you. The criminal trial prosecutors didn't tell any lies. No prosecution witness lied except for the one insignificant irrelevant lie Mark Fuhrman told about never saying the "n" word in the last ten years.

All the documented lies relating to the murders in this case were told by Orenthal James Simpson as well as his daughter Arnelle.

bobaugust

There were so many lies told by the prosecution-even the judge did not believe Vanatter.

[bobaugust]

bob
actually i think oj made some correcitons to his testimony as he began to have better recall to some events after such a long period of time between
6/12 and the civil trial. He also had to be concerned about the trickster Petrocelli laying out the mindfields with trick quesitons. It is unfortunate that you are not able to call them mistakes as you do with all the prosecution witnesses and LAPD employees. But i do understand why.
martin II

martin II, some of the contradictions Simpson told were mistakes, mistakes he made when trying to come up with a believable explanation about the evidence that was so incriminating. Mistakes he made in the lies he told. That has nothing to do with his outright blatant lies.

To name just a few.

Was it a mistake when Simpson continued to deny he had listened to Paula's "Dear John" message after he was confronted with his telephone records and Dr. Walker's notes clearly documenting the fact that he did?

Was is a mistake when Simpson continued to deny when he wore Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes when he was confronted with over thirty authenticated photographs taken by two different photographers clearly showing him wearing them?

Was it a mistake when Simpson continued to claim he was not bleeding before he went to Chicago when in fact his blood was found at Bundy, in his Bronco and at his house before he came back from Chicago?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

There were so many lies told by the prosecution-even the judge did not believe Vanatter.

Tell us William, what do you think Vannatter said that the judge did not believe.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Tell us William, what do you think Vannatter said that the judge did not believe.

bobaugust

"playing fast and loose with the truth"

Judge L. Ito

martin II

[bobaugust]

"playing fast and loose with the truth"

Judge L. Ito

martin II

martin II, post the context and the full statement that Judge Ito supposedly said and what it was concerning. Include the date, please.

bobaugust

[1]

on the night of her murder, orenthal james simpson had motive and opportunity. orenthal james simpson left his hair, blood, glove, hat, fiber and size 12 Bruno Magli pigeon-toed footprints at the murder scene. orenthal james simpson murdered two human beings: Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.


I've followed this case closely & wholeheartedly agree.
...and I admire your usage of 'Orenthal'.
Here here
:beer:


A note about the OP's original question about the lack of noise/screaming. (forgive me, I can't remember who posted it)

I have always wondered about that, myself.

Perhaps it's due to the surprise/adrenaline rush as one had mentioned up there.

[William Anthony]

martin II, post the context and the full statement that Judge Ito supposedly said and what it was concerning. Include the date, please.

bobaugust

I am not sure whether it was Ito or the female judge, who heard the motion to supress. However, Martin's quote is accurate as you very well know. Clever of you to imply it was Ito.

[socaldiva]

bob
you know this statement has been posted many times and you know the source of it and the circumstances. It makes no sense for you to ask me
or anyone else to post it again.
martin II

You are the poster stating this is what Ito said & you should be able to back it up with a link when asked. Not everyone has seen this, let alone "many times".

[bobaugust]

bob
you know this statement has been posted many times and you know the source of it and the circumstances. It makes no sense for you to ask me
or anyone else to post it again.
martin II

martin II, no I don't know that partial statement has been posted many times, nor do I know what it was in reference to or when it was supposedly said or what the complete statement was. And evidently neither do you.

It reminds me of Dr. Lee's "something wrong" that you have also previously quoted out of context.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I am not sure whether it was Ito or the female judge, who heard the motion to supress. However, Martin's quote is accurate as you very well know. Clever of you to imply it was Ito.

I have no idea who said that, when it was said, or what it was regarding. I didn't imply it was Ito, martin attributed it to Judge Ito.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I have no idea who said that, when it was said, or what it was regarding. I didn't imply it was Ito, martin attributed it to Judge Ito.

bobaugust

bob
this issue has been discussed more than once and you were involved in the discussion.

martin II

[socaldiva]

bob
this issue has been discussed more than once and you were involved in the discussion.

martin II

If that's the case you should be able to find the post. I've not seen this statement attributed to Ito as you've suggested, so Bob isn't the only one asking for you to back it up. Why can't you simply provide a link??

[bobaugust]

bob
this issue has been discussed more than once and you were involved in the discussion.

martin II

martin II, not that I recall. I as well as other's here don't know who said what you quoted, when it was said, or what it was in reference. to. You're the one who has attributed it to Judge Ito, it's up to you to provide the information to support it.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

martin II, not that I recall. I as well as other's here don't know who said what you quoted, when it was said, or what it was in reference. to. You're the one who has attributed it to Judge Ito, it's up to you to provide the information to support it.

bobaugust

It was in reference to their alleged reasons for gaining unlawful entry into the Simpson estate.

[bobaugust]

It was in reference to their alleged reasons for gaining unlawful entry into the Simpson estate.

Please post something to support your claim. The date Ito supposedly said this, the transcript as to the context it was supposedly said, who it was said about.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Please post something to support your claim. The date Ito supposedly said this, the transcript as to the context it was supposedly said, who it was said about.

bobaugust


I will be more than happy to do so, when you post something to support your claim to know the truth and the facts other than your personal opinions of what you believe the truth and the facts are.

[bobaugust]

I will be more than happy to do so, when you post something to support your claim to know the truth and the facts other than your personal opinions of what you believe the truth and the facts are.

I see. Once again you make a claim that you can't support.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

martin II, some of the contradictions Simpson told were mistakes, mistakes he made when trying to come up with a believable explanation about the evidence that was so incriminating. Mistakes he made in the lies he told. That has nothing to do with his outright blatant lies.

To name just a few.

Was it a mistake when Simpson continued to deny he had listened to Paula's "Dear John" message after he was confronted with his telephone records and Dr. Walker's notes clearly documenting the fact that he did?

Was is a mistake when Simpson continued to deny when he wore Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes when he was confronted with over thirty authenticated photographs taken by two different photographers clearly showing him wearing them?

Was it a mistake when Simpson continued to claim he was not bleeding before he went to Chicago when in fact his blood was found at Bundy, in his Bronco and at his house before he came back from Chicago?

bobaugust

Memory can improve with time, especially as it related to the testimony of LE.

[William Anthony]

I see. Once again you make a claim that you can't support.

bobaugust

I would have to rummage through so many posts to pull out those numerous posts where you stated you knew the truth and the facts. I doubt that it would be a worthwhile endeavor.

[martin II]

I would have to rummage through so many posts to pull out those numerous posts where you stated you knew the truth and the facts. I doubt that it would be a worthwhile endeavor.

:beer: :beer:
martinII

[bobaugust]

I would have to rummage through so many posts to pull out those numerous posts where you stated you knew the truth and the facts. I doubt that it would be a worthwhile endeavor.

You made the claim that Judge Ito didn't believe Vannatter. When I asked you what Vannatter said that the judge didn't believe you never responded. Martin jumped in with a short quote supposedly made by Judge Ito that had no reference to him saying that or what he was referring to if he did say it.

I asked martin to support his claim and I have asked you to support your claim. Evidently neither of you can do that.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I asked martin to support his claim and I have asked you to support your claim. Evidently neither of you can do that.


No they can't & it's been a week.

[martin II]

Tell us William, what do you think Vannatter said that the judge did not believe.

bobaugust

bob
you have the answer to your question on your hard drive so why ask the question . you have discussed this issue many time before so forget it.

martin II

[socaldiva]

bob
you have the answer to your question on your hard drive so why ask the question . you have discussed this issue many time before so forget it.

martin II


Obviously if Ito did not say what you claimed, it won't be on Bob's hard drive.

[bobaugust]

bob
you have the answer to your question on your hard drive so why ask the question . you have discussed this issue many time before so forget it.

martin II

martin II, I've already told you I do not recall ever discussing this before. You're the one who posted a partial quote that you attributed to Judge Ito. You didn't post anything to support Ito actually said what you posted or the context that it was supposedly said or when it was supposedly said and you evidently can't.

bobaugust

[sasquatch]

I've followed this case closely & wholeheartedly agree.
...and I admire your usage of 'Orenthal'.
Here here
:beer:


A note about the OP's original question about the lack of noise/screaming. (forgive me, I can't remember who posted it)

I have always wondered about that, myself.

Perhaps it's due to the surprise/adrenaline rush as one had mentioned up there.

It was my understanding that Nicole had been hit over the head,
perhaps with a heavy flashlight or something. One theory had her
unconscious or weakened at the time of her murder.

[martin II]

It was my understanding that Nicole had been hit over the head,
perhaps with a heavy flashlight or something. One theory had her
unconscious or weakened at the time of her murder.

SASQUATCH
There have been many guesses. One is that the killer hit her on the head with the end of the 4 inch knife and knocked her out.
some say she fell and hit her head on a step.
:shrug:
If there was no noise then this could lead one to believe there were two killers as wagner states.

imo
martin II

[weezer]

SASQUATCH
There have been many guesses. One is that the killer hit her on the head with the end of the 4 inch knife and knocked her out.
some say she fell and hit her head on a step.
:shrug:
If there was no noise then this could lead one to believe there were two killers as wagner states.

imo
martin II

of course, only one left his hair, cap, glove, footprints, fiber and blood: orenthal james simpson.

[martin II]

of course, only one left his hair, cap, glove, footprints, fiber and blood: orenthal james simpson.

weezer
according to wagner that is about what happened but just at a different time than when the actual killing were taking place.
martin II

[bobaugust]

weezer
according to wagner that is about what happened but just at a different time than when the actual killing were taking place.
martin II

martin II, Why do you keep bringing up Wagner's failed scenario that Simpson was at Bundy but didn't kill Nicole when in fact you don't believe any of it?

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

weezer
according to wagner that is about what happened but just at a different time than when the actual killing were taking place.
martin II

OJ left the bloody prints, a glove & cap that evening...but wasn't the killer? Amazing!

[limakey]

Martin,

IMO, I believe that at least one person was posted in the doorway of the condo. Someone had to be listening for the children. I used to feel that either the killers didn't know about the kids or didn't care but I have come to believe that who ever killed them had very, very good information on the Simpsons', including their children. However, someone had to be there to listen for them, IMO.

Also, I have also posted that I believe that it was the children that kept both victims quiet. I can see Nicole having that natural reaction but Ron, I think he would have been reminded what would happen if the kids came down. Again, IMO.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

IMO, I believe that at least one person was posted in the doorway of the condo. Someone had to be listening for the children.

There is no evidence to support your belief, nor does your belief negate all of the evidence Simpson left behind to tell us who the killer was. imo

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, I believe that at least one person was posted in the doorway of the condo. Someone had to be listening for the children. I used to feel that either the killers didn't know about the kids or didn't care but I have come to believe that who ever killed them had very, very good information on the Simpsons', including their children. However, someone had to be there to listen for them, IMO.

Also, I have also posted that I believe that it was the children that kept both victims quiet. I can see Nicole having that natural reaction but Ron, I think he would have been reminded what would happen if the kids came down. Again, IMO.


limakey
i think it would be easy to estimate the time the kids would be in bed after such a busy day. If there were two killers then the plan was to make it as quick and quiet as possible. Even though i believe the Akita was still in the house with the children during the murders i am wondering if he did bark from inside the house.

imo
martin II

[weezer]

limakey
i think it would be easy to estimate the time the kids would be in bed after such a busy day. If there were two killers then the plan was to make it as quick and quiet as possible. Even though i believe the Akita was still in the house with the children during the murders i am wondering if he did bark from inside the house.

imo
martin II

of course the killer knew when the children would be in bed -- orenthal called and asked if Sydney was in bed, remember?

[martin II]

of course the killer knew when the children would be in bed -- orenthal called and asked if Sydney was in bed, remember?

weezer

Nicole did not live a very private closed life. it would not be that difficult for someone, some killers, to observe her commings and goings and decide when to do something.imo

Not sure a phone call from oj to his daughter after the recital and the end of the day means he was on his way to kill nicole. Unless one wants to streatch
the call into meaning more than it could be.
martin II

[socaldiva]

weezer

Nicole did not live a very private closed life. it would not be that difficult for someone, some killers, to observe her commings and goings and decide when to do something.imo

Not sure a phone call from oj to his daughter after the recital and the end of the day means he was on his way to kill nicole. Unless one wants to streatch
the call into meaning more than it could be.
martin II

There is no evidence of "some one" or "some killers" being at Bundy, only Simpson. Regardless of what you think the phone call means or doesn't mean, he made the call & knew they were home.

[limakey]

S-Diva,

Is it your position that if there was an accomplice at Bundy, this person would have had to have some evidence behind?

[socaldiva]

S-Diva,

Is it your position that if there was an accomplice at Bundy, this person would have had to have some evidence behind?

Yes, I would expect an accomplice to leave evidence, if he participated in the murders. Unless you are saying that someone was there just to stand at the door & listen for the children. Then again, that imaginary person would have probably stepped in some blood on the way out & left a foot print.

[limakey]

S-Diva,

It appears to me that the walk way was well lit, and where was all the blood in the condo walk way toward the back gate? I also made it clear, that this person did not have to have any physical contact with either victim. Perhaps his jacket was the one that disappeared from the kitchen?

[socaldiva]

S-Diva,

It appears to me that the walk way was well lit, and where was all the blood in the condo walk way toward the back gate?

I doubt that those lights were bright, I'd guess they were of the muted variety. In any case, it seems that Orenthal wasn't able to navigate through the pools of blood without tracking it.

[limakey]

S-Diva,

I believe who ever left those blood footprints, did so on purpose. Again, IMO.

[socaldiva]

S-Diva,

I believe who ever left those blood footprints, did so on purpose. Again, IMO.

I suppose you are saying this was done in an effort to "frame" Simpson?

[limakey]

S-Diva,

Or, this person was not concerned with the footprints they left behind. The evidence supports this person was not in a hurry to leave the scene. Was bold enough to walk back into the killing cage.

[socaldiva]

S-Diva,

Or, this person was not concerned with the footprints they left behind. The evidence supports this person was not in a hurry to leave the scene. Was bold enough to walk back into the killing cage.

I'd say there is a difference between leaving footprints on purpose, as I understood you to say originally, and not being concerned with them.

I think the killer was somewhat frantic & couldn't stop to account for the mistakes he was making, but I if he walked back to the "killing cage", he was probably trying to retrieve something he realized he left behind.

[limakey]

S-Diva,

Yes, there is a difference between the two and I believe there is enough evidence to suggest that either scenario is possible. Some was leaving evidence and clues that would lead right to Simpson or this person could have careless about what was being left behind.

[socaldiva]

S-Diva,

Yes, there is a difference between the two and I believe there is enough evidence to suggest that either scenario is possible. Some was leaving evidence and clues that would lead right to Simpson or this person could have careless about what was being left behind.

Well we differ here. I can't think of a single person or reason to frame Simpson & it would have involved a massive conspiracy, which to me is so absurd, it's laughable.

The evidence tells me that Simpson was a first time killer & couldn't possibly leave a pristine crime scene. He made mistakes. Happens all the time.

[limakey]

S-Diva,

I would think the primary goal of any person who plans on killing someone is to get away with it or at least buy enough time to get out of Dodge.

We know that Nicole was being followed by a guy, who stole Paula's white bronco and left his notebook of Nicole's whereabouts in the car. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Just a tad too pat?

The Simpsons were public figures, according to one "friend" she was the only one who knew the full extent of Simpson's rage against Nicole and the abuse. It wouldn't be all that difficult to point the finger at Simpson--especially with the 1989 incident and the 1993 incident.

[socaldiva]

S-Diva,

I would think the primary goal of any person who plans on killing someone is to get away with it or at least buy enough time to get out of Dodge.

We know that Nicole was being followed by a guy, who stole Paula's white bronco and left his notebook of Nicole's whereabouts in the car. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Just a tad too pat?

The Simpsons were public figures, according to one "friend" she was the only one who knew the full extent of Simpson's rage against Nicole and the abuse. It wouldn't be all that difficult to point the finger at Simpson--especially with the 1989 incident and the 1993 incident.

Of course the goal is to get away with it, but obviously the plans fail as we've seen time & time again.

As for the person you mention, it's too sketchy & that person didn't have Simpson's personal belongings to leave at the crime scene. Nor could they drip Simpson's blood etc.

Pointing the finger at someone is meaningless without tangible evidence, of which there was plenty in the Simpson case.

[limakey]

S-Diva,

That person had valuable information. That person also lived in Nicole's home and could have seen items of clothing that belong to Simpson. The person who was following Nicole would not at first reveal who paid him to follow Nicole. However, he came with a story that made no sense. IMO.

I agree with that killers make mistakes all the time but these seem way, way too boneheaded, IMO.

One more thing, when it comes to evidence, there is evidence that does have at least two sides to it. All evidence should not be accepted as face value, IMO.

[socaldiva]

S-Diva,

That person had valuable information. That person also lived in Nicole's home and could have seen items of clothing that belong to Simpson. The person who was following Nicole would not at first reveal who paid him to follow Nicole. However, he came with a story that made no sense. IMO.

I agree with that killers make mistakes all the time but these seem way, way too boneheaded, IMO.

One more thing, when it comes to evidence, there is evidence that does have at least two sides to it. All evidence should not be accepted as face value, IMO.

A person that wanted Nicole dead & plotted for months to collect Simpson's hair, hat, gloves & blood in order to frame him?

As for evidence, contamination & degradation does not change on person's DNA into another's.

[limakey]

S-Diva,

The defense nor has any NG, that I can remember, ever said that contamination ever changed one person's DNA into another. It was, IMO, that arguement that hurt Rock Harmon in front of the jury. The defense never said that was their theory.

First off their is no proof that the hat was worn in the commission of the murders, nor was it proved to be owned by Simpson. However, just like the gloves, it would have been very interesting to see who's DNA was contained in the sweat that was trapped inside the fibers of the hat. That would have gone a long way to prove who's hat it was. However, the defense could have made the arguement that the hat was Simpson's but gave it to his children.

Also, the size of the cap was never revealed, was it? Weren't there similar hats found inside Nicole's condo?

[socaldiva]

S-Diva,

The defense nor has any NG, that I can remember, ever said that contamination ever changed one person's DNA into another. It was, IMO, that argument that hurt Rock Harmon in front of the jury. The defense never said that was their theory.

First off their is no proof that the hat was worn in the commission of the murders, nor was it proved to be owned by Simpson. However, just like the gloves, it would have been very interesting to see who's DNA was contained in the sweat that was trapped inside the fibers of the hat. That would have gone a long way to prove who's hat it was. However, the defense could have made the argument that the hat was Simpson's but gave it to his children.

Also, the size of the cap was never revealed, was it? Weren't there similar hats found inside Nicole's condo?


Oh crikey, the hat was found at the murder scene with his hair in it. Simpson didn't live there & I doubt that it was just lying about & Nicole & the children were just walking over it out in the walkway, day after day. I say if your hair is in the hat, it's yours.

I've never heard anything about "similar hats" being found inside Nicole's condo. I doubt the watchman's cap is "sized". I'm guessing it's one size fits all (including the huge headed Simpson lol).

If NG's or the defense aren't going to argue that contamination changes one person's blood into another's, there is no argument for contamination, as it was clearly found to be Simpson's blood & hair. IMO

That said....I'm off for the evening.

[limakey]

S-Diva,

Yes, similar hats were found inside Nicole's condo, just like similar gloves were found at Rockingham.

And you are wrong, there was not way to say that the hair found inside the hat was in fact, Simpson's. However, you are right, he does have a massive head--which makes his choice of this type of hat downright laughable, IMO.

[socaldiva]

S-Diva,

Yes, similar hats were found inside Nicole's condo, just like similar gloves were found at Rockingham.

And you are wrong, there was not way to say that the hair found inside the hat was in fact, Simpson's. However, you are right, he does have a massive head--which makes his choice of this type of hat downright laughable, IMO.

I'm beginning to think you are simply baiting. Perhaps you should put me back on ignore?

You posted the question as to similar hats being in Nicole's condo & now you state there were??

The hair in the hat was found to be consistent with his IIRC, I think you are "wrong".

[limakey]

S-Diva,

I don't get the point of baiting nor was it my intent. I am sorry if you feel this way.

Robert Kardashian saw similar caps inside the Bundy condo and was amazed the police didn't seem interested in them or collect them. I believe this was in American Tragedy. Maybe Gerald Uelman's book also had this information.

However, it doesn't change the fact that the DA's never linked ownership to Simpson. Hairs can only be similar or consistent---which is why hair and fiber evidence is not the end all be all type of evidence. Those hairs found could have been consistent with other African American males.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

Robert Kardashian saw similar caps inside the Bundy condo and was amazed the police didn't seem interested in them or collect them.

The same Robert Kardashian that was believed to have stated his belief that Simpson was the killer? That Kardashian?

[limakey]

S-Diva,

Yes, that very same Kardashian. BTW, do you have a link to where he says he believes Simpson is the killer. I do know that in his inteview with B. Walters, he had problems with the blood evidence.

Which BTW, if you don't have link, that is cool with me and I do believe you if you say that you just heard it or read it somewhere.

[tv]

Whether he ever stated he believed Simpson was the killer or not, it was obvious by his expression when the verdict was being read that he was stunned that he wasn't found guilty.

It's always been my opinion that Kardashian believed (or knew) that Simpson had committed the murders and would have been relieved if he been found guilty.

[martin II]

Whether he ever stated he believed Simpson was the killer or not, it was obvious by his expression when the verdict was being read that he was stunned that he wasn't found guilty.

It's always been my opinion that Kardashian believed (or knew) that Simpson had committed the murders and would have been relieved if he been found guilty.

tvdinner

Is there any way that you can prove that RKs expression meant that he was stunned at the verdict??

martin II

[limakey]

TVDinner and Martin,

If I remember correctly, JC told the teamthat he did not want any reaction shown to the verdict, regardless of what it was. I'm sure that Kardashian was a bit surprised by Cochran's reaction to the verdict. Perhaps JC was setting up a Kodak moment for him and Simpson alone? Perhaps he could not control it, but I always think that played a role in it.

Also, Kardashian knew the mood of the public, he knew that many people in Simpson's former circle believed he was the killer. He spent a lot of time with Simpson and telling him to keep the faith in regards to the verdict, however, he knew that a not guilty verdict wasn't going to change anybody's mind.

Don't forget, Shapiro wanted him to cop to being an accomplice, there was a guy in jail who said he was hired by Kardashian to follow Nicole. Also, we don't know if Shipiro prepared or expressed his doubts about the verdict to Kardashian. We have such a high a conviction rate in this country, I would think any defense lawyer, no matter how good they tried to hide it, would be stunned by a not guilty verdict. Last but not least, no matter what the verdict, Nicole, a woman he considered a friend, a woman he knew for years was dead and the verdict wasn't going to change that.

Also, what about the fact that the DA's, IMO, did not have stunned looked on their faces? Sure, they had pissed off expressions but stunned? No, they weren't stunned, they were mad and embarrassed that their case was totally rejected by the jury.

[tv]

tvdinner

Is there any way that you can prove that RKs expression meant that he was stunned at the verdict??

martin II

Sorry, I should have said it was obvious to me that he was stunned. Just my opinon. :)

[socaldiva]

Sorry, I should have said it was obvious to me that he was stunned. Just my opinon. :)

I'd say you & most of the world :tongue:

[socaldiva]

Whether he ever stated he believed Simpson was the killer or not, it was obvious by his expression when the verdict was being read that he was stunned that he wasn't found guilty.

It's always been my opinion that Kardashian believed (or knew) that Simpson had committed the murders and would have been relieved if he been found guilty.

I have to correct what I posted last night. It was late & I mixed up Shapiro & Kardashian. Sorry. :tongue: I agree with you though, I believe Kardashian knew Simpson was the killer & if I'm not mistaken, I think he distanced himself from him after the trial.

Welcome to the board & I love your nic & avatar btw :seeya:

[weezer]

I have to correct what I posted last night. It was late & I mixed up Shapiro & Kardashian. Sorry. :tongue: I agree with you though, I believe Kardashian knew Simpson was the killer & if I'm not mistaken, I think he distanced himself from him after the trial.

Welcome to the board & I love your nic & avatar btw :seeya:

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,134872,00.html

"Robert Kardashian is one of Simpson's close friends, and it was at his house that Simpson was staying before he set off in his Bronco. Kardashian spent months at Simpson's side during the trial. Now, in return for money, he has helped produce a book in which he cast doubts on Simpson's innocence."

[tv]

I have to correct what I posted last night. It was late & I mixed up Shapiro & Kardashian. Sorry. :tongue: I agree with you though, I believe Kardashian knew Simpson was the killer & if I'm not mistaken, I think he distanced himself from him after the trial.

Welcome to the board & I love your nic & avatar btw :seeya:
Thanks for the welcome socaldiva. My nic is just some goofiness I thought up late one night but it's grown on me. :)

I believe you're right about Kardashian distancing himself. I don't know if they had a formal split but it was rumored that they were estranged.

[socaldiva]

Thanks for the welcome socaldiva. My nic is just some goofiness I thought up late one night but it's grown on me. :)

I believe you're right about Kardashian distancing himself. I don't know if they had a formal split but it was rumored that they were estranged.

That's what I recall too & why would you distance yourself after the trial, if you thought he was innocent? That combined with the look on his face spoke volumes. IMO

[tv]

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,134872,00.html

"Robert Kardashian is one of Simpson's close friends, and it was at his house that Simpson was staying before he set off in his Bronco. Kardashian spent months at Simpson's side during the trial. Now, in return for money, he has helped produce a book in which he cast doubts on Simpson's innocence."Thanks for the link fbgweezer.:) I didn't realize that RK had distanced himself quite that much.

[weezer]

http://www.cnn.com/US/9610/10/simpson/index.html

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- O.J. Simpson intimate Robert Kardashian says he now has doubts that Simpson is innocent of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and will say so if called to testify in the upcoming civil trial.

[socaldiva]

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,134872,00.html

"Robert Kardashian is one of Simpson's close friends, and it was at his house that Simpson was staying before he set off in his Bronco. Kardashian spent months at Simpson's side during the trial. Now, in return for money, he has helped produce a book in which he cast doubts on Simpson's innocence."

Thanks for the link FBG! I had forgotten these things & I saw Kardashian's 20/20 interview & read American Tragedy.

[martin II]

Sorry, I should have said it was obvious to me that he was stunned. Just my opinon. :)

tv dinner

thanks

you get a lot of credit with me for your last post.
martin II

[limakey]

Martin,

What is your take about a "silent murder"? Also, surely if Simpson could jump a fence, slam into an AC unit or the wall and not leave behind a single fiber, a single fingerprint, etc., a "look out" could also have had the same luck. IMO.

Also, don't you find the items that were left behind to be a tad too pat?

[socaldiva]

Martin,

What is your take about a "silent murder"? Also, surely if Simpson could jump a fence, slam into an AC unit or the wall and not leave behind a single fiber, a single fingerprint, etc., a "look out" could also have had the same luck. IMO.

Also, don't you find the items that were left behind to be a tad too pat?

He left a rather large fiber: a bloody glove ;)

[martin II]

Martin,

What is your take about a "silent murder"? Also, surely if Simpson could jump a fence, slam into an AC unit or the wall and not leave behind a single fiber, a single fingerprint, etc., a "look out" could also have had the same luck. IMO.

Also, don't you find the items that were left behind to be a tad too pat?

limakey

I am inclined to go with part of Wagner that there were two killers. I also believe that there could be some truth to the motive for the mob to want Nicole killed.
two killers would account for the 'QUICK' kiling time and the 'MO CALLS FOR HELP "

There were something like 'SMEARS' on some tiles indicating that someone had wiped some prints away (wagner)

The sock is totally suspect because of how it was handeled and anything found on it is suspect. same for the blood on that back gate.

simpson running through the sallingers property. bushes, vines jumping to the air conditioner falling to the ground three times no less and running out to the garage and did not leave any evidence that anyone had been back there, streatches reality. imo

martin II

[tazzybaby]

S-Diva,

I would think the primary goal of any person who plans on killing someone is to get away with it or at least buy enough time to get out of Dodge.

We know that Nicole was being followed by a guy, who stole Paula's white bronco and left his notebook of Nicole's whereabouts in the car. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Just a tad too pat?

The Simpsons were public figures, according to one "friend" she was the only one who knew the full extent of Simpson's rage against Nicole and the abuse. It wouldn't be all that difficult to point the finger at Simpson--especially with the 1989 incident and the 1993 incident.

It does seem odd since he was in jail when the murders happened. And, he stated that Kardashian hired him on OJ's behalf.

[William Anthony]

You made the claim that Judge Ito didn't believe Vannatter. When I asked you what Vannatter said that the judge didn't believe you never responded. Martin jumped in with a short quote supposedly made by Judge Ito that had no reference to him saying that or what he was referring to if he did say it.

I asked martin to support his claim and I have asked you to support your claim. Evidently neither of you can do that.

bobaugust

What the judge was responding to and found somewhat less than credible were the reasons given by Vanatter for making what I consider an unlawful entry onto the Rockingham estate. I know, as do you, that the statements, including that of the judge, has been previously discussed.

[martin II]

What the judge was responding to and found somewhat less than credible were the reasons given by Vanatter for making what I consider an unlawful entry onto the Rockingham estate. I know, as do you, that the statements, including that of the judge, has been previously discussed.

it has been discussed many times here. over and over again.

martin II

[limakey]

Taz,

I know what the guy said, but it makes no sense the police dropped it, unless it pointed away from Simpson. The DA's made it seem like they wanted Kardashian on the stand so bad they could taste it, yet when they are given their lawful right to haul him and question him on this, they don't? They would rather have the public believed he spirited away the bloody clothes that Simpson brought back with him from Chicago?

Why would Simpson have Nicole followed? And it wasn't Simpson or Kardashian, who else would have motive to have her followed? And what person who does this stuff for a living, do it and then leave all his proof-paycheck in the stolen car? Why steal Paula's--because it was a white bronco? Because it was well known that Paula and Nicole couldn't stand each other and Paula was still hurt and pissed that OJ dumped her and Nicole was not shy making it known she could have OJ back any time she snapped her fingers?

There is something there but because of very closed minds, we will never find out, IMO.

[bobaugust]

What the judge was responding to and found somewhat less than credible were the reasons given by Vanatter for making what I consider an unlawful entry onto the Rockingham estate. I know, as do you, that the statements, including that of the judge, has been previously discussed.

I don't believe Judge Ito believed the entry was unlawful and I haven't seen any testimony that Judge Ito said he did not believe Vannatter. You're the one who has to support your claims, not me. Be sure and include the date of any testimony you post, please.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

it has been discussed many times here. over and over again.

martin II

If this has been discussed many times like you claim it has then you shouldn't have any problem supporting your claims, right?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Taz,

I know what the guy said, but it makes no sense the police dropped it, unless it pointed away from Simpson. The DA's made it seem like they wanted Kardashian on the stand so bad they could taste it, yet when they are given their lawful right to haul him and question him on this, they don't? They would rather have the public believed he spirited away the bloody clothes that Simpson brought back with him from Chicago?

Why would Simpson have Nicole followed? And it wasn't Simpson or Kardashian, who else would have motive to have her followed? And what person who does this stuff for a living, do it and then leave all his proof-paycheck in the stolen car? Why steal Paula's--because it was a white bronco? Because it was well known that Paula and Nicole couldn't stand each other and Paula was still hurt and pissed that OJ dumped her and Nicole was not shy making it known she could have OJ back any time she snapped her fingers?

There is something there but because of very closed minds, we will never find out, IMO.


limakey, the prosecution would rather have the public believe Kardashian spirited away the bloody clothes that Simpson brought back with him form Chicago?

Post the testimony or some other reference that causes you to make this claim, please.

bobaugust

[martin II]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8868674]limakey, the prosecution would rather have the public believe Kardashian spirited away the bloody clothes that Simpson brought back with him form Chicago?

Post the testimony or some other reference that causes you to make this claim, please.

bobaugust[/QUOTE

No link is required for one to develope this thought.
I think that rather then put him on the stand to be questioned where he could deny knowledge, it was best to just let the public think that he was the HELP oj got since he was so close to OJ. IMO

MARTIN ii

[martin II]

If this has been discussed many times like you claim it has then you shouldn't have any problem supporting your claims, right?

bobaugust


bob
i am not looking back through 6 month of post to see who posted something that i remember was discussed many times.your constant request does sound like baiting. imo jmo
martin II

[tazzybaby]

Taz,

I know what the guy said, but it makes no sense the police dropped it, unless it pointed away from Simpson. The DA's made it seem like they wanted Kardashian on the stand so bad they could taste it, yet when they are given their lawful right to haul him and question him on this, they don't? They would rather have the public believed he spirited away the bloody clothes that Simpson brought back with him from Chicago?

Why would Simpson have Nicole followed? And it wasn't Simpson or Kardashian, who else would have motive to have her followed? And what person who does this stuff for a living, do it and then leave all his proof-paycheck in the stolen car? Why steal Paula's--because it was a white bronco? Because it was well known that Paula and Nicole couldn't stand each other and Paula was still hurt and pissed that OJ dumped her and Nicole was not shy making it known she could have OJ back any time she snapped her fingers?

There is something there but because of very closed minds, we will never find out, IMO.


Limakey,

Have you ever read any of the things that he posted regarding this? Or looked at his website?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wasz

The whole story is very interesting. RK was trying to set him up (that's what he believed). He said that he was given the keys to Paula's bronco and told where it would be. He was suppose to do the killing after that. He took the money and ran. He was very high when arrested. That explains his carelessness. I believe that they were trying to set him up to take the fall. He had their private numbers.

[bobaugust]

bob
i am not looking back through 6 month of post to see who posted something that i remember was discussed many times.your constant request does sound like baiting. imo jmo
martin II

martin II, no I'm not baiting you I'm simply asking you to support the claim you made. Evidently you can't.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Taz,

From what I have read about this, BW was never to support his claims that it was Kardashian who hired him. Again, it makes no sense that BW would be afraid of either OJ or Kardashian because OJ was in jail and Kardashian was already dealing with rumors as an accomplice.

But what is weird, someone stole a gun from Kardashian's home. It just seems like nothing makes sense---however, it is a fact that Nicole was followed and IMO, the evidence strongly suggests that neither Simpson nor Kardashian were behind it.

[martin II]

Taz,

From what I have read about this, BW was never to support his claims that it was Kardashian who hired him. Again, it makes no sense that BW would be afraid of either OJ or Kardashian because OJ was in jail and Kardashian was already dealing with rumors as an accomplice.

But what is weird, someone stole a gun from Kardashian's home. It just seems like nothing makes sense---however, it is a fact that Nicole was followed and IMO, the evidence strongly suggests that neither Simpson nor Kardashian were behind it.

limakey
i wonder why some find it so difficult to understand that the mob could have wanted harm to come to nicole.imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

limakey
i wonder why some find it so difficult to understand that the mob could have wanted harm to come to nicole.imo
martin II

Maybe it's because there was no evidence of anyone other than Orenthal being at the murder scene. ;)

[n.n]

Well, the evidence and the tampering with it, was one reason why Mr. Simpson got a "not guilty" verdict.
I've just read in one of the posts that the murderer supposedly walked away from the scene without a hurry. Wouldn't that mean that he should have gathered whatever evidence he left behind (cap, glove) since he was not really "fleeing" the scene? It seems to me that the fact he left calmly speaks to the fact that these items were not there when he left. Just a thought.

[socaldiva]

*snip* Well, the evidence and the tampering with it, was one reason why Mr. Simpson got a "not guilty" verdict.


What are you referring to as "tampering"?

[bobaugust]

Well, the evidence and the tampering with it, was one reason why Mr. Simpson got a "not guilty" verdict.
I've just read in one of the posts that the murderer supposedly walked away from the scene without a hurry. Wouldn't that mean that he should have gathered whatever evidence he left behind (cap, glove) since he was not really "fleeing" the scene? It seems to me that the fact he left calmly speaks to the fact that these items were not there when he left. Just a thought.

n.n. based on the bloody shoe prints all we know is Simpson didn't run down the walk way but they don't tell us how quickly he walked. Simpson evidently never saw his cap and glove under the foliage in the dark garden area and because he had to return back home as soon as possible to leave for the airport he never took the time to look for them

bobaugust

[limakey]

n.n.

There is no proof that the cap found was OJ Simpson's. There is no proof that even if it was, that it worn that night. IMO, it is important to remember the DA's had other Simpson hats, one that was also found in his Bronco but the hair fibers were never compared.

However, the biggest problem I have have about the hat is how it was described and how long it took Shapiro to force the DA's to show the hat in court. I have always believed Fuhrman would not have been wrong about his description of the hat. I wonder if there was a an actual ski mask but that somehow was lost as well.

[socaldiva]

n.n.

There is no proof that the cap found was OJ Simpson's. There is no proof that even if it was, that it worn that night. IMO, it is important to remember the DA's had other Simpson hats, one that was also found in his Bronco but the hair fibers were never compared.

However, the biggest problem I have have about the hat is how it was described and how long it took Shapiro to force the DA's to show the hat in court. I have always believed Fuhrman would not have been wrong about his description of the hat. I wonder if there was a an actual ski mask but that somehow was lost as well.

The cap had Simpson's hair in it as I recall. The 'DA's had other Simpson hats"? were they left at the murder scene as well?

As for your "biggest problem being how long it took Shapiro to force the DA's to show the hat in court", what are you talking about??

As for your alluding to a ski mask being "lost as well", what are you claiming was "lost"??

[bobaugust]

n.n.

There is no proof that the cap found was OJ Simpson's. There is no proof that even if it was, that it worn that night. IMO, it is important to remember the DA's had other Simpson hats, one that was also found in his Bronco but the hair fibers were never compared.

However, the biggest problem I have have about the hat is how it was described and how long it took Shapiro to force the DA's to show the hat in court. I have always believed Fuhrman would not have been wrong about his description of the hat. I wonder if there was a an actual ski mask but that somehow was lost as well.

limakey, ten naturally shed hairs consistent with Simpson's hair was found inside the knit cap and two more on the outside. Also found on the outside of the knit cap were a number of hairs from the Akita, one cashmere fiber consistent with the lining of the gloves and one unusual x-shaped fiber consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpeting.

I don't recall Simpson ever denied the knit cap was his.

There was no reason to check the plaid cap for fibers that was found on the carpet in Simpson's Bronco. That cap was obviously not involved in the murders. I'm not aware of any delay or forcing by the defense for the prosecutors to show the cap in court. Fuhrman was incorrect when he first described the knit cap as a ski mask, not an unreasonable mistake based on seeing it next to a glove partially covered by plant foliage in the dark garden at the feet of Ron Goldman.

bobaugust

[tazzybaby]

Taz,

From what I have read about this, BW was never to support his claims that it was Kardashian who hired him. Again, it makes no sense that BW would be afraid of either OJ or Kardashian because OJ was in jail and Kardashian was already dealing with rumors as an accomplice.

But what is weird, someone stole a gun from Kardashian's home. It just seems like nothing makes sense---however, it is a fact that Nicole was followed and IMO, the evidence strongly suggests that neither Simpson nor Kardashian were behind it.

Well......I don't know what you've read but that's not what I've read. Please tell me where you've gotten this information from? It makes perfect sense that he would be afraid of OJ and Kardashian. Do you not think they were looking for a way out? The only thing that saved BW IMO is that he was already in jail. They couldn't pin it on him. But, I believe they would have.

What evidence strongly suggests that neither Simpson nor Kardashian were behind it? What evidence is that? Where have you found this evidence?

Here is a quote from Bill Wasz himself....

I was led to believe by Kardashian that OJ was more than aware of what I was up to.

Ludwig,
I first saw it on the news on 6/13/94. I went numb. Mainly because I was terrified the cops would somehow connect me to it, then I would have been facing more time than any human could do.
And yes, I thought they found someone else. However, I was to learn later that OJ and his son, Jason, were there at that murder scene.

Bill wasz

http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/001380.php

Lots of interesting comments on there. And, not all of them support my belief. But, there is conversation with Bill himself after he got out of prison and before he died (or was murdered).

[limakey]

Taz,

The reason why I believe Simpson and Kardashian were not behind it is because BW was in a pretty safe place to make a sweetheart deal. Also, some of the books I have read, mainly Joe Boscoe's there was an issue that had divided the DA's, that is that Simpson had an accomplice. The DA's also really wanted Kardashian to give testimony, what better way then to get 2 people to flip on Simpson?


Also, Kardashian was hardly a media favorite, he was almost as hated as Simpson was. Don't you think all of his alleged illegal activites would not have been exposed?

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Also, Kardashian was hardly a media favorite, he was almost as hated as Simpson was. Don't you think all of his alleged illegal activites would not have been exposed?

Kardashian was "almost as hated as Simpson"? Oh, I don't think so. Can't compare him to a man that stabbed two people to death.

What "illegal activites" were threatened with exposure? Was Kardashian's law license pulled? It seems to me that would be the first course of action against a lawyer, if they are partaking in "illegal activities".

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Here is the problem with alot of the evidence in this case, the DA's had a tremendous amount money, they had scores of team members were "experts" in their own particular speciality and yet, they came up with misleading presentations time and time again.

You say the hat was Simpson's, it was worn that night and the hairs found inside the cap were his. Yet, the defense presented evidence that questioned this. Now you take the hairs found inside the hat found at Bundy and the hairs inside the hat inside the hat found inside the Bronco and every other hat they find and compare them and then you have a much better case?

I'm sorry, I do not believe for one minute that Fuhrman was mistaken, unless he wrote about he made the mistake, then I'm not buy it. There is a huge difference between a ski mask and hat. He was in the service, he knows what a watch cap is and probably, if he was ever stationed in a cold climate was issued one. He knows the difference.

Also, he had plenty of time to "correct" his errors, yet he never did.

There was no blood on that cap either, was there?

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Here is the problem with alot of the evidence in this case, the DA's had a tremendous amount money

More money than Simpson spent on his defense? I don't think so. jmo

[limakey]

Taz,

From the first paragraph from the link you posted:

"William Benson Wasz was a robber, car thief, and cocaine dealer. Wasz took drugs himself and led a dangerous life.

Wasz frequently sold cocaine to customers in clubs, and claimed he was hired by Robert Kardashian to give or sell cocaine to O.J. Simpson and Nicole Simpson many times. It was at Los Angeles' famed Roxbury Club where Wasz first met O.J. and Kardashian. Charge card receipts show they were there during the time Wasz said they met, and in addition, witnesses placed all three men together on more than one occasion. Wasz claimed that Kardashian and O.J. were involved in money laundering, prostitution, pornography, sports betting and point shaving. It should be noted, however, that Wasz produced no evidence to support these claims."