A Silent Murder?

[DAFFODIL]

Hi,I am new here and have just have about finished reading all the posts and 1 thing struck me about this crime and that is apart from the dog barking and someone saying hey hey hey it was really a very quiet murder.There doesnt seem to have been any screaming or yelling which seems strange to me because even if Nicole was unconscious when Ron got there Ron himself seems to have put up quite a struggle and yet there were no reports of anyone yelling for help.The reports state what a particularly still night it was so if there had been cries for help surely someone would have heard.JMO :shrug:

[socaldiva]

Welcome to the board :seeya: My next door neighbor was stabbed to death about 15 yrs ago & we never heard a peep. It was at night & very quiet, so I know it's possible.

[limakey]

Daff,

Where Nicole lived, it was a busy with traffic. I agree with you that it is strange that neither victim called out, however, from what I remember, the barking of the dog really seemed to piss people off at first rather then raise alarm.

[martin II]

The other possibilitry is that Nicole was attacked from behind by one killer.Ron from behind by another with a hand over his face afdter the hey hey.
otherwise i do belive nicole would have yelled help very loud.

martin II

[martin II]

it may be that both were silenced by two different killers.
otherwise i do think that nicole would have yelled very very loud whoch would have caused the dog to come from his place upstairs in the childrens room
martin II

[William Anthony]

Hi,I am new here and have just have about finished reading all the posts and 1 thing struck me about this crime and that is apart from the dog barking and someone saying hey hey hey it was really a very quiet murder.There doesnt seem to have been any screaming or yelling which seems strange to me because even if Nicole was unconscious when Ron got there Ron himself seems to have put up quite a struggle and yet there were no reports of anyone yelling for help.The reports state what a particularly still night it was so if there had been cries for help surely someone would have heard.JMO :shrug:

I would like to say hello and wish you a pleasurable experience on this forum. I know if someone was repeatedly stabbing me in my chest to the point that the blood saturated my shirt, as opposed to severing my aorta causing me to do most of the bleed internally, I would be yelling. I know that a knife blade hurts five times more on its way out than on its way in. Someone would have yelled.

[bobaugust]

I would like to say hello and wish you a pleasurable experience on this forum. I know if someone was repeatedly stabbing me in my chest to the point that the blood saturated my shirt, as opposed to severing my aorta causing me to do most of the bleed internally, I would be yelling. I know that a knife blade hurts five times more on its way out than on its way in. Someone would have yelled.

Right and if someone bigger and stronger than you was behind you with his arm wrapped around your head, turned and wedged against his body holding you against him as he stabbed and cut you, even if you attempted to yell I doubt if you would be heard above loud dog barking.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Right and if someone bigger and stronger than you was behind you with his arm wrapped around your head, turned and wedged against his body holding you against him as he stabbed and cut you, even if you attempted to yell I doubt if you would be heard above loud dog barking.

bobaugust

and if someone was holding you with a arm around your neck and then cut your jugular, blood would have shot out maby 7-8 feet and that may have accounted for the blood on the walkway between the gate and the sidewalk
where it appeares ron was initially attakced before his body was tossed where it was found.imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

Right and if someone bigger and stronger than you was behind you with his arm wrapped around your head, turned and wedged against his body holding you against him as he stabbed and cut you, even if you attempted to yell I doubt if you would be heard above loud dog barking.

bobaugust

Unless he was Superman and his skin made of steel, I would bite him and yell. My mouth is on my face, not my head. I have not had the pleasure of seeing you yet.

[DAFFODIL]

Hi,thanks for the welcome.I know I would be making as much noise as I was able to if someone was intent on doing me harm.I have just finished reading Faye Resnicks book today.

[sassylassy]

Hi,thanks for the welcome.I know I would be making as much noise as I was able to if someone was intent on doing me harm.I have just finished reading Faye Resnicks book today.

Hi DAFFODIL

and welcome aboard!

so do tell what did you think of Faye's book?

Ciao :read:

[socaldiva]

Hi,thanks for the welcome.I know I would be making as much noise as I was able to if someone was intent on doing me harm.I have just finished reading Faye Resnicks book today.

I think that anyone that was able to would, but obviously that's not aways the case.

[DAFFODIL]

I found the Faye Resnick book an entertaining read but much I took with a pinch of salt-hindsight is a wonderful thing!! To be able to recount whole conversations verbatim well she must have total recall or have recorded every conversation she had with OJ and Nicole in its entirety each time she had one!!!

[n.n]

I could also imagine that a great shock could keep someone from screaming, or that your one and only reaction is to fight back ... Still, it is strange that nobody actually heard anything else than the barking of the dog.

[bobaugust]

and if someone was holding you with a arm around your neck and then cut your jugular, blood would have shot out maby 7-8 feet and that may have accounted for the blood on the walkway between the gate and the sidewalk
where it appeares ron was initially attakced before his body was tossed where it was found.imo
martin II

martin II, no that wouldn't have happened if someone's aorta was cut before their jugular was cut. Once the aorta was cut it would bleed internally quickly lowering the blood pressure so that if the jugular was cut sometime after that blood would not spurt out.

If you can't accept that explanation by Dr. Spitz then post some other experts opinion that would contradict that fact. Wagner was not a medical expert.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Unless he was Superman and his skin made of steel, I would bite him and yell. My mouth is on my face, not my head. I have not had the pleasure of seeing you yet.

Even you wouldn't have the strength left to cause any harm to your attacker after your aorta was cut.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Even you wouldn't have the strength left to cause any harm to your attacker after your aorta was cut.

bobaugust

BOB
Initially if ron was grabbed from behind with a arm around his neck there was opportunity to BITE long before the Aorta was cut.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

I could also imagine that a great shock could keep someone from screaming, or that your one and only reaction is to fight back ... Still, it is strange that nobody actually heard anything else than the barking of the dog.

n.n.
i agree

I have read that when faced with this type of danger the body shifts into emergency defensive mode and a adrenalin rush takes place that gives one more than normal strength and additional ability to fight back. So i would have expected that one of them would have yelled.

Maby they did and it was not used in the trial.

martin II

[bobaugust]

BOB
Initially if ron was grabbed from behind with a arm around his neck there was opportunity to BITE long before the Aorta was cut.
imo
martin II

martin II, no one knows blow by blow what happened. But the fact is that Spitz testified that based on where the majority of Ron's blood was internally the killing wound to Goldman's left flank that cut his aorta was inflicted early in the struggle.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Absolutely amazing! What part of "maybe Nicole didn't see or hear anything coming which would have alerted her to danger in order for her to scream" doesn't anyone understand?" Ron was the only one that was able to get anything out by saying "hey hey hey" and only because OJ wasn't expecting him. If OJ was expecting him, Ron wouldn't even have been able to get that out, let alone any screams!

Both Nicole and Ron could have been screaming their lungs out which could be heard for miles around and all of you would find something wrong with that! Gee, like why didn't Nicole and Ron scream loud enough or long enough in order for someone, anyone to hear them! Duh! Something, anything!

Unfortunately it didn't happen and even if it did, I don't think that anything they could have done would have saved their lives! OJ was on a mission that night and he accomplished it!

JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

*snip*Absolutely amazing! What part of "maybe Nicole didn't see or hear anything coming which would have alerted her to danger in order for her to scream" doesn't anyone understand?"

I fail to see how the lack of screams points to someone other than OJ. The fact is, there weren't any screams. It means nothing relative to who carried out the murders.

[limakey]

2Late,

The screams or lack of screams are very, very important. We have no idea if any one did say they heard a scream. We have no idea if someone, who did hear scream would want to testify. It happens--people see or hear things and just don't want to get involved.

[2L8 4A D8]

I fail to see how the lack of screams points to someone other than OJ. The fact is, there weren't any screams. It means nothing relative to who carried out the murders.

Correct Diva and I agree! This Thread is nothing but a total waste of bandwidth, but the NG's just love this kinda cr@p and eat it up. Let them have at it, I say!

:chicken: :chicken: :chicken:

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

Even you wouldn't have the strength left to cause any harm to your attacker after your aorta was cut.

bobaugust

If the aorta was cut first and he mostly bled internally, then there would not have been enough blood to saturate the shirt. How can rectify the hey, hey, hey, and the sounds of an argument with no screams. As I have stated, I think the evidence supports the fact that Ron was the intended victim and that he had some relationship with the killer(s), which would expalin his hesitancy in calling for help.

[William Anthony]

Correct Diva and I agree! This Thread is nothing but a total waste of bandwidth, but the NG's just love this kinda cr@p and eat it up. Let them have at it, I say!

:chicken: :chicken: :chicken:

JMO and MOO!!

Freshwater has stated that there is no problem with bandwith. There are those who are interested in discussing all aspects of the case, not just the aspects that some believe prove guilt.

[DAFFODIL]

2L8 4A D8 This is my first thread on this forum and you are labelling it a waste of bandwith!!!!!! Its enough to put me off posting again so thanks for that.Oh and BTW I happen to believe OJ was the murderer.

[martin II]

2L8 4A D8 This is my first thread on this forum and you are labelling it a waste of bandwith!!!!!! Its enough to put me off posting again so thanks for that.Oh and BTW I happen to believe OJ was the murderer.

daffodil

You are welcome to post, ask questions and use as much bandwidth as you please. No need to be chased off by 2l. she does not matter as makes no rules for the board.
martin II

[DAFFODIL]

daffodil

You are welcome to post, ask questions and use as much bandwidth as you please. No need to be chased off by 2l. she does not matter as makes no rules for the board.
martin II

Thanks for that.Its not really a matter of being chased off its just a bit off putting when you have just arrived!!!!!!!!!!!

[weezer]

Thanks for that.Its not really a matter of being chased off its just a bit off putting when you have just arrived!!!!!!!!!!!

welcome to the board.

I actually don't find it so odd that the only thing heard was Ron's, "Hey, hey, hey." I don't know about anyone else but I think it would be terribly difficult to be screaming while in a fight for your life. I find it difficult to just talk when jogging.

[2L8 4A D8]

2L8 4A D8 This is my first thread on this forum and you are labelling it a waste of bandwith!!!!!! Its enough to put me off posting again so thanks for that.Oh and BTW I happen to believe OJ was the murderer.

Since you only have 5 posts and this is your first Thread, let me be the first to tell you that I have a right to my opinion as does anyone on this Board and these Threads. And my post was JMO and MOO if you had even bothered to notice!

First off, you have to ask me if I care if you ever post again or if I believe anything that you have to say. Let me see! Hmmm. Nope, don't care!

JMO and MOO!!

[DAFFODIL]

Since you only have 5 posts and this is your first Thread, let me be the first to tell you that I have a right to my opinion as does anyone on this Board and these Threads. And my post was JMO and MOO if you had even bothered to notice!

First off, you have to ask me if I care if you ever post again or if I believe anything that you have to say. Let me see! Hmmm. Nope, don't care!

JMO and MOO!!

I dont have to ask you anything actually because fortunately for me I really am not interested in your "opinion".I do think however you are an extremely unpleasant person and one best avoided :punch: JMO IMO MOO

[bobaugust]

If the aorta was cut first and he mostly bled internally, then there would not have been enough blood to saturate the shirt. How can rectify the hey, hey, hey, and the sounds of an argument with no screams. As I have stated, I think the evidence supports the fact that Ron was the intended victim and that he had some relationship with the killer(s), which would expalin his hesitancy in calling for help.

Tell us William what expert ever said that if Ron's aorta was cut first and then his jugular was cut there would not be enough blood to saturate his shirt?

You say you think that Ron was the intended victim and his killer waited until Ron got to Nicole's condo when he was with another witness and near other potential eye or ear witnesses before he killed him, right? And then of course he killed the witness, right?

That makes no sense but it sounds about right for you since almost every thing you imagine about this case makes no sense except maybe to you.

Good one, William.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

welcome to the board.

I actually don't find it so odd that the only thing heard was Ron's, "Hey, hey, hey." I don't know about anyone else but I think it would be terribly difficult to be screaming while in a fight for your life. I find it difficult to just talk when jogging.

How much harder is it to scream help than hey?

[William Anthony]

Tell us William what expert ever said that if Ron's aorta was cut first and then his jugular was cut there would not be enough blood to saturate his shirt?

You say you think that Ron was the intended victim and his killer waited until Ron got to Nicole's condo when he was with another witness and near other potential eye or ear witnesses before he killed him, right? And then of course he killed the witness, right?

That makes no sense but it sounds about right for you since almost every thing you imagine about this case makes no sense except maybe to you.

Good one, William.

bobaugust

we are allowed to speculate and you posted that Ron bled mostly internally due to his aorta being cut and provided the expert. Ergo, the stabbings that allowed his shirt to become saturated, imho, happened before his aorta was cut. You may disagee, as I am sure you will. However, the fact that you disagree on a matter that you posted leads me to believe that there is credibility in my speculation.

Please, clarify your second posts as I consider it too muddy to understand.

I do not know how to respond to your last paragraph, only to say that it is not surprising that you claim you cannot understand my posts.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8815303]we are allowed to speculate and you posted that Ron bled mostly internally due to his aorta being cut and provided the expert. Ergo, the stabbings that allowed his shirt to become saturated, imho, happened before his aorta was cut. You may disagee, as I am sure you will. However, the fact that you disagree on a matter that you posted leads me to believe that there is credibility in my speculation.

The fact is that I rely on Dr. Spitz's expert opinion not speculation from someone like you who has no expertise about what you are speculating about.

Maybe this will clarify my second paragraph for you.

Journey Into Darkness, John Douglas

"The homicide took place at Nicole Brown Simpson's residence," I continued, "That alone is strong evidence to suggest that she was the primary target. We also know that Goldman was there because Brown's mother had left her glasses earlier in the day at the restaurant where Goldman worked. Nicole had called the restaurant, they'd found the glasses, and Ron had volunteered to drop them by. So his being at Bundy at that particular time was happenstance.

Unless the killer actually followed him, he could not be considered the primary target. And if he was being followed, it makes no sense at all that the killer would wait until he was with another person and near potential eye or ear witnesses.
*

But there is a lot of bleeding and she bled out on this first step which was probably where the fatal assault took place. Her throat is cut so deeply she's practically decapitated. The other stab wounds are much more concentrated and directed than they are with Goldman. The killer didn't have trouble controlling her as he did with Ron. He stabbed her repeatedly, not because he 'had' to but because he 'wanted' to. And this is another reason I say the woman was the primary victim, not the man: the attacker knew her and knew her well."

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

How much harder is it to scream help than hey?

Who said it was harder? Easy for you to say what word you would have chosen. You have the benefit of hindsight & knowing what was to transpire. Ron did not & he was caught off guard.

[martin II]

we are allowed to speculate and you posted that Ron bled mostly internally due to his aorta being cut and provided the expert. Ergo, the stabbings that allowed his shirt to become saturated, imho, happened before his aorta was cut. You may disagee, as I am sure you will. However, the fact that you disagree on a matter that you posted leads me to believe that there is credibility in my speculation.

Please, clarify your second posts as I consider it too muddy to understand.

I do not know how to respond to your last paragraph, only to say that it is not surprising that you claim you cannot understand my posts.

william
from wagner and sons

But, there were also four deep stab wounds: one to the thigh, one to the abdomen, and two to the right side of his chest. The fact that some blood was found in the abdominal and pleural cavities shows that those wounds occurred before Goldman had died, and his heart stopped pumping blood, but the fact that only 100 cc of blood was found by Dr. Golden in the abdominal cavity and 150 cc in the pleural cavity shows that he did not live long after these wounds were suffered. (We are indebted to Prien to point this out.) Both chest wounds cut branches of the pulmonary artery, and the abdominal wound cut the abdominal aorta. The volume flow rate from these wounds would have been great, and the fact that there was relatively little blood in these cavities indicates the stab wounds were administered very shortly (seconds) before Goldman died.

Goldman suffered two kinds of wounds, "slicing" (with the sharp knife edge) and "stabbing" (with the knife point). Of the former, there were some three dozen, and these were "defensive wounds" to Goldman's hands and arms, and the rest were concentrated on the left side of the victim's head and neck. This area was considerably damaged ("left ear cut nearly off") and he bled greatly from these (the left jugular vein was transected). All of the forensic experts agreed that if Goldman did not die from the blood loss on the left side of his neck and head, he would have soon.
wagner and sons
martin II

[limakey]

First off, there is no way to prove who said "hey, hey, hey". It was Ron Goldman's younger brother who started that with his belief that Ron would have rushed to Nicole's aid if he saw her being stabbed to death.

From what I remember, there were no injuries to either Ron and Nicole's gum lines or lips, in other words, they weren't gagged.

Ron had control or torture wounds on his face. To say that these wounds were inflicted to make sure Ron was dead is beyond lame. Who ever killed them, time did not seem to matter. Ron died with his eyes open, the killer would not have to make the slicing marks on his face. And why more then one?

There is also Nicole's blood on Ron's shoes, which some feel that Ron was made to watch Nicole being killed.

[bobaugust]

First off, there is no way to prove who said "hey, hey, hey". It was Ron Goldman's younger brother who started that with his belief that Ron would have rushed to Nicole's aid if he saw her being stabbed to death.

From what I remember, there were no injuries to either Ron and Nicole's gum lines or lips, in other words, they weren't gagged.

Ron had control or torture wounds on his face. To say that these wounds were inflicted to make sure Ron was dead is beyond lame. Who ever killed them, time did not seem to matter. Ron died with his eyes open, the killer would not have to make the slicing marks on his face. And why more then one?

There is also Nicole's blood on Ron's shoes, which some feel that Ron was made to watch Nicole being killed.

limakey, Ron Goldman's younger brother?

The fact is that Heidstra described the voices he heard coming from Nicole's condo. He said the first was a clear young male voice, the second was an older deeper male voice. About five minutes later Heidstra saw a white jeep like vehicle speed away from Bundy. A couple of minutes later Simpson's speeding white Bronco ran a red light at Bundy and San Vicente nearly causing an accident. Jill Shively made eye contact with the driver and identified Simpson.

The fact that all of the evidence at Bundy points to only three people, Nicole, Ron, and Simpson, it's not very hard to understand Heidstra heard Ron Goldman arrive at Bundy and then saw Simpson's Bronco after Simpson committed the murders..

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Yes, it was Ron's younger brother who, when told about the "hey, hey, hey", that it sounded like something Ron would say as he was going to Nicole's aide.

Also, there is no way to prove who's voices those were. It is a myth to believe that only Ron Goldman could have and would have said, "hey, hey, hey".

Jill Schively was not used because..........? Do you honestly believe that Marcia was so stuck on her timeline she would throw her only eyewitness to the wolves?

Also, in the Hankster's book, he disses each and every one of the witnesses you claim prove it was Simpson. You can't have it both ways.

And, another reality check, Hesistra turned away the barking, he said the dogs were going crazy, which means he could not hear or know if there were more voices to be heard. Just because he only heard two, doesn't mean they were the only two.

[weezer]

Mr. August,

Yes, it was Ron's younger brother who, when told about the "hey, hey, hey", that it sounded like something Ron would say as he was going to Nicole's aide.

Also, there is no way to prove who's voices those were. It is a myth to believe that only Ron Goldman could have and would have said, "hey, hey, hey".

Jill Schively was not used because..........? Do you honestly believe that Marcia was so stuck on her timeline she would throw her only eyewitness to the wolves?

Also, in the Hankster's book, he disses each and every one of the witnesses you claim prove it was Simpson. You can't have it both ways.

And, another reality check, Hesistra turned away the barking, he said the dogs were going crazy, which means he could not hear or know if there were more voices to be heard. Just because he only heard two, doesn't mean they were the only two.

Ron did not have a younger brother............geez

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8815303]we are allowed to speculate and you posted that Ron bled mostly internally due to his aorta being cut and provided the expert. Ergo, the stabbings that allowed his shirt to become saturated, imho, happened before his aorta was cut. You may disagee, as I am sure you will. However, the fact that you disagree on a matter that you posted leads me to believe that there is credibility in my speculation.

The fact is that I rely on Dr. Spitz's expert opinion not speculation from someone like you who has no expertise about what you are speculating about.

Maybe this will clarify my second paragraph for you.

Journey Into Darkness, John Douglas

"The homicide took place at Nicole Brown Simpson's residence," I continued, "That alone is strong evidence to suggest that she was the primary target. We also know that Goldman was there because Brown's mother had left her glasses earlier in the day at the restaurant where Goldman worked. Nicole had called the restaurant, they'd found the glasses, and Ron had volunteered to drop them by. So his being at Bundy at that particular time was happenstance.

Unless the killer actually followed him, he could not be considered the primary target. And if he was being followed, it makes no sense at all that the killer would wait until he was with another person and near potential eye or ear witnesses.
*

But there is a lot of bleeding and she bled out on this first step which was probably where the fatal assault took place. Her throat is cut so deeply she's practically decapitated. The other stab wounds are much more concentrated and directed than they are with Goldman. The killer didn't have trouble controlling her as he did with Ron. He stabbed her repeatedly, not because he 'had' to but because he 'wanted' to. And this is another reason I say the woman was the primary victim, not the man: the attacker knew her and knew her well."

bobaugust

I have not denied that the attacker knew both victims. It was known that Ron was going to Nicole's by quite a few. Who was the person, with whom Nicole had an argument and the childeren referred to as mommy's friend? Was this person(s) there waiting for Ron? Did Nicole come to open the gate for Ron and this person(s) siezed on the opportunity to grab her? Did this person intend to just knock Nicole out, but she saw his face?

[William Anthony]

Who said it was harder? Easy for you to say what word you would have chosen. You have the benefit of hindsight & knowing what was to transpire. Ron did not & he was caught off guard.

I am talking about, after the first wound, I would have hollered HELP, HELP, HELP.

[weezer]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8815712]

I have not denied that the attacker knew both victims. It was known that Ron was going to Nicole's by quite a few. Who was the person, with whom Nicole had an argument and the childeren referred to as mommy's friend? Was this person(s) there waiting for Ron? Did Nicole come to open the gate for Ron and this person(s) siezed on the opportunity to grab her? Did this person intend to just knock Nicole out, but she saw his face?

the attacker knew Nicole and probably knew who Ron was. The fact that Ron was going to Nicole's was known to only a handful of people and I'm not even sure they knew when he planned to go. It is my belief that Nicole's argument was with orenthal -- he hand a tendency to harrass her verbally as well as physically. orenthal attacked Nicole outside of her home. orenthal knocked her unconcious. orenthal attacked and murdered Ron. orenthal butchered Nicole. There is no evidence of any other scenario or any other murderer. orenthal james simpson murdered two human beings: Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816223]

the attacker knew Nicole and probably knew who Ron was. The fact that Ron was going to Nicole's was known to only a handful of people and I'm not even sure they knew when he planned to go. It is my belief that Nicole's argument was with orenthal -- he hand a tendency to harrass her verbally as well as physically. orenthal attacked Nicole outside of her home. orenthal knocked her unconcious. orenthal attacked and murdered Ron. orenthal butchered Nicole. There is no evidence of any other scenario or any other murderer. orenthal james simpson murdered two human beings: Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

The children called him Daddy not mommy's friend. I said that others knew he was going to Nicoles, which you agree with. The fact that all the evidence was not collected and/or tested will not allow us to say who was there.
The person/people may have already been there when she went to the gate. Perhaps, she told the friend that she was expecting Ron to bring the glasses by and that she was going to leave the gate open, prior to getting ready for her visit from a friend.

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8816235]

The children called him Daddy not mommy's friend. I said that others knew he was going to Nicoles, which you agree with. The fact that all the evidence was not collected and/or tested will not allow us to say who was there.
The person/people may have already been there when she went to the gate. Perhaps, she told the friend that she was expecting Ron to bring the glasses by and that she was going to leave the gate open, prior to getting ready for her visit from a friend.

Mommy probably protected the children from knowing that their 'daddy' was a real azzhole and abuser. The fact that all of the evidence that WAS collected inciminated orenthal james simpson -- no one else. orenthal james simpson left his blood, hair, glove, hat, fiber and size 12 Bruno Magli pigeon-toed footprints at the murder scene. There is no evidence that anyone else was there that night except the victims and murderer. The victims are dead. The murderer lives in Florida.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816242]

Mommy probably protected the children from knowing that their 'daddy' was a real azzhole and abuser. The fact that all of the evidence that WAS collected inciminated orenthal james simpson -- no one else. orenthal james simpson left his blood, hair, glove, hat, fiber and size 12 Bruno Magli pigeon-toed footprints at the murder scene. There is no evidence that anyone else was there that night except the victims and murderer. The victims are dead. The murderer lives in Florida.

The evidence that could have placed someone other than Simpson at the scene was not collected and/or tested. It would have been far more conclusive, if all the evidence was collected and tested and belonged to Simpson. I cannot disagree that Nicole told the children to call him daddy. The children heard mommy arguing with a friend, not daddy. Another implication that can be drawn from the children's use of the word friend, is that for whatever reason Nicole wanted to keep this person's identitiy from the children.

[William Anthony]

I am reading a textbook on evidence by Margaret Short and in that book she states that the Browns did not want the children questioned by anyone in regard to the murders. This is not to say that they were not acting in the best interest of the children. However, I think that they would also like to have all the evidence presented as to who the killer(s) were/are.

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8816264]

The evidence that could have placed someone other than Simpson at the scene was not collected and/or tested. It would have been far more conclusive, if all the evidence was collected and tested and belonged to Simpson. I cannot disagree that Nicole told the children to call him daddy. The children heard mommy arguing with a friend, not daddy. Another implication that can be drawn from the children's use of the word friend, is that for whatever reason Nicole wanted to keep this person's identitiy from the children.

the evidence that WAS collected proved orenthal james simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. I believe when Sydney/Jutin asked who she was talking to when she was upset, she probably did say 'mommy's friend' rather than tell them, "You're lying, cheating, wh*ring, abusing daddy."

[weezer]

I am reading a textbook on evidence by Margaret Short and in that book she states that the Browns did not want the children questioned by anyone in regard to the murders. This is not to say that they were not acting in the best interest of the children. However, I think that they would also like to have all the evidence presented as to who the killer(s) were/are.

and what do you think two small sleeping children could tell that orenthal's hair, blood, hat, glove, fiber and size 12 Bruno Magli pigeon-toed footprints couldn't?

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Yes, it was Ron's younger brother who, when told about the "hey, hey, hey", that it sounded like something Ron would say as he was going to Nicole's aide.

Also, there is no way to prove who's voices those were. It is a myth to believe that only Ron Goldman could have and would have said, "hey, hey, hey".

Jill Schively was not used because..........? Do you honestly believe that Marcia was so stuck on her timeline she would throw her only eyewitness to the wolves?

Also, in the Hankster's book, he disses each and every one of the witnesses you claim prove it was Simpson. You can't have it both ways.

And, another reality check, Hesistra turned away the barking, he said the dogs were going crazy, which means he could not hear or know if there were more voices to be heard. Just because he only heard two, doesn't mean they were the only two.

limakey, no it's not a myth that Ron Goldman said, "Hey, hey, hey." It's a reasonable logical inference that it was Ron Goldman who yelled at Simpson after arriving at Bundy.

The fact is that the prosecution dropped Shively not because of anything she testified about but because they were misled about her and believed she lied to them about telling her story to Hard Copy. It doesn't matter what Hank Goldberg may have thought about Heidstra at the time, That doesn't change the reality or the credibility of what he testified to. The fact is that the prosecutors were arguing the wrong time of the murders and the defense was arguing the correct time. That's why Heidstra was a plaintiff witness in the civil trial.

Your comments about Heidstra have about as much credibility as your comments about Ron's supposed younger brother.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

and what do you think two small sleeping children could tell that orenthal's hair, blood, hat, glove, fiber and size 12 Bruno Magli pigeon-toed footprints couldn't?

The voice and description of the person who argued with her on the night of the murders and may have a motive to kill her.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8815712]

I have not denied that the attacker knew both victims. It was known that Ron was going to Nicole's by quite a few. Who was the person, with whom Nicole had an argument and the childeren referred to as mommy's friend? Was this person(s) there waiting for Ron? Did Nicole come to open the gate for Ron and this person(s) siezed on the opportunity to grab her? Did this person intend to just knock Nicole out, but she saw his face?

Simpson denied he knew Ron Goldman. Only a few people knew that Ron was going to Bundy, not quite a few. The rest of your questions are meaningless and unanswerable since they refer to rumors, stories, and speculation.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816223]

Simpson denied he knew Ron Goldman. Only a few people knew that Ron was going to Bundy, not quite a few. The rest of your questions are meaningless and unanswerable since they refer to rumors, stories, and speculation.

bobaugust

My questions are relevant, relatively speaking, depending on whether one is looking for the truth (all the evidence) or simply enough evidence to theoretically support a conviction (the evidence collected), just as is the labeling of a few or quite a few. However, in order not to engage you in a sensless debate over semantics, although we will never know whether the few that did know told a few more, I will acquiesce to your statement that a few knew. Given his denial, then he did not fit the requirements, as I have speculated, of the murderer.

[weezer]

The voice and description of the person who argued with her on the night of the murders and may have a motive to kill her.

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.

[William Anthony]

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.

There has never been a plausible motive given that would connect him with the murders. In fact, those on this board, who state he is the killer, have several/few different motives, which they attribute to him. There is no direct evidence that he wore the BMs or that he was there on the night of the murders. There is circumstantial evidence that he wore shoes identified as the BMs a few years prior. This evidence bears too fragile a connection to the footprint, because it requires an inference that they were the same shoes, requiring the inference that he retained those shoes, requiring the inference that he wore those shoes to go to Bundy on the night of the murders. The blood hat and hair could have been left there on another visit. I have never heard of an inference on an inference on an inference. This is another reason why I credit the jury with sophistication.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8816264]

The evidence that could have placed someone other than Simpson at the scene was not collected and/or tested. It would have been far more conclusive, if all the evidence was collected and tested and belonged to Simpson. I cannot disagree that Nicole told the children to call him daddy. The children heard mommy arguing with a friend, not daddy. Another implication that can be drawn from the children's use of the word friend, is that for whatever reason Nicole wanted to keep this person's identitiy from the children.

There was a huge amount of evidence collected at Bundy, some later found to be irrelevant. We know of only two incidents where some blood at Bundy was not collected. To suggest that this uncollected blood somehow points to someone other than all the other collected evidence in this case points to is not realistic or credible.

The fact that Simpson's fresh blood was found at Bundy, Simpson's blood was found mixed with both victims blood in his Bronco, Simpson's blood was found mixed with both victims blood on one of the killer's gloves, and one of the victim's blood was found on Simpson's sock is conclusive.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816266]

There was a huge amount of evidence collected at Bundy, some later found to be irrelevant. We know of only two incidents where some blood at Bundy was not collected. To suggest that this uncollected blood somehow points to someone other than all the other collected evidence in this case points to is not realistic or credible.

The fact that Simpson's fresh blood was found at Bundy, Simpson's blood was found mixed with both victims blood in his Bronco, Simpson's blood was found mixed with both victims blood on one of the killer's gloves, and one of the victim's blood was found on Simpson's sock is conclusive.

bobaugust

I will not rehash the issue of the missing blood, the improper injection of the blood into the crime scene, the M socks, and all the issues surrounding the infamous glove, the unseen blood in the Bronco, and the sloppy crime scene processing with you. The fact is that the uncollected and untested blood could hjave pointed to him or could not have. Therefore, imho, there is ample room for reasonable doubt on that issue alone, without discussion of the issues I have previously mentioned.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8816293]

My questions are relevant, relatively speaking, depending on whether one is looking for the truth (all the evidence) or simply enough evidence to theoretically support a conviction (the evidence collected), just as is the labeling of a few or quite a few. However, in order not to engage you in a sensless debate over semantics, although we will never know whether the few that did know told a few more, I will acquiesce to your statement that a few knew. Given his denial, then he did not fit the requirements, as I have speculated, of the murderer.

Your questions are based on rumors, stories, and speculation. The road to the truth is the reality of the known physical evidence, all the witness testimony and Simpson's testimony. Your speculation of a killer other than Simpson is contradicted by these realities.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816302]

Your questions are based on rumors, stories, and speculation. The road to the truth is the reality of the known physical evidence, all the witness testimony and Simpson's testimony. Your speculation of a killer other than Simpson is contradicted by these realities.

bobaugust

If all the known physical evidence is not collected and tested, the reality is that there is reasonable doubt that cannot be overcome by testimony, because the testimony exposes the missing evidence. To think otherwise, imho, is a contradiction of the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You may speculate and opine that Simpson is the killer, but the reality is the evidence does not establish that.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8816307]

I will not rehash the issue of the missing blood, the improper injection of the blood into the crime scene, the M socks, and all the issues surrounding the infamous glove, the unseen blood in the Bronco, and the sloppy crime scene processing with you. The fact is that the uncollected and untested blood could hjave pointed to him or could not have. Therefore, imho, there is ample room for reasonable doubt on that issue alone, without discussion of the issues I have previously mentioned.

A huge amount of physical evidence was collected at Bundy including trace evidence. To suggest that the only evidence pointing to someone else being there is the two random incidents where blood was missed is about as reasonable and realistic as the claim that aliens from outer space were the real killers.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816309]

A huge amount of physical evidence was collected at Bundy including trace evidence. To suggest that the only evidence pointing to someone else being there is the two random incidents where blood was missed is about as reasonable and realistic as the claim that aliens from outer space were the real killers.

bobaugust

There is no evidence (weapon) with Simpson's fingerprints. There is only evidence tying him to the murders that could have been left there at anytime prior to the murders. You claim that there were only two items missed. There were some blood drops that were not collected. Let's talk about the alleged infallibility of DNA, which has proven to be anything but infallible. Let's talk about artifacts in the equipment used to provide the DNA results. When those things are taken into account the value of the uncollected and untested evidence looms large. Let's talk about the unidentified evidence. Is it reasonable to believe that someone else was there and committed the murders based on those things, -yes, I indeed, believe it is?

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8816310]

If all the known physical evidence is not collected and tested, the reality is that there is reasonable doubt that cannot be overcome by testimony, because the testimony exposes the missing evidence. To think otherwise, imho, is a contradiction of the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You may speculate and opine that Simpson is the killer, but the reality is the evidence does not establish that.

Based on your distorted belief of what you think is reasonable doubt no criminal would ever be convicted. I suggest you stay in school as long as you possibly can, you aren't ready yet to face the real world.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8816317]

There is no evidence (weapon) with Simpson's fingerprints. There is only evidence tying him to the murders that could have been left there at anytime prior to the murders. You claim that there were only two items missed. There were some blood drops that were not collected. Let's talk about the alleged infallibility of DNA, which has proven to be anything but infallible. Let's talk about artifacts in the equipment used to provide the DNA results. When those things are taken into account the value of the uncollected and untested evidence looms large. Let's talk about the unidentified evidence. Is it reasonable to believe that someone else was there and committed the murders based on those things, -yes, I indeed, believe it is?

You probably still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause as well. No I'm sorry but nothing you believe is reasonable, only unsupported speculation contradicted by the reality of the evidence, the reality of witness testimony, and reasonable explanations for human error.

bobaugust

[weezer]

There has never been a plausible motive given that would connect him with the murders. In fact, those on this board, who state he is the killer, have several/few different motives, which they attribute to him. There is no direct evidence that he wore the BMs or that he was there on the night of the murders. There is circumstantial evidence that he wore shoes identified as the BMs a few years prior. This evidence bears too fragile a connection to the footprint, because it requires an inference that they were the same shoes, requiring the inference that he retained those shoes, requiring the inference that he wore those shoes to go to Bundy on the night of the murders. The blood hat and hair could have been left there on another visit. I have never heard of an inference on an inference on an inference. This is another reason why I credit the jury with sophistication.

He was obviously obsessed with her. After 17 years of abuse, he stalked and threatened and finally murdered her. Anyone with any 'sophistication' knows that it is common for death to be the end result of domestic violence.

It is so lame for anyone to say that it cannot be 'proved' that orenthal was wearing BM's on the night of the murders. That is right. It cannot be proven that orenthal wore BM's on the night he murdered Nicole and Ron. It was, however, proven that in the time before the murders, he did in fact wear those ugly-ass shoes. The question then becomes: why lie about never wearing them? and where are they now?

orenthal was not a part of that household. He had not and did not live there. He testified that he had not been on the property in the two weeks leading to Nicole's death, he was not on the sidewalk where his blood was found, and he was not bleeding when he was there.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816315]

Based on your distorted belief of what you think is reasonable doubt no criminal would ever be convicted. I suggest you stay in school as long as you possibly can, you aren't ready yet to face the real world.

bobaugust

Fortunately, there are those in the real world with varying levels of sophistication and comprehension, when it comes to understanding legal concepts. To stay in school means to be able to learn from your everyday experiences, as well as, continuing your formal and/or professional education. To that extent, I will heed your advice so long as it it practicable and commensurate with my mental faculties.

If facing the real world means to explain the concepts of equality of justice and the rational of reasonable doubt to those who have not the slightest cognitive awareness of what those principles stand for, then I relish the tasks. There have been volumes written on what the abstract phrase beyond a reasonable doubt means. If facing the real words includes and intelligent discussion of the various meaning that can be conveyed by that particular phraseology, in an honest, open minded, sincere, cordial, polite, tolerant, professional and respectful manner, then I am elated to have gained the prowess to be able to participate in a learned conversation with individuals of that caliber.

[weezer]

*Snipped*[QUOTE=bobaugust;8816327]. . . and commensurate with my mental faculties.

therein lies the problem.:rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816333]

therein lies the problem.:rolleyes:

Yes it seems until that time, when my mental faculties begin to fade, I will constantly continue to face the world of those who have less than a functional knowledge of the concept of reasonable doubt.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8816327]

Fortunately, there are those in the real world with varying levels of sophistication and comprehension, when it comes to understanding legal concepts. To stay in school means to be able to learn from your everyday experiences, as well as, continuing your formal and/or professional education. To that extent, I will heed your advice so long as it it practicable and commensurate with my mental faculties.

If facing the real world means to explain the concepts of equality of justice and the rational of reasonable doubt to those who have not the slightest cognitive awareness of what those principles stand for, then I relish the tasks. There have been volumes written on what the abstract phrase beyond a reasonable doubt means. If facing the real words includes and intelligent discussion of the various meaning that can be conveyed by that particular phraseology, in an honest, open minded, sincere, cordial, polite, tolerant, professional and respectful manner, then I am elated to have gained the prowess to be able to participate in a learned conversation with individuals of that caliber.

You've posted that you have reasonable doubt based on imagined possibilities and imagined evidence. Are you saying that's what you've been taught in school?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816333]

You've posted that you have reasonable doubt based on imagined possibilities and imagined evidence. Are you saying that's what you've been taught in school?

bobaugust

No, I have been taught in school about the three burdens of proof and the many definitions of reasonable doubt and what can lead to establishing that doubt. The only reason that the evidence is imagined is because it was not collected and tested (LE's burden). The evidence that was is suspect (credibility/weight). The evidence is not of the quality to support a conviction.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8816395]

No, I have been taught in school about the three burdens of proof and the many definitions of reasonable doubt and what can lead to establishing that doubt. The only reason that the evidence is imagined is because it was not collected and tested (LE's burden). The evidence that was is suspect (credibility/weight). The evidence is not of the quality to support a conviction.

The fact is that it takes more than imagination to create real doubt. Your postings of what you think is reasonable doubt based on imaginary possibilities or imaginary evidence is only imaginary doubt. Not real and not reasonable.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816400]

The fact is that it takes more than imagination to create real doubt. Your postings of what you think is reasonable doubt based on imaginary possibilities or imaginary evidence is only imaginary doubt. Not real and not reasonable.

bobaugust

What you term as imaginary possibilities are reasonable inferences, either garnered through impeachment or through incredible direct testimony or through masterful cross examination.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8816408]

What you term as imaginary possibilities are reasonable inferences, either garnered through impeachment or through incredible direct testimony or through masterful cross examination.

I'm not speaking about what the criminal defense attorneys argued I'm speaking about your beliefs and claims, William. Your speculation, your imaginary beliefs, your claims of supposed reasonable doubt. Every time you're confronted with factual evidence or reasonable explanations that contradicts your posted imaginary beliefs you resort to your standard lame excuse about what Simpson's attorneys said. What attorneys say is not evidence and just because something is theoretically possible is not proof that it actually happened.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Excuse me William, I didn't realize I wrote lame excuse again until after I submitted this message. I didn't intend to use the word lame as a courtesy per your request.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816443]

I'm not speaking about what the criminal defense attorneys argued I'm speaking about your beliefs and claims, William. Your speculation, your imaginary beliefs, your claims of supposed reasonable doubt. Every time you're confronted with factual evidence or reasonable explanations that contradicts your posted imaginary beliefs you resort to your standard lame excuse about what Simpson's attorneys said. What attorneys say is not evidence and just because something is theoretically possible is not proof that it actually happened.

bobaugust

The defense did not have the burden of production/proof. Should I repeat this to you 1,000 times? The defense did not have to produce evidence. Should I repeat this to you 10,000 times? The defense only had to point out reasons why inferences can be drawn from which one can conclude that the evidence submitted is not credible. Should I repeat this to You 100, 000 times? Testimony is evidence. Cross examination and impeachment are evidence, because the are questions answered under oath by the witness

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8816623]

The defense did not have the burden of production/proof. Should I repeat this to you 1,000 times? The defense did not have to produce evidence. Should I repeat this to you 10,000 times? The defense only had to point out reasons why inferences can be drawn from which one can conclude that the evidence submitted is not credible. Should I repeat this to You 100, 000 times? Testimony is evidence. Cross examination and impeachment are evidence, because the are questions answered under oath by the witness

And I will repeat 10,000 times you aren't one of Simpson's defense attorneys and this discussion is not about the criminal trial it's about your claims of possible cross contamination from the blanket that covered Nicole's body.

No testimony was given by any witness that was evidence of cross contamination. There is no evidence of cross contamination regarding any of the relevant hair and fiber evidence in this case.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816629]

And I will repeat 10,000 times you aren't one of Simpson's defense attorneys and this discussion is not about the criminal trial it's about your claims of possible cross contamination from the blanket that covered Nicole's body.

No testimony was given by any witness that was evidence of cross contamination. There is no evidence of cross contamination regarding any of the relevant hair and fiber evidence in this case.

bobaugust

The only way we can have a discussion about cross contamination, since I can assure you that I was not there, is through the testimony elicited during the trial. You are showing that you do not understand the burden of proof, the purpose of cross examination and impeachment. The trial was not a GJ proceeding. It was an adversarial event.

[weezer]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8816632]

The only way we can have a discussion about cross contamination, since I can assure you that I was not there, is through the testimony elicited during the trial. You are showing that you do not understand the burden of proof, the purpose of cross examination and impeachment. The trial was not a GJ proceeding. It was an adversarial event.

In which there was no testimony or evidence that there was cross contamination from the blanket.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816640]

In which there was no testimony or evidence that there was cross contamination from the blanket.

Then you disagree with bobaugust when he stated the defense asked the question and showed photos of police trampling through the crime scenes wearing unprotected clothing.

Do you think that the police stumble upon some hallucinogens that they shared with other LE, as a possible explanation for their unprofessional conduct?

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816640]

In which there was no testimony or evidence that there was cross contamination from the blanket.

WEEZER
LAPD had control of the blanket. If they did not collect and TEST the blanket
immediately after the murders, how could there be proof one way or the other.
martin II

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8816632]

The only way we can have a discussion about cross contamination, since I can assure you that I was not there, is through the testimony elicited during the trial. You are showing that you do not understand the burden of proof, the purpose of cross examination and impeachment. The trial was not a GJ proceeding. It was an adversarial event.

The defense never made the claim you are making, all they did was ask one question if it was theoretically possible and your imagination created everything else.

You're the one having the problem understanding the burden of proof. There is no proof of cross contamination. Attorneys words are not proof. Speculation is not proof. Theoretical possibilities are not proof. The relevant hair and fiber evidence in this case was transferred by contact between the killer and the victims. It didn't fly through the air from a clean blanket found in Nicole's condo.


bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816640]

The defense never made the claim you are making, all they did was ask one question if it was theoretically possible and your imagination created everything else.

You're the one having the problem understanding the burden of proof. There is no proof of cross contamination. Attorneys words are not proof. Speculation is not proof. Theoretical possibilities are not proof. The relevant hair and fiber evidence in this case was transferred by contact between the killer and the victims. It didn't fly through the air from a clean blanket found in Nicole's condo.


bobaugust

You do not understand inference or weight of the evidence. The question and the answer provide the cross and from those inferences are drawn. Again, the defense is not required to provide proof, only show why the evidence should not be fully trusted, if trusted at all.

I forgot that you are omnificent. Please, forgive me? You know what happened even though you were not present.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816443]

I'm not speaking about what the criminal defense attorneys argued I'm speaking about your beliefs and claims, William. Your speculation, your imaginary beliefs, your claims of supposed reasonable doubt. Every time you're confronted with factual evidence or reasonable explanations that contradicts your posted imaginary beliefs you resort to your standard lame excuse about what Simpson's attorneys said. What attorneys say is not evidence and just because something is theoretically possible is not proof that it actually happened.

bobaugust

I hope this will provide a foundation on which we can build communications. I think that you believe he is guilty, despite the fact that the prosecution did not meet its burden. I think you believe the civil trial proved his guilt. If I am correct, then you had already formed the conclusion he was guilty prior to the start of the civil trial. I am not saying there is anything wrong in that. I believe most people reached their conclusions on his guilt or innocence prior to the civil trial.

Here is the link and a portion of what is said.

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

"A legal burden or a burden of persuasion is an obligation that remains on a single party for the duration of the claim. Once the burden has been entirely discharged to the satisfaction of the trier of fact the party carrying the burden will succeed in their claim. For example the presumption of innocence places a legal burden upon the prosecution to prove all elements of the offence (generally beyond a reasonable doubt) and to disprove all the defences."

[n.n]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816640]

The defense never made the claim you are making, all they did was ask one question if it was theoretically possible and your imagination created everything else.

You're the one having the problem understanding the burden of proof. There is no proof of cross contamination. Attorneys words are not proof. Speculation is not proof. Theoretical possibilities are not proof. The relevant hair and fiber evidence in this case was transferred by contact between the killer and the victims. It didn't fly through the air from a clean blanket found in Nicole's condo.


bobaugust


In all fairness, this sounds a bit irrational. If you believe that nobody's words etc. are proof, you must include in that statement your own words and speculations (as well us those who don't believe in Mr. Simpson's guilt, of course). So, how can you possibly claim your statement that " the relevant ...." is proof?

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8816658]


In all fairness, this sounds a bit irrational. If you believe that nobody's words etc. are proof, you must include in that statement your own words and speculations (as well us those who don't believe in Mr. Simpson's guilt, of course). So, how can you possibly claim your statement that " the relevant ...." is proof?

welcome, welcome, welcome.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8816658]


In all fairness, this sounds a bit irrational. If you believe that nobody's words etc. are proof, you must include in that statement your own words and speculations (as well us those who don't believe in Mr. Simpson's guilt, of course). So, how can you possibly claim your statement that " the relevant ...." is proof?

n.n

:beer:
martin II

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8816623]

I hope this will provide a foundation on which we can build communications. I think that you believe he is guilty, despite the fact that the prosecution did not meet its burden. I think you believe the civil trial proved his guilt. If I am correct, then you had already formed the conclusion he was guilty prior to the start of the civil trial. I am not saying there is anything wrong in that. I believe most people reached their conclusions on his guilt or innocence prior to the civil trial.



The fact is that Simpson's defense never made any specific claim about cross contamination regarding any specific hair or fiber evidence, only a general observation of something they may have been theoretically possible. Pure speculation

The fact is that the hair and fiber evidence in this case was found on the physical evidence the killer left and it all points to Simpson as the killer. If the criminal jury relied on pure speculation to distrust the hair and fiber evidence as you do it would only highlight what a miscarriage of justice their acquittal was.

Yes I did form my conclusion that Simpson was guilty during the criminal trial well before the civil trial. The new information that became known in the many depositions and the new evidence that was presented in the civil trial as well as Simpson's lying testimony only confirmed my beliefs.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816669]

The fact is that Simpson's defense never made any specific claim about cross contamination regarding any specific hair or fiber evidence, only a general observation of something they may have been theoretically possible. Pure speculation

The fact is that the hair and fiber evidence in this case was found on the physical evidence the killer left and it all points to Simpson as the killer. If the criminal jury relied on pure speculation to distrust the hair and fiber evidence as you do it would only highlight what a miscarriage of justice their acquittal was.

Yes I did form my conclusion that Simpson was guilty during the criminal trial well before the civil trial. The new information that became known in the many depositions and the new evidence that was presented in the civil trial as well as Simpson's lying testimony only confirmed my beliefs.

bobaugust

Thank you for admitting that you could not be fair and impartial, as I likewise believe the civil jurors could not be. I have shown you the burden of proof and what is allowed. Yet, you do not believe me. That's alright, because I believe you had your mind fixed on his guilt long before the criminal trial started.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8816658]


In all fairness, this sounds a bit irrational. If you believe that nobody's words etc. are proof, you must include in that statement your own words and speculations (as well us those who don't believe in Mr. Simpson's guilt, of course). So, how can you possibly claim your statement that " the relevant ...." is proof?

n.n., I don't claim my words are proof of anything. My speculation about what I believe happened is supported by the facts that witnesses testified to and all the known relevant physical evidence in this case.

The fact is that what an attorney says is not evidence.

The reality is that all the relevant physical evidence in this case points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. None of it points to anyone else. None of it eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=n.n;8816878]

n.n., I don't claim my words are proof of anything. My speculation about what I believe happened is supported by the facts that witnesses testified to and all the known relevant physical evidence in this case.

The fact is that what an attorney says is not evidence.

The reality is that all the relevant physical evidence in this case points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. None of it points to anyone else. None of it eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

n.n,

This must be a new revelation for bobaugust, since he has previously claimed to know the truth and the facts. Thank you for your assistance.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8816930]

Thank you for admitting that you could not be fair and impartial, as I likewise believe the civil jurors could not be. I have shown you the burden of proof and what is allowed. Yet, you do not believe me. That's alright, because I believe you had your mind fixed on his guilt long before the criminal trial started.

Your belief about what I believed before the criminal trial is as ridiculous and wrong as most of your beliefs you post here.

I just said I formed my conclusions during the criminal trial. Before the criminal trial I did not believe Simpson guilty and as I posted here before my friends and I thought of every possible scenario we could that someone else was the killer. But as the actual evidence became known during the criminal trial every one of those scenarios failed contradicted by the reality of all that evidence.

The fact is that based on all the known evidence in this case no one but Simpson could have killed both Ron and Nicole. All of the evidence points only to Simpson and no one else.

Being fair and impartial by the time of the civil trial has nothing to do with this. I believed the evidence proved Simpson guilty in the criminal trial and all the information I learned about after the civil trial verdict confirmed my beliefs.

bobaugust

[n.n]

[QUOTE=n.n;8816878]

n.n., I don't claim my words are proof of anything. My speculation about what I believe happened is supported by the facts that witnesses testified to and all the known relevant physical evidence in this case.

The fact is that what an attorney says is not evidence.

The reality is that all the relevant physical evidence in this case points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. None of it points to anyone else. None of it eliminates Simpson.

bobaugust

Amen to that!

The only problem here is that the crime scene has not been handled right. That's why it is/was so difficult for the prosecution to convince people. If I had been on the prosecution's team, I'd kicked some police-behinds real good (just kidding). I mean, it is dificult enough to prove a crime without having to deal with reasonable doubts about the validity of crucial evidence.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816934]

Your belief about what I believed before the criminal trial is as ridiculous and wrong as most of your beliefs you post here.

I just said I formed my conclusions during the criminal trial. Before the criminal trial I did not believe Simpson guilty and as I posted here before my friends and I thought of every possible scenario we could that someone else was the killer. But as the actual evidence became known during the criminal trial every one of those scenarios failed contradicted by the reality of all that evidence.

The fact is that based on all the known evidence in this case no one but Simpson could have killed both Ron and Nicole. All of the evidence points only to Simpson and no one else.

Being fair and impartial by the time of the civil trial has nothing to do with this. I believed the evidence proved Simpson guilty in the criminal trial and all the information I learned about after the civil trial verdict confirmed my beliefs.

bobaugust

You say you are fair and impartial but you will not all the consider possibilities surrounxding the uncollected evidence. Your statement that you became convinced during the criminal trial speaks volumes as to your fairness and impartiality. The fact that you could not imagine a scenario does not mean that one does not exist. The fact is that people are to consider all the evidence, impeachment and cross examination at the conclusion of the trial, not during before reaching a conclusion. We have a very different definition for fair and impartial, as well as, the presumption of innocence.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8816946]

You say you are fair and impartial but you will not all the consider possibilities surrounxding the uncollected evidence. Your statement that you became convinced during the criminal trial speaks volumes as to your fairness and impartiality. The fact that you could not imagine a scenario does not mean that one does not exist. The fact is that people are to consider all the evidence, impeachment and cross examination at the conclusion of the trial, not during before reaching a conclusion. We have a very different definition for fair and impartial, as well as, the presumption of innocence.

The fact is that no one has ever come up with a realistic scenario that accounts for all the evidence in this case yet shows a different killer than Simpson. There have been many scenarios and they all fail with confronted with the reality of the known evidence. Scenarios where the killer was Jason Simpson, Ron Shipp, Mark Fuhrman, Marcus Allan, Kato Kaelin, or unknown professional killers.

There is no realistic existing scenario that tries to show another killer other than Simpson. If you don't believe that then how about you coming up with one William and we can all see how much you actually know or don't know about this case.

We evidently do have a different definition of fair and impartial. My fair and impartial opinion is based on the reality of the physical evidence not the fantasies that you say causes you to have reasonable doubt. Even if the missing blood was found and tested based on all your imaginary claims of contamination and conspiracy what makes you think you would accept those results when you can't even accept the results of any of the existing known evidence?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816961]

The fact is that no one has ever come up with a realistic scenario that accounts for all the evidence in this case yet shows a different killer than Simpson. There have been many scenarios and they all fail with confronted with the reality of the known evidence. Scenarios where the killer was Jason Simpson, Ron Shipp, Mark Fuhrman, Marcus Allan, Kato Kaelin, or unknown professional killers.

There is no realistic existing scenario that tries to show another killer other than Simpson. If you don't believe that then how about you coming up with one William and we can all see how much you actually know or don't know about this case.

We evidently do have a different definition of fair and impartial. My fair and impartial opinion is based on the reality of the physical evidence not the fantasies that you say causes you to have reasonable doubt. Even if the missing blood was found and tested based on all your imaginary claims of contamination and conspiracy what makes you think you would accept those results when you can't even accept the results of any of the existing known evidence?

bobaugust

What I know comes from watching the criminal trial, not from the works of fiction created by those who either agree or disagree with a particular view, in other words I made up my mind after seeing and giving weight to all the evidence presented in the criminal trial. You nor anyone else know anymore than I do about the trial, because the other speculations are based on their interpretations of what the evidence means. It is true that I may not remember all the events in the trial as well as others, who have dedicated their lives in a futile pursuit of trying to convict him of murder.

I am not here to solve the murders. What I am here to do is to debate in an open, civil, respectful, intelligent, professional and honest fashion why I believe the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction, why the evidence does not eliminate the possibility of their being one or more killers, and why there was a difference in the two verdicts.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8817144]

What I know comes from watching the criminal trial, not from the works of fiction created by those who either agree or disagree with a particular view, in other words I made up my mind after seeing and giving weight to all the evidence presented in the criminal trial. You nor anyone else know anymore than I do about the trial, because the other speculations are based on their interpretations of what the evidence means. It is true that I may not remember all the events in the trial as well as others, who have dedicated their lives in a futile pursuit of trying to convict him of murder.

I am not here to solve the murders. What I am here to do is to debate in an open, civil, respectful, intelligent, professional and honest fashion why I believe the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction, why the evidence does not eliminate the possibility of their being one or more killers, and why there was a difference in the two verdicts.

Then you're here for a different and limited purpose than other posters are here. Informed posters aren't limited to the what was only said or known up to the criminal trial, we discuss who the killer was based on all the known information and evidence in this case including what became known after the criminal trial.

You argue the criminal trial verdict, we argue the truth of the murders.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

*snip*

Then you're here for a different and limited purpose than other posters are here.

You argue the criminal trial verdict, we argue the truth of the murders.


:beer: Bravo :beer: and IIRC, I don't think that poster has posted that he believes OJ to be innocent, so the evidence that he argues against must have convinced him as well.....I think he's just here to practice his skills at arguing & it became tiresome long ago.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8817172]

Then you're here for a different and limited purpose than other posters are here. Informed posters aren't limited to the what was only said or known up to the criminal trial, we discuss who the killer was based on all the known information and evidence in this case including what became known after the criminal trial.

You argue the criminal trial verdict, we argue the truth of the murders.

bobaugust

bob
i don't think that is true. YOU have argued the validity of criminal trial verdict, the prosecutions case and the defense claims in the criminal trial.

You take all of the civil trial testimony as truth and dismiss all of the problems
in the criminal trial made by lapd and that lab as minor mistakes. You also
seem to dismiss the standard required by the prosectution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury.
You have no problem with the civil trial jury deciding what testimony they believe but you want to deny the criminal trial jury the same.

imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip
You also seem to dismiss the standard required by the prosectution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury.


I've never seen a post by Bob where he "dismisses the standard", but from what I've seen of your posts, you don't seem to understand reasonable doubt.

[2L8 4A D8]

What's going on with the "Quotes" around here? For example, Martin is posting to Bob, but it shows that he has "Quoted" William's post. Bob is posting to William, but it shows that he has "Quoted" himself! It's going on all over the Threads and it is driving me nuts! Anyone else noticing this? :shrug:

JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

What's going on with the "Quotes" around here? For example, Martin is posting to Bob, but it shows that he has "Quoted" William's post. Bob is posting to William, but it shows that he has "Quoted" himself! It's going on all over the Threads and it is driving me nuts! Anyone else noticing this? :shrug:

JMO and MOO!!

I did notice that. I've had it happen to me when I was snipping & wasn't careful.

[2L8 4A D8]

I did notice that. I've had it happen to me when I was snipping & wasn't careful.

Thanks DIVA! Love your new Avatar. They just keep on getting better and better! LOL!

[bobaugust]

What's going on with the "Quotes" around here? For example, Martin is posting to Bob, but it shows that he has "Quoted" William's post. Bob is posting to William, but it shows that he has "Quoted" himself! It's going on all over the Threads and it is driving me nuts! Anyone else noticing this? :shrug:

JMO and MOO!!

2L8, no I didn't quote myself. Look at my response again. The posting I responded to was William's only he had my name on it, not his. I probably should have deleted my name from it but I missed it.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

:beer: Bravo :beer: and IIRC, I don't think that poster has posted that he believes OJ to be innocent, so the evidence that he argues against must have convinced him as well.....I think he's just here to practice his skills at arguing & it became tiresome long ago.

What is becoming tiresome, imho, is your false posts about what you think I am posting and why I am posting.[/B] I have explained why I post. I think you should :read: before making false accusations.

The truth of the matter is that I joined the discussion after reading the derogatory remarks made about the criminal jury and seeing there was a thread on here about the role of race in the CJS.

I argue the burden of proof and the sophistication of the criminal jurors in discerning that the prosecution failed to meet its burden and the fact that the rulings in the civil trial may have prevent Simpson from receiving a fair and impartial trial.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8817475]

bob
i don't think that is true. YOU have argued the validity of criminal trial verdict, the prosecutions case and the defense claims in the criminal trial.

You take all of the civil trial testimony as truth and dismiss all of the problems
in the criminal trial made by lapd and that lab as minor mistakes. You also
seem to dismiss the standard required by the prosectution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury.
You have no problem with the civil trial jury deciding what testimony they believe but you want to deny the criminal trial jury the same.

imo
martin II

Bobaugust,

:punch:

Martin,

:beer: :beer:

[Suzee10]

I fail to see how the lack of screams points to someone other than OJ. The fact is, there weren't any screams. It means nothing relative to who carried out the murders.


Very well said socaldiva. I totally agree. Everything points to simpsons guilt and imo he is, but as you say no matter who killed them they did not scream.

[William Anthony]

Very well said socaldiva. I totally agree. Everything points to simpsons guilt and imo he is, but as you say no matter who killed them they did not scream.

The fact that they did not scream is indicative of how and who may have committed the murders, i.e. was there more than one killer. We have engaged in a discourse of speculation based on the evidence or lack thereof.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

You do not argue the truth of the murders in either trial---you just totally ignore any and all evidence that points away from your belief. If you were interested in the truth of these murders, you would deal with the facts of this case as if you were in the defendant's chair.

You would all witnesses to the same standard you hold Simpson to. You would also have to maintain your "mistake vs lies" standard on all witnesses from both sides.

The problem with your "truth" is that there are some truths in this case, as in many cases, that never come to light. The problem with your "truth" is that even the people who tried the case admitted they made a huge, huge mistake to say that Simpson was the only murderer. Since it appears that Clark would rather lose a limb then admit a mistake, that had to be a reason why she said this was a mistake. She also was smart enough to realize that while many people believe Simpson was the murderer, he had help, at least getting rid of the evidence.

The truth of this case is that OJ Simpson was the only prime suspect and the detectives and LAPD were convinced of his guilt long before they even called the ME office. That is the truth of this case.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

You do not argue the truth of the murders in either trial---you just totally ignore any and all evidence that points away from your belief. If you were interested in the truth of these murders, you would deal with the facts of this case as if you were in the defendant's chair.

You would all witnesses to the same standard you hold Simpson to. You would also have to maintain your "mistake vs lies" standard on all witnesses from both sides.

The problem with your "truth" is that there are some truths in this case, as in many cases, that never come to light. The problem with your "truth" is that even the people who tried the case admitted they made a huge, huge mistake to say that Simpson was the only murderer. Since it appears that Clark would rather lose a limb then admit a mistake, that had to be a reason why she said this was a mistake. She also was smart enough to realize that while many people believe Simpson was the murderer, he had help, at least getting rid of the evidence.

The truth of this case is that OJ Simpson was the only prime suspect and the detectives and LAPD were convinced of his guilt long before they even called the ME office. That is the truth of this case.

limakey, I did listen to the defense responses to the reality of the evidence against Simpson. They had no legitimate answers for the huge amount of evidence that all pointed to Simpson so they created false claims of contamination, conspiracy and evidence planting. There was no evidence to support their false claims so they inflamed the jury using race as their evidence. The hypocrisy of their arguments was overwhelming apparent but the predominately black jury bought it hook line and sinker.

There was no second killer but Simpson did have help getting rid of evidence from his daughter, Arnelle. When she testified she did what her father did when he testified, she lied to cover up her involvement.

The truth is that when the police went to Rockingham, Simpson was only a potential suspect until the police could talk to him and eliminate him. The events that developed at Rockingham resulted in the discovery of the killer's right hand glove and the fresh blood drops on Simpson's driveway. That evidence is what made Simpson a strong suspect.

That's also the truth of this case.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

You do not argue the truth of the murders in either trial---you just totally ignore any and all evidence that points away from your belief. If you were interested in the truth of these murders, you would deal with the facts of this case as if you were in the defendant's chair.

You would all witnesses to the same standard you hold Simpson to. You would also have to maintain your "mistake vs lies" standard on all witnesses from both sides.

The problem with your "truth" is that there are some truths in this case, as in many cases, that never come to light. The problem with your "truth" is that even the people who tried the case admitted they made a huge, huge mistake to say that Simpson was the only murderer. Since it appears that Clark would rather lose a limb then admit a mistake, that had to be a reason why she said this was a mistake. She also was smart enough to realize that while many people believe Simpson was the murderer, he had help, at least getting rid of the evidence.

The truth of this case is that OJ Simpson was the only prime suspect and the detectives and LAPD were convinced of his guilt long before they even called the ME office. That is the truth of this case.

Lovely Limakey,

Again, you have so eloquently stated the obvious, imh&ro, which leaves me without words adequate enough to express the beauty of your post. So, please accept this poor tribute to your prowess until you are better paid, :beer:

[William Anthony]

The hypocrisy of their arguments was overwhelming apparent but the predominately black jury bought it hook line and sinker.

Snipped
bobaugust

In case you are unaware, the verdict for acquittal requires a unanimous verdict. This means that those jurors who were not Black bought the defense's arguments, which tells us that there a fair-minded, intelligent, unbiased, sophisticated non-Whites, who have a view different from yours on the hypocrisy of the defense's argument's and, hence race could not have been the deciding factor in the acquittal.

[bobaugust]

In case you are unaware, the verdict for acquittal requires a unanimous verdict. This means that those jurors who were not Black bought the defense's arguments, which tells us that there a fair-minded, intelligent, unbiased, sophisticated non-Whites, who have a view different from yours on the hypocrisy of the defense's argument's and, hence race could not have been the deciding factor in the acquittal.

No, it may very well mean the two jurors who were not black didn't have the inclination, courage, or conviction to contradict the nine dominate black female jurors.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No, it may very well mean the two jurors who were not black didn't have the inclination, courage, or conviction to contradict the nine dominate black female jurors.

bobaugust

I think I want to understand this, because it seems a tad bit racist and sexist. You are suggesting that only the non-white jurors lacked the conviction to stand up for their views, because of the Black female Jurors, correct? Please, explain?

[bobaugust]

I think I want to understand this, because it seems a tad bit racist and sexist. You are suggesting that only the non-white jurors lacked the conviction to stand up for their views, because of the Black female Jurors, correct? Please, explain?

No it's not racist or sexist, it's reality.

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

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

Instead, black women hated her.

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

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

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

I have read many similar posts about the type of jurors each side was looking for. Why did Johnnie Cochran want black women on the jury and why did Marcia Clark want black female jurors?

Cochran wanted black women on the jury or for that matter any black on the jury because blacks know the history between LE and their community.

Marcia Clark wanted black women on the jury because she was hoping the black women would hate OJ because he married a white woman. IMO, Cochran's reasons for wanting black people on the jury held legal merit--however, Marcia's Clark's reasons were based on race and hoping that a jury would hate a black man because of his white ex-wife.

I do not believe that anyone deserves to be murdered, however, that does not mean that every single murder victim is a sympathic victim. We know that many jurors have convicted people who did kill their truly evil tormentor.
How many women are still behind bars for killing their abusive ex's or spouses?

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

I have read many similar posts about the type of jurors each side was looking for. Why did Johnnie Cochran want black women on the jury and why did Marcia Clark want black female jurors?

Cochran wanted black women on the jury or for that matter any black on the jury because blacks know the history between LE and their community.

Marcia Clark wanted black women on the jury because she was hoping the black women would hate OJ because he married a white woman. IMO, Cochran's reasons for wanting black people on the jury held legal merit--however, Marcia's Clark's reasons were based on race and hoping that a jury would hate a black man because of his white ex-wife.

I do not believe that anyone deserves to be murdered, however, that does not mean that every single murder victim is a sympathic victim. We know that many jurors have convicted people who did kill their truly evil tormentor.
How many women are still behind bars for killing their abusive ex's or spouses?

limakey, Cochran wanted black women on the jury because he learned from his jury consultants that African American women were Simpson's biggest supporters.

Clark learned the same thing from her jury consultants but based on her past experience she believed that African American women would understand her domestic violence arguments. Clark was wrong.

Another City, Not My Own, Dominick Dunne
"In one of the great tacky episodes of all time, Johnnie Cochran's first wife and his white mistress, who goes by the name of Patricia Cochran, joined forces on Geraldo to let Johnnie Cochran have it on the day after he tried to convince the jury that important evidence at the crime scene had been moved or contaminated by the Los Angeles Police Department.

Patricia Cochran told Geraldo, "Before they selected the jury, I asked him, 'Johnnie, what are you going to do?' And he said, 'Sweetheart...just give me one black person on that jury--that's all I ask, one,' and he could get a hung jury."

bobaugust

[martin II]

limakey, Cochran wanted black women on the jury because he learned from his jury consultants that African American women were Simpson's biggest supporters.

Clark learned the same thing from her jury consultants but based on her past experience she believed that African American women would understand her domestic violence arguments. Clark was wrong.

Another City, Not My Own, Dominick Dunne
"In one of the great tacky episodes of all time, Johnnie Cochran's first wife and his white mistress, who goes by the name of Patricia Cochran, joined forces on Geraldo to let Johnnie Cochran have it on the day after he tried to convince the jury that important evidence at the crime scene had been moved or contaminated by the Los Angeles Police Department.

Patricia Cochran told Geraldo, "Before they selected the jury, I asked him, 'Johnnie, what are you going to do?' And he said, 'Sweetheart...just give me one black person on that jury--that's all I ask, one,' and he could get a hung jury."

bobaugust


bob
you have slipped to a new low in a way. two ways to be exact.imo

1. Quoting D DUNN
2. Quoting P Cochran JC'S EX. Would you expect her to be giving JC praise?

Historically black women on a jury have sent many black men to jail regardless of the color or sex of the victim. imo

I believe it is not a responsible statement to suggest that all black people
would vote not guilty because they were jealous of a white female victim.

The reason Simpson was found not guilty is because the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

martin II

[William Anthony]

No it's not racist or sexist, it's reality.

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

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

Instead, black women hated her.

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

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

bobaugust

Please, explain what any of this post has to do with what I asked you in regard to your post, "No, it may very well mean the two jurors who were not black didn't have the inclination, courage, or conviction to contradict the nine dominate black female jurors."

I understand the concept of stacking the jury, which is a tactic employed by both sides. However, your post does nothing to explain your speculation that the non-White jurors were dominated by the female Black jurors to the point that the non-Whites lacked the conviction to uphold their views. Please, explain why you feel that the non-whites were so laps of intestinal fortitude?

Please, explain why you feel that the non-Whites were dominated? Please, explain the basis of your speculation as to the jurors being dominated. Please, explain why you feel the non-White jurors were of a different conclusion than the Black female jurors?

[martin II]

William
Please find some comments by one white female juror relative to why she voted not guilty.
martin II

Aschenbach, in an ABC telephone interview last week, tearfully explained why she changed her original guilty vote.

Lead detective Philip Vannatter "made misstatements" on the witness stand, she said. Former detective Mark Fuhrman, discredited as a lying racist, cast too much doubt on the most prized evidence - a bloody glove found on Simpson's estate.

"I thought it was possible it was planted," Aschenbach said. "And most of the evidence was DNA evidence and that's what was so shaky."

Moran dismissed the trial issue of domestic violence.

"This was a murder trial, not domestic abuse," Moran said. "If you want to get tried for domestic abuse, go in another courtroom and get tried for that."

Gina Rosborough, a 29-year-old postal worker, voiced her opinion on Oprah Winfrey's syndicated talk show "If he committed such a bloody crime, then there should have been more blood in that Bronco that this just little speck that we saw."

Beatrice Wilson, 72, said in a brief telephone interview with The Associated Press that jurors did not rush to judgment. "We was in there nine months," she said. "All the whole time we was there we had plenty of time to think."



http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns070

[n.n]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816961]

The fact is that no one has ever come up with a realistic scenario that accounts for all the evidence in this case yet shows a different killer than Simpson. There have been many scenarios and they all fail with confronted with the reality of the known evidence. Scenarios where the killer was Jason Simpson, Ron Shipp, Mark Fuhrman, Marcus Allan, Kato Kaelin, or unknown professional killers.

There is no realistic existing scenario that tries to show another killer other than Simpson. If you don't believe that then how about you coming up with one William and we can all see how much you actually know or don't know about this case.

We evidently do have a different definition of fair and impartial. My fair and impartial opinion is based on the reality of the physical evidence not the fantasies that you say causes you to have reasonable doubt. Even if the missing blood was found and tested based on all your imaginary claims of contamination and conspiracy what makes you think you would accept those results when you can't even accept the results of any of the existing known evidence?

bobaugust

No one ever considered anyone else than Mr. Simpson to be the killer. So, why should they try to look elsewhere.
I have to commend you on the work you put into creating various scenarios
to explain why Mr. Simpson must have been the killer. By now, I've visited the links you gave me. I must say I expected to find hard facts or evidence that was not mentioned during the trial. Instead, I got just more assumptions of what cold have happened. That is not evidence.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8817144]

No one ever considered anyone else than Mr. Simpson to be the killer. So, why should they try to look elsewhere.
I have to commend you on the work you put into creating various scenarios
to explain why Mr. Simpson must have been the killer. By now, I've visited the links you gave me. I must say I expected to find hard facts or evidence that was not mentioned during the trial. Instead, I got just more assumptions of what cold have happened. That is not evidence.

n.n. the scenarios I have on those web pages are based on the known facts and information in this case. A lot of that information was not known at the time of the criminal trial but was learned from the many depositions taken for the civil trial. No one knows exactly what Simpson did that night, we can only speculate based on what we know was possible to have happened and what witnesses heard and saw.

The police did not limit their investigation to only Simpson but eventually as test results on the collected evidence in this case became known it all pointed only to Simpson as the killer.

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

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

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=n.n;8819350]

n.n. the scenarios I have on those web pages are based on the known facts and information in this case. A lot of that information was not known at the time of the criminal trial but was learned from the many depositions taken for the civil trial. No one knows exactly what Simpson did that night, we can only speculate based on what we know was possible to have happened and what witnesses heard and saw.

The police did not limit their investigation to only Simpson but eventually as test results on the collected evidence in this case became known it all pointed only to Simpson as the killer.

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

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

bobaugust

I will only say that LAPD must work at the speed of light, since Simpson was arrested as soon as he stepped foot on his property from Chigaco.

[n.n]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8819405]

I will only say that LAPD must work at the speed of light, since Simpson was arrested as soon as he stepped foot on his property from Chigaco.

I do agree. It's simply not possible to seriosly investigate that many leads within days or even weeks.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819414]

I do agree. It's simply not possible to seriosly investigate that many leads within days or even weeks.

Within hours and the head detectives had not left the scenes. It sort of reminds me of Hawaii 50.

[weezer]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8816930]

Thank you for admitting that you could not be fair and impartial, as I likewise believe the civil jurors could not be. I have shown you the burden of proof and what is allowed. Yet, you do not believe me. That's alright, because I believe you had your mind fixed on his guilt long before the criminal trial started.

IIRC, so did cochran.........LOL

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816934]

IIRC, so did cochran.........LOL

Cochran sure had a funny way of showing it, which seemed to get the goats of some.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8816934]

IIRC, so did cochran.........LOL

weezer

unlike most cochran had info that proved oj not guilty and he was correct.
martin II

[weezer]

bob
you have slipped to a new low in a way. two ways to be exact.imo

1. Quoting D DUNN
2. Quoting P Cochran JC'S EX. Would you expect her to be giving JC praise?

Historically black women on a jury have sent many black men to jail regardless of the color or sex of the victim. imo

I believe it is not a responsible statement to suggest that all black people
would vote not guilty because they were jealous of a white female victim.

The reason Simpson was found not guilty is because the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

martin II

it wasn't bobaugust who made the statment about black/white jealousy: it was your bud, limakey.

of course orenthal was found not guilty by the black jury........accept it.

[William Anthony]

it wasn't bobaugust who made the statment about black/white jealousy: it was your bud, limakey.

of course orenthal was found not guilty by the black jury........accept it.

He was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, who were not all White. I think bobuagust might publicly take you to task for this post, if he is fair.

[martin II]

it wasn't bobaugust who made the statment about black/white jealousy: it was your bud, limakey.

of course orenthal was found not guilty by the black jury........accept it.

weezer
oj was found not guilty by a jury made up of black and white people. remember?

martin II

[weezer]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;8817144]

No one ever considered anyone else than Mr. Simpson to be the killer. So, why should they try to look elsewhere.
I have to commend you on the work you put into creating various scenarios
to explain why Mr. Simpson must have been the killer. By now, I've visited the links you gave me. I must say I expected to find hard facts or evidence that was not mentioned during the trial. Instead, I got just more assumptions of what cold have happened. That is not evidence.

oh dear -- another NG without a clue. If it was orenthal's hair, glove, hat, blood and size 12 pigeon-toed footprints at the murder scene, why would anyone else need to be considered? If there was not one shred of evidence of anyone at the murder scene except the two victims and orenthal james simpson, why would anyone else need to be considered?

maybe you can cast some light on a question I have? Why do you think the world was out to accept orenthal james simpson was the Butcher of Brentwood?

[weezer]

Please, explain what any of this post has to do with what I asked you in regard to your post, "No, it may very well mean the two jurors who were not black didn't have the inclination, courage, or conviction to contradict the nine dominate black female jurors."

I understand the concept of stacking the jury, which is a tactic employed by both sides. However, your post does nothing to explain your speculation that the non-White jurors were dominated by the female Black jurors to the point that the non-Whites lacked the conviction to uphold their views. Please, explain why you feel that the non-whites were so laps of intestinal fortitude?

Please, explain why you feel that the non-Whites were dominated? Please, explain the basis of your speculation as to the jurors being dominated. Please, explain why you feel the non-White jurors were of a different conclusion than the Black female jurors?

LOL -- can you hear the excitement from william? LOL.........OMG, someone might talk rac*st BS with him.........LOL

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=n.n;8819350]

oh dear -- another NG without a clue. If it was orenthal's hair, glove, hat, blood and size 12 pigeon-toed footprints at the murder scene, why would anyone else need to be considered? If there was not one shred of evidence of anyone at the murder scene except the two victims and orenthal james simpson, why would anyone else need to be considered?

maybe you can cast some light on a question I have? Why do you think the world was out to accept orenthal james simpson was the Butcher of Brentwood?

Another contradiction in what LE did.

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8819451]

Cochran sure had a funny way of showing it, which seemed to get the goats of some.

really? cochran was on television before he became part of the 'dream team' talking about orenthal being guilty. orenthal only became the victim of LE after cochran became part of the defense and cochran played the race card -- "from the bottom."

I don't think it gets anybody's 'goat.' I mean, after all, the man is dead.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819458]

really? cochran was on television before he became part of the 'dream team' talking about orenthal being guilty. orenthal only became the victim of LE after cochran became part of the defense and cochran played the race card -- "from the bottom."

I don't think it gets anybody's 'goat.' I mean, after all, the man is dead.

So, is Abe Lincoln but he got a lot of people's goats. I do not know of anything he said before he represented Simpson. Can you provide a link, please?

[William Anthony]

LOL -- can you hear the excitement from william? LOL.........OMG, someone might talk rac*st BS with him.........LOL

No, there is no excitement from William. Obviously, there was some from you and you saw something in bobaugust posts. I have come to know bobaugust and know just about what he will and will not say. Thank you.

[2L8 4A D8]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8819494]

So, is Abe Lincoln but he got a lot of people's goats. I do not know of anything he said before he represented Simpson. Can you provide a link, please?

For the 100th time, Weezer or anyone else for that matter, doesn't have to supply you with anything! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819498]

For the 100th time, Weezer or anyone else for that matter, doesn't have to supply you with anything! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

Did not ask you for it. :seeya: :seeya:

[2L8 4A D8]

Did not ask you for it. :seeya: :seeya:

You don't have to. I can jump in anytime that I jolly well feel like it. Unless you are now the Moderator and you own this Board.

IIRC, I asked you to NOT post to me, EVER! If you keep DESRESPECTING MY REQUESTS, I will consider my options and will take whatever action that is necessary to ensure that your continual harrassment of me ceases!

JMO and MOO!!

[n.n]

Now, was the murder silent or not? That is an interesting question ... :D

[William Anthony]

You don't have to. I can jump in anytime that I jolly well feel like it. Unless you are now the Moderator and you own this Board.

IIRC, I asked you to NOT post to me, EVER! If you keep DESRESPECTING MY REQUESTS, I will consider my options and will take whatever action that is necessary to ensure that your continual harrassment of me ceases!

JMO and MOO!!

:seeya: :seeya:

[Suzee10]

Now, was the murder silent or not? That is an interesting question ... :D


I think I have already stated this, whether they were silent or not does not mean simpson did not kill them. What has whether the murder was silent or not have do with anything?

[Suzee10]

The fact that they did not scream is indicative of how and who may have committed the murders, i.e. was there more than one killer. We have engaged in a discourse of speculation based on the evidence or lack thereof.


There is no evidence to show or prove there was anyone other than simpson at the crime scene comitting murders. There were three blood donors to the crime scene, Nicole, Ron and simpson and Ron and Nicole are dead so that leaves only one person left to be the killer, simpson, and he is very much alive. This shows simpson to be the ONE and ONLY killer at Bundy that night.

[2L8 4A D8]

There is no evidence to show or prove there was anyone other than simpson at the crime scene comitting murders. There were three blood donors to the crime scene, Nicole, Ron and simpson and Ron and Nicole are dead so that leaves only one person left to be the killer, simpson, and he is very much alive. This shows simpson to be the ONE and ONLY killer at Bundy that night.

Good seeing you post Suzee! I don't know how many times that you have to say it before it finally sinks in! All IMO!

01-28-2007, 08:07 AM
Originally Posted by Suzee10
Well there three blood types found at the crime scene, Nicole's, Ron's and simpson's. Ron and Nicole are dead so who does that leave, simpson. It is really very simple.

[William Anthony]

There is no evidence to show or prove there was anyone other than simpson at the crime scene comitting murders. There were three blood donors to the crime scene, Nicole, Ron and simpson and Ron and Nicole are dead so that leaves only one person left to be the killer, simpson, and he is very much alive. This shows simpson to be the ONE and ONLY killer at Bundy that night.

Unfortunately, we will never know whether or not there was one or two killers, because the police did not collect all the blood evidence that was at Bundy. Could the uncollected blood have pointed to Simson, who knows? Could the uncollected blood have pointed to someone other than Simpson, who knows?

[William Anthony]

You don't have to. I can jump in anytime that I jolly well feel like it. Unless you are now the Moderator and you own this Board.

IIRC, I asked you to NOT post to me, EVER! If you keep DESRESPECTING MY REQUESTS, I will consider my options and will take whatever action that is necessary to ensure that your continual harrassment of me ceases!

JMO and MOO!!


You were the one that posted to me. I am entilted to the SAME RESPECT, AS A POSTER, ON THIS BOARD AS YOU ARE:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[2L8 4A D8]

<snipped>

IIRC, I asked you to NOT post to me, EVER! If you keep DESRESPECTING MY REQUESTS, I will consider my options and will take whatever action that is necessary to ensure that your continual harrassment of me ceases!

JMO and MOO!!

You were the one that posted to me. I am entilted to the SAME RESPECT, AS A POSTER, ON THIS BOARD AS YOU ARE

What part of my above Post don't you understand? Again, just more spinning, twisting, arguing and having the last word, right William?

Sorry, but I made the first request! Have I posted to you since my above-referenced Post? No! Have you posted to me since my above-referenced Post? Yes!

THUS, I HAVE CONSIDERED MY OPTIONS AND YOU HAVE FORCED ME TO TAKE ACTION because you just don't get it, do you? What is it going to take for you to STHU and quit harrassing me and quit posting to me?

I am NOT going to get into a pizzing contest with you ~ THIS HAS BEEN REPORTED AND DON'T POST TO ME AGAIN ~ EVER! DON'T POST TO ME AGAIN AT ANYTIME BECAUSE IT WILL BE REPORTED AGAIN!

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Here is a post

Yesterday, 07:31 PM
2L8 4A D8
Criime Library Supreme Member Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NANCY GRACELAND
Posts: 9,341

[quote=William Anthony;8819498]
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbgweezer

So, is Abe Lincoln but he got a lot of people's goats. I do not know of anything he said before he represented Simpson. Can you provide a link, please?

For the 100th time, Weezer or anyone else for that matter, doesn't have to supply you with anything!

JMO and MOO!!


2L8 4A D8
View Public Profile
Find all posts by 2L8 4A D8
Add 2L8 4A D8 to Your Buddy List

I need to correct the title to everyone on the board except the one who does not want me to post to them but posts to me.

[socaldiva]

Here is a post

Yesterday, 07:31 PM
2L8 4A D8
Criime Library Supreme Member Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NANCY GRACELAND
Posts: 9,341

[quote=William Anthony;8819498]
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbgweezer

So, is Abe Lincoln but he got a lot of people's goats. I do not know of anything he said before he represented Simpson. Can you provide a link, please?

For the 100th time, Weezer or anyone else for that matter, doesn't have to supply you with anything!

JMO and MOO!!


2L8 4A D8
View Public Profile
Find all posts by 2L8 4A D8
Add 2L8 4A D8 to Your Buddy List

I need to correct the title to everyone on the board except the one who does not want me to post to them but posts to me.

I suppose you think you are being clever here :rolleyes: Add me to the list, I don't care to have you post to me or about me!!!

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819977]Here is a post

Yesterday, 07:31 PM
2L8 4A D8
Criime Library Supreme Member Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NANCY GRACELAND
Posts: 9,341



I suppose you think you are being clever here :rolleyes: Add me to the list, I don't care to have you post to me or about me!!!

Your wish is my command.

[socaldiva]

[QUOTE=socaldiva;8819995]

Your wish is my command.


THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;8819999]


THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I request that you do likewise and not post to or about me. Thank you.

[sassylassy]

umm this should be interesting!

who will blink first ;)

[Suzee10]

Unfortunately, we will never know whether or not there was one or two killers, because the police did not collect all the blood evidence that was at Bundy. Could the uncollected blood have pointed to Simson, who knows? Could the uncollected blood have pointed to someone other than Simpson, who knows?

They did collect all of the blood. There was no blood belonging to anyone but Nicole, Ron and simpson. Two were murdered that only leaves simpson, he is alive.

[sassylassy]

Mr. August,

Yes, it was Ron's younger brother who, when told about the "hey, hey, hey", that it sounded like something Ron would say as he was going to Nicole's aide.




I think you mean Ron's younger sister :shrug: Kim ?

[weezer]

No, there is no excitement from William. Obviously, there was some from you and you saw something in bobaugust posts. I have come to know bobaugust and know just about what he will and will not say. Thank you.

I wasn't referring to bobaugust's post but your post where you were trying to draw bobaugust into another mindless arguement . . .

[William Anthony]

I wasn't referring to bobaugust's post but your post where you were trying to draw bobaugust into another mindless arguement . . .

The post to which you responded was my post to boabugust asking some questions, when you posted you could hear the excitement in my voice about r****t. I asked bobaugust about a comment he made about the Black female jurors. I was denying any excitement that you attributed to me, because I have come to know, imho, how bobaugust will respond to certain questions. I hope this clarifies the matter for you. If you are saying that bobuagust's post lends itself to a discussion of race, then I agree.

[weezer]

The post to which you responded was my post to boabugust asking some questions, when you posted you could hear the excitement in my voice about r****t. I asked bobaugust about a comment he made about the Black female jurors. I was denying any excitement that you attributed to me, because I have come to know, imho, how bobaugust will respond to certain questions. I hope this clarifies the matter for you. If you are saying that bobuagust's post lends itself to a discussion of race, then I agree.

I'm hoping that at some point you will catch onto the fact that no one other than martin and couple more of the NGs want to discuss your feelings on race.

[2L8 4A D8]

I'm hoping that at some point you will catch onto the fact that no one other than martin and couple more of the NGs want to discuss your feelings on race.

:beer: Another Excellent Post Weezer! You just keep on getting better and better! :beer:

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

I'm hoping that at some point you will catch onto the fact that no one other than martin and couple more of the NGs want to discuss your feelings on race.

weezer

You have said something to the effect that the jury did not see oj but saw a black man that they had to let go (something like that)
yet you now say you do not want to talk about the racial issues in the case.

It does not really matter WHAT YOU want to discuss. As long as two people want to discuss a subject and they are on the right thread , they should do so as it has nothing to do with you think should and should not be discusse on the threads. You can always remain silent.
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

weezer

You have said something to the effect that the jury did not see oj but saw a black man that they had to let go (something like that)
yet you now say you do not want to talk about the racial issues in the case.

It does not really matter WHAT YOU want to discuss. As long as two people want to discuss a subject and they are on the right thread , they should do so as it has nothing to do with you think should and should not be discusse on the threads. You can always remain silent.
martin II

WTH? Why don't you quote Weezer's post instead of saying "(something like that)" which means that you are just guessing at best!

A Silent Murder is not the Thread to discuss race! Firstly, it's Off Topic and if you and your pals want to discuss race, then you need to take it to the proper Thread! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

*snip*
they should do so as it has nothing to do with you think should and should not be discusse on the threads. martin II

:confused:

[William Anthony]

This last discussion of race was initiated on this board by the following;

Quote:
Originally Posted by limakey
Mr. August,

You do not argue the truth of the murders in either trial---you just totally ignore any and all evidence that points away from your belief. If you were interested in the truth of these murders, you would deal with the facts of this case as if you were in the defendant's chair.

You would all witnesses to the same standard you hold Simpson to. You would also have to maintain your "mistake vs lies" standard on all witnesses from both sides.

The problem with your "truth" is that there are some truths in this case, as in many cases, that never come to light. The problem with your "truth" is that even the people who tried the case admitted they made a huge, huge mistake to say that Simpson was the only murderer. Since it appears that Clark would rather lose a limb then admit a mistake, that had to be a reason why she said this was a mistake. She also was smart enough to realize that while many people believe Simpson was the murderer, he had help, at least getting rid of the evidence.

The truth of this case is that OJ Simpson was the only prime suspect and the detectives and LAPD were convinced of his guilt long before they even called the ME office. That is the truth of this case.

limakey, I did listen to the defense responses to the reality of the evidence against Simpson. They had no legitimate answers for the huge amount of evidence that all pointed to Simpson so they created false claims of contamination, conspiracy and evidence planting. There was no evidence to support their false claims so they inflamed the jury using race as their evidence. The hypocrisy of their arguments was overwhelming apparent but the predominately black jury bought it hook line and sinker.
There was no second killer but Simpson did have help getting rid of evidence from his daughter, Arnelle. When she testified she did what her father did when he testified, she lied to cover up her involvement.

The truth is that when the police went to Rockingham, Simpson was only a potential suspect until the police could talk to him and eliminate him. The events that developed at Rockingham resulted in the discovery of the killer's right hand glove and the fresh blood drops on Simpson's driveway. That evidence is what made Simpson a strong suspect.

That's also the truth of this case.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Yeah, well Limakey did wrong then didn't she? Duh!

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

You wll see that the portion of the post where the remarks about race are made begin with "limakey" and is posted by bobaugust. You will also see that the portion above that paragraph is Limakey's post and makes not mention of race. I just wanted to clarify what I thought was obvious.

[weezer]

You wll see that the portion of the post where the remarks about race are made begin with "limakey" and is posted by bobaugust. You will also see that the portion above that paragraph is Limakey's post and makes not mention of race. I just wanted to clarify what I thought was obvious.

here's the part of your argument I do not understand: you believe orenthal was framed by racist LE (and others) -- which to you seems okay to make the accusation. Yet you think it is wrong for anyone else to say the jury released him because he was black. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

here's the part of your argument I do not understand: you believe orenthal was framed by racist LE (and others) -- which to you seems okay to make the accusation. Yet you think it is wrong for anyone else to say the jury released him because he was black. :shrug:

No, you misunderstand my argument. I have never said that the MF or any other LE planted or framed Simpson, because of race or any other reason. I have pointed to reasons why the evidence was untrustworthy and did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not say it was right for the jury to release him because he is Black. I feel that the jury did their job and concluded that the evidence did not support conviction. I have repeatedly said that I do not know who the killer(s) is/are. I have also said that, if the standard for conviction was the same as in the civil trial, then he might have been convicted. I have some problems with the rulings in both trials. I do not understand why, after reading the tapes indicating the statement on statute of limitations made by the MF, the civil judge disallowed evidence of evidence tampering/planting/fabricating/destruction. It may have been that the MF was facing possible criminal charges.

[n.n]

Fact is tat Mr. Fuhrman was publicly exposed as racist and sexist. Someone who could not keep his private feelings apart from his job. He said, for example, that he would find any reason to stop interracial couples because he didn't approve of such relationships.
Jurors who did not follow the rules or were no longer trustworthy were removed immediately. Badmouthing jurors because of their race is not proof of any offense on their behalf.
Evidently, Mrs. Clark herself was afraid of playing those parts of a tape in which Mr. Fuhrman made sexist remarks about Judge Ito's wife. There's not much left to say.

[William Anthony]

Fact is tat Mr. Fuhrman was publicly exposed as racist and sexist. Someone who could not keep his private feelings apart from his job. He said, for example, that he would find any reason to stop interracial couples because he didn't approve of such relationships.
Jurors who did not follow the rules or were no longer trustworthy were removed immediately. Badmouthing jurors because of their race is not proof of any offense on their behalf.
Evidently, Mrs. Clark herself was afraid of playing those parts of a tape in which Mr. Fuhrman made sexist remarks about Judge Ito's wife. There's not much left to say.

I agree that to badmouth a jury, without a substantial showing that the evidence was overwhelming and the jurors had another motive for their verdict does nothing but degrade the judicial system. I think that the ruling may have been that the evidence against the MF, if allowed in, would prejudice the jury pool. I do not know this for a fact, but would like to think that is the reason the judge did not allow it.

[weezer]

I agree that to badmouth a jury, without a substantial showing that the evidence was overwhelming and the jurors had another motive for their verdict does nothing but degrade the judicial system. I think that the ruling may have been that the evidence against the MF, if allowed in, would prejudice the jury pool. I do not know this for a fact, but would like to think that is the reason the judge did not allow it.

the jury said they were biased when they said they had 'to take care of one of their own'. The jury said they were biased when they gave orenthal the black salute after finding him not guilty. The jury said they were biased when they said they knew Fuhrman was a liar when he was walking toward the witness stand -- he had not uttered a sound -- but to her he looked like a racist. The jury said they were biased when they said they did not consider evidence of a history of abuse. The jury said they were biased when they discounted DNA evidence in favor of "some other dude did it."

[William Anthony]

the jury said they were biased when they said they had 'to take care of one of their own'. The jury said they were biased when they gave orenthal the black salute after finding him not guilty. The jury said they were biased when they said they knew Fuhrman was a liar when he was walking toward the witness stand -- he had not uttered a sound -- but to her he looked like a racist. The jury said they were biased when they said they did not consider evidence of a history of abuse. The jury said they were biased when they discounted DNA evidence in favor of "some other dude did it."

The defense experts did a poor job of explaining the DNA and the defense did a formidable job of destroying it. The fact that the jury was right about the MF can and should not be held against them. You speak as if the whole jury made this remark about taking care of their own and that the entire jury gave a salute. I have recently read a post where non white juror thought he did not do it. If the evidence did not prove he did it, then it is entirely logical to think someone else did. The history of abuse was not presented stringently. The prosecution failed to prove obsession, jealousy and control. Has anyone interviewed the civil jury?

[weezer]

The defense experts did a poor job of explaining the DNA and the defense did a formidable job of destroying it. The fact that the jury was right about the MF can and should not be held against them. You speak as if the whole jury made this remark about taking care of their own and that the entire jury gave a salute. I have recently read a post where non white juror thought he did not do it. If the evidence did not prove he did it, then it is entirely logical to think someone else did. The history of abuse was not presented stringently. The prosecution failed to prove obsession, jealousy and control. Has anyone interviewed the civil jury?

The defense didn't do a poor job of explaining the DNA -- the jury was too ignorant to grasp the meaning so they went with the rap: if it don't fit. . . .

The jury does speak as one. I would have thought you would know that.

The fact of the matter is, there was nothing anyone could have done that would have changed another person's DNA into orenthal's.

The fact of the matter is, at the time of her death, Nicole was afraid of only one person: orenthal james simpson. At the time of ther death, Nicole was being tormented, stalked and threatened by only one person: orenthal james simpson.

[martin II]

The defense experts did a poor job of explaining the DNA and the defense did a formidable job of destroying it. The fact that the jury was right about the MF can and should not be held against them. You speak as if the whole jury made this remark about taking care of their own and that the entire jury gave a salute. I have recently read a post where non white juror thought he did not do it. If the evidence did not prove he did it, then it is entirely logical to think someone else did. The history of abuse was not presented stringently. The prosecution failed to prove obsession, jealousy and control. Has anyone interviewed the civil jury?

william


The prosecution experts did a poor job presenting the DNA. The prosecution turned the DNA evidence into something to ignore by spending way too much time on it which caused most to become lost .

B Schak finished it off for them

When the jury realized that park did not and could not see what he thought he saw, the prosecutions time line went out the window. If that did not work, then the rest was not possible at least by OJ.

The case was not about abuse. The prosecution tried but fell flat on their faces trying to prove it. NOTE This impossible and emotional subject was given to C Darden. The lawyer that was forced to be the race card.

MARTIN ii

[William Anthony]

The defense didn't do a poor job of explaining the DNA -- the jury was too ignorant to grasp the meaning so they went with the rap: if it don't fit. . . .

The jury does speak as one. I would have thought you would know that.

The fact of the matter is, there was nothing anyone could have done that would have changed another person's DNA into orenthal's.

The fact of the matter is, at the time of her death, Nicole was afraid of only one person: orenthal james simpson. At the time of ther death, Nicole was being tormented, stalked and threatened by only one person: orenthal james simpson.

I sense a little hostility and a trend to an off-color remark. JC was not making a rap. He was explaining/persuading why the jury should view the evidence in his client's favor, i.e. the prosecution failed to meet its burden. I do not think it is befitting to call the jury, millions of people who watched the trial or the prosecution's experts ignorant.

The jury only speaks as one when rendering a verdict. I thought you would have understood that.

At the time of this trial DNA was a relatively new science, and as Scheck exposed, the prosecution's experts did not understand how to type or provide the results. The defense also showed they did not know how to collect and store the evidence or how to protect against contamination and cross contamination. The evidence was not the most trustworthy.

I know of no evidence of stalking, threatening physical harm or tormenting. I know that he shook KS's hand the day after seeing him and Nicole on the couch. I could understand, if there was evidence that he physically abused her routinely after discovering she was dating someone else. This would tend to indicate obsession, jealousy and a desire to control.

[martin II]

WILLIAM

When the non AA jurors on the criminal trial jury voted not guilty,
whose OWN were they protecting.

It is utterly unbelievable how some will go to any lenght to attack the criminal trial jury because they did not get the verdict they assumed they were intitiled to for some reason.

The public was not in control of this trial.
martin II

[martin II]

I sense a little hostility and a trend to an off-color remark. JC was not making a rap. He was explaining/persuading why the jury should view the evidence in his client's favor, i.e. the prosecution failed to meet its burden. I do not think it is befitting to call the jury, millions of people who watched the trial or the prosecution's experts ignorant.

The jury only speaks as one when rendering a verdict. I thought you would have understood that.

At the time of this trial DNA was a relatively new science, and as Scheck exposed, the prosecution's experts did not understand how to type or provide the results. The defense also showed they did not know how to collect and store the evidence or how to protect against contamination and cross contamination. The evidence was not the most trustworthy.

I know of no evidence of stalking, threatening physical harm or tormenting. I know that he shook KS's hand the day after seeing him and Nicole on the couch. I could understand, if there was evidence that he physically abused her routinely after discovering she was dating someone else. This would tend to indicate obsession, jealousy and a desire to control.

william

very well put.

:beer:
martin II

[William Anthony]

WILLIAM

When the non AA jurors on the criminal trial jury voted not guilty,
whose OWN were they protecting.

It is utterly unbelievable how some will go to any lenght to attack the criminal trial jury because they did not get the verdict they assumed they were intitiled to for some reason.

The public was not in control of this trial.
martin II

They were protecting a man, who was accused with a crime, but the prosecution failed to prove guilty-that own.

The public failed to realize that the dream team did not get that name, because they were stupid. They lulled the prosecution to sleep and forced them to put on a Rip Van Winkle impression, imho.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
The fact of the matter is, there was nothing anyone could have done that would have changed another person's DNA into orenthal's.


Precisely! and there was no way it could have been "planted" prior to him giving a reference sample!

[William Anthony]

The glove being planted has nothing to do with the time the blood was deposited on the glove, i.e. the glove could have been planted and collected and then blood placed on it and then swabbed and tested. Why was Vanatter is such a hurry to get the blood vial to the DF and what happened to the missing blood from Simpson's sample?

[weezer]

The glove being planted has nothing to do with the time the blood was deposited on the glove, i.e. the glove could have been planted and collected and then blood placed on it and then swabbed and tested. Why was Vanatter is such a hurry to get the blood vial to the DF and what happened to the missing blood from Simpson's sample?

what did Vanatter have to gain from planting evidence? There has never been any evidence/testimony that he ever exhibited/verbalized any animous toward blacks. Why do you feel that of all the people that were involved in the prosecution of the Butcher would orchestrate the frame?

[William Anthony]

what did Vanatter have to gain from planting evidence? There has never been any evidence/testimony that he ever exhibited/verbalized any animous toward blacks. Why do you feel that of all the people that were involved in the prosecution of the Butcher would orchestrate the frame?

I have never said that Vanatter had any animus. Why did Vanatter not talk about the blood allegedly seen by Roberts and the MF on the light switch or the bloody fingerprint on the gate? Could it have been that Vanatter realized that the glove was not supposed to be where it was allegedly found? Could Vanatter have tried to cover up the actions of LE? Could that explain why he took the blood to the DF instead of booking it as was the usual protocol? Could that explain why the DF testified that what Vanatter did had not been done in any other case he worked as a criminalist?

[weezer]

I have never said that Vanatter had any animus. Why did Vanatter not talk about the blood allegedly seen by Roberts and the MF on the light switch or the bloody fingerprint on the gate? Could it have been that Vanatter realized that the glove was not supposed to be where it was allegedly found? Could Vanatter have tried to cover up the actions of LE? Could that explain why he took the blood to the DF instead of booking it as was the usual protocol? Could that explain why the DF testified that what Vanatter did had not been done in any other case he worked as a criminalist?

you didn't answer why you believe Vanatter would do that. I'm sure you must realize that at the time the blood was brought to the criminalist, the blood at the crime scene had been collected but not identified as orenthal's.

[William Anthony]

you didn't answer why you believe Vanatter would do that. I'm sure you must realize that at the time the blood was brought to the criminalist, the blood at the crime scene had been collected but not identified as orenthal's.

The answer is in the questions. There was nothing that precluded them from placing his blood on the glove or any other evidence to make certain it was identifired as Simpson's.

[martin II]

The glove being planted has nothing to do with the time the blood was deposited on the glove, i.e. the glove could have been planted and collected and then blood placed on it and then swabbed and tested. Why was Vanatter is such a hurry to get the blood vial to the DF and what happened to the missing blood from Simpson's sample?

william
the question is why didn't he give it to SID where he was when the blood was drawn.

martin II

[William Anthony]

william
the question is why didn't he give it to SID where he was when the blood was drawn.

martin II

Those are the questions one asks when they are not predisposed to convict and want the prosecution to meet its burden.

[martin II]

The answer is in the questions. There was nothing that precluded them from placing his blood on the glove or any other evidence to make certain it was identifired as Simpson's.

The lab was controlled by lapd, they could do what they liked.

Like the San Francisco case where 500 false test results were discovered.imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

The lab was controlled by lapd, they could do what they liked.

Like the San Francisco case where 500 false test results were discovered.imo
martin II

They did what they liked, but they did not like what JC did with what they did.

[Kayleighjo]

Fact is tat Mr. Fuhrman was publicly exposed as racist and sexist. Someone who could not keep his private feelings apart from his job. He said, for example, that he would find any reason to stop interracial couples because he didn't approve of such relationships.
Jurors who did not follow the rules or were no longer trustworthy were removed immediately. Badmouthing jurors because of their race is not proof of any offense on their behalf.
Evidently, Mrs. Clark herself was afraid of playing those parts of a tape in which Mr. Fuhrman made sexist remarks about Judge Ito's wife. There's not much left to say.

There's a ton left to say.

Bad mouthing jurors because of their race? No, not because of their race but because of how they let their feelings about their own race interfere with their public duty.

It's not based on fiction, it's based on remarks made after the trial and reading their book that shows me that the jury had one agenda and that was to let a black man walk free to teach a white community a lesson.

Pathetic.

[William Anthony]

There's a ton left to say.

Bad mouthing jurors because of their race? No, not because of their race but because of how they let their feelings about their own race interfere with their public duty.

It's not based on fiction, it's based on remarks made after the trial and reading their book that shows me that the jury had one agenda and that was to let a black man walk free to teach a white community a lesson.

Pathetic.

I have noticed that you use the all inclusive possessive pronoun "their", regarding the book. Was this a collaborative effort on the part of the jurors? Since the jury was not all Black, did the non-Black jurors have the same feelings in regard to race? I believe the verdict was a result of the pathetic case the prosecution presented. The only lesson that I feel should have been learned from the verdict is that the prosecution must meet its burden of proof. I feel that, if the jury had returned any other verdict than the one they did, they would not have been doing their duty, which they swore to do.

[martin II]

I have noticed that you use the all inclusive possessive pronoun "their", regarding the book. Was this a collaborative effort on the part of the jurors? Since the jury was not all Black, did the non-Black jurors have the same feelings in regard to race? I believe the verdict was a result of the pathetic case the prosecution presented. The only lesson that I feel should have been learned from the verdict is that the prosecution must meet its burden of proof. I feel that, if the jury had returned any other verdict than the one they did, they would not have been doing their duty, which they swore to do.

william

Attacking the jury is just a way for some people to deny that fact that the prosecution RUSHED TO JUDGEMENT before that had a solid case which caused them TO PUT ON A FAULTY CASE.

There is no way that that or any jurory could have listened to the case they did and not vote not guilty.

But like i say there are some that believe they are intitiled to get the verdict they desire. screw the required standard of proof.
martin II

[William Anthony]

william

Attacking the jury is just a way for some people to deny that fact that the prosecution RUSHED TO JUDGEMENT before that had a solid case which caused them TO PUT ON A FAULTY CASE.

There is no way that that or any jurory could have listened to the case they did and not vote not guilty.

But like i say there are some that believe they are intitiled to get the verdict they desire. screw the required standard of proof.
martin II

There is a rush to judgment to blame race for many things that do not go they way people want them to go. They forget that JC led a team of very thorough lawyers and had the leading experts in their fields to support the defense's view of the case. I will not deny that race played a part in both trials. I do believe if JC had practiced civil law the verdict in that trial would have been different also. He had a manner that allowed him to take over a courtroom. I do not think that Petrocelli would have been any match for his talents.

[William Anthony]

william

Attacking the jury is just a way for some people to deny that fact that the prosecution RUSHED TO JUDGEMENT before that had a solid case which caused them TO PUT ON A FAULTY CASE.

There is no way that that or any jurory could have listened to the case they did and not vote not guilty.

But like i say there are some that believe they are intitiled to get the verdict they desire. screw the required standard of proof.
martin II

Some place to much empahsis on the role of race. They forget that JC led a team of highly skilled lawyers, and they had the leading experts in their respective fields to support the defense's view of the case. It is too bad that JC did not practice civil law. He had a manner that allowed him to control a courtroom. I think the civil verdict would have been different, if he did, because Petrocelli would not have been a match for him. This is not to say that race did not play a role in the verdicts, just not the one they tend to give it.

[Suzee10]

The answer is in the questions. There was nothing that precluded them from placing his blood on the glove or any other evidence to make certain it was identifired as Simpson's.


Yes there was something that precluded them from placing blood on the glove or anything else, the had not taken any blood samples from simpson and wouldn't until later that afternoon. Where did they get simpson's blood to place on the glove or on other items?

[2L8 4A D8]

Yes there was something that precluded them from placing blood on the glove or anything else, the had not taken any blood samples from simpson and wouldn't until later that afternoon. Where did they get simpson's blood to place on the glove or on other items?

Oh, didn't you hear? It was a conspiracy and frame-up by everyone involved. They ALL knew that on 6-12-94 that OJ was going to kill Nicole and Ron, so they ALL began to put their little conspiracy and frame-up into motion! Yeah, didn't you hear that? It's like when Vanatter finally got OJ's blood samples, HE, Tom Lange, Dennis Fung, even Mark Fuhrman himself then smeared it all over OJ's glove to continue to perpetrate everyone's conspiracy and frame-up of OJ Simpson! Yeah, didn't you hear that?

It was all over the Front Page News and on every TV Station imagineable how LE of the City and County of Los Angeles and State of California conspired to frame OJ Simpson for the murders of Nicole and Ron! Yeah, didn't you hear that? You just had to have heard that, right? Darn, you must have forgotten then, right?

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

Yes there was something that precluded them from placing blood on the glove or anything else, the had not taken any blood samples from simpson and wouldn't until later that afternoon. Where did they get simpson's blood to place on the glove or on other items?

The blood could have been placed on there after they got his sample from the vial with the missing blood that Vanatter brought.

[weezer]

I agree that to badmouth a jury, without a substantial showing that the evidence was overwhelming and the jurors had another motive for their verdict does nothing but degrade the judicial system. I think that the ruling may have been that the evidence against the MF, if allowed in, would prejudice the jury pool. I do not know this for a fact, but would like to think that is the reason the judge did not allow it.

what evidence did he not allow in?

[weezer]

The blood could have been placed on there after they got his sample from the vial with the missing blood that Vanatter brought.

this is just for arguments sake -- right? Because even you must realize how implausible this scenario would be.

[William Anthony]

this is just for arguments sake -- right? Because even you must realize how implausible this scenario would be.

No, I do not think it is implausible at all. It is common knowledge that LE carry throw-down guns. I do not place any limit on their creativity, when one detective may have placed them in a sticky situation. Hence, we have throw-down blood.

[William Anthony]

what evidence did he not allow in?

The McKinney tapes and the MF.

[weezer]

*Snipped*The jury only speaks as one when rendering a verdict. I thought you would have understood that.

and that's what the jury was defending -- their verdict.

[weezer]

No, I do not think it is implausible at all. It is common knowledge that LE carry throw-down guns. I do not place any limit on their creativity, when one detective may have placed them in a sticky situation. Hence, we have throw-down blood.

LOL -- so now we have LE carrying around 'throw-down' blood. LOL

[martin II]

LOL -- so now we have LE carrying around 'throw-down' blood. LOL

vanhatter
martin II

[weezer]

vanhatter
martin II

LOL -- you are too funny.

[martin II]

LOL -- you are too funny.

not nearly as funny as you.
martinII

[martin II]

I have never said that Vanatter had any animus. Why did Vanatter not talk about the blood allegedly seen by Roberts and the MF on the light switch or the bloody fingerprint on the gate? Could it have been that Vanatter realized that the glove was not supposed to be where it was allegedly found? Could Vanatter have tried to cover up the actions of LE? Could that explain why he took the blood to the DF instead of booking it as was the usual protocol? Could that explain why the DF testified that what Vanatter did had not been done in any other case he worked as a criminalist?

wiliam

furhman came from one crine scene, rockingham to bundy, to take a look at the glove at bundy to see if it was a match for the one at rockingham.

Then, vanhatter ordered Fung, against his better judgement, to bring the rockingham glove, one crime scene, into the crime scene at bundy. Fung said this was a bad practice and something he had never done in his career. vanhatter said he wanted to see if the two gloves matched.

This was a perfect opportunity for the rockingham glove to be the recipient
of any blood or anything else that need to be added.imo

martin II

[Suzee10]

The blood could have been placed on there after they got his sample from the vial with the missing blood that Vanatter brought.


No it couldn't. There was blood on the glove and other items when they were collected the morning of the murders. Simpson was still in Chicago. Where did they get simpson's blood?

[martin II]

No it couldn't. There was blood on the glove and other items when they were collected the morning of the murders. Simpson was still in Chicago. Where did they get simpson's blood?

suzee

If Paretis had acted professionally when he drew ojs blood and recorded the quantity he drew and not lied about it later and if Vanhatter had deposited the sample in SID where he was when the blood was drawn instead of carrying it around on his person for some time on 6/13, there would have been little quesiton about the drawing and handeling of ojs blood.

These quesitons were created by vanhatter and the nurse.

Yes there was testimony that there was some blood drops on the glove at rockingham on 6/13 but we do not know if drops of Ojs blood was on that glove at the moment it was found or added to the glove at a later time. imo

martin ii

[socaldiva]

LOL -- so now we have LE carrying around 'throw-down' blood. LOL

Why not? We have every other ridiculous, far fetched idea posted here.:biggrin:

[Suzee10]

suzee

If Paretis had acted professionally when he drew ojs blood and recorded the quantity he drew and not lied about it later and if Vanhatter had deposited the sample in SID where he was when the blood was drawn instead of carrying it around on his person for some time on 6/13, there would have been little quesiton about the drawing and handeling of ojs blood.

These quesitons were created by vanhatter and the nurse.

Yes there was testimony that there was some blood drops on the glove at rockingham on 6/13 but we do not know if drops of Ojs blood was on that glove at the moment it was found or added to the glove at a later time. imo

martin ii


Again, where did they get simpson's blood? He was still in Chicago when the items were collected. This had nothing to do with the nurse that later took a blood sample from simpson.

[martin II]

Again, where did they get simpson's blood? He was still in Chicago when the items were collected. This had nothing to do with the nurse that later took a blood sample from simpson.

suzee

OJ's blood was taken on 6/13 the blood on the glove was not tested until some time later. During this time the glove and the vile of oj's blood was in the same facility, the lapd lab.

martin II

[bobaugust]

suzee

OJ's blood was taken on 6/13 the blood on the glove was not tested until some time later. During this time the glove and the vile of oj's blood was in the same facility, the lapd lab.

martin II

martin II, of course all the evidence was in the same building, the LAPD SID at Piper Tech. So what?

Where do you think it should have been kept?

bobaugust

[Suzee10]

suzee

OJ's blood was taken on 6/13 the blood on the glove was not tested until some time later. During this time the glove and the vile of oj's blood was in the same facility, the lapd lab.

martin II

And where else do you think they would keep the evidence, in different buildings? There was blood on the glove and other items before simpson returned from Chicago. Where did this blood of simpson's come from?

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

and that's what the jury was defending -- their verdict.

There was no reason for the jury to defend their verdict-only in the minds of some.

[William Anthony]

No it couldn't. There was blood on the glove and other items when they were collected the morning of the murders. Simpson was still in Chicago. Where did they get simpson's blood?

Are you talking about the blood at Bundy or Rockingham?

[martin II]

And where else do you think they would keep the evidence, in different buildings? There was blood on the glove and other items before simpson returned from Chicago. Where did this blood of simpson's come from?

suzee

what i am saying is that there is no proof that the blood on the glove colected on 6/13 had oj's blood on it as the blood was not tested on 6/13. only collected.

martin II

[William Anthony]

No it couldn't. There was blood on the glove and other items when they were collected the morning of the murders. Simpson was still in Chicago. Where did they get simpson's blood?

Allegedly there was blood on the items they collected and allegedlly it was Simpson's blood. The question is not when they observed blood but what happened between the times it was collected and when it was tested and found to be Simpson's blood.

[William Anthony]

No it couldn't. There was blood on the glove and other items when they were collected the morning of the murders. Simpson was still in Chicago. Where did they get simpson's blood?

The question is not when the items were collected, but what happened to the items between the times they were collected and tested.

[weezer]

The question is not when the items were collected, but what happened to the items between the times they were collected and tested.

you and martin are working way too hard at this conspiracy thing. If, as you two allege, LE was so utterly incompetent, how in the world do you think they pulled off this huge conpiracy -- involving hundreds of people -- the majority unknown to each other? What exactly do you two feel would be the purpose of such a hoax?

[William Anthony]

you and martin are working way too hard at this conspiracy thing. If, as you two allege, LE was so utterly incompetent, how in the world do you think they pulled off this huge conpiracy -- involving hundreds of people -- the majority unknown to each other? What exactly do you two feel would be the purpose of such a hoax?

I do not claim that there was any massive conspiracy. I simply question the testimony of Vanatter as it pertains to bringing the glove to the crime scene and the testimony of the MF to saying them. I would also note that the MF alluded to cover ups by LE on the tapes. I think that it could have been only one person's intention to implicate Simpson and others acted, because of the position in which they were placed. Once the evidence was contaminated, the other examiners could only reach the same results, because of the contamination.

[William Anthony]

I do not claim that there was any massive conspiracy. I simply question the testimony of Vanatter as it pertains to bringing the glove to the crime scene and the testimony of the MF to saying them. I would also note that the MF alluded to cover ups by LE on the tapes. I think that it could have been only one person's intention to implicate Simpson and others acted, because of the position in which they were placed. Once the evidence was contaminated, the other examiners could only reach the same results, because of the contamination.

Correction-Vanatter's testimony as to bringing the blood to the crime scene.

[bobaugust]

I do not claim that there was any massive conspiracy. I simply question the testimony of Vanatter as it pertains to bringing the glove to the crime scene and the testimony of the MF to saying them. I would also note that the MF alluded to cover ups by LE on the tapes. I think that it could have been only one person's intention to implicate Simpson and others acted, because of the position in which they were placed. Once the evidence was contaminated, the other examiners could only reach the same results, because of the contamination.

Vannatter didn't have anything to do with bringing the Rockingham glove to Bundy. At the time that happened no one knew whose blood was on the glove except for possibly the two victims. Every time you make refer to Fuhrman saying the word "them" it shows how little credibility your arguments have.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Vannatter didn't have anything to do with bringing the Rockingham glove to Bundy. At the time that happened no one knew whose blood was on the glove except for possibly the two victims. Every time you make refer to Fuhrman saying the word "them" it shows how little credibility your arguments have.

bobaugust

I see you made a correction about Vannatter and the glove but your argument still has no credibility. Vannatter delivered Simpson's blood sample to Fung after all the evidence at both crime scenes had been collected.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Vannatter didn't have anything to do with bringing the Rockingham glove to Bundy. At the time that happened no one knew whose blood was on the glove except for possibly the two victims. Every time you make refer to Fuhrman saying the word "them" it shows how little credibility your arguments have.

bobaugust

Perhaps, you did not get a chance to see my post on the other thread in regard to the word them, which you did not include in Bailey's cross of the MF. I will not say that you intentionally forgot to post that testimony in order to boast your credibility. I will assign your neglect to human error and to mistake as you do to LE's performance.

[William Anthony]

I see you made a correction about Vannatter and the glove but your argument still has no credibility. Vannatter delivered Simpson's blood sample to Fung after all the evidence at both crime scenes had been collected.

bobaugust

Please, tell me what that has to do with the interval of time after it was collected and before it was sent out for testing?

[bobaugust]

Perhaps, you did not get a chance to see my post on the other thread in regard to the word them, which you did not include in Bailey's cross of the MF. I will not say that you intentionally forgot to post that testimony in order to boast your credibility. I will assign your neglect to human error and to mistake as you do to LE's performance.

I have read all the testimony regarding Fuhrman saying the word "them." Nothing Bailey said changes the reality that there was only one glove and a hat found under the plant at Ron Goldman's feet.

When I was writing my response to your mistaken posting you had not made you're correction. It wasn't until after I posted my response I saw your correction. That was not a mistake or human error on my part only the reality of how events happen. The same as the reality that there was only one glove at Bundy when the police arrived at the murder scene. The same as the reality of what all the blood and trace evidence found on the glove at Rockingham was.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Vannatter didn't have anything to do with bringing the Rockingham glove to Bundy. At the time that happened no one knew whose blood was on the glove except for possibly the two victims. Every time you make refer to Fuhrman saying the word "them" it shows how little credibility your arguments have.

bobaugust

bob

Fung testified that Vanhatter told him to bring the rockingham glove to bundy because he wanted to compare the two.imo Fung did not want to do this but he did was he was told by vanhatter, Fung also said he had never done this before. Bringing evidence from one crime scene to another imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

I have read all the testimony regarding Fuhrman saying the word "them." Nothing Bailey said changes the reality that there was only one glove and a hat found under the plant at Ron Goldman's feet.

When I was writing my response to your mistaken posting you had not made you're correction. It wasn't until after I posted my response I saw your correction. That was not a mistake or human error on my part only the reality of how events happen. The same as the reality that there was only one glove at Bundy when the police arrived at the murder scene. The same as the reality of what all the blood and trace evidence found on the glove at Rockingham was.

bobaugust

It was not what Bailey said. It was the MF that used the word them when asked specifically, not by Bailey but Uelmen, about seeing it (the glove) and there was no testimony about the knit hat on the page of or on the page before the MF's testimony (no slip of the tongue). I find it interesting that you admit knowing of the testimony but failed to post it. I will still not impugn your credibility and only attribute it to mistake and human error. The reality is that some police testified to seeing one glove. Vanatter testified to telling Thompson not to place Simpson in handcuffs. Thompson testified Vanatter told him to put Simpson in cuffs. The MF also testified to seeing blood "in" the Bronco and the DF testified that the blood on the bottom of the Bronco door could not be seen unless the door was open. The MF testified he never went in the Bronco.

[bobaugust]

Please, tell me what that has to do with the interval of time after it was collected and before it was sent out for testing?

Please tell me what difference does it make that Fung took possession of Simpson's blood sample at Rockingham or if he it had been waiting for him when he returned to Piper Tech with all of the collected evidence?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Please tell me what difference does it make that Fung took possession of Simpson's blood sample at Rockingham or if he it had been waiting for him when he returned to Piper Tech with all of the collected evidence?

bobaugust

I will answer your question first. this time. Perhaps, he would not have had a chance to be alone with the blood and the evidence, or perhaps, there would have been a record of the sample being signed out?

[William Anthony]

Please tell me what difference does it make that Fung took possession of Simpson's blood sample at Rockingham or if he it had been waiting for him when he returned to Piper Tech with all of the collected evidence?

bobaugust

Vanatter testified he did not know where the DF was and, when questioned about a 20 to 30 minute discrepancy in the time from when the blood was taken and his arrival at Rockingham, he claimed to have been in his office maybe drinking coffee. Could he have been, yes? Could he have gone to Bundy first with the blood sample, yes?

[weezer]

Vanatter testified he did not know where the DF was and, when questioned about a 20 to 30 minute discrepancy in the time from when the blood was taken and his arrival at Rockingham, he claimed to have been in his office maybe drinking coffee. Could he have been, yes? Could he have gone to Bundy first with the blood sample, yes?

and done what? the blood had already been collected at BOTH locations by the time orenthal returned from Chicago.

[William Anthony]

and done what? the blood had already been collected at BOTH locations by the time orenthal returned from Chicago.

yes, but it had not been tested or booked, only collected.

[weezer]

yes, but it had not been tested or booked, only collected.

and? I still do not follow your reasoning. So what if it had not been tested? the blood from orenthal was preserved blood. orenthal's blood at Bundy and Rockingham was not.

[William Anthony]

and? I still do not follow your reasoning. So what if it had not been tested? the blood from orenthal was preserved blood. orenthal's blood at Bundy and Rockingham was not.

There was contradictory evidence on that subject. It would tend to be a conclusion on who the jury found most credible. I found Martz to lack any degree of credibility.

[weezer]

There was contradictory evidence on that subject. It would tend to be a conclusion on who the jury found most credible. I found Martz to lack any degree of credibility.

so you're saying orenthal's sample blood did not have preservatives in it?

[William Anthony]

so you're saying orenthal's sample blood did not have preservatives in it?

No, I am saying the prosecution did not put on any credible evidence that the evidence did not have preservatives in it.

[bobaugust]

It was not what Bailey said. It was the MF that used the word them when asked specifically, not by Bailey but Uelmen, about seeing it (the glove) and there was no testimony about the knit hat on the page of or on the page before the MF's testimony (no slip of the tongue). I find it interesting that you admit knowing of the testimony but failed to post it. I will still not impugn your credibility and only attribute it to mistake and human error. The reality is that some police testified to seeing one glove. Vanatter testified to telling Thompson not to place Simpson in handcuffs. Thompson testified Vanatter told him to put Simpson in cuffs. The MF also testified to seeing blood "in" the Bronco and the DF testified that the blood on the bottom of the Bronco door could not be seen unless the door was open. The MF testified he never went in the Bronco.

The fact that there was no testimony about the hat on that page of testimony from the preliminary hearing or the previous page is irrelevant. In the preliminary hearing Clark questioned Fuhrman about what he saw and did that day starting with the Bundy crime scene. That was the only time she asked Fuhrman about the evidence near the victims. She then continued questioning him about what he saw and did at Rockingham.

When she finished, Uelmen started his cross examination. He too started at Bundy and asked Fuhrman about the evidence he saw. Fuhrman's previous testimony regarding that was several pages of testimony earlier when Clark had stared her questioning.

It's very clear to anyone who reads Fuhrman's testimony that when he said the word "them" he was referring to the hat and the glove that he saw at the feet of Ron Goldman. That was clear to Uelmen and that is what every police officer testified to as well is what is documented in the crime scene photographs.

Bailey later in the criminal trial tried to deceive the jury by taking Fuhrman's words out of context and then asking him a compound question. Bailey didn't fool anyone except evidently you. After Bailey's ridiculous attempt neither Cochran nor any of Simpson's attorneys every referred to it again. Only you William can't comprehend the reality of the evidence and the stupidity of your false insinuations.

July 5, 1994 Clark's only questions to Fuhrman about the glove at Bundy.

Q FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT, LOOKING DOWN ON THE VICTIMS, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY ITEMS OF EVIDENCE?
A YES, LOOKING DOWN, DIRECTLY BELOW THE LANDING, THERE -- I BELIEVE AT THAT POINT THERE WAS A HEEL PRINT WHICH APPEARED TO BE GOING IN A WESTBOUND DIRECTION, AWAY FROM THE BODIES, TOWARDS THE ALLEY. THERE WAS ALSO A KNIT CAP OR WHAT
APPEARED TO BE A KNIT CAP, DARK CAP-TYPE OBJECT, AND WHAT LOOKED LIKE A GLOVE AT THE FEET OF THE MALE VICTIM IN THE SHRUBBERY AREA JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE FEMALE VICTIM.
Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE GLOVE ANY BETTER?
A AT THAT TIME, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO SEE IT. THERE WAS ANOTHER LOCATION FROM THE NORTH RESIDENCE THAT I GOT A BETTER VIEW OF IT, A LITTLE LATER. AND THEN I NOTICED THAT IT WAS A DARK BROWN -- OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN EVEN BLACK IN THE LIGHT THAT I WAS LOOKING AT IT -- AND IT DID APPEAR TO BE A STOCKING CAP WHEN I GOT A CLOSER LOOK.
Q SO IT WAS A -- IT LOOKED TO YOU TO BE A DARK BROWN OR EVEN BLACK LEATHER GLOVE, AND A -- DID YOU SAY WHAT COLOR THE HAT WAS?
A IT WAS VERY DARK. MAYBE DARK BLUE OR BLACK.
Q KNIT CAP?
A IT APPEARED TO BE KNIT, YES.

July 5, 1994 Uelmen's only questions to Fuhrman about the glove at Bundy

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

[William Anthony]

The fact that there was no testimony about the hat on that page of testimony from the preliminary hearing or the previous page is irrelevant. In the preliminary hearing Clark questioned Fuhrman about what he saw and did that day starting with the Bundy crime scene. That was the only time she asked Fuhrman about the evidence near the victims. She then continued questioning him about what he saw and did at Rockingham.

When she finished, Uelmen started his cross examination. He too started at Bundy and asked Fuhrman about the evidence he saw. Fuhrman's previous testimony regarding that was several pages of testimony earlier when Clark had stared her questioning.

It's very clear to anyone who reads Fuhrman's testimony that when he said the word "them" he was referring to the hat and the glove that he saw at the feet of Ron Goldman. That was clear to Uelmen and that is what every police officer testified to as well is what is documented in the crime scene photographs.

Bailey later in the criminal trial tried to deceive the jury by taking Fuhrman's words out of context and then asking him a compound question. Bailey didn't fool anyone except evidently you. After Bailey's ridiculous attempt neither Cochran nor any of Simpson's attorneys every referred to it again. Only you William can't comprehend the reality of the evidence and the stupidity of your false insinuations.

July 5, 1994 Clark's only questions to Fuhrman about the glove at Bundy.

Q FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT, LOOKING DOWN ON THE VICTIMS, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY ITEMS OF EVIDENCE?
A YES, LOOKING DOWN, DIRECTLY BELOW THE LANDING, THERE -- I BELIEVE AT THAT POINT THERE WAS A HEEL PRINT WHICH APPEARED TO BE GOING IN A WESTBOUND DIRECTION, AWAY FROM THE BODIES, TOWARDS THE ALLEY. THERE WAS ALSO A KNIT CAP OR WHAT
APPEARED TO BE A KNIT CAP, DARK CAP-TYPE OBJECT, AND WHAT LOOKED LIKE A GLOVE AT THE FEET OF THE MALE VICTIM IN THE SHRUBBERY AREA JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE FEMALE VICTIM.
Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE GLOVE ANY BETTER?
A AT THAT TIME, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO SEE IT. THERE WAS ANOTHER LOCATION FROM THE NORTH RESIDENCE THAT I GOT A BETTER VIEW OF IT, A LITTLE LATER. AND THEN I NOTICED THAT IT WAS A DARK BROWN -- OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN EVEN BLACK IN THE LIGHT THAT I WAS LOOKING AT IT -- AND IT DID APPEAR TO BE A STOCKING CAP WHEN I GOT A CLOSER LOOK.
Q SO IT WAS A -- IT LOOKED TO YOU TO BE A DARK BROWN OR EVEN BLACK LEATHER GLOVE, AND A -- DID YOU SAY WHAT COLOR THE HAT WAS?
A IT WAS VERY DARK. MAYBE DARK BLUE OR BLACK.
Q KNIT CAP?
A IT APPEARED TO BE KNIT, YES.

July 5, 1994 Uelmen's only questions to Fuhrman about the glove at Bundy

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

What is irrelevant is your trying to place the direct of Clark into the questions asked by Uelmen and Bailey's trapping of the MF on his slip and, at the same time, not a slip of the tongue. It was clear that the MF was trapped by his not being able to say whether or not it was a slip. How about his testimony and Bailey played the video of the MF saying he saw blood in the Bronco. Let me see, you will say human error and mistake, correct?

[bobaugust]

bob

Fung testified that Vanhatter told him to bring the rockingham glove to bundy because he wanted to compare the two.imo Fung did not want to do this but he did was he was told by vanhatter, Fung also said he had never done this before. Bringing evidence from one crime scene to another imo
martin II

martin II,

November 4, 1996 Dennis Fung

Q. By the way, at one point, isn't it accurate that you took the Rockingham glove, carried it from Rockingham to Bundy, and took it into the Bundy crime scene, climbing over Mr. Goldman's body, so that Detective Lange could compare it with the Bundy glove?
A. That's correct.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is it acceptable procedure to take evidence from one bloody scene like that glove and take it to another second crime scene?
A. If the evidence is handled in a careful manner, I don't see a problem with it.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You were ordered to do that by Detective Lange, weren't you?
THE WITNESS: I was requested to do so.
Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And you did?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you ever tell him that was a bad idea?
A. I told him that -- well, I made the conclusion in my mind that I would not take the bag -- or the glove out of the bag for him. And I felt that merely bringing the bag to the crime scene and opening it up carefully would not compromise the scene.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I will answer your question first. this time. Perhaps, he would not have had a chance to be alone with the blood and the evidence, or perhaps, there would have been a record of the sample being signed out?

Fung was not alone. Mazzola was with him.

Your unfounded, unsupported, slanderous insinuations regarding Dennis Fung and other LAPD personnel only shows the length you will go to deny the reality of evidence that proves Simpson was the killer.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Fung was not alone. Mazzola was with him.

Your unfounded, unsupported, slanderous insinuations regarding Dennis Fung and other LAPD personnel only shows the length you will go to deny the reality of evidence that proves Simpson was the killer.

bobaugust

You are quite incorrect as there was testimony that the DF was not always with Mazzola. I am allowed to speculate based on the evidence presented, which does not limit my view to the ones shared by bobaugust. In case you have heretofore failed to grasp the concept, you do not control my thoughts. I have never made in accusations and only raise possibilities from which reasonable inferences can be drawn that may lead to reasonable doubt. The only accusations I have made are to the MF who admitted to doing certain things.

[bobaugust]

Vanatter testified he did not know where the DF was and, when questioned about a 20 to 30 minute discrepancy in the time from when the blood was taken and his arrival at Rockingham, he claimed to have been in his office maybe drinking coffee. Could he have been, yes? Could he have gone to Bundy first with the blood sample, yes?

There was no 20 to 30 minute discrepancy.

Evidence Dismissed,
"Vannatter receives word from another RHD detective returning from Simpson's estate that Dennis Fung is now at Simpson's estate. Fung came from the South Bundy crime scene, which shut down at 3:45 P.M."

At about 4:20 P.M., because he has no DR number for booking purposes, Vannatter decides to take the vial of Simpson's blood with him back out to North Rockingham and deliver it, personally, to the criminalist. They need Simpson's blood booked and analyzed as quickly as possible and to have it compared to the blood evidence
found at the two crime scenes. With all of the attention this case is already receiving, the obvious question becomes: What if the blood tests come back and they don't match Simpson? One way or the other, Lange and Vannatter need to know - and fast.

At about 4:30 P.M., Lange and Vannatter walk to their separate cars in the subterranean garage at Parker Center and drive to North Rockingham.

Vannatter arrives first at North Rockingham at 5:17 P.M. in the midst of throngs of reporters and cameras. LAPD patrol officers have kept the area secure since Vannatter left earlier that afternoon, while detective Luper, whom Vannatter had placed in charge directed the search of the estate.

As the media looks on and memorializes nearly every movement on the grounds, Vannatter approaches the front door of Simpson's home and immediately sees Dennis Fung, who is getting ready to leave. Prior to 10:15 that morning, Fung had collected all of the known blood drops in Simpson's driveway and foyer and the bloody right hand glove on the south side of the house.

Now, as a television camera records the scene, Vannatter hands Fung the analyzed evidence envelope containing the vial of blood, telling him, "Here's a blood sample from Simpson. It's part of the evidence package."

Fung takes custody of Simpson's blood at exactly 5:20 P.M., three minutes after Vannatter's arrival. Thus the chain of custody of the vial of blood from Vannatter to Fung has just taken place - in accordance with standard operating procedure, LAPD regulations and state law."

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

There was no 20 to 30 minute discrepancy.

Evidence Dismissed,
"Vannatter receives word from another RHD detective returning from Simpson's estate that Dennis Fung is now at Simpson's estate. Fung came from the South Bundy crime scene, which shut down at 3:45 P.M."

At about 4:20 P.M., because he has no DR number for booking purposes, Vannatter decides to take the vial of Simpson's blood with him back out to North Rockingham and deliver it, personally, to the criminalist. They need Simpson's blood booked and analyzed as quickly as possible and to have it compared to the blood evidence
found at the two crime scenes. With all of the attention this case is already receiving, the obvious question becomes: What if the blood tests come back and they don't match Simpson? One way or the other, Lange and Vannatter need to know - and fast.

At about 4:30 P.M., Lange and Vannatter walk to their separate cars in the subterranean garage at Parker Center and drive to North Rockingham.

Vannatter arrives first at North Rockingham at 5:17 P.M. in the midst of throngs of reporters and cameras. LAPD patrol officers have kept the area secure since Vannatter left earlier that afternoon, while detective Luper, whom Vannatter had placed in charge directed the search of the estate.

As the media looks on and memorializes nearly every movement on the grounds, Vannatter approaches the front door of Simpson's home and immediately sees Dennis Fung, who is getting ready to leave. Prior to 10:15 that morning, Fung had collected all of the known blood drops in Simpson's driveway and foyer and the bloody right hand glove on the south side of the house.

Now, as a television camera records the scene, Vannatter hands Fung the analyzed evidence envelope containing the vial of blood, telling him, "Here's a blood sample from Simpson. It's part of the evidence package."

Fung takes custody of Simpson's blood at exactly 5:20 P.M., three minutes after Vannatter's arrival. Thus the chain of custody of the vial of blood from Vannatter to Fung has just taken place - in accordance with standard operating procedure, LAPD regulations and state law."

bobaugust

I am not relying on works of fiction. I am talking about the testimony. Vanatter testified that the DF was at Rockingham at a little after noon and he surmised that he had not finished collecting the evidence. He testified that he went to his office but was not sure whether he had a cup of coffee or not.

[William Anthony]

There was no 20 to 30 minute discrepancy.

Evidence Dismissed,
"Vannatter receives word from another RHD detective returning from Simpson's estate that Dennis Fung is now at Simpson's estate. Fung came from the South Bundy crime scene, which shut down at 3:45 P.M."

At about 4:20 P.M., because he has no DR number for booking purposes, Vannatter decides to take the vial of Simpson's blood with him back out to North Rockingham and deliver it, personally, to the criminalist. They need Simpson's blood booked and analyzed as quickly as possible and to have it compared to the blood evidence
found at the two crime scenes. With all of the attention this case is already receiving, the obvious question becomes: What if the blood tests come back and they don't match Simpson? One way or the other, Lange and Vannatter need to know - and fast.

At about 4:30 P.M., Lange and Vannatter walk to their separate cars in the subterranean garage at Parker Center and drive to North Rockingham.

Vannatter arrives first at North Rockingham at 5:17 P.M. in the midst of throngs of reporters and cameras. LAPD patrol officers have kept the area secure since Vannatter left earlier that afternoon, while detective Luper, whom Vannatter had placed in charge directed the search of the estate.

As the media looks on and memorializes nearly every movement on the grounds, Vannatter approaches the front door of Simpson's home and immediately sees Dennis Fung, who is getting ready to leave. Prior to 10:15 that morning, Fung had collected all of the known blood drops in Simpson's driveway and foyer and the bloody right hand glove on the south side of the house.

Now, as a television camera records the scene, Vannatter hands Fung the analyzed evidence envelope containing the vial of blood, telling him, "Here's a blood sample from Simpson. It's part of the evidence package."

Fung takes custody of Simpson's blood at exactly 5:20 P.M., three minutes after Vannatter's arrival. Thus the chain of custody of the vial of blood from Vannatter to Fung has just taken place - in accordance with standard operating procedure, LAPD regulations and state law."

bobaugust

Yes, and none of the evidence had been booked. The DF testified that a suspect's blood sample had never been brought to him at a crime scene before. What about the MF's testimony about seeing blood in the Bronco on the bottom of the door and his testimony that he never went in the Bronco and the DF's testimony that that blood could not have been seen unless the door was open and the MF's testimony that the Bronco was locked?

[bobaugust]

What is irrelevant is your trying to place the direct of Clark into the questions asked by Uelmen and Bailey's trapping of the MF on his slip and, at the same time, not a slip of the tongue. It was clear that the MF was trapped by his not being able to say whether or not it was a slip. How about his testimony and Bailey played the video of the MF saying he saw blood in the Bronco. Let me see, you will say human error and mistake, correct?

The fact is that Fuhrman testified on direct that he saw a hat and a glove under the plant at Ron's feet. When Uelmen questioned him in cross examination Fuhrman made it very clear that he saw one glove at Ron's feet. What is irrelevant was Bailey's question that Fuhrman's testimony about this evidence wasn't on the same or previous page as Uelmen's questions.

Bailey didn't trap Fuhrman. He asked Fuhrman a specific question and Fuhrman gave a specific answer that it wasn't a slip of the tongue. It's funny how this has to be continually explained to you.

The fact is that there was only one glove found at Bundy. The fact is that no one, not even Bailey ever claimed there were two gloves under the plant at Ron's feet. Only you William. Only you have perpetuated this lie.

Fuhrman did not remember saying there was blood "in" the Bronco. Fuhrman admitted he misspoke.

March 14, 1995
Q OKAY. ONCE MORE THEN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WE ASKED YOU TO LOOK AT PAGE 49 THIS MORNING BECAUSE OF A WORD THAT APPEARS ON LINE 23 OF THAT PAGE RELATING TO "BLOOD IN THE BRONCO."
A YES.
Q AND YOU AGREE THAT THAT'S WHAT THE PAGE SAYS?
A I AGREE, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT. BUT YOUR FEELING WAS THAT THE REPORTER MADE A MISTAKE?
A I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I JUST DID NOT MEAN "IN THE BRONCO."
Q PARDON ME? WHAT WAS YOUR ANSWER?
A COULD YOU ASK -- ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN, SIR?
Q YOU SAID THE REPORTER DIDN'T MAKE A MISTAKE, BUT THE WORD IS THERE SOMEHOW?
A I DON'T KNOW. I JUST KNOW WHAT I MEANT WHEN I TESTIFIED.
Q ALL RIGHT. SO THAT IF YOU IN FACT USED THE WORD "IN," YOU MISSPOKE YOURSELF?
A YES.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You are quite incorrect as there was testimony that the DF was not always with Mazzola. I am allowed to speculate based on the evidence presented, which does not limit my view to the ones shared by bobaugust. In case you have heretofore failed to grasp the concept, you do not control my thoughts. I have never made in accusations and only raise possibilities from which reasonable inferences can be drawn that may lead to reasonable doubt. The only accusations I have made are to the MF who admitted to doing certain things.

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

[bobaugust]

I am not relying on works of fiction. I am talking about the testimony. Vanatter testified that the DF was at Rockingham at a little after noon and he surmised that he had not finished collecting the evidence. He testified that he went to his office but was not sure whether he had a cup of coffee or not.

That has nothing to do with Simpson's blood sample and when Vannatter delivered it to Fung at Rockingham.

bobaugust

[martin II]

The fact is that Fuhrman testified on direct that he saw a hat and a glove under the plant at Ron's feet. When Uelmen questioned him in cross examination Fuhrman made it very clear that he saw one glove at Ron's feet. What is irrelevant was Bailey's question that Fuhrman's testimony about this evidence wasn't on the same or previous page as Uelmen's questions.

Bailey didn't trap Fuhrman. He asked Fuhrman a specific question and Fuhrman gave a specific answer that it wasn't a slip of the tongue. It's funny how this has to be continually explained to you.

The fact is that there was only one glove found at Bundy. The fact is that no one, not even Bailey ever claimed there were two gloves under the plant at Ron's feet. Only you William. Only you have perpetuated this lie.

Fuhrman did not remember saying there was blood "in" the Bronco. Fuhrman admitted he misspoke.

March 14, 1995
Q OKAY. ONCE MORE THEN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WE ASKED YOU TO LOOK AT PAGE 49 THIS MORNING BECAUSE OF A WORD THAT APPEARS ON LINE 23 OF THAT PAGE RELATING TO "BLOOD IN THE BRONCO."
A YES.
Q AND YOU AGREE THAT THAT'S WHAT THE PAGE SAYS?
A I AGREE, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT. BUT YOUR FEELING WAS THAT THE REPORTER MADE A MISTAKE?
A I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I JUST DID NOT MEAN "IN THE BRONCO."
Q PARDON ME? WHAT WAS YOUR ANSWER?
A COULD YOU ASK -- ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN, SIR?
Q YOU SAID THE REPORTER DIDN'T MAKE A MISTAKE, BUT THE WORD IS THERE SOMEHOW?
A I DON'T KNOW. I JUST KNOW WHAT I MEANT WHEN I TESTIFIED.
Q ALL RIGHT. SO THAT IF YOU IN FACT USED THE WORD "IN," YOU MISSPOKE YOURSELF?
A YES.

bobaugust

bob

before it was 'THEM' now it is " IN "
martin II

[bobaugust]

Yes, and none of the evidence had been booked. The DF testified that a suspect's blood sample had never been brought to him at a crime scene before. What about the MF's testimony about seeing blood in the Bronco on the bottom of the door and his testimony that he never went in the Bronco and the DF's testimony that that blood could not have been seen unless the door was open and the MF's testimony that the Bronco was locked?

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

[William Anthony]

That has nothing to do with Simpson's blood sample and when Vannatter delivered it to Fung at Rockingham.

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.