A Killer Among Us [Archive] - Page 2 - Crime Library Message Boards

tazzybaby

03-13-2007, 10:16 AM

A little more info on the Akita....

While not aggressive to humans, Akitas have been known to attack, and sometimes kill, other dogs. Two males can easily get violent with each other if given the chance, which is why most breeders keep their studs separate. The same is true for females, although they tend to be more tolerant towards other females. The Akita is a dominant dog who expects other dogs to be submissive. If they fail to live up to the Akita's expectations, incidents can happen. The Akita is not a dangerous dog but their sociability with other dogs should be handled with caution.

Akitas have a high and well-developed prey drive, particularly to small animals, including cats. An Akita is not likely to shower affection on someone that is not a member of his family or a close friend that he sees frequently, and can be extremely aloof.

The loyalty and devotion displayed by an Akita is phenomenal. The typical pet Akita will follow you from room to room, yet has the uncanny ability not to be underfoot. Your Akita lives his life as if his only purpose is to protect you and spend time with you.

http://www.google.com/notebook/public/13576513842186530270/BDQw0IgoQgtjV8d4h

Extremely loyal to it's owners. So, for it to bark at OJ should be highly out of the ordinary.

:shrug:

William Anthony

03-13-2007, 11:05 AM

Hi William!

I have been so extremely busy!! I am glad to return! There are many possiblities to any murder. But, you have to look beyond just any possibility. Just because one fingerprint wasn't collected does not suggest that there was another person that bled besides the blood of the person who was known to have bled there. Why weren't any of the other blood drops linked to someone other than OJ? Then it would be probable not just possible. There is NO EVIDENCE that the dog attacked or bit anyone. So, there is no plausibility to the theory of the dog attacking someone that left a bloody fingerprint. But, the plausible scenario is that the bloody fingerprint was left by the same person who dropped blood on the gate and on the ground leading out the back. That person just happens to be OJ. The same person who had cuts on his hand which just bolsters the plausibility that it was indeed OJ.

Terrific TBaby,

I would not disagree that the uncollected and untested firngerprint does not suggest there was someone else there and I feel like Henry Lee, but it cannot be ruled out. It is entirely possible and plausible that the dog bit the hand/finger and the killer ran holding it until he had to get the gate open. The blood drops did not lead out the gate or they stopped. I do believe that the drops could have belonged to Simpson. What I have a problem with is establishing when they were left. I do not believe the testimony about the blood degrading to a b, which would not explain the blood under Nicole's fingernails, imo. I will admit that there is strong circumstantial evidence of his guilt but, at the same time, the blood trail at Rockingham points to strong circumstantial evidence of his innocence, since there was no blood found leading away from or to the glove.

tazzybaby

03-13-2007, 11:38 AM

Terrific TBaby,

I would not disagree that the uncollected and untested firngerprint does not suggest there was someone else there and I feel like Henry Lee, but it cannot be ruled out. It is entirely possible and plausible that the dog bit the hand/finger and the killer ran holding it until he had to get the gate open. The blood drops did not lead out the gate or they stopped. I do believe that the drops could have belonged to Simpson. What I have a problem with is establishing when they were left. I do not believe the testimony about the blood degrading to a b, which would not explain the blood under Nicole's fingernails, imo. I will admit that there is strong circumstantial evidence of his guilt but, at the same time, the blood trail at Rockingham points to strong circumstantial evidence of his innocence, since there was no blood found leading away from or to the glove.

Hi William,

But, there is nothing to suggest that the fingerprint belonged to anyone other than the person who was already dropping blood. That is a random scenerio. I say random because there is no evidence to lead anyone to believe that. The blood drops did indeed lead all the way out the gate and actually one was located in the back past the gate. That is very suggestive that whoever left those blood drops also left that fingerprint. That is a plausible scenario. Someone else leaving the drop is not plausible because there is no other evidence to support it.

What makes you disbelieve the evidence of the blood degrading and losing part of it's distinctive trait? Do you not believe that blood degrades? And, do you know what happens to blood when it does degrade? It makes it harder to read. Because it was degraded it was harder to read. Going from an AB to a B is not believable? There was evidence of degradation.

There was blood found on the wire behind the house where the glove was located. The rest of that trail was not concrete but leaves. So, it is understandable why blood was not found on the ground.

William Anthony

03-13-2007, 11:58 AM

Hi William,

But, there is nothing to suggest that the fingerprint belonged to anyone other than the person who was already dropping blood. That is a random scenerio. I say random because there is no evidence to lead anyone to believe that. The blood drops did indeed lead all the way out the gate and actually one was located in the back past the gate. That is very suggestive that whoever left those blood drops also left that fingerprint. That is a plausible scenario. Someone else leaving the drop is not plausible because there is no other evidence to support it.

What makes you disbelieve the evidence of the blood degrading and losing part of it's distinctive trait? Do you not believe that blood degrades? And, do you know what happens to blood when it does degrade? It makes it harder to read. Because it was degraded it was harder to read. Going from an AB to a B is not believable? There was evidence of degradation.

There was blood found on the wire behind the house where the glove was located. The rest of that trail was not concrete but leaves. So, it is understandable why blood was not found on the ground.

I would agree that it is more likely than not. However, it takes more than that to convict and should take more than that, imho, to pronounce someone a killer. I think that what I am having a problem with is that other possible suspects were not eliminated. Would you believe that, if the bloody finger print belonged to someone else, Simpson should have been eliminated?

I will recheck the testimony, but I believe that blood under the fingernails was reported as a B, and not as an inconclusive B.

You can see blood on leaves. The blood on the fence was not found until sometime at a later date and I do not believe it was identified as Simpson's.

martin II

03-13-2007, 12:48 PM

Hi William,

But, there is nothing to suggest that the fingerprint belonged to anyone other than the person who was already dropping blood. That is a random scenerio. I say random because there is no evidence to lead anyone to believe that. The blood drops did indeed lead all the way out the gate and actually one was located in the back past the gate. That is very suggestive that whoever left those blood drops also left that fingerprint. That is a plausible scenario. Someone else leaving the drop is not plausible because there is no other evidence to support it.

What makes you disbelieve the evidence of the blood degrading and losing part of it's distinctive trait? Do you not believe that blood degrades? And, do you know what happens to blood when it does degrade? It makes it harder to read. Because it was degraded it was harder to read. Going from an AB to a B is not believable? There was evidence of degradation.

There was blood found on the wire behind the house where the glove was located. The rest of that trail was not concrete but leaves. So, it is understandable why blood was not found on the ground.

tazzy hi
a previous poster with DNA knowledge challanged all to prove that the A would ever completely dissapear. So are you sure it would?
martin II

tazzybaby

03-13-2007, 01:27 PM

I would agree that it is more likely than not. However, it takes more than that to convict and should take more than that, imho, to pronounce someone a killer. I think that what I am having a problem with is that other possible suspects were not eliminated. Would you believe that, if the bloody finger print belonged to someone else, Simpson should have been eliminated?

I will recheck the testimony, but I believe that blood under the fingernails was reported as a B, and not as an inconclusive B.

You can see blood on leaves. The blood on the fence was not found until sometime at a later date and I do not believe it was identified as Simpson's.

Hi William,

And, I agree that it takes more than that to pronounce someone a killer. I just believe that there was way more than that. If the bloody finger print belonged to someone else then I would believe that Simpson had an accomplice. If all the blood belonged to someone else and Simpson had no cuts I would believe he should be eliminated as a suspect.

No, the blood on the wire was found immediately. The problem was that it wasn't enough to bring into the lab and make a determination of who's blood it was. It was a preliminary test indicating blood. But, to say that there was NO evidence of anyone being back there at the time OJ was seen is not true. And, yes, you can see blood on leaves. But, they didn't. I wish they would have used luminol and maybe they could have found a drop or two. Why weren't there blood drops on Simpson's carpet going upstairs or in his bedroom? There was blood in his bathroom and blood in the foyer. I believe it's because of the floor.

Here's a little testimony.....

Q. And did you subject those fingernail scrapings to any tests?

A. Yes, we did, the PM and the DQ Alpha test.

Q. What test results did you get?

A. The test results we got were the same types as Nicole Brown's types.

A. It's a matter of how degraded the DNA was. The DNA from the foyer was in
good condition. The DNA from the driveway was not.

Q. So the location at which an evidence item is found can affect how degraded
the item would be.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Definitely.

http://walraven.org/simpson/nov13-96.html

:seeya:

tazzybaby

03-13-2007, 01:29 PM

tazzy hi
a previous poster with DNA knowledge challanged all to prove that the A would ever completely dissapear. So are you sure it would?
martin II

Where was this person when Wukong asked for the same challenge in reverse?

Yes, I am sure.

martin II

03-13-2007, 01:33 PM

Where was this person when Wukong asked for the same challenge in reverse?

Yes, I am sure.

This was another poster about two months ago.
is wukong a qualified DNA expert also?

martin II

tazzybaby

03-13-2007, 01:55 PM

This was another poster about two months ago.
is wukong a qualified DNA expert also?

martin II

Who's a qualified DNA expert? What poster are you referring to?

And, yes, Wukong definately knows what he's talking about.

William Anthony

03-13-2007, 02:14 PM

Hi William,

And, I agree that it takes more than that to pronounce someone a killer. I just believe that there was way more than that. If the bloody finger print belonged to someone else then I would believe that Simpson had an accomplice. If all the blood belonged to someone else and Simpson had no cuts I would believe he should be eliminated as a suspect.

No, the blood on the wire was found immediately. The problem was that it wasn't enough to bring into the lab and make a determination of who's blood it was. It was a preliminary test indicating blood. But, to say that there was NO evidence of anyone being back there at the time OJ was seen is not true. And, yes, you can see blood on leaves. But, they didn't. I wish they would have used luminol and maybe they could have found a drop or two. Why weren't there blood drops on Simpson's carpet going upstairs or in his bedroom? There was blood in his bathroom and blood in the foyer. I believe it's because of the floor.

Here's a little testimony.....

Q. And did you subject those fingernail scrapings to any tests?

A. Yes, we did, the PM and the DQ Alpha test.

Q. What test results did you get?

A. The test results we got were the same types as Nicole Brown's types.

A. It's a matter of how degraded the DNA was. The DNA from the foyer was in
good condition. The DNA from the driveway was not.

Q. So the location at which an evidence item is found can affect how degraded
the item would be.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Definitely.

http://walraven.org/simpson/nov13-96.html

:seeya:

Terrific TBaby,

As soon as I get a chance, I will review the testimony. The fact that they did not see blood on the leaves is evidence that there was possibly never any there. I will look into the issue of when the blood was seen on the fence. The only person known to have been alone behind Kato's quarters is the inframous MF.

tazzybaby

03-13-2007, 02:45 PM

Terrific TBaby,

As soon as I get a chance, I will review the testimony. The fact that they did not see blood on the leaves is evidence that there was possibly never any there. I will look into the issue of when the blood was seen on the fence. The only person known to have been alone behind Kato's quarters is the inframous MF.

Hi William,

I need to go back over all the testimony myself. I will also do the same. As I am sure I will need that brush up to continue with this conversation...lol

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. :tongue:

There was someone back there when Kato heard that noise. He heard the noise and saw the picture move just moments before Park saw Simpson go into his house.

martin II

03-13-2007, 03:13 PM

Hi William,

I need to go back over all the testimony myself. I will also do the same. As I am sure I will need that brush up to continue with this conversation...lol

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. :tongue:

There was someone back there when Kato heard that noise. He heard the noise and saw the picture move just moments before Park saw Simpson go into his house.

tazzy hi
i am glad you mentioned kato and the noise.

Kato and his girlfriend says the noise was heard at 10:40 10:45.pm

heidstra testified that he heard the gate slam at 10:40 and saw the white suv turn onto bundy from dorothy at 10:45.

Did oj cause the noise at 10:45 in the walkway --or was he at bundy at 10:45in the suv??

martin II

tazzybaby

03-13-2007, 03:33 PM

tazzy hi
i am glad you mentioned kato and the noise.

Kato and his girlfriend says the noise was heard at 10:40 10:45.pm

heidstra testified that he heard the gate slam at 10:40 and saw the white suv turn onto bundy from dorothy at 10:45.

Did oj cause the noise at 10:45 in the walkway --or was he at bundy at 10:45in the suv??

martin II

Hi Martin,

When they went over the phone records they found that it was 10:50 when Kato heard the noise (that can't be disputed). That was plenty of time for Heidstra to see OJ flee the scene. And, for Jill to see him visibly upset a few seconds later.

Kato from the very beginning said that he was ESTIMATING the time.

OJ was in his bronco at 10:45 (probably freaking out because of what he had just done). And, he was behind the house at 10:50. Park saw him no later than 10:52.

martin II

03-13-2007, 03:53 PM

Hi Martin,

When they went over the phone records they found that it was 10:50 when Kato heard the noise (that can't be disputed). That was plenty of time for Heidstra to see OJ flee the scene. And, for Jill to see him visibly upset a few seconds later.

Kato from the very beginning said that he was ESTIMATING the time.

OJ was in his bronco at 10:45 (probably freaking out because of what he had just done). And, he was behind the house at 10:50. Park saw him no later than 10:52.

can you direct me where these phone records . It was a local call as both were in la.

Kato estimated the time as 10:40 to 10:45 see his testimony and the testimony of his girl.

martin II

tazzybaby

03-13-2007, 04:02 PM

can you direct me where these phone records . It was a local call as both were in la.

Kato estimated the time as 10:40 to 10:45 see his testimony and the testimony of his girl.

martin II

The Limo drivers phone calls were on a cell phone and they were easily obtained. Kato (from the very beginning) said that it was a couple of minutes after the thumps that he got off the phone and went outside. That was at 10:52 and some seconds because Park saw Kato at that time. That's when Park ended his call (a few seconds after he saw kato). Kato didn't have a clock in his room. He had to guess at the time. That's why it's so valuable to have the cell records.

martin II

03-13-2007, 04:36 PM

The Limo drivers phone calls were on a cell phone and they were easily obtained. Kato (from the very beginning) said that it was a couple of minutes after the thumps that he got off the phone and went outside. That was at 10:52 and some seconds because Park saw Kato at that time. That's when Park ended his call (a few seconds after he saw kato). Kato didn't have a clock in his room. He had to guess at the time. That's why it's so valuable to have the cell records.

tazzy there were no kato phone records. read katos restimony again.

martin

martin II

03-13-2007, 04:41 PM

10::48 kato at pathway ashford side.

10:50 kato passes front door going to back pathway/garage area
and sees not lights on in front door area and no golf bag on bench
near front door.

10:52 Park on phone see oj going into front door. kato comes back from garage area see lights on and golf bag near bench.

question: if oj was going into the house for the first time when park saw him, How did the lights get turned on beween Katos first trip past the door going south and when he returned a few minutes later when he walked past the door and saw the lights on and the golf bag?

Mutually exclusive events: Dispelling prosecution myth, we know that Simpson could not have reached the entrance without Kaelin seeing him on the driveway. And certainly, he could not have opened the Rockingham gate to affect entry, without alerting Kaelin. Futher, we know that, had he entered at this time -- that is, had he returned from Bundy at this time -- it would have been impossible for him to be associated with either Kaelin's earthquake, or the glove that was found behind Kaelin's room. Even more impossible, had Simpson just arrived, he could not have turned on the entry light, which had been off when Kaelin passed three minutes earlier.]

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1472/theory02.html

tazzy
when park saw oj at 10:52 oj was returning into the house from bringing the two bags down to the front porch. not going into the house from bundy.
the proof that oj had brought the bags down is that there were there when park pulled in to the front door.
martin II

martin II

03-13-2007, 04:48 PM

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1472/analysis.html
Clark: AT THAT POINT THAT YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL, SIR, APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN ON THE PHONE WITH RACHEL FERRARA?
Kaelin: ABOUT A HALF HOUR.
Clark: AND SO APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL?
Kaelin: AT ABOUT 10:40.
Kato time estimate for noise 10:40
Based on a call made at 10:10 and ending at 10:45

26 CLARK: HOW LONG AFTER HEARING THE THUMP DID YOU --
27 HOW LONG AFTER YOU MADE THE PHONE CALL DID YOU HEAR THE
28 THUMP?
1 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?
2 KATO: WHEN I CALLED HER UP, WHEN DID I HEAR IT DURING
3 OUR CONVERSATION? HOW LONG HAD I BEEN ON?
4 CLARK: YES.
5 KATO: I'M THINKING ABOUT A HALF-HOUR.
6 CLARK: SO IT WAS A HALF-HOUR INTO THE CALL?
7 KATO: I THINK SO.
8 I THINK IN THE PHONE RECORD IT WILL SHOW.
9 CLARK: HOW LONG AFTER HEARING THE THUMP DID YOU HANG
10 UP THAT PHONE?
11 KATO: 5 MINUTES AFTER I HEARD THE THUMP.
12 IT WAS PRETTY FAST. I MEAN, WITHIN 1 TO 5
13 MINUTES.
*** Fuhrman testified time estimated as 10:45, made the morning of June 13th ***
Fuhrman: {Kaelin} SAID ABOUT 10:45 P.M. THE PREVIOUS NIGHT, I BELIEVE HE SAID HE WAS TALKING ON THE PHONE. HE SAID HE HEARD A CRASH OR A THUMP ON HIS WALL. HE THOUGHT THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN EARTHQUAKE AND HIS PICTURE SHOOK.

Q: OKAY. AND ABOUT HOW LONG AFTER YOU HAD ASKED THE TIME AND HE TOLD YOU IT WAS 10:30 DID HE DESCRIBE AN EARTHQUAKE OCCURRING?

A: AFTER 10:30?

Q: RIGHT. YOU ASKED HIM WHAT TIME IT WAS; HE SAID 10:30, CORRECT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: AT SOME POINT AFTER THAT HE DESCRIBED AN EARTHQUAKE OCCURRING?

A: UH-HUH.

Q: HOW LONG AFTER THAT TIME WHEN HE SAID IT WAS 10:30 DID HE DESCRIBE HEARING AN EARTHQUAKE?

A: APPROXIMATELY TEN MINUTES.

Q: AND HOW DID HE DESCRIBE THAT EARTHQUAKE SOUND?

A: HE SAID IT WAS A BANG.

Q: AND WHEN HE TOLD YOU ABOUT THAT, HOW DID HE SOUND?

A: HE SOUNDED CONFUSED AND STARTLED AND CONCERNED.

Q: DID HE SOUND SCARED?

Q: WAS THERE ONE PARTICULAR TIME THAT NIGHT WHEN YOU ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED WHAT TIME IT WAS DURING YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. KAELIN?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT?

A: 10:30.

Q: OKAY. AND THAT WAS HOW LONG BEFORE YOU -- HE TOLD YOU ABOUT THE BANG?

A: ABOUT TEN MINUTES BEFORE.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU ARE CERTAIN OF THAT TIME?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND WHY IS THAT?

A: UMM, JUST BECAUSE OF HOW MUCH LONGER WE TALKED.

martin II

03-13-2007, 05:45 PM

bobaugust

03-13-2007, 06:54 PM

tazzy hi

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1472/guilty.ht

"In addition, we have the testimony of Robert Heidstra, who hears Ronald Goldman confront the killer at 10:40, and sees a Jeep Cherokee, Blazer, or possibly Bronco at Bundy, at 10:45. Knowing that Detective Vannatter established the drive time is 5.5 to 6 minutes between Bundy and Rockingham -- Simpson would have arrived at approximately 10:51. He would have been just in time to run straight into Kaelin, or be seen by Park at 10:52. But, to the extent we have the eyewitness testimony that precludes Simpson from going onto the south pathway after 10:52, Simpson is precluded from dropping the glove behind Kaelin's room. And no amount of prosecutorial manipulation of times can alter that factual reality. "

CONCLUSION: The Rockingham Glove was planted.
The prime suspect is Detective Mark Fuhrman

martin II, Your conclusions are false based on your faulty method of using estimated times as specific times.

All of Heidstra's times were estimated time ranges not specific times. The only way to determine when Kaelin heard the noises on his back wall is from working backwards from the only real time we know based on telephone records. The only real known time is 10:55 PM when Allan Park saw Kaelin come from around the house to check out the noises and Simpson was first seen walking up to his front door.

Kaelin testified it took him only a few minutes after hearing the noises before he left his room and walked around the house. Subtract the time it took Kaelin to get to the front of the house after hearing the noises and we know the time Simpson scaled his fence and hit Kaelin's back wall was shortly after 10:50 PM.

November 19, 1996 Kaelin
Q. About how long of a period of time were you on the telephone with Rachel from the time you heard these noises until the time you got off?
A. About two to three minutes.
Q. And at two to three minutes, what was said?
A. To Rachel?
Q. Yes, and you.
A. I was saying to her that this noise -- that it first was an earthquake, and I was trying to convince myself that -- not to be scared. I told her, well, I'm going to check on this noise. If you don't hear from me in ten minutes, be worried. In a joking manner. And she was saying why don't you come over here, that type --
Q. She said why don't you come over here?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you say?
A. I said no, I better check on this.
Q. Was there anything else said?
A. No.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Can you recall anything else that was said other than what you have testified to thus far?
A. No.
Q. From the time you heard the noises until the time you got off?
A. No, I think that was it.
Q. Okay. Now, when you got off the phone, did you look at a watch or a clock?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Why don't you then describe again what you did when you got off the phone?
A. I went out through the -- my door.
Q. First you did what?
A. I opened the drawer.
Q. Yes.
A. And I had a flashlight.

Q. Before we get to that, during the time that you're in your room talking to Rachel about a typewriter, did you leave the room at all?
A. No.
Q. Did you see Mr. Simpson at all?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear him?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Were you looking at the clock and watch at all?
A. No.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When the noises occurred, did you look at a watch or a clock?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Now, when you got off the phone, did you look at a watch or a clock?
A. No.

Q. And approximately how long did that take from -- let me clarify the question. How long did it take from when you got off the phone with Rachel until the time that you arrived around this point right here (indicating to Exhibit)?
A. About 30 to 40 seconds.
Q. Now, when you arrived at that point, and for the record, I was pointing to where the pathway intersects the driveway, did you see anything?
A. Yes, there was the limousine at the gate.
Q. You saw a limousine at the gate?
A. Yes, I did.

bobaugust

martin II

03-14-2007, 08:07 AM

martin II, Your conclusions are false based on your faulty method of using estimated times as specific times.

All of Heidstra's times were estimated time ranges not specific times. The only way to determine when Kaelin heard the noises on his back wall is from working backwards from the only real time we know based on telephone records. The only real known time is 10:55 PM when Allan Park saw Kaelin come from around the house to check out the noises and Simpson was first seen walking up to his front door.

Kaelin testified it took him only a few minutes after hearing the noises before he left his room and walked around the house. Subtract the time it took Kaelin to get to the front of the house after hearing the noises and we know the time Simpson scaled his fence and hit Kaelin's back wall was shortly after 10:50 PM.

November 19, 1996 Kaelin
Q. About how long of a period of time were you on the telephone with Rachel from the time you heard these noises until the time you got off?
A. About two to three minutes.
Q. And at two to three minutes, what was said?
A. To Rachel?
Q. Yes, and you.
A. I was saying to her that this noise -- that it first was an earthquake, and I was trying to convince myself that -- not to be scared. I told her, well, I'm going to check on this noise. If you don't hear from me in ten minutes, be worried. In a joking manner. And she was saying why don't you come over here, that type --
Q. She said why don't you come over here?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you say?
A. I said no, I better check on this.
Q. Was there anything else said?
A. No.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Can you recall anything else that was said other than what you have testified to thus far?
A. No.
Q. From the time you heard the noises until the time you got off?
A. No, I think that was it.
Q. Okay. Now, when you got off the phone, did you look at a watch or a clock?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Why don't you then describe again what you did when you got off the phone?
A. I went out through the -- my door.
Q. First you did what?
A. I opened the drawer.
Q. Yes.
A. And I had a flashlight.

Q. Before we get to that, during the time that you're in your room talking to Rachel about a typewriter, did you leave the room at all?
A. No.
Q. Did you see Mr. Simpson at all?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear him?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Were you looking at the clock and watch at all?
A. No.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When the noises occurred, did you look at a watch or a clock?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Now, when you got off the phone, did you look at a watch or a clock?
A. No.

Q. And approximately how long did that take from -- let me clarify the question. How long did it take from when you got off the phone with Rachel until the time that you arrived around this point right here (indicating to Exhibit)?
A. About 30 to 40 seconds.
Q. Now, when you arrived at that point, and for the record, I was pointing to where the pathway intersects the driveway, did you see anything?
A. Yes, there was the limousine at the gate.
Q. You saw a limousine at the gate?
A. Yes, I did.

bobaugust

bob
katos estimate of the time he and his girl started talking and how long they had talked when he heard the noise is reasonabls and correct. Their estimates are as good as other estimes in the case.

martin II

martin II

03-14-2007, 08:09 AM

martin II, Your conclusions are false based on your faulty method of using estimated times as specific times.

All of Heidstra's times were estimated time ranges not specific times. The only way to determine when Kaelin heard the noises on his back wall is from working backwards from the only real time we know based on telephone records. The only real known time is 10:55 PM when Allan Park saw Kaelin come from around the house to check out the noises and Simpson was first seen walking up to his front door.

Kaelin testified it took him only a few minutes after hearing the noises before he left his room and walked around the house. Subtract the time it took Kaelin to get to the front of the house after hearing the noises and we know the time Simpson scaled his fence and hit Kaelin's back wall was shortly after 10:50 PM.

November 19, 1996 Kaelin
Q. About how long of a period of time were you on the telephone with Rachel from the time you heard these noises until the time you got off?
A. About two to three minutes.
Q. And at two to three minutes, what was said?
A. To Rachel?
Q. Yes, and you.
A. I was saying to her that this noise -- that it first was an earthquake, and I was trying to convince myself that -- not to be scared. I told her, well, I'm going to check on this noise. If you don't hear from me in ten minutes, be worried. In a joking manner. And she was saying why don't you come over here, that type --
Q. She said why don't you come over here?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you say?
A. I said no, I better check on this.
Q. Was there anything else said?
A. No.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Can you recall anything else that was said other than what you have testified to thus far?
A. No.
Q. From the time you heard the noises until the time you got off?
A. No, I think that was it.
Q. Okay. Now, when you got off the phone, did you look at a watch or a clock?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Why don't you then describe again what you did when you got off the phone?
A. I went out through the -- my door.
Q. First you did what?
A. I opened the drawer.
Q. Yes.
A. And I had a flashlight.

Q. Before we get to that, during the time that you're in your room talking to Rachel about a typewriter, did you leave the room at all?
A. No.
Q. Did you see Mr. Simpson at all?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear him?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Were you looking at the clock and watch at all?
A. No.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When the noises occurred, did you look at a watch or a clock?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Now, when you got off the phone, did you look at a watch or a clock?
A. No.

Q. And approximately how long did that take from -- let me clarify the question. How long did it take from when you got off the phone with Rachel until the time that you arrived around this point right here (indicating to Exhibit)?
A. About 30 to 40 seconds.
Q. Now, when you arrived at that point, and for the record, I was pointing to where the pathway intersects the driveway, did you see anything?
A. Yes, there was the limousine at the gate.
Q. You saw a limousine at the gate?
A. Yes, I did.

bobaugust

bob
read my post again and you will see that the info in the posts was not mine although i agree with it.
martin II

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 08:47 AM

Bob, thanks for the help on the phone calls.

Martin, this really isn't being disputed by anyone any more. The phone records are from Park not Kato. KATO DID NOT HAVE A CLOCK. Kato estimated ALL times. From the very beginning Kato said that he went outside after a couple of minutes. So, if Park saw Kato at 10:52 and some seconds (forgot what the actual count is) you work backward to a couple of minutes. That would put the time at around 10:50 that Kato heard the thumps.

If Heidstra heard him at 10:40 and Shively saw him at 10:45 that would put the time line at exactly the right time.

Your link proved what I am saying is right.

You also should read ALL of the testimony regarding Kato and when Park saw Kato.

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 08:48 AM

bob
katos estimate of the time he and his girl started talking and how long they had talked when he heard the noise is reasonabls and correct. Their estimates are as good as other estimes in the case.

martin II

Martin, no one has to estimate because they have Park's cell phone records. Kato didn't have a clock so we don't have to use his estimated time of 10:40. Obviously that was a wrong estimate. Once they looked at Parks cell phone records they knew the actual time

martin II

03-14-2007, 09:45 AM

Martin, no one has to estimate because they have Park's cell phone records. Kato didn't have a clock so we don't have to use his estimated time of 10:40. Obviously that was a wrong estimate. Once they looked at Parks cell phone records they knew the actual time

kato and hios girl estimeated the knocks wewre at 10:40 10:45

10:45 heidstra saw a white suv going in the opposite direciton to rockingham. venhatter says it takes 5.5 to 6 min to get from bundy to rockihnghan direct.

10:45 plus 6 minutes would put him at the rockingham GATE at 10-:51

not enough time for him to walk to the salangers properety find a spot to go through, walk out of the walkway, put items in the knapsack and walk into the house. NOT POSSIBLE.

Park saw oj walk into the house as he was RETURING to the house from putting two duffle bags on the front porch and moving the golf bag to the bench.

martin II

martin II

03-14-2007, 09:46 AM

tazzy
this was discussed in detail last week
martin II

martin II

03-14-2007, 09:50 AM

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 10:29 AM

kato and hios girl estimeated the knocks wewre at 10:40 10:45

10:45 heidstra saw a white suv going in the opposite direciton to rockingham. venhatter says it takes 5.5 to 6 min to get from bundy to rockihnghan direct.

10:45 plus 6 minutes would put him at the rockingham GATE at 10-:51

not enough time for him to walk to the salangers properety find a spot to go through, walk out of the walkway, put items in the knapsack and walk into the house. NOT POSSIBLE.

Park saw oj walk into the house as he was RETURING to the house from putting two duffle bags on the front porch and moving the golf bag to the bench.

martin II

Hi Martin,

Kato and the girl ESTIMATED the time. Once the cell phone records were looked at, that changed the time from 10:40 (an estimate only) to 10:50.

Heidstra also estimated his 10:40-10:45 time. If Shively saw him at 10:45 then Oj would have already been into his drive time to make it to Rockingham. So it wouldn't take the six minutes.

So, 10:45 plus 5 minutes is 10:50. It would only take seconds to get to the back of the property.

There was PLENTY of time. As a matter of fact, it simply sets the time line perfectly.

Park saw OJ RETURNING from the crime. OJ probably already had those bags out and ready.

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 10:31 AM

tazzy
this was discussed in detail last week
martin II

I wasn't a part of that discussion so it couldn't have been complete. :cool:

And, it was also discussed in great detail last year and the year before that.

:seeya:

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 10:32 AM

tazzy
heidstra saw the suv at 10:45 going in the opposite direction of shively. so either he is wrong or shively is wrong.
martin II

Heidstra also estimated his times. Shively had looked at a clock. So, there is only a matter of seconds of difference from Heidstra seeing the bronco leave to the time that Shively saw him.

Still within the time frame.

martin II

03-14-2007, 10:35 AM

Heidstra also estimated his times. Shively had looked at a clock. So, there is only a matter of seconds of difference from Heidstra seeing the bronco leave to the time that Shively saw him.

Still within the time frame.

not seconds minutes. remember the suv was going in the opposite diredtion.
Clarke did not believe Shivelys story and did not use.
martin II

martin II

03-14-2007, 10:37 AM

I wasn't a part of that discussion so it couldn't have been complete. :cool:

And, it was also discussed in great detail last year and the year before that.

:seeya:

tazzy hi'
I did not say it was complete.
\
I meant that some the arguments and comments have been posted and i did not see that i should have to go through ALL of the details again.

martin II

martin II

03-14-2007, 10:43 AM

Hi Martin,

Kato and the girl ESTIMATED the time. Once the cell phone records were looked at, that changed the time from 10:40 (an estimate only) to 10:50.

Heidstra also estimated his 10:40-10:45 time. If Shively saw him at 10:45 then Oj would have already been into his drive time to make it to Rockingham. So it wouldn't take the six minutes.

So, 10:45 plus 5 minutes is 10:50. It would only take seconds to get to the back of the property.

There was PLENTY of time. As a matter of fact, it simply sets the time line perfectly.

Park saw OJ RETURNING from the crime. OJ probably already had those bags out and ready.

tazzy
there is no proof that oj PROBERLY "had those bags out and ready."
you offer this excuse because the bags being there when Park pulled up to the door proves that oj brought them down while Park was doing what he was doing in and out of the limo at Ashford and did not see oj come down with the two duffle bags.

He did say he thought the person he saw had on dark clothing and then on cross , when asked if that person could have had on a black bath robe he said
'COULD HAVE' So there is no direct proof of what that AA had on.

MARTIN ii

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 10:46 AM

not seconds minutes. remember the suv was going in the opposite diredtion.
Clarke did not believe Shivelys story and did not use.
martin II

Not minutes. Have you seen a map to know how close that intersection is?

Even if you don't include Shivelys story the timeline still matches. If Heidstra saw the bronco between 10:40 to 10:45 that gives plenty of time for him to make it back by 10:50.

William Anthony

03-14-2007, 10:48 AM

tazzy
there is no proof that oj PROBERLY "had those bags out and ready."
you offer this excuse because the bags being there when Park pulled up to the door proves that oj brought them down while Park was doing what he was doing in and out of the limo at Ashford and did not see oj come down with the two duffle bags.

He did say he thought the person he saw had on dark clothing and then on cross , when asked if that person could have had on a black bath robe he said
'COULD HAVE' So there is no direct proof of what that AA had on.

MARTIN ii

Martin,

Terrific TBaby had been responding to me with plausibilities, but it seems that in some instances probabilities may be acceptable, but it would seem that possibilites are always unacceptable. I believe that it is acceptable to draw inferences of possibilities as long as the inferences are reasonable.

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 10:49 AM

tazzy hi'
I did not say it was complete.
\
I meant that some the arguments and comments have been posted and i did not see that i should have to go through ALL of the details again.

martin II

Hi Martin,

I completely understand. I have also went through every single topic on here many, many times. I have been posting here a long, long time. And, I still find myself repeating (going over and over all of the details again) the same details.

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 10:55 AM

tazzy
there is no proof that oj PROBERLY "had those bags out and ready."
you offer this excuse because the bags being there when Park pulled up to the door proves that oj brought them down while Park was doing what he was doing in and out of the limo at Ashford and did not see oj come down with the two duffle bags.

He did say he thought the person he saw had on dark clothing and then on cross , when asked if that person could have had on a black bath robe he said
'COULD HAVE' So there is no direct proof of what that AA had on.

MARTIN ii

There is no proof that he had just put them out there either. Park didn't see him set them down. Park didn't see him bring them out. They were already there when Park saw OJ.

Park only saw OJ entering the house. He didn't see him come out first and then go back in.

Park was sitting in the limo looking towards the house talking on the phone. That's how he noticed Kato. If Park saw OJ going back in then he would have seen him going out. There is nothing that "proves" that he brought those bags out at that time.

Park also said on redirect that he saw no hem swirling. It didn't look like a robe. Park was simply trying to be honest.

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 11:02 AM

Martin,

Terrific TBaby had been responding to me with plausibilities, but it seems that in some instances probabilities may be acceptable, but it would seem that possibilites are always unacceptable. I believe that it is acceptable to draw inferences of possibilities as long as the inferences are reasonable.

Hi William,

The probability that I mentioned is not offered as some type of proof or even as a definate. But, Martin said that it was proof that Simpson just put those bags out while Park was sitting there. Park (or anyone else) did not see him put those bags there so we don't know when they were put there. That's not proof one way or the other.

:)

martin II

03-14-2007, 11:17 AM

Hi William,

The probability that I mentioned is not offered as some type of proof or even as a definate. But, Martin said that it was proof that Simpson just put those bags out while Park was sitting there. Park (or anyone else) did not see him put those bags there so we don't know when they were put there. That's not proof one way or the other.

:)

tazzy

After park arrived at ASHFORD he was altenrnately standing across the street smoking a cigarette, parking the limo at the gate, getting out of the limo, ringing the buzzer, getting back into the limo, calling his mama, getting out of the limo, ringing the Buzzer, getting back into the limo. answering his cell phone.

It is not possible that he had his eyes on the front door 100% of the time so he did not see every thing that happened at the front door 100% of the time.

He did not see oj in the second or two it took for him to bring the two duffle bags down and drop them on the porch.

martin II

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 11:20 AM

tazzy

After park arrived at ASHFORD he was altenrnately standing across the street smoking a cigarette, parking the limo at the gate, getting out of the limo, ringing the buzzer, getting back into the limo, calling his mama, getting out of the limo, ringing the Buzzer, getting back into the limo. answering his cell phone.

It is not possible that he had his eyes on the front door 100% of the time so he did not see every thing that happened at the front door 100% of the time.

He did not see oj in the second or two it took for him to bring the two duffle bags down and drop them on the porch.

martin II

Martin,

He wasn't doing all of those things in the few minutes before he saw OJ. He was sitting in his car talking to his mother. He was facing the house in the drive way. He would have seen him come out the door. He only saw him go in the door.

martin II

03-14-2007, 11:23 AM

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 11:32 AM

tazzy hi

When there is no proof one way or the other as you say, that means that on that point the prosecution did not prove this point beyond a reasonable doubt. The presemption if innocence talkes over . RIGHT.

Park said he did not see the bronco when he arrived and did not see the bronco when he was 3-4 feet away from it when he left.
so as far as he is concerned the bronco was never there although we know it was. He saw two cars when we know there were only One even after he was told it was not possible for two cars to be there.

martin II

Hi Martin,

The only point that wasn't proven was when the bags were put there. Park only saw OJ entering the house. Not coming out. The part that we disagree on is the "reasonable" part. It is not reasonable to concluded that he was at home when he wasn't answering the buzzer, didn't have the lights on downstairs (even though you think he was putting his bags out), told the limo driver that he overslept then said something different later.

martin II

03-14-2007, 11:32 AM

Martin,

He wasn't doing all of those things in the few minutes before he saw OJ. He was sitting in his car talking to his mother. He was facing the house in the drive way. He would have seen him come out the door. He only saw him go in the door.

tazzy

From the time Park arrived at ASHFORD at about 10:25 or so. he was doing all that i have said he was doing. AT least he testified that those are the things that he did.

Oj could have brought those bags down at any time after he finished taking his shower until he answered the phone.

Park could not do all that he said he did and have his eyes on the front door 100 % of the time. unless he had eyes on all sided of his head.

He did not see Oj come down with the bags. Period.
martin II

martin II

03-14-2007, 11:39 AM

Martin,

He wasn't doing all of those things in the few minutes before he saw OJ. He was sitting in his car talking to his mother. He was facing the house in the drive way. He would have seen him come out the door. He only saw him go in the door.

tazzy

PARK called his mama and got dales cell nomber. he then called dale. He put his cell down and got out of the limo to buzze the gate phone. he heard his cell ringing and he got back into the limo to talk to dale. it was doing this conversation that he saw a AA walk across his line of fight.

He could not be dialing his cell phone and answering it and getting in and out of the limo and having his eyes on the front door 100% of the time.
It is not possible.
martin II

martin II

03-14-2007, 11:47 AM

There is no proof that he had just put them out there either. Park didn't see him set them down. Park didn't see him bring them out. They were already there when Park saw OJ.

Park only saw OJ entering the house. He didn't see him come out first and then go back in.

Park was sitting in the limo looking towards the house talking on the phone. That's how he noticed Kato. If Park saw OJ going back in then he would have seen him going out. There is nothing that "proves" that he brought those bags out at that time.

Park also said on redirect that he saw no hem swirling. It didn't look like a robe. Park was simply trying to be honest.

tzaay

OJ brought the bags down deposited them on the porch. went and moved the gold bags close to the bench near the front door and walked back into his house wearing what Park said 'COULD HAVE ' been a black bath robe.
This is when park saw THE AA.

martin II

martin II

03-14-2007, 12:01 PM

Hi Martin,

The only point that wasn't proven was when the bags were put there. Park only saw OJ entering the house. Not coming out. The part that we disagree on is the "reasonable" part. It is not reasonable to concluded that he was at home when he wasn't answering the buzzer, didn't have the lights on downstairs (even though you think he was putting his bags out), told the limo driver that he overslept then said something different later.

tazzy
lights were always on up stairs where oj was. if he was in the shower he would not hear the gate phone as pushing the gate buzzer did not cause some buzzer to ring in the house.It only caused the gate phone to ring.

The light from the stairway chandalier at the second flooor was enough for him to come down HIS stairs and park could not see this small inside light from where he was. Park saw the light at the front door go on as jo turned it on when he reentered his house. Also lights could have been on in the living room and park could not see it from where he was.

When he brought the two duffle bags down he could see PARK at the ashford gate so he put the bagd down moved the golf bag and returned inside and answered the phone.

martin II

martin II

03-14-2007, 12:11 PM

tazzy
remember the jury was deliberaiting and the quesition came up about what park saw and what he could not see. The jury asked for a readback of his trestimony as they disscussed what park testified to.

After this all 12 voted not guilty because they did not believe park saw all he said he saw from where he was. The jury did go to rockingham.

martin II

martin II

03-14-2007, 12:18 PM

tazzy hi

here is another issue

10::48 kato at pathway ashford side.

10:50 kato passes front door going to back pathway/garage area
and sees not lights on in front door area and no golf bag on bench
near front door.

10:52 Park on phone see oj going into front door. kato comes back from garage area see lights on and golf bag near bench.

question: if oj was going into the house for the first time when park saw him, How did the lights get turned on beween Katos first trip past the door going south and when he returned a few minutes later when he walked past the door and saw the lights on and the golf bag?

10::48 kato at pathway ashford side.

10:50 kato passes front door going to back pathway/garage area
and sees not lights on in front door area and no golf bag on bench
near front door.

10:52 Park on phone see oj going into front door. kato comes back from garage area see lights on and golf bag near bench.

question: if oj was going into the house for the first time when park saw him, How did the lights get turned on beween Katos first trip past the door going south and when he returned a few minutes later when he walked past the door and saw the lights on and the golf bag?

Mutually exclusive events: Dispelling prosecution myth, we know that Simpson could not have reached the entrance without Kaelin seeing him on the driveway. And certainly, he could not have opened the Rockingham gate to affect entry, without alerting Kaelin. Futher, we know that, had he entered at this time -- that is, had he returned from Bundy at this time -- it would have been impossible for him to be associated with either Kaelin's earthquake, or the glove that was found behind Kaelin's room. Even more impossible, had Simpson just arrived, he could not have turned on the entry light, which had been off when Kaelin passed three minutes earlier.]

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1472/theory02.html

bobaugust

03-14-2007, 12:23 PM

bob
katos estimate of the time he and his girl started talking and how long they had talked when he heard the noise is reasonabls and correct. Their estimates are as good as other estimes in the case.

martin II

martin II, no they are not reasonable and correct to determine when the noises heard. They are only guesses. The only real known time about this event is established by Allan Park's telephone records. The time of about 10:55 when Park first saw Kaelin come around the house after leaving his room to check out the noises.

The events witnesses saw establish what happened, not different guesses of what time it was when the events happened.

Using different selected time guesses from different witnesses in this case to conclude Fuhrman planted the glove is ridiculous and false.

bobaugust

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 12:28 PM

tazzy

*snip*

He did not see Oj come down with the bags. Period.
martin II

That's exactly what I've been saying. He only saw Simpson go in.

William Anthony

03-14-2007, 12:28 PM

martin II, no they are not reasonable and correct to determine when the noises heard. They are only guesses. The only real known time about this event is established by Allan Park's telephone records. The time of about 10:55 when Park first saw Kaelin come around the house after leaving his room to check out the noises.

The events witnesses saw establish what happened, not different guesses of what time it was when the events happened.

Using different selected time guesses from different witnesses in this case to conclude Fuhrman planted the glove is ridiculous and false.

bobaugust

How can this time be real-The time of about 10:55 when Park firstsaw Kaelin...?

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 12:30 PM

tzaay

OJ brought the bags down deposited them on the porch. went and moved the gold bags close to the bench near the front door and walked back into his house wearing what Park said 'COULD HAVE ' been a black bath robe.
This is when park saw THE AA.

martin II

When you say AA are you referring to OJ? Or are you trying to insinuate it could have been any AA? I just wanted to clear that up because OJ himself has said that He was the one Park saw.

And, you don't know when OJ deposited those bags on the porch. Park didn't see OJ by the bench. He saw him by the drive way. That is reasonable to conclude that he wasn't putting the bags out when Park saw him.

William Anthony

03-14-2007, 12:36 PM

When you say AA are you referring to OJ? Or are you trying to insinuate it could have been any AA? I just wanted to clear that up because OJ himself has said that He was the one Park saw.

And, you don't know when OJ deposited those bags on the porch. Park didn't see OJ by the bench. He saw him by the drive way. That is reasonable to conclude that he wasn't putting the bags out when Park saw him.

Terrific TBaby,

If you are crediting Simpson with telling the truth as to whom Park saw, then did Simpson say it was when he was putting out the bags?

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 12:37 PM

tazzy
lights were always on up stairs where oj was. if he was in the shower he would not hear the gate phone as pushing the gate buzzer did not cause some buzzer to ring in the house.It only caused the gate phone to ring.

The light from the stairway chandalier at the second flooor was enough for him to come down HIS stairs and park could not see this small inside light from where he was. Park saw the light at the front door go on as jo turned it on when he reentered his house. Also lights could have been on in the living room and park could not see it from where he was.

When he brought the two duffle bags down he could see PARK at the ashford gate so he put the bagd down moved the golf bag and returned inside and answered the phone.

martin II

Hi Martin,

I wasn't talking about the lights upstairs. I was talking about the lights downstairs. You said that he was moving his bags out the door. Why would he do that without lights? OJ didn't say he was in the living room. He said he was asleep. Oh wait, then he said later that he was in the shower (to include the robe...lol).

I think you should refresh your memory with the testimony. Because the buzzer(ring) did go off inside the house. He even had a switch that he could have let the limo driver in with in the bathroom. He would have heard the buzzer(ring). As a matter of fact, OJ said (lol) that he heard the buzzer(ring) but chose not to answer it.

OJ couldn't answer the gate because he wasn't there. When he returned from the killing Nicole and Ron he turned on the lights and answered the gate.

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 12:39 PM

Terrific TBaby,

If you are crediting Simpson with telling the truth as to whom Park saw, then did Simpson say it was when he was putting out the bags?

Hi William,

I don't credit Simpson with ANY truth telling. But, Martin does. So, then Martin should believe automatically that it was OJ. I believe it was OJ because the AA went into the house turned on the lights and then OJ answered. I do not go by what Simpson says.

:tongue:

bobaugust

03-14-2007, 12:39 PM

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 12:41 PM

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 12:44 PM

martin II

03-14-2007, 12:45 PM

martin II, you find an old article that is filled with false and misinformation and then post it here as if it has some kind of credibility. It doesn't. Garbage in, garbage out.

bobaugust

bob
this link is as credible as ANYTHING you have ever suggested happened.
Your hatred and bias against oj and the mostly black female jury has informed all that your post are not worth the energy used for the finger strokes to post the garbage you post.
martin II

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 12:47 PM

bob
this link is as credible as ANYTHING you have ever suggested happened.
Your hatred and bias against oj and the mostly black female jury has informed all that your post are not worth the energy used for the finger strokes to post the garbage you post.
martin II

Hi Martin,

The link you provided contradicts the testimony. It truly does have false information.

:shrug:

martin II

03-14-2007, 12:48 PM

Are you trying to say that the reason they voted not guilty was because of Park? That's rediculous.

:lol:

tazzy i am saying it was 10 not guilty 2 guilty. Then they requested parks testimony. after that all 12 voted not guilty. Jury membeers said park could not have seen what he said he saw from where he was.

Read the post on jury deliberaiton comments. it has been posted a few times.
martin II

William Anthony

03-14-2007, 12:53 PM

martin II, you find an old article that is filled with false and misinformation and then post it here as if it has some kind of credibility. It doesn't. Garbage in, garbage out.

bobaugust

Martin,

You should know that bobaugust is the only person, who allegedly was not there, that has the TRUTH AND THE FACTS. It now appears he has assumed the position of policeman of link credibility.

martin II

03-14-2007, 12:55 PM

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 01:15 PM

tazzy i am saying it was 10 not guilty 2 guilty. Then they requested parks testimony. after that all 12 voted not guilty. Jury membeers said park could not have seen what he said he saw from where he was.

Read the post on jury deliberaiton comments. it has been posted a few times.
martin II

Hi Martin,

This is from Brenda Moran (and her lawyer) regarding Parks testimony....

With respect to the significance of the read-back (of chauffeur Allan Park's testimony) ... the read-back was merely the result of the jurors sitting around the table, each viewing evidence that had been presented to them. And as each juror noticed information within that evidence that was troubling to them or that was of some significance or raised a question, the jurors would raise their hands and then the other jurors would assist them in trying to fret out what the actual problem was. In this case, a juror merely raised their hand with respect to the testimony of Mr. Park. But there was no great significance in the read-back of that testimony.

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9510/10-04/moran/transcript.html

martin II

03-14-2007, 01:17 PM

Martin,

You should know that bobaugust is the only person, who allegedly was not there, that has the TRUTH AND THE FACTS. It now appears he has assumed the position of policeman of link credibility.

william

He who has never been able to make his proof/web site available for professional critique is now critiquing others that have.

martin II

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 01:19 PM

tazzy hi

I have listed all the things Park said he did after he arrived at the Ashford gate. he testified to doing all i listed above.

Do you think it was possible for him to have his eyes on the front door 100% of the time if he did the things he said he did?

martin II

Martin,

What you are trying to say is that Simpson brought those bags out and set them down. While he was returning to the house Park saw him. Right? This is what you are saying.

So.....what Park did when he very first got there is not the issue. What he did the entire time he was there is not the issue. What he did right before he saw Simpson enter the house is the issue. He was sitting in his limo facing the house. No, he wasn't looking the entire time. He did have to dial. But, he was being conscience of what was going on because he was looking for life at the house so he could complete his job. I believe if OJ would have came out and deposited those bags right before Park saw him enter then he would have seen him on the way out. OJ just seemed to appear in the drive way.

martin II

03-14-2007, 01:27 PM

weezer

03-14-2007, 01:33 PM

tazzy

Before the read baCK the vote was 10 not guilty and 2 guilty. after the readback the vote was 12 not guilty.
Other jurors said park could not have seen what he said he saw.

Did park do what he said he did and have his eyes on the front door 100% of the time. that is the question.

martin II

Park was watching for orenthal -- he would have noticed movement at the front door just like he noticed orenthal moving on the driveway

bobaugust

03-14-2007, 01:38 PM

bob
this link is as credible as ANYTHING you have ever suggested happened.
Your hatred and bias against oj and the mostly black female jury has informed all that your post are not worth the energy used for the finger strokes to post the garbage you post.
martin II

martin II, that's funny. Even you should have seen that the times in the article and what the author wrote Kaelin did are incorrect.

bobaugust

tazzybaby

03-14-2007, 01:50 PM

tazzy

Before the read baCK the vote was 10 not guilty and 2 guilty. after the readback the vote was 12 not guilty.
Other jurors said park could not have seen what he said he saw.

Did park do what he said he did and have his eyes on the front door 100% of the time. that is the question.

martin II

It wasn't because of the readback that they changed their votes.

What was park doing in the FEW SECONDS before he saw OJ?

bobaugust

03-14-2007, 01:59 PM

How can this time be real-The time of about 10:55 when Park firstsaw Kaelin...?

The real question is why am I surprised you would even ask this question, William?

Allan Park testified that when he was on the telephone talking to his boss he saw Kaelin with a flashlight come from around the house. Almost simultaneously he saw Simpson walk from his driveway into the light of the front entrance and enter his house. We know the time of this event based on Park's telephone records. Not to the exact second but about 10:55.

March 28, 1995 Allan Park

Q HOW LONG -- NOW, AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU SAW KATO KAELIN IN THE SIDE YARD,
DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE?
A YES. I SAW A FIGURE COME DOWN -- WELL, NOT COME DOWN, BUT I SAW A FIGURE COME
INTO THE ENTRANCEWAY OF THE HOUSE JUST ABOUT WHERE THE -- WHERE THE DRIVEWAY
STARTS.
*
Q HOW LONG AFTER YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING GO INTO THE HOUSE DID YOU CONTINUE TO TALK TO DALE ST. JOHN?
A OH, IT WAS JUST ANYWHERE BETWEEN TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS. IT WASN'T VERY LONG.
Q OKAY.
SO ON THE PHONE BILL IN FRONT OF YOU, SIR, ON THAT LAST CALL WHERE IT INDICATES 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS, DOES IT INDICATE HOW LONG THE PHONE CALL WAS FOR, THE DURATION OF THE CALL?
A UMM, YES, TWO MINUTES AND 55 SECONDS.
Q OKAY. DOES THAT COMPORT WITH YOUR MEMORY OF THE LENGTH OF THE PHONE CALL?
A YES.
Q AND SO YOU WOULD HAVE HUNG UP WITH HIM AT 10:55 AND 12 SECONDS?
A YES.
Q AND IT WAS WITHIN THE LAST TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS OF THAT CALL AT 10 -- OF ENDING THAT CALL AT 10:55 THAT YOU SAW THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON GO INTO THE ENTRANCE?
A YES.

bobaugust

bobaugust

03-14-2007, 02:17 PM

Martin,

You should know that bobaugust is the only person, who allegedly was not there, that has the TRUTH AND THE FACTS. It now appears he has assumed the position of policeman of link credibility.

William, I as well as other posters on this discussion group who are informed as to what witnesses testified to are more than capable of recognizing mistaken and false information written in articles or posted on this discussion group. The article that martin posted was one of many written by William Schreck. I had many conversations with Schreck pointing out his many errors and false and misinformation years ago. The fact that he never corrected this false information and it still appears some ten years later doesn't make it make any more credible now than when he first wrote it.

bobaugust

martin II

03-14-2007, 05:10 PM

Martin,

What you are trying to say is that Simpson brought those bags out and set them down. While he was returning to the house Park saw him. Right? This is what you are saying.

So.....what Park did when he very first got there is not the issue. What he did the entire time he was there is not the issue. What he did right before he saw Simpson enter the house is the issue. He was sitting in his limo facing the house. No, he wasn't looking the entire time. He did have to dial. But, he was being conscience of what was going on because he was looking for life at the house so he could complete his job. I believe if OJ would have came out and deposited those bags right before Park saw him enter then he would have seen him on the way out. OJ just seemed to appear in the drive way.

tazzy

When Park was dialing his mama's cell he was not looking at the front door.
(oj putting on black bath robe)

When he dialed Dale'S number he was not looking at the front door.
(oj comming down with two bags)

When he got out to walk to the buzzer he was looking where he was going and at the buzzer. he was not looking at the front door.
(oj arrives at the porch with two bags)

When he was buzzing he was looking at the buzzer not the front door.

When he heard the cell in the limo ring he turned and walked to the limo, go in and picked up the cell. He was not looking at the front door.
(oj drops the golf bag on the bench and walks towards the front door)

When he was talking to Dale he was looking at the area in his view and for a second saw a person walk across his line of sight in front of the front door.
(oj walks into the front door.)
martin II

martin II

03-14-2007, 05:16 PM

William, I as well as other posters on this discussion group who are informed as to what witnesses testified to are more than capable of recognizing mistaken and false information written in articles or posted on this discussion group. The article that martin posted was one of many written by William Schreck. I had many conversations with Schreck pointing out his many errors and false and misinformation years ago. The fact that he never corrected this false information and it still appears some ten years later doesn't make it make any more credible now than when he first wrote it.

bobaugust

bob
first you had conversations with Wagner and corrected him. Then you had conversaitons with Dr. Henry Lee and you corrected him. Then you had conversaitons with William Schreck and corrected him.

The prosecution could have used you in the case to impeach all of the defense witnesses and maby won the case.:beer:

martinII

martin II

03-14-2007, 05:25 PM

Hi Martin,

This is from Brenda Moran (and her lawyer) regarding Parks testimony....

With respect to the significance of the read-back (of chauffeur Allan Park's testimony) ... the read-back was merely the result of the jurors sitting around the table, each viewing evidence that had been presented to them. And as each juror noticed information within that evidence that was troubling to them or that was of some significance or raised a question, the jurors would raise their hands and then the other jurors would assist them in trying to fret out what the actual problem was. In this case, a juror merely raised their hand with respect to the testimony of Mr. Park. But there was no great significance in the read-back of that testimony.

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9510/10-04/moran/transcript.html

tazzy
Brenda Moran's and other jurors comments.

the crininal trial jury

Panelist Brenda Moran doesn't think they decided a moment too soon.

"We've taken this case serious for nine months," she told reporters Oct. 4, 1995, the day after Simpson's acquittal was announced. "It didn't take us nine more months to figure it out. We're not that ignorant."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 10 a.m., Cryer told the Los Angeles Times, they took a straw vote. It was 10-2 in favor of acquittal. One of the two negative votes came from a 61-year-old white woman, Anise Aschenbach, who would later tearfully say that while Simpson may be guilty, the evidence didn't prove it.

The other dissenter has not been identified.

When deliberations began, everyone spoke at once, said Sheila Woods, a 39-year-old health inspector.

"I guess they were so full over the nine months with things to say, that everyone just started kind of talking at the same time," Woods said in an ABC "Nightline" interview broadcast Sept. 29, 1995.

After the straw vote, some questions were still unresolved. Forewoman Amanda Cooley, 51, sent a note asking for the testimony of limo driver Allan Park to be read back.

Among the questions that jurors said troubled them:

Where, exactly, did Park see a shadowy figure at Simpson's estate?
What was that unidentified person wearing?
How many cars were in the driveway?
While waiting for the reading, they voted again. Now it was unanimous. As for the initial holdouts, Woods said, "I think what they did, they listened to the other 10 explain why they thought there was reasonable doubt, and then in the next vote, it was a 12 unanimous not guilty (decision)."

The volatile issues of racism and domestic violence did not sway them, Woods said.

----------------------------------------------------

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.htm

martin II

bobaugust

03-14-2007, 05:53 PM

bob
first you had conversations with Wagner and corrected him. Then you had conversaitons with Dr. Henry Lee and you corrected him. Then you had conversaitons with William Schreck and corrected him.

The prosecution could have used you in the case to impeach all of the defense witnesses and maby won the case.:beer:

martinII

martin II, I've never said I had any conversation with Dr. Lee, but for many years before I began posting on this discussion group I have corresponded and had conversations with many people who have written about this case suggesting the killer was someone other than Simpson. Every one of those other killer theories were based on false and information just like the Schreck article you posted.

If the prosecution had the time to properly put this case together and knew about all the information and evidence that became known after the criminal trial there is no doubt in my mind they would have won it.

bobaugust

bobaugust

03-14-2007, 05:59 PM

tazzy
Brenda Moran's and other jurors comments.

the crininal trial jury

Panelist Brenda Moran doesn't think they decided a moment too soon.

"We've taken this case serious for nine months," she told reporters Oct. 4, 1995, the day after Simpson's acquittal was announced. "It didn't take us nine more months to figure it out. We're not that ignorant."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 10 a.m., Cryer told the Los Angeles Times, they took a straw vote. It was 10-2 in favor of acquittal. One of the two negative votes came from a 61-year-old white woman, Anise Aschenbach, who would later tearfully say that while Simpson may be guilty, the evidence didn't prove it.

The other dissenter has not been identified.

When deliberations began, everyone spoke at once, said Sheila Woods, a 39-year-old health inspector.

"I guess they were so full over the nine months with things to say, that everyone just started kind of talking at the same time," Woods said in an ABC "Nightline" interview broadcast Sept. 29, 1995.

After the straw vote, some questions were still unresolved. Forewoman Amanda Cooley, 51, sent a note asking for the testimony of limo driver Allan Park to be read back.

Among the questions that jurors said troubled them:

Where, exactly, did Park see a shadowy figure at Simpson's estate?
What was that unidentified person wearing?
How many cars were in the driveway?
While waiting for the reading, they voted again. Now it was unanimous. As for the initial holdouts, Woods said, "I think what they did, they listened to the other 10 explain why they thought there was reasonable doubt, and then in the next vote, it was a 12 unanimous not guilty (decision)."

The volatile issues of racism and domestic violence did not sway them, Woods said.

----------------------------------------------------

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.htm

martin II

Some more fine examples of how ignorant the criminal trial jurors were.

bobaugust

martin II

03-14-2007, 06:06 PM

Some more fine examples of how ignorant the criminal trial jurors were.

bobaugust

bob
The jury was smarter than you as you think the prosecution proved their case. But we also know that you have a serious biased against oj,JC and the black jury. But i don't think they care.
martin II

martin II

03-14-2007, 06:12 PM

martin II, I've never said I had any conversation with Dr. Lee, but for many years before I began posting on this discussion group I have corresponded and had conversations with many people who have written about this case suggesting the killer was someone other than Simpson. Every one of those other killer theories were based on false and information just like the Schreck article you posted.

If the prosecution had the time to properly put this case together and knew about all the information and evidence that became known after the criminal trial there is no doubt in my mind they would have won it.

bobaugust

bob

The prosecution put their case on when they thought they had all the mountians of evidence. At least that is what they told the public. If they them got into the middle of the case and found that they were wrong and needed more evidence. They should have dropped the charges instead of letting the world see how stupid and inneffective they were.
you cannot blame the jury or the defense for the prosecutions blunders.
imo
martin

2L8 4A D8

03-14-2007, 07:30 PM

Hi Martin,

I completely understand. I have also went through every single topic on here many, many times. I have been posting here a long, long time. And, I still find myself repeating (going over and over all of the details again) the same details.

Tazzy, I can only hope that you and Bob will eventually get tired of all of this babysitting of the kindergarten class of OJ Simpson 101 and will just STOP! We've lost so many good Posters that have just given up trying to understand these people. :shrug:

They don't care what you have to say, nor do they believe anything that you have to say. Just like we don't care what they have to say, nor do we believe anything that they have to say! However, we are at least credible!

JMO and MOO!!

bobaugust

03-14-2007, 07:37 PM

bob
The jury was smarter than you as you think the prosecution proved their case. But we also know that you have a serious biased against oj,JC and the black jury. But i don't think they care.
martin II

martin II, the criminal trial was not smart at all, they fell for every fantasy the defense spun for them the same as you have. No I have no bias against Simpson, Cochran, or the criminal trial jury, I see them as who and what they are not the fairy tales that you wish them to be.

Simpson is a killer.
Cochran used race and fantasies to deceive the jury.
And the criminal trial jury used foolish excuses to acquit Simpson.

bobaugust

William Anthony

03-14-2007, 07:54 PM

sassylassy

03-14-2007, 08:07 PM

Hi Sassy,

We can't talk to Kato to ask him if he was mad at OJ but we can look at behavior. The fact is seeing it happen. Especially knowing how loyal Akita's are to their owners. You would think that the Akita would be extra glad to see OJ after what happened to it's other owner.

:shrug:

if only dogs could speak huh! :beer: we would not be having this convo!

I personally didnt see the footage of how Kato acted, but I did see footage of OJS coming out of the truck... & the scene was complete choas!

so this doesnt really strike me as the type of scene that would make a dog happliy wag his tail to begin with....

IMO MOO

sassylassy

03-14-2007, 08:13 PM

The loyalty and devotion displayed by an Akita is phenomenal. The typical pet Akita will follow you from room to room, yet has the uncanny ability not to be underfoot. Your Akita lives his life as if his only purpose is to protect you and spend time with you.
Extremely loyal to it's owners. So, for it to bark at OJ should be highly out of the ordinary.

some great points !

if this breed is so off the charts Extremly loyal, why would he not forgive OJS

and if the Akita's only purpose is to protect you, why didnt he die fighting for Nicole?:shrug:

martin II

03-14-2007, 08:24 PM

martin II, the criminal trial was not smart at all, they fell for every fantasy the defense spun for them the same as you have. No I have no bias against Simpson, Cochran, or the criminal trial jury, I see them as who and what they are not the fairy tales that you wish them to be.

Simpson is a killer.
Cochran used race and fantasies to deceive the jury.
And the criminal trial jury used foolish excuses to acquit Simpson.

bobaugust

oj is not a killer.
The prosecution played the first race card when they put c darden at their table.
The prosecution gave the jury a case full of holes and did nor prove their case
beyond a reasonable doubt.
martin II

martin II

03-14-2007, 08:28 PM

tazzy hi
if this is true then who was the dog barking at? answer. the killers as they left.

"So, for it to bark at OJ should be highly out of the ordinary".

martin II

martin II

03-14-2007, 08:30 PM

if only dogs could speak huh! :beer: we would not be having this convo!

I personally didnt see the footage of how Kato acted, but I did see footage of OJS coming out of the truck... & the scene was complete choas!

so this doesnt really strike me as the type of scene that would make a dog happliy wag his tail to begin with....

IMO MOO

sassy hi
You are correct. oj was taken out of the bronco directly into his house and then to jail. No time for the dog to show or do anything to him as the yard was full of cops.

martin II

martin II

03-14-2007, 08:36 PM

Why? There goes that bird with the juke box. again.

william
It sound like bob is saying two things:

1, The prosecution did not have time to put their case togeather properly,
therefore that presented a incomplete case.

2. They needed more evidence than they had in order to get a guilty verdict.

So he is agreeing with the jury that the case was weak and lacked enough evidence to convict.
martin ii

bobaugust

03-14-2007, 09:11 PM

oj is not a killer.
The prosecution played the first race card when they put c darden at their table.
The prosecution gave the jury a case full of holes and did nor prove their case
beyond a reasonable doubt.
martin II

martin II, Simpson was proven to be a liar and a killer in the civil trial.

Adding Darden to the prosecution case was not playing any race card. The defense used the race card arguing that evidence was planted because Simpson was a black man. They used race in their arguments to inflame and deceive the predominately black jury, even going so far as to change photographs and pictures in Simpson's house of his white friends to photographs and pictures of black people for the jury to see.

The prosecution gave the jury reasonable explanations which they were either not intellectually capable of understanding or willing to accept. The criminal trial jury was looking for excuses to acquit Simpson and Simpson's defense gave them what they wanted. Nothing but imaginary foolish excuses.

bobaugust

martin II

03-14-2007, 09:20 PM

martin II, Simpson was proven to be a liar and a killer in the civil trial.

Adding Darden to the prosecution case was not playing any race card. The defense used the race card arguing that evidence was planted because Simpson was a black man. They used race in their arguments to inflame and deceive the predominately black jury, even going so far as to change photographs and pictures in Simpson's house of his white friends to photographs and pictures of black people for the jury to see.

The prosecution gave the jury reasonable explanations which they were either not intellectually capable of understanding or willing to accept. The criminal trial jury was looking for excuses to acquit Simpson and Simpson's defense gave them what they wanted. Nothing but imaginary foolish excuses.

bobaugust

bob
considering the biase you hold for the kind of people that were on the jury and knowing that you were not on the jury or in the court room form 9 months as they were, i can understand why you are not able to see the truth of this case.However i consider it disrespectful that you call the jury members ignorant and uneducated.
martin II
martin II

bobaugust

03-14-2007, 09:24 PM

tazzy hi
if this is true then who was the dog barking at? answer. the killers as they left.

"So, for it to bark at OJ should be highly out of the ordinary".

martin II

martin II, the Akita was barking at Simpson. It started to bark when Simpson encountered Nicole and continued to bark when Simpson killed Ron Goldman, when Simpson killed Nicole, and even after Simpson sped away from Bundy.

bobaugust

martin II

03-14-2007, 09:25 PM

So am I understanding this correctly: Martin, you think OJ is innocent? Am I correct? Please fill me in!

BO

I believe that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law and i don't belive that it was proven that oj simpson
killed anyone.
I do believe that the 10 black and two white jurors did not vote not guilty because oj was black.
martin II

sassylassy

03-14-2007, 09:33 PM

sassylassy

03-14-2007, 09:36 PM

sassy hi
You are correct. oj was taken out of the bronco directly into his house and then to jail. No time for the dog to show or do anything to him as the yard was full of cops.

martin II

I agree. I am sure the dog was stressed out & still messed up from the murders.:shrug:

was the dog on a leash?

okay logging off now- see ya all later :seeya:

bobaugust

03-14-2007, 09:38 PM

bob
considering the biase you hold for the kind of people that were on the jury and knowing that you were not on the jury or in the court room form 9 months as they were, i can understand why you are not able to see the truth of this case.However i consider it disrespectful that you call the jury members ignorant and uneducated.
martin II
martin II

martin II, considering your obvious bias against LE it's understandable how you can't except the proven simple truth that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. So you look for any excuse you can to deny this reality.

bobaugust

martin II

03-14-2007, 09:53 PM

martin II, considering your obvious bias against LE it's understandable how you can't except the proven simple truth that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. So you look for any excuse you can to deny this reality.

bobaugust

bob
i understand that you will never believe that le do plant evidence and lie on the witness stand. But that is your problem not mine.
martin II

bobaugust

03-14-2007, 10:12 PM

bob
i understand that you will never believe that le do plant evidence and lie on the witness stand. But that is your problem not mine.
martin II

martin II, no it's not my problem at all it yours. The fact is that there was no evidence planted in this case and the only lie told by a detective was meaningless and completely irrelevant to any evidence or the defendant's guilt or innocence.

The fact is it was the defendant who told numerous lies all relating to the evidence and the murders, not the police.

bobaugust

martin II

03-14-2007, 11:42 PM

martin II, no it's not my problem at all it yours. The fact is that there was no evidence planted in this case and the only lie told by a detective was meaningless and completely irrelevant to any evidence or the defendant's guilt or innocence.

The fact is it was the defendant who told numerous lies all relating to the evidence and the murders, not the police.

bobaugust

bob
all testimony is relevant and a lie on the stand in not meaninless.
martin II

2L8 4A D8

03-15-2007, 01:46 AM

bob
considering the biase you hold for the kind of people that were on the jury and knowing that you were not on the jury or in the court room form 9 months as they were, i can understand why you are not able to see the truth of this case.However i consider it disrespectful that you call the jury members ignorant and uneducated.
martin II
martin II

You also were not in the Courtroom for 9 months and even if you were, you still wouldn't see the truth of this case! I also consider it disrespectful regarding the filthy and disgusting things that you have posted about Nicole and Fred Goldman on these Threads! And again, sorry if the truth hurts you about the Jurors!

JMO and MOO!!

tazzybaby

03-15-2007, 08:26 AM

tazzy

When Park was dialing his mama's cell he was not looking at the front door.
(oj putting on black bath robe)

When he dialed Dale'S number he was not looking at the front door.
(oj comming down with two bags)

When he got out to walk to the buzzer he was looking where he was going and at the buzzer. he was not looking at the front door.
(oj arrives at the porch with two bags)

When he was buzzing he was looking at the buzzer not the front door.

When he heard the cell in the limo ring he turned and walked to the limo, go in and picked up the cell. He was not looking at the front door.
(oj drops the golf bag on the bench and walks towards the front door)

When he was talking to Dale he was looking at the area in his view and for a second saw a person walk across his line of sight in front of the front door.
(oj walks into the front door.)
martin II

Hi Martin,

What you are not taking into consideration is that he was already into this conversation almost a minute before he saw Simpson. So, he was looking at the house telling them that he couldn't get an answer at the house.

When Park saw OJ he was on the drive way. Why? That's past the bench.

William Anthony

03-15-2007, 08:31 AM

william
It sound like bob is saying two things:

1, The prosecution did not have time to put their case togeather properly,
therefore that presented a incomplete case.

2. They needed more evidence than they had in order to get a guilty verdict.

So he is agreeing with the jury that the case was weak and lacked enough evidence to convict.
martin ii

Martin,

He is also agreeing with JC in that there was a rush to judgment.

tazzybaby

03-15-2007, 08:33 AM

tazzy
*snip*
While waiting for the reading, they voted again. Now it was unanimous. As for the initial holdouts, Woods said, "I think what they did, they listened to the other 10 explain why they thought there was reasonable doubt, and then in the next vote, it was a 12 unanimous not guilty (decision)."

*snip*

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

martin II

Hi Martin,

You do see where it says....."while waiting for the reading". That means they didn't even have Park's testimony read back before they took the next vote.

tazzybaby

03-15-2007, 08:37 AM

Tazzy, I can only hope that you and Bob will eventually get tired of all of this babysitting of the kindergarten class of OJ Simpson 101 and will just STOP! We've lost so many good Posters that have just given up trying to understand these people. :shrug:

They don't care what you have to say, nor do they believe anything that you have to say. Just like we don't care what they have to say, nor do we believe anything that they have to say! However, we are at least credible!

JMO and MOO!!

Hi 2L8,

I know it frustrates you. But sometimes the frustration of incorrect postings and information compells me to post.

:seeya:

tazzybaby

03-15-2007, 08:39 AM

if only dogs could speak huh! :beer: we would not be having this convo!

I personally didnt see the footage of how Kato acted, but I did see footage of OJS coming out of the truck... & the scene was complete choas!

so this doesnt really strike me as the type of scene that would make a dog happliy wag his tail to begin with....

IMO MOO

Hi Sassy,

I agree! Poor Kato. I think he was really distraught!

But, you would think that seeing OJ would be a comfort or a relief to the dog. Especially knowing how loyal they are to their owners.

:shrug:

tazzybaby

03-15-2007, 08:44 AM

some great points !

if this breed is so off the charts Extremly loyal, why would he not forgive OJS

and if the Akita's only purpose is to protect you, why didnt he die fighting for Nicole?:shrug:

Hi Sassy,

IMO I believe the dog did forgive OJ. But, the last time the dog saw OJ (before the meeting we're speaking of) he was hurting his other owner. I'm sure that is confusing for a dog. Especially one of that loyality.

How confused the dog must have been to try and decide what to do. His wails and barking IMO show that he was "freaking out". The Akita's barking was never described as attacking or growling. IMO that really points to OJ. I believe that the dog would have attacked someone that was not his owner.

tazzybaby

03-15-2007, 08:47 AM

tazzy hi
if this is true then who was the dog barking at? answer. the killers as they left.

"So, for it to bark at OJ should be highly out of the ordinary".

martin II

Hi Martin,

No, if it would have been someone besides another owner there would have been growling and attacking as they are so loyal. I would expect that barking and wailing would be the confusion of the dog because one owner was attacking the other owner.

William Anthony

03-15-2007, 11:39 AM

Hi Martin,

No, if it would have been someone besides another owner there would have been growling and attacking as they are so loyal. I would expect that barking and wailing would be the confusion of the dog because one owner was attacking the other owner.

Terrific TBaby,

I see the barking and wailing as a sign of the death of the master. If what has been posted is true, then the dog would have attacked in silence, regardless of who the attacker was.

martin II

03-15-2007, 11:49 AM

Terrific TBaby,

I see the barking and wailing as a sign of the death of the master. If what has been posted is true, then the dog would have attacked in silence, regardless of who the attacker was.

william
i think that when the dog, from the kids room realized that Nicole had not returned to the house, came out to investigate, the killers were gone.
Some people in their efforts to conjure up information to tell themselves that oj was guilty are now reading human reasoning into that actions of a dog.

The Akita may have been very smart and loyal but it was not human.
martinII

William Anthony

03-15-2007, 11:55 AM

william
i think that when the dog, from the kids room realized that Nicole had not returned to the house, came out to investigate, the killers were gone.
Some people in their efforts to conjure up information to tell themselves that oj was guilty are now reading human reasoning into that actions of a dog.

The Akita may have been very smart and loyal but it was not human.
martinII

Martin.

It would seem, by the posts of some, that the dog was super-human, in that it stopped following Simpson when the dog discerned he was going the wrong way, or was cognizant of the fact it could not catch the car of the killer.

martin II

03-15-2007, 12:03 PM

Martin.

It would seem, by the posts of some, that the dog was super-human, in that it stopped following Simpson when the dog discerned he was going the wrong way, or was cognizant of the fact it could not catch the car of the killer.

william
bob believes that oj opened the gate to let the dog out as he and nicole had a conversation in the front yard before oj pulled out the knife and slit her neck.
I guess this dog may have thought " this conmversation is getting heated, i had better leave before i get hurt"

hahaha
martin II

William Anthony

03-15-2007, 12:07 PM

william
bob believes that oj opened the gate to let the dog out as he and nicole had a conversation in the front yard before oj pulled out the knife and slit her neck.
I guess this dog may have thought " this conmversation is getting heated, i had better leave before i get hurt"

hahaha
martin II

Martin,

I cannot buy into bobuagust's theory, because I believe the dog would have found a phone booth and dialed 911.

martin II

03-15-2007, 02:27 PM

Martin,

I cannot buy into bobuagust's theory, because I believe the dog would have found a phone booth and dialed 911.

WILLIAM
The dog would have called BOB before 911 to give him a heads up on what he had just witnesses.
martin II

bobaugust

03-15-2007, 02:38 PM

Martin,

He is also agreeing with JC in that there was a rush to judgment.

No there was no rush to judgment. The simple fact is that when the defense asked for a speedy trial it was a tactic that worked against the prosecution limiting the amount of time they had to prepare their case. Based on the huge amount of evidence in this case it resulted in a great handicap for the prosecutors. New evidence was still becoming known even a year and half later during the civil trial.

bobaugust

bobaugust

03-15-2007, 02:49 PM

Martin.

It would seem, by the posts of some, that the dog was super-human, in that it stopped following Simpson when the dog discerned he was going the wrong way, or was cognizant of the fact it could not catch the car of the killer.

That's funny. The Akita may have gone towards the Bronco when it saw the vehicle stopped or slowed at the intersection but was smart enough not to run after it when it turned and sped away. That doesn't make the dog super-human only dog smart.

bobaugust

martin II

03-15-2007, 02:52 PM

No there was no rush to judgment. The simple fact is that when the defense asked for a speedy trial it was a tactic that worked against the prosecution limiting the amount of time they had to prepare their case. Based on the huge amount of evidence in this case it resulted in a great handicap for the prosecutors. New evidence was still becoming known even a year and half later during the civil trial.

bobaugust

bob
so the prosecution did not know how to try the case. so they just rushed to judgerment
martin II

William Anthony

03-15-2007, 02:53 PM

That's funny. The Akita may have gone towards the Bronco when it saw the vehicle stopped or slowed at the intersection but was smart enough not to run after it when it turned and sped away. That doesn't make the dog super-human only dog smart.

bobaugust

Dogs must be smarter than humans who have not learned that they can spend their lives chasing things that, even if they catch them, will not change what they are.

bobaugust

03-15-2007, 02:58 PM

william
i think that when the dog, from the kids room realized that Nicole had not returned to the house, came out to investigate, the killers were gone.
Some people in their efforts to conjure up information to tell themselves that oj was guilty are now reading human reasoning into that actions of a dog.

The Akita may have been very smart and loyal but it was not human.
martinII

martin II, trace evidence contradicts Wagner's theory that you have adopted that the dog was in the kids room sleeping and never encountered the killer.

A number of fur hairs from the Akita were found on the killer's right hand glove that Simpson dropped behind Kaelin's room.

bobaugust

William Anthony

03-15-2007, 03:02 PM

martin II, trace evidence contradicts Wagner's theory that you have adopted that the dog was in the kids room sleeping and never encountered the killer.

A number of fur hairs from the Akita were found on the killer's right hand glove that Simpson dropped behind Kaelin's room.

bobaugust

Correction, that the killer dropped or that the MF possibly left behind Kato's quarters.

socaldiva

03-15-2007, 03:05 PM

william
bob believes that oj opened the gate to let the dog out as he and nicole had a conversation in the front yard before oj pulled out the knife and slit her neck.
I guess this dog may have thought " this conmversation is getting heated, i had better leave before i get hurt"

hahaha
martin II

If you knew anything about dogs, you would know that the vast majority of them (if not all) would go out an open gate. Dogs love to go out & roam free. :rolleyes:

William Anthony

03-15-2007, 03:07 PM

Martin,

The key phrase in your other post is "bob believes">

bobaugust

03-15-2007, 03:12 PM

Correction, that the killer dropped or that the MF possibly left behind Kato's quarters.

Correction that the killer Simpson dropped when he hit Kaelin's back wall jumping from the top of his fence to the south path to enter his estate after returning from Bundy.

bobaugust

William Anthony

03-15-2007, 03:15 PM

Correction that the killer Simpson dropped when he hit Kaelin's back wall jumping from the top of his fence to the south path to enter his estate after returning from Bundy.

bobaugust

Correction, the killer, who is still at large dropped, since no one has been convicted or that the MF left there on his return from Bundy.

bobaugust

03-15-2007, 03:15 PM

Martin,

The key phrase in your other post is "bob believes">

No, the key phrase is what martin thinks I believe, not what I believe.

bobaugust

William Anthony

03-15-2007, 03:18 PM

No, the key phrase is what martin thinks I believe, not what I believe.

bobaugust

We can reach a point of concensus if your post means that what you believe is irrelevant and immaterial to proving Simpson guilty.

bobaugust

03-15-2007, 04:03 PM

Correction, the killer, who is still at large dropped, since no one has been convicted or that the MF left there on his return from Bundy.

Correction, Simpson was proved to be a liar and the killer in the civil trial. It was impossible for Fuhrman to have planted the glove since Simpson left only one glove at Bundy.

bobaugust

bobaugust

03-15-2007, 04:10 PM

We can reach a point of concensus if your post means that what you believe is irrelevant and immaterial to proving Simpson guilty.

What we can reach a consensus of is when martin posted what he thinks I believe, he was incorrect.

bobaugust

martin II

03-15-2007, 04:11 PM

No, the key phrase is what martin thinks I believe, not what I believe.

bobaugust

bob
you do believe that oj let the dog out the gate as he was having a conversation with nicole in the front yard? At least that is what you have stated in the past.
martin II

martin II

03-15-2007, 04:14 PM

Correction that the killer Simpson dropped when he hit Kaelin's back wall jumping from the top of his fence to the south path to enter his estate after returning from Bundy.

bobaugust

bob
oj could not have been at Katos wall at 10:45 the time Kato said he heard the knocks because heidstra said he saw the white suv at bundy at 10:45

martin II

martin II

03-15-2007, 06:19 PM

That's exactly what I've been saying. He only saw Simpson go in.

TAZZY HI

Just because park did not see oj come down with the two bags does not mean that oj did not come down with the bags.
I have already posted all that park said he did, and it is impossible that he did all of this and had his eyes on the front door 100% of the time.

So my conclusion is--Oj brought the bags dowm when park was getting out of the limo,buzzing, dialing his mama or dale and getting back into the limo.
martin II

martin II

03-15-2007, 06:21 PM

martin II, trace evidence contradicts Wagner's theory that you have adopted that the dog was in the kids room sleeping and never encountered the killer.

A number of fur hairs from the Akita were found on the killer's right hand glove that Simpson dropped behind Kaelin's room.

bobaugust

bob
can you direct me to the testimony FROM LAB tech that hairs from this dog were found on a GLOVE??

MARTIN ii

bobaugust

03-15-2007, 06:40 PM

bob
can you direct me to the testimony FROM LAB tech that hairs from this dog were found on a GLOVE??

MARTIN ii

martin II, no I can't give you a link, but when I get a chance I will search witness testimony regarding hair and fibers.

I have a list of all the hair and fiber evidence found on the evidence in this case from a web page I took off the net years ago which is no longer available. I have posted the list previously in discussions here. If you wish I can post it again or I can put it on my web site and provide you the link.

Not only was the Akita's hair found on the Rockingham glove, a "guard hair" from the Akita was found on the glove at Bundy. As well a number of the Akita's hairs were found on the knit cap and on Ron Goldman's shirt, shoes, and pants.

bobaugust

bobaugust

03-15-2007, 06:58 PM

bob
oj could not have been at Katos wall at 10:45 the time Kato said he heard the knocks because heidstra said he saw the white suv at bundy at 10:45

martin II

martin II, your statement is incorrect. Kaelin never said he heard the thumps on his wall at 10:45. He only estimated a time range, he never looked at a clock or a watch. The times that Heidstra testified to were estimated times, not real times. Heidstra testified it was "around 10:45" when he saw the white Jeep like vehicle speed away down Bundy and his time estimate may have been pretty close.

The drive from Bundy to Rockingham was less than a five minute drive. Based on Allan Park's telephone records that he saw Kaelin come from around the house at about 10:55 and Kaelin's estimate that he left his room about two to three minutes after he heard the thumps, Simpson hit the wall shortly after 10:50.

bobaugust

bobaugust

03-15-2007, 07:11 PM

TAZZY HI

Just because park did not see oj come down with the two bags does not mean that oj did not come down with the bags.
I have already posted all that park said he did, and it is impossible that he did all of this and had his eyes on the front door 100% of the time.

So my conclusion is--Oj brought the bags dowm when park was getting out of the limo,buzzing, dialing his mama or dale and getting back into the limo.
martin II

martin II, no it's not impossible. You can't seem to understand what Park said he was doing before he saw Kaelin and then Simpson. He was doing nothing except talking on the phone looking up the driveway at Simpson's house. The only available light was the light coming from the front entrance. Park never saw Simpson until he walked from the driveway into the light of the front entrance and then entered his front door. If at any time Simpson had come out of the house he would have been clearly visible to Park but that never happened.

Park had been watching the house and ringing the gate bell for fifteen minutes prior to seeing Simpson and never received any response because Simpson was not there. He was at Bundy killing Ron and Nicole.

Your conclusion that Simpson carried the two bags out when Park wasn't looking is yours and yours alone based only on your imagination and even contradicted by Simpson's fabricated story.

bobaugust

William Anthony

03-15-2007, 07:57 PM

Correction, Simpson was proved to be a liar and the killer in the civil trial. It was impossible for Fuhrman to have planted the glove since Simpson left only one glove at Bundy.

bobaugust

Correction, Simpson was proven to have provided inconsistent statements and liable in the civil trial. It was possible for the MF to have planted the glove since he testified to seeing two gloves at Bundy.

martin II

03-15-2007, 07:58 PM

martin II, no it's not impossible. You can't seem to understand what Park said he was doing before he saw Kaelin and then Simpson. He was doing nothing except talking on the phone looking up the driveway at Simpson's house. The only available light was the light coming from the front entrance. Park never saw Simpson until he walked from the driveway into the light of the front entrance and then entered his front door. If at any time Simpson had come out of the house he would have been clearly visible to Park but that never happened.

Park had been watching the house and ringing the gate bell for fifteen minutes prior to seeing Simpson and never received any response because Simpson was not there. He was at Bundy killing Ron and Nicole.

Your conclusion that Simpson carried the two bags out when Park wasn't looking is yours and yours alone based only on your imagination and even contradicted by Simpson's fabricated story.

bobaugust

bob
i have posted what park said he was doing at a time that oj would have come out of the house.but i will post part of it again.

Park was in the limo looking at his cell phone dialing his mamas number
Park was looking at his cell phone when he dialed Dale's number

Park got out of the limo and walked to the buzzer and buzzed the house.

Park heard his phone ring and he walked to the limo, got in and answered his call from Dale

At either of these times Park could not have been looking at the front door
100% of the time.

It would only take oj 1-2-3- seconds for oj to walk across Parks line of sight
as Park was not looking at the front door doing what he said he did.

martin II

William Anthony

03-15-2007, 07:59 PM

What we can reach a consensus of is when martin posted what he thinks I believe, he was incorrect.

bobaugust

Can we reach a consensus as to Martin's beliefs about your beliefs are incorret, and your believes as to Simpson being the murderer are irrelevant and immaterial?

martin II

03-15-2007, 08:01 PM

martin II, your statement is incorrect. Kaelin never said he heard the thumps on his wall at 10:45. He only estimated a time range, he never looked at a clock or a watch. The times that Heidstra testified to were estimated times, not real times. Heidstra testified it was "around 10:45" when he saw the white Jeep like vehicle speed away down Bundy and his time estimate may have been pretty close.

The drive from Bundy to Rockingham was less than a five minute drive. Based on Allan Park's telephone records that he saw Kaelin come from around the house at about 10:55 and Kaelin's estimate that he left his room about two to three minutes after he heard the thumps, Simpson hit the wall shortly after 10:50.

bobaugust

bob
Again
Kato and his girlfriend BOTH estimated the time of the thumnps at 10:40 --10:45. There is no reason not to believe both of them.

martin II

William Anthony

03-15-2007, 08:08 PM

bob
Again
Kato and his girlfriend BOTH estimated the time of the thumnps at 10:40 --10:45. There is no reason not to believe both of them.

martin II

Martin,

There is if you want to convict despite the evidence.

martin II

03-15-2007, 08:14 PM

Hi Martin,

What you are not taking into consideration is that he was already into this conversation almost a minute before he saw Simpson. So, he was looking at the house telling them that he couldn't get an answer at the house.

When Park saw OJ he was on the drive way. Why? That's past the bench.

tazzy hi

I don't believe Park intentionally lied about what he saw. I think that he, after being coached intently by M Clarke became confused about what he was expected to say and he made mistakes about what he did see.

A example of how confused he was was how he stuck to his story that he saw to cars in the driveway when there was only one and how he refused to say he saw the bronco at the rockingham gate as he left for the airport although it was 3-4 feet away from him. Rather than change his testimony and say i made a mistake in my earlier testimony he finally said 'SOMETHING
was obstructing my view.
Between 6/12 and the time he testified he had to have seen some tv reports
verifying that the Bronco was there when he left for the airport, But he refused to admit his error.

That is why i don't believe all of his terstimony and neither did the jury.

martin II

martin II

03-15-2007, 08:38 PM

martin II, no I can't give you a link, but when I get a chance I will search witness testimony regarding hair and fibers.

I have a list of all the hair and fiber evidence found on the evidence in this case from a web page I took off the net years ago which is no longer available. I have posted the list previously in discussions here. If you wish I can post it again or I can put it on my web site and provide you the link.

Not only was the Akita's hair found on the Rockingham glove, a "guard hair" from the Akita was found on the glove at Bundy. As well a number of the Akita's hairs were found on the knit cap and on Ron Goldman's shirt, shoes, and pants.

bobaugust

bob
i am interested in testimony that states that there were hairs FROM this Akita
found on the glove. Not from web sites.

martin II

Kayleighjo

03-16-2007, 08:15 AM

Can we reach a consensus as to Martin's beliefs about your beliefs are incorret, and your believes as to Simpson being the murderer are irrelevant and immaterial?

It's only irrelevant if you have no interest in who murdered Nicole and Ron.

I hate to say it, but as Bob has pointed out a million times, this forum is about far more than discussing whether the verdict was right or wrong. It's a discussion that goes way outside of the courtroom.

William Anthony

03-16-2007, 08:23 AM

It's only irrelevant if you have no interest in who murdered Nicole and Ron.

I hate to say it, but as Bob has pointed out a million times, this forum is about far more than discussing whether the verdict was right or wrong. It's a discussion that goes way outside of the courtroom.

I have no problem with the circumference of the discussion or the area contained therein. I do have a problem with some who feel that whatever bobaugust points out is automatically correct. I am not saying whether he is or is not correct, but, it is my belief that, whether or not HIS BELIEFS ARE OR ARE NO CORRECT, his beliefs, like those of any other poster's, are not relevant and material to proving Simpson a murderer. This is in no way designed to limit the discussion, only to limit the arrogance that some, including myself, display on this board.

bobaugust

03-16-2007, 08:26 AM

bob
i am interested in testimony that states that there were hairs FROM this Akita
found on the glove. Not from web sites.

martin II

martin II, I don't recall any testimony referring to the dog hairs found on different pieces of evidence, but Deedrick may have been asked something about it. If you're not interested in a list of hair and fiber evidence in this case go do your own research and see what you can find.

bobaugust

tazzybaby

03-16-2007, 08:32 AM

TAZZY HI

Just because park did not see oj come down with the two bags does not mean that oj did not come down with the bags.
I have already posted all that park said he did, and it is impossible that he did all of this and had his eyes on the front door 100% of the time.

So my conclusion is--Oj brought the bags dowm when park was getting out of the limo,buzzing, dialing his mama or dale and getting back into the limo.
martin II

Martin,

Why do you keep saying "all of this". You keep posting what happened the whole time Park was there. That's not the time frame we are talking about. We are talking about the SECONDS before Park saw OJ. We know what Park was doing. He was on the phone. How do we know this? Because there are cell phone records. So, Park couldn't lie about that. He was on the phone. He got off the phone when he saw Kato. He even told the person he was talking to why he was getting off the phone. So, he still couldn't lie or be mistaken. So, now, we know exactly what he was doing. He was sitting in the car talking on the phone. We have him saying that he was looking towards the house for some kind of signs of someone being there. There is no reason to think he would lie about that. He told the person on the other end of the line that he couldn't get anyone to answer. As soon as he saw Kato he got off the phone.

Park only saw OJ entering the house because he just got back from the murders. Park couldn't have seen him exit the house because OJ did NOT exit the house at that time. He only entered the house when he came back from the killings.

William Anthony

03-16-2007, 08:32 AM

bob
i am interested in testimony that states that there were hairs FROM this Akita
found on the glove. Not from web sites.

martin II

Martin,

It would seem that the dog hair issue is making the hair on the neck of some posters stand up. I have been asked to posts the dates of my posts of testimony, but you are told to do your own research, go figure.

tazzybaby

03-16-2007, 08:34 AM

bob
Again
Kato and his girlfriend BOTH estimated the time of the thumnps at 10:40 --10:45. There is no reason not to believe both of them.

martin II

Actually, there IS a reason not to believe the time. They didn't have a watch or clock. It was a guess. The cell phone records are not a guess. Therefore, it is then a fact. A guess is not a fact.

William Anthony

03-16-2007, 08:37 AM

Actually, there IS a reason not to believe the time. They didn't have a watch or clock. It was a guess. The cell phone records are not a guess. Therefore, it is then a fact. A guess is not a fact.

Terrific TBaby

If I might, the cell phone records only indicate the time and length of the phone call and cannot testify as to what the participants heard and at what time during that time they heard anything.

martin II

03-16-2007, 08:37 AM

Martin,

Why do you keep saying "all of this". You keep posting what happened the whole time Park was there. That's not the time frame we are talking about. We are talking about the SECONDS before Park saw OJ. We know what Park was doing. He was on the phone. How do we know this? Because there are cell phone records. So, Park couldn't lie about that. He was on the phone. He got off the phone when he saw Kato. He even told the person he was talking to why he was getting off the phone. So, he still couldn't lie or be mistaken. So, now, we know exactly what he was doing. He was sitting in the car talking on the phone. We have him saying that he was looking towards the house for some kind of signs of someone being there. There is no reason to think he would lie about that. He told the person on the other end of the line that he couldn't get anyone to answer. As soon as he saw Kato he got off the phone.

Park only saw OJ entering the house because he just got back from the murders. Park couldn't have seen him exit the house because OJ did NOT exit the house at that time. He only entered the house when he came back from the killings.

Park did not see oj when he brought the two bags down as he was not looking at the front door 100% of the time after parking at the gate.

martin II

tazzybaby

03-16-2007, 08:38 AM

tazzy hi

I don't believe Park intentionally lied about what he saw. I think that he, after being coached intently by M Clarke became confused about what he was expected to say and he made mistakes about what he did see.

A example of how confused he was was how he stuck to his story that he saw to cars in the driveway when there was only one and how he refused to say he saw the bronco at the rockingham gate as he left for the airport although it was 3-4 feet away from him. Rather than change his testimony and say i made a mistake in my earlier testimony he finally said 'SOMETHING
was obstructing my view.
Between 6/12 and the time he testified he had to have seen some tv reports
verifying that the Bronco was there when he left for the airport, But he refused to admit his error.

That is why i don't believe all of his terstimony and neither did the jury.

martin II

Okay, you don't have to believe his testimony. But, when his testimony is BACKED UP then you don't have an argument any more. He was on the phone when he saw Kato that gives a FACTUAL time frame. Park can't lie about that and neither can anyone else.

tazzybaby

03-16-2007, 08:39 AM

Park did not see oj when he brought the two bags down as he was not looking at the front door 100% of the time after parking at the gate.

martin II

While he was TALKING on the phone he was. That's how he saw Kato.

tazzybaby

03-16-2007, 08:42 AM

Terrific TBaby

If I might, the cell phone records only indicate the time and length of the phone call and cannot testify as to what the participants heard and at what time during that time they heard anything.

Hi William,

When he was on the phone call he indicated that someone walked up and he got off the phone. So, we know exactly WHEN he saw Kato. That is backed up because he told the person on the phone. So, we do definately have a time frame as to when Kato was seen. He said that it was a few minutes before that he heard the noise. So we have a range. That helps to BACK UP what time Kato heard the noise. That's how it went from 10:40 to 10:50-10:52.

bobaugust

03-16-2007, 08:47 AM

Martin,

It would seem that the dog hair issue is making the hair on the neck of some posters stand up. I have been asked to posts the dates of my posts of testimony, but you are told to do your own research, go figure.

There is no issue about the dog hair. As I told martin I have previously posted a detailed list of fiber and hair evidence found in this case and I offered to post it again or even put it on my web site and provide the link for him.

Some books list where the Akita's hairs were found. Hank Goldberg The Prosecution Responds shows a small chart and your favorite author Mark Fuhrman's Murder in Brentwood provides a more complete list.

bobaugust

martin II

03-16-2007, 08:52 AM

Terrific TBaby

If I might, the cell phone records only indicate the time and length of the phone call and cannot testify as to what the participants heard and at what time during that time they heard anything.

tazzy hi

Kato's girl asked him what time it was and he said 10:30. they both testified that it was about 10 minutes later that he heard the thumps 10:40 10:45.

Hedstra did not have a clock but he estimated that it took him 35 minutes
to get to Bundy and Gorham and he estimatred that it took him 5 minutes to get in the alley where he was when he said he heard the hey hey and the gate slam.

Do we not believe him because he estimated the time?

Was there phone records of Katos local calls to his girlfriend??

martin II

William Anthony

03-16-2007, 08:54 AM

There is no issue about the dog hair. As I told martin I have previously posted a detailed list of fiber and hair evidence found in this case and I offered to post it again or even put it on my web site and provide the link for him.

Some books list where the Akita's hairs were found. Hank Goldberg The Prosecution Responds shows a small chart and your favorite author Mark Fuhrman's Murder in Brentwood provides a more complete list.

bobaugust

Correction, my favorite liar. I think Martin's respectful request was in regard to testimony, not works of fiction.

martin II

03-16-2007, 08:58 AM

There is no issue about the dog hair. As I told martin I have previously posted a detailed list of fiber and hair evidence found in this case and I offered to post it again or even put it on my web site and provide the link for him.

Some books list where the Akita's hairs were found. Hank Goldberg The Prosecution Responds shows a small chart and your favorite author Mark Fuhrman's Murder in Brentwood provides a more complete list.

bobaugust

bob
i don't have furhmans book, however, since the Akito lived at bundy i don't find it impossible that hair from this dog would have been all over the front yard from previous shedding of hair either naturally or from being brushed .

martin II

bobaugust

03-16-2007, 09:27 AM

Correction, my favorite liar. I think Martin's respectful request was in regard to testimony, not works of fiction.

It's funny how you can't seem to tell the difference between fact and fiction, or reality and fantasy.

bobaugust

bobaugust

03-16-2007, 09:30 AM

bob
i don't have furhmans book, however, since the Akito lived at bundy i don't find it impossible that hair from this dog would have been all over the front yard from previous shedding of hair either naturally or from being brushed .

martin II

martin II, I agree that it was possible for dog hair to be all over the front yard, but the fact that the dog's hairs were found on both of the killer's gloves tells us the killer came in contact with the dog.

bobaugust

William Anthony

03-16-2007, 09:32 AM

It's funny how you can't seem to tell the difference between fact and fiction, or reality and fantasy.

bobaugust

I think you suffer from that illness, if you think the words of a demonstrated liar to be the truth, because they are written and not spoken.

martin II

03-16-2007, 09:34 AM

martin II, I agree that it was possible for dog hair to be all over the front yard, but the fact that the dog's hairs were found on both of the killer's gloves tells us the killer came in contact with the dog.

bobaugust

only because you want it to tell you that. When the killing started and if ron and the killers were indeed fighting those dog hairs on leaves, grass and the tiles would have flown all over the scene.
martin II

bobaugust

03-16-2007, 10:00 AM

only because you want it to tell you that. When the killing started and if ron and the killers were indeed fighting those dog hairs on leaves, grass and the tiles would have flown all over the scene.
martin II

martin II, that's funny. There were no killers, only one killer. And there is no evidence dog hairs flew all over the scene. No dog hairs were found on Nicole's clothing. If any dog hairs transferred to Ron's clothing it was most likely when he fell to the ground and came in contact with them.

The fact that there were dog hairs on the killer's glove found at Rockingham tells us the killer came in contact with the dog. It's really not that hard to comprehend considering the fact that the Akita was Simpson's dog. He probably petted his dog when he first encountered him.

bobaugust

bobaugust

03-16-2007, 10:05 AM

I think you suffer from that illness, if you think the words of a demonstrated liar to be the truth, because they are written and not spoken.

No, I think you're the one suffering from some kind of illness when you think that listings in Fuhrman's book of blood and fiber evidence found at the murder scene is fiction.

bobaugust

William Anthony

03-16-2007, 10:08 AM

martin II, that's funny. There were no killers, only one killer. And there is no evidence dog hairs flew all over the scene. No dog hairs were found on Nicole's clothing. If any dog hairs transferred to Ron's clothing it was most likely when he fell to the ground and came in contact with them.

The fact that there were dog hairs on the killer's glove found at Rockingham tells us the killer came in contact with the dog. It's really not that hard to comprehend considering the fact that the Akita was Simpson's dog. He probably petted his dog when he first encountered him.

bobaugust

This is a very interesting post. If no dog hairs were found on Nicoles clothing and there was a large pool of blood around her and the dog left bloody paw prints, then one would think that the dog never went to Nicole but to Ron. Given those facts, one could argue that the dog attacked the killer(s) when Ron was being murdered. One killer could have forced the dog to the front gate, while the other killed Nicole. I use could have as opposed to most likely.
The hair on the golves could tell us that the glove was left at Bundy before the MF could have picked it up and could have deposited it at Rockingham.

martin II

03-16-2007, 10:11 AM

No, I think you're the one suffering from some kind of illness when you think that listings in Fuhrman's book of blood and fiber evidence found at the murder scene is fiction.

bobaugust

BOB

Furhman wrote his book with people that thought oj was guilty as the target market. So he gave them what he thought they wanted to read.
He also used the book as a platform to try to redeem himself in the publics eye by giving HIS side of the story.

it is not creditable and lang and vanhatter dissagreed with some of it.
martin II

William Anthony

03-16-2007, 10:11 AM

No, I think you're the one suffering from some kind of illness when you think that listings in Fuhrman's book of blood and fiber evidence found at the murder scene is fiction.

bobaugust

Have you not claimed to have the list of evidence that was introduced at trial? There are a few things that the MF or his partner allegedly saw that no one else recalled seeing. Were Robert's and the MF's blood checked for drugs?

martin II

03-16-2007, 10:24 AM

bobaugust

03-16-2007, 10:32 AM

Have you not claimed to have the list of evidence that was introduced at trial? There are a few things that the MF or his partner allegedly saw that no one else recalled seeing. Were Robert's and the MF's blood checked for drugs?

The lists of blood, fiber, and hair evidence were taken from documents showing the test results of whose blood was identified and what fibers and hairs were identified. They are not fiction, they are fact. I know of no one list that contained all that information introduced in the criminal trial.

What ever evidence Fuhrman and Roberts saw at Rockingham was photographed or shown to Robbery Homicide detectives who were conducting the search of Simpson's house. Detectives who were never called to testify by either side.

bobaugust

William Anthony

03-16-2007, 10:45 AM

The lists of blood, fiber, and hair evidence were taken from documents showing the test results of whose blood was identified and what fibers and hairs were identified. They are not fiction, they are fact. I know of no one list that contained all that information introduced in the criminal trial.

What ever evidence Fuhrman and Roberts saw at Rockingham was photographed or shown to Robbery Homicide detectives who were conducting the search of Simpson's house. Detectives who were never called to testify by either side.

bobaugust

Are you saying that there was a photo of the bloody finger print at Bundy and the bloody smear on the light switch at Rockingham. I fail to see why the prosecution would not call the photographer who took those pictures to identify them. I guess you are saying that the dog hairs were not introduced into evidence (evidence list). The fact that something appears on a list that was not authenticated does not make it a fact, imho.

bobaugust

03-16-2007, 06:05 PM

Are you saying that there was a photo of the bloody finger print at Bundy and the bloody smear on the light switch at Rockingham. I fail to see why the prosecution would not call the photographer who took those pictures to identify them. I guess you are saying that the dog hairs were not introduced into evidence (evidence list). The fact that something appears on a list that was not authenticated does not make it a fact, imho.

No, there was no photo of the possible bloody fingerprint at Bundy, only a reference to it in Fuhrman's notes. There was no photograph of the bloody smear on the light switch cover at Rockingham, but Fuhrman wrote it was shown to Robbery Homicide detectives who were conducting the search of Simpson's house.

Deedrick testified about the dog hairs and an exhibit was entered into evidence.

June 30, 1995 Deedrick
MS. CLARK: Mr. Deedrick, when we left off, we were talking about dog hairs. Did you compare the dog hairs that you found from the crime scene, the victims' clothing and the glove at Rockingham to the known samples collected from Nicole's dog Kato?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did.
MS. CLARK: Did any of those dog hairs removed from the evidence in this case exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as those of the dog Kato?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, they did.
MS. CLARK: Which ones?
MR. DEEDRICK: With reference to the Rockingham glove, there were a number of fur hairs that were found, and I believe I need to go into some distinction here as to what fur hairs means. Fur hairs are the underlying soft hairs that form the underbelly or undercoat of animals. Guard hairs are the coarser hairs, the larger hairs that make up the outer coat, for instance, of a dog. So they're called guard hairs and fur hairs. The finer hairs, the softer hairs would be fur hairs. And on the Rockingham glove, there were fur hairs. On the Bundy glove, on the outside of the Bundy glove, there was a guard hair. On the knit hat, on the outside, tan and black hairs because the Akita also had black hairs and the standard. There were a number of hairs recovered from Goldman's shoes, pants and shirt, all of these being white in color. All of these compared with the Akita known standard.
*
MS. CLARK: Now, you also found dog hair consistent with that of Kato the dog on the Rockingham glove?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.
MS. CLARK: How many?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I'd have to check on that, if I could, please.
MS. CLARK: Please. Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
MR. DEEDRICK: I have no specific counts. There were several hairs that were recovered from the Rockingham glove.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And in your experience, when you say several, what do you mean?
MR. DEEDRICK: Three or four hairs.
MS. CLARK: Now, those were fur hairs, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
*

MS. CLARK: I have a board here, your Honor, entitled dog hair comparisons, ask that it be marked 47--
THE COURT: 8.
MS. CLARK: --8. Thank you.
THE COURT: Excuse me. 479.
MS. CLARK: 479.
(Peo's 479 for id = board)
*
bobaugust

socaldiva

03-16-2007, 07:57 PM

*snip*
MS. CLARK: Did any of those dog hairs removed from the evidence in this case exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as those of the dog Kato?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, they did.

Gee whiz Martin, looks like it wasn't "gossip" after all :biggrin:

2L8 4A D8

03-17-2007, 01:02 AM

Gee whiz Martin, looks like it wasn't "gossip" after all :biggrin:

Yep, sounds like Diva! And why doesn't it surprise me? :cool:

martin II

03-17-2007, 02:24 PM

No, there was no photo of the possible bloody fingerprint at Bundy, only a reference to it in Fuhrman's notes. There was no photograph of the bloody smear on the light switch cover at Rockingham, but Fuhrman wrote it was shown to Robbery Homicide detectives who were conducting the search of Simpson's house.

Deedrick testified about the dog hairs and an exhibit was entered into evidence.

June 30, 1995 Deedrick
MS. CLARK: Mr. Deedrick, when we left off, we were talking about dog hairs. Did you compare the dog hairs that you found from the crime scene, the victims' clothing and the glove at Rockingham to the known samples collected from Nicole's dog Kato?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did.
MS. CLARK: Did any of those dog hairs removed from the evidence in this case exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as those of the dog Kato?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, they did.
MS. CLARK: Which ones?
MR. DEEDRICK: With reference to the Rockingham glove, there were a number of fur hairs that were found, and I believe I need to go into some distinction here as to what fur hairs means. Fur hairs are the underlying soft hairs that form the underbelly or undercoat of animals. Guard hairs are the coarser hairs, the larger hairs that make up the outer coat, for instance, of a dog. So they're called guard hairs and fur hairs. The finer hairs, the softer hairs would be fur hairs. And on the Rockingham glove, there were fur hairs. On the Bundy glove, on the outside of the Bundy glove, there was a guard hair. On the knit hat, on the outside, tan and black hairs because the Akita also had black hairs and the standard. There were a number of hairs recovered from Goldman's shoes, pants and shirt, all of these being white in color. All of these compared with the Akita known standard.
*
MS. CLARK: Now, you also found dog hair consistent with that of Kato the dog on the Rockingham glove?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.
MS. CLARK: How many?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I'd have to check on that, if I could, please.
MS. CLARK: Please. Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
MR. DEEDRICK: I have no specific counts. There were several hairs that were recovered from the Rockingham glove.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And in your experience, when you say several, what do you mean?
MR. DEEDRICK: Three or four hairs.
MS. CLARK: Now, those were fur hairs, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
*

MS. CLARK: I have a board here, your Honor, entitled dog hair comparisons, ask that it be marked 47--
THE COURT: 8.
MS. CLARK: --8. Thank you.
THE COURT: Excuse me. 479.
MS. CLARK: 479.
(Peo's 479 for id = board)
*
bobaugust

bob
thanks for the testimony.

As i stated above, one would expect that since Kato lived at Bundy and would have had many opportunities to be in the yards at bundy, one would expect that the dog would have shed hairs in these areas by natural means or from a brushing by nicole, the kids or even oj at some time prior to 6/12.

Considering the struggles we assume took place at Bundy during the murders, i don't find it unusual that dog hairs would have been found on both victims.

martin II

socaldiva

03-17-2007, 04:50 PM

*snip*
Considering the struggles we assume took place at Bundy during the murders, i don't find it unusual that dog hairs would have been found on both victims.

Then why did you post that it was "gossip" prior to Bob's posting of the testimony? Sounds like more twist & spin on your part. You take any evidence you don't like & spin it into something innocent.

bobaugust

03-17-2007, 06:07 PM

Considering the struggles we assume took place at Bundy during the murders, i don't find it unusual that dog hairs would have been found on both victims.

martin II

martin II, there were no dog hairs found on Nicole's clothing.

bobaugust

martin II

03-19-2007, 08:22 AM

martin II, there were no dog hairs found on Nicole's clothing.

bobaugust

ok
martin II

William Anthony

03-19-2007, 10:05 AM

No, there was no photo of the possible bloody fingerprint at Bundy, only a reference to it in Fuhrman's notes. There was no photograph of the bloody smear on the light switch cover at Rockingham, but Fuhrman wrote it was shown to Robbery Homicide detectives who were conducting the search of Simpson's house.

Deedrick testified about the dog hairs and an exhibit was entered into evidence.

June 30, 1995 Deedrick
MS. CLARK: Mr. Deedrick, when we left off, we were talking about dog hairs. Did you compare the dog hairs that you found from the crime scene, the victims' clothing and the glove at Rockingham to the known samples collected from Nicole's dog Kato?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did.
MS. CLARK: Did any of those dog hairs removed from the evidence in this case exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as those of the dog Kato?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, they did.
MS. CLARK: Which ones?
MR. DEEDRICK: With reference to the Rockingham glove, there were a number of fur hairs that were found, and I believe I need to go into some distinction here as to what fur hairs means. Fur hairs are the underlying soft hairs that form the underbelly or undercoat of animals. Guard hairs are the coarser hairs, the larger hairs that make up the outer coat, for instance, of a dog. So they're called guard hairs and fur hairs. The finer hairs, the softer hairs would be fur hairs. And on the Rockingham glove, there were fur hairs. On the Bundy glove, on the outside of the Bundy glove, there was a guard hair. On the knit hat, on the outside, tan and black hairs because the Akita also had black hairs and the standard. There were a number of hairs recovered from Goldman's shoes, pants and shirt, all of these being white in color. All of these compared with the Akita known standard.
*
MS. CLARK: Now, you also found dog hair consistent with that of Kato the dog on the Rockingham glove?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.
MS. CLARK: How many?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I'd have to check on that, if I could, please.
MS. CLARK: Please. Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
MR. DEEDRICK: I have no specific counts. There were several hairs that were recovered from the Rockingham glove.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And in your experience, when you say several, what do you mean?
MR. DEEDRICK: Three or four hairs.
MS. CLARK: Now, those were fur hairs, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
*

MS. CLARK: I have a board here, your Honor, entitled dog hair comparisons, ask that it be marked 47--
THE COURT: 8.
MS. CLARK: --8. Thank you.
THE COURT: Excuse me. 479.
MS. CLARK: 479.
(Peo's 479 for id = board)
*
bobaugust

So, the bloody finger print and light switch may have been another of the MF's works of fiction on his list. I do believe the glove found at Rockingham was at Bundy. The only questions, which raise reasonable doubt, are who placed it at Rockingham, when, how, and why.

weezer

03-19-2007, 12:28 PM

*Snipped*The only questions, which raise reasonable doubt, are who placed it at Rockingham, when, how, and why.

who but orenthal would have murdered Nicole using his glove, hat and leaving his blood and size 12 pigeon-toed footprints?

William Anthony

03-19-2007, 01:08 PM

*Snipped*

who but orenthal would have murdered Nicole using his glove, hat and leaving his blood and size 12 pigeon-toed footprints?

You have never posted, as requested, the link showing the footprints were Simpson's pigen-toed shoeprints. The question of who may have murdered the victims and who may have planted evidence are possibly two separate and distinct questions.

weezer

03-19-2007, 01:40 PM

*Snipped*You have never posted, as requested, the link . . .

martin said I didn't have to.............

actually, I have posted the link on this Board -- if you're interested, you are certainly welcome to look for it.

martin II

03-19-2007, 02:06 PM

*Snipped*

martin said I didn't have to.............

actually, I have posted the link on this Board -- if you're interested, you are certainly welcome to look for it.

Weezer

There was never any evidence entered into testimony of pigeon toed shoe prints found at the Bundy crime scene. Bodiaz(sp) drawing of the bundy crime scene shoe prints did not show any Pigeon toed prints.
So i don't see how you could have posted testimony showing pigeon toed shoe prints but if you have this testimony i would be interested in reviewing it.
martin II

martin II

03-19-2007, 02:11 PM

*Snipped*

who but orenthal would have murdered Nicole using his glove, hat and leaving his blood and size 12 pigeon-toed footprints?

weezer
there has never been any direct evidence proving that oj ever baught or owned the gloves found at bundy or rockingham. Only 'HE MUST HAVE' or 'I THINK HE OWNED THE GLOVES" or " I THINK NICOLE GAVE OJ THE GLOVES"

martin II

weezer

03-19-2007, 02:15 PM

weezer
there has never been any direct evidence proving that oj ever baught or owned the gloves found at bundy or rockingham. Only 'HE MUST HAVE' or 'I THINK HE OWNED THE GLOVES" or " I THINK NICOLE GAVE OJ THE GLOVES"

martin II

hey -- you 'think' the dog was asleep upstairs when orenthal was murdering Nicole downstairs. I 'think' the gloves, hat, fiber, hair, blood and size 12 pigeon-toed footprints were orenthal's.

weezer

03-19-2007, 02:15 PM

Weezer

There was never any evidence entered into testimony of pigeon toed shoe prints found at the Bundy crime scene. Bodiaz(sp) drawing of the bundy crime scene shoe prints did not show any Pigeon toed prints.
So i don't see how you could have posted testimony showing pigeon toed shoe prints but if you have this testimony i would be interested in reviewing it.
martin II

hmmm -- I don't believe 'entered into testimony' was part of the discussion.

martin II

03-19-2007, 02:47 PM

hmmm -- I don't believe 'entered into testimony' was part of the discussion.

weezer
You have said that oj left pigeon toed footprints at bundy. I have, many times, asked you to prove your statement by showing evidence admitted by testimony at the trial. You have consitantly not provided this proof by attempting to change the specifics of your claim.

It is very simple. If you have this testimony to prove your statement, post it here. Otherwise your claim is not proven.imo
martin II

martin II

03-19-2007, 02:54 PM

hey -- you 'think' the dog was asleep upstairs when orenthal was murdering Nicole downstairs. I 'think' the gloves, hat, fiber, hair, blood and size 12 pigeon-toed footprints were orenthal's.

weezer
I don't think i have ever stated that the dog was asleep upstairs when oj was murdering Nicole DOWNSTAIRS.

I don't think oj murdered Nicole and have always believed that Nicole was murdered by someone in her FRONT YARD outside here condo.

martin II

weezer

03-19-2007, 04:54 PM

weezer
You have said that oj left pigeon toed footprints at bundy. I have, many times, asked you to prove your statement by showing evidence admitted by testimony at the trial. You have consitantly not provided this proof by attempting to change the specifics of your claim.

It is very simple. If you have this testimony to prove your statement, post it here. Otherwise your claim is not proven.imo
martin II

fact of the matter is, the size 12 BM footprints were described as being pigeon-toed -- just like orenthal would leave. I've never tried to change the claim and have in fact, in the past, provided a link to the claim. I have never said that it was admitted as testimony at the trial.

It is very simple. orenthal james simpson left his blood, hair, hat, glove, fiber and size 12 BM bloody, pigeon-toed footprints at the scene of the murders. All of which has been proven.

martin II

03-19-2007, 05:42 PM

fact of the matter is, the size 12 BM footprints were described as being pigeon-toed -- just like orenthal would leave. I've never tried to change the claim and have in fact, in the past, provided a link to the claim. I have never said that it was admitted as testimony at the trial.

It is very simple. orenthal james simpson left his blood, hair, hat, glove, fiber and size 12 BM bloody, pigeon-toed footprints at the scene of the murders. All of which has been proven.

wezer
good try but it does not work or prove what you have posted. Now you are streatching the facts again.
martin II

weezer

03-19-2007, 07:10 PM

wezer
good try but it does not work or prove what you have posted. Now you are streatching the facts again.
martin II

LOL -- there is no need for me to stretch the facts. All of the evidence proves orenthal james simpson -- and only orenthal james simpson -- was the murderer of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

martin II

03-19-2007, 08:29 PM

LOL -- there is no need for me to stretch the facts. All of the evidence proves orenthal james simpson -- and only orenthal james simpson -- was the murderer of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

WEEZER

Spoken like A non tryer of facts in the trial.
martin II

bobaugust

03-20-2007, 01:44 PM

So, the bloody finger print and light switch may have been another of the MF's works of fiction on his list. I do believe the glove found at Rockingham was at Bundy. The only questions, which raise reasonable doubt, are who placed it at Rockingham, when, how, and why.

Of course the glove found at Rockingham was at Bundy, it was on the right hand of Simpson when he killed both victims. Simpson took that glove with him when he left Bundy. He unintentionally and unknowingly dropped it on the dark south path when he slammed into the back wall of Kaelin's room jumping from the top of his fence to enter his estate after returning from Bundy.

Blood and trace evidence support that belief.

bobaugust

weezer

03-20-2007, 01:56 PM

WEEZER

Spoken like A non tryer of facts in the trial.
martin II

spoken like someone smart enough to follow the evidence/testimony and see through the color of the defandant.

martin II

03-20-2007, 06:03 PM

LOL -- there is no need for me to stretch the facts. All of the evidence proves orenthal james simpson -- and only orenthal james simpson -- was the murderer of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

weezer
there was no testimony of any pigeon toed foot prints left at the Bundy crime scene so your claim remains FALSE and UNPROVEN.
martin II

weezer

03-20-2007, 07:22 PM

weezer
there was no testimony of any pigeon toed foot prints left at the Bundy crime scene so your claim remains FALSE and UNPROVEN.
martin II

the 30 plus pictures showing orenthal wearing the exact same brand and style shoe that left the size 12 BM bloody, pigeon-toed footprints PROVE it beyond a REASONABLE doubt to anyone and everyone with the ability to reason. IMO

martin II

03-20-2007, 08:28 PM

the 30 plus pictures showing orenthal wearing the exact same brand and style shoe that left the size 12 BM bloody, pigeon-toed footprints PROVE it beyond a REASONABLE doubt to anyone and everyone with the ability to reason. IMO

NO pigeon toed foot pints were left at Bundy according to testimony in either trial.

martin II

William Anthony

03-21-2007, 01:12 PM

fact of the matter is, the size 12 BM footprints were described as being pigeon-toed -- just like orenthal would leave. I've never tried to change the claim and have in fact, in the past, provided a link to the claim. I have never said that it was admitted as testimony at the trial.

It is very simple. orenthal james simpson left his blood, hair, hat, glove, fiber and size 12 BM bloody, pigeon-toed footprints at the scene of the murders. All of which has been proven.

Described by whom? I think it may not have been an unbiased description.

William Anthony

03-21-2007, 01:17 PM

Of course the glove found at Rockingham was at Bundy, it was on the right hand of Simpson when he killed both victims. Simpson took that glove with him when he left Bundy. He unintentionally and unknowingly dropped it on the dark south path when he slammed into the back wall of Kaelin's room jumping from the top of his fence to enter his estate after returning from Bundy.

Blood and trace evidence support that belief.

bobaugust

In light of the fact that there was no blood found behind Kato's quarters, but there was a blood trail leading from the Bronco to the front door of Simpson's estate, it would be a reasonable inference that someone, who was not bleeding, brought the glove to that location and awaited the opportunity to deposit it there without being detected-does the MF's circumstances ring a bell (Kathleen).

weezer

03-21-2007, 01:21 PM

Described by whom? I think it may not have been an unbiased description.

and? :shrug:

weezer

03-21-2007, 01:29 PM

In light of the fact that there was no blood found behind Kato's quarters, but there was a blood trail leading from the Bronco to the front door of Simpson's estate, it would be a reasonable inference that someone, who was not bleeding, brought the glove to that location and awaited the opportunity to deposit it there without being detected-does the MF's circumstances ring a bell (Kathleen).

so you're saying that within a short period of time of the murders, "someone" banged on Kato's bedroom wall and it was coincidence that orenthal was out walking his property at the same time? Simply a coincidence that he didn't answer the buzzer for 15 minutes for the limo driver? Simply a coincidence that he happened to have a cut on his finger and his blood was found at the murder scene? Simply a coincidence that a cap with his hair embedded in it was found at the murder scene? Simply a coincidence that size 12 pigeon-toed footprints matching the exact brand and model of shoes orenthal was depicted wearing in 30 plus pictures were at the crime scene? Simply a coincidence that Nicole had ended any chance for a reconciliation and had found a place to live away from Brentwood? Simply a coincidence that orenthal was threatening and stalking her to the night she died?

William Anthony

03-21-2007, 01:53 PM

so you're saying that within a short period of time of the murders, "someone" banged on Kato's bedroom wall and it was coincidence that orenthal was out walking his property at the same time? Simply a coincidence that he didn't answer the buzzer for 15 minutes for the limo driver? Simply a coincidence that he happened to have a cut on his finger and his blood was found at the murder scene? Simply a coincidence that a cap with his hair embedded in it was found at the murder scene? Simply a coincidence that size 12 pigeon-toed footprints matching the exact brand and model of shoes orenthal was depicted wearing in 30 plus pictures were at the crime scene? Simply a coincidence that Nicole had ended any chance for a reconciliation and had found a place to live away from Brentwood? Simply a coincidence that orenthal was threatening and stalking her to the night she died?

There is no evidence that he was stalking her, but there is evidence that he had decided to move on with his life. No, I do not think it was coincedental that there was a knock on the wall. I think that this was an opportunity for someone to plant the glove. The location of where the blood was found at the scene obviates for his innocence. The cut on his finger, by the blood trail at Rockingham, is more consistent with Simpson's theory than the prosecution's theory. There were picitures of Simpson wearing some similar shoes that were never found. This would lead one to think that the murders were committed by someone with knowledge of Simpson's attire-probably most football fans. The glove did not fit and the cap could have been left at Bundy at anytime, and there was a glove seen on the blanket at Bundy. I watched the tape and the glove was obvious, although Mazzola claimed she could not be sure it was a glove.

bobaugust

03-21-2007, 02:21 PM

In light of the fact that there was no blood found behind Kato's quarters, but there was a blood trail leading from the Bronco to the front door of Simpson's estate, it would be a reasonable inference that someone, who was not bleeding, brought the glove to that location and awaited the opportunity to deposit it there without being detected-does the MF's circumstances ring a bell (Kathleen).

The fact is that Simpson's blood does not directly lead from his Bronco to his front door. Based on how the Rockingham gate automatically opened, the drops of blood found just inside that gate prove Simpson didn't drip them entering the locked gate. The fact is Simpson could very well have dripped blood walking across his neighbors property to get to his fence as well as dripping blood on the leaf covered south path behind his house after scaling his fence. Unfortunately no blood drops were found on any natural surface.

bobaugust

martin II

03-22-2007, 08:51 AM

The fact is that Simpson's blood does not directly lead from his Bronco to his front door. Based on how the Rockingham gate automatically opened, the drops of blood found just inside that gate prove Simpson didn't drip them entering the locked gate. The fact is Simpson could very well have dripped blood walking across his neighbors property to get to his fence as well as dripping blood on the leaf covered south path behind his house after scaling his fence. Unfortunately no blood drops were found on any natural surface.

bobaugust

bob

you say simpson COULD VERY WELL HAVE DRIPPED BLOOD. then you admit that no blood trial was found to prove he walked the area in question but you close by saying he walk this area.
makes no sense

martin II

William Anthony

03-22-2007, 09:02 AM

The fact is that Simpson's blood does not directly lead from his Bronco to his front door. Based on how the Rockingham gate automatically opened, the drops of blood found just inside that gate prove Simpson didn't drip them entering the locked gate. The fact is Simpson could very well have dripped blood walking across his neighbors property to get to his fence as well as dripping blood on the leaf covered south path behind his house after scaling his fence. Unfortunately no blood drops were found on any natural surface.

bobaugust

I think you are incorrect and, if you reread Vanatter's testimony or possibly Fung's, you will see that they testified the drops led from Rockingham to the door. What you say is unfortunate, and, I understand why you say that, is that there is no blood found that can be used to connect Simpson to the glove that did not fit. Howerver, there is the testimony of the proven liar, the MF, which allows a reasonable inference that the MF planted the glove.

martin II

03-22-2007, 09:12 AM

The fact is that Simpson's blood does not directly lead from his Bronco to his front door. Based on how the Rockingham gate automatically opened, the drops of blood found just inside that gate prove Simpson didn't drip them entering the locked gate. The fact is Simpson could very well have dripped blood walking across his neighbors property to get to his fence as well as dripping blood on the leaf covered south path behind his house after scaling his fence. Unfortunately no blood drops were found on any natural surface.

bobaugust

bob
there is no blood trial leading across the neighbord yard the south walkway out from the garage are leading to the door area. so there is absolutely no proof that oj traveled this route.
martin II

William Anthony

03-22-2007, 11:48 AM

bob

you say simpson COULD VERY WELL HAVE DRIPPED BLOOD. then you admit that no blood trial was found to prove he walked the area in question but you close by saying he walk this area.
makes no sense

martin II

Martin,

There seems to be a reversal of JC's famous closing-if it does not fit, you must not acquit, smile.

weezer

03-22-2007, 01:30 PM

I think you are incorrect and, if you reread Vanatter's testimony or possibly Fung's, you will see that they testified the drops led from Rockingham to the door. What you say is unfortunate, and, I understand why you say that, is that there is no blood found that can be used to connect Simpson to the glove that did not fit. Howerver, there is the testimony of the proven liar, the MF, which allows a reasonable inference that the MF planted the glove.

soooooo, Fuhrman got to the murder scene before it happened, waited for orenthal to murder two people, grabbed the glove and high-tailed it to Rockingham so he could plant it? Hmmmm :confused:

William Anthony

03-22-2007, 01:35 PM

soooooo, Fuhrman got to the murder scene before it happened, waited for orenthal to murder two people, grabbed the glove and high-tailed it to Rockingham so he could plant it? Hmmmm :confused:

No, the MF grabbed the glove took it to Rockingham. When other members of LE realized what he did, they were left with no choice but to cover for their brother officer and themselves. I do not think that they were agreeable to totally participate in his clandestine endeavors, as they did not admit to seeing the other items the MF claimed to have seen.

weezer

03-22-2007, 01:38 PM

William Anthony

03-22-2007, 01:51 PM

then who bumped the wall?

The ghost of X-mas past.

bobaugust

03-22-2007, 02:05 PM

No, the MF grabbed the glove took it to Rockingham. When other members of LE realized what he did, they were left with no choice but to cover for their brother officer and themselves. I do not think that they were agreeable to totally participate in his clandestine endeavors, as they did not admit to seeing the other items the MF claimed to have seen.

Congratulations William, you have become a true Fuhrman hater with your false accusations and rank at the bottom of the list with all the other weirdo fanatics who even believe Fuhrman was the killer. Keep working on it, based on the evolution of your beliefs I'm sure you'll get there.

bobaugust

William Anthony

03-22-2007, 02:12 PM

Congratulations William, you have become a true Fuhrman hater with your false accusations and rank at the bottom of the list with all the other weirdo fanatics who even believe Fuhrman was the killer. Keep working on it, based on the evolution of your beliefs I'm sure you'll get there.

bobaugust

Coming from you, I will accept the praise. I would only like to state that, because you do not agree with my postulates, does not make them false. The point that I want to arrive at is a belief that the American System of justice works in a fair, impartial and equal manner. I hope that when I arrive I will be able to locate you.

bobaugust

03-22-2007, 03:02 PM

Coming from you, I will accept the praise. I would only like to state that, because you do not agree with my postulates, does not make them false. The point that I want to arrive at is a belief that the American System of justice works in a fair, impartial and equal manner. I hope that when I arrive I will be able to locate you.

The fact that you think that I was praising you only shows how out of touch with reality you are. Our American system of justice did find Simpson responsible for the murders and Simpson was given the maximum punishment available.

Your assumptions are based on imaginary, false, and misinformation. You have so much in common with the weirdo fanatics, I have no doubt they would welcome you with open arms even now and will help you find your way to their truth.

bobaugust

2L8 4A D8

03-22-2007, 07:29 PM

then who bumped the wall?

The ghost of X-mas past.

The fact that you think that I was praising you only shows how out of touch with reality you are. Our American system of justice did find Simpson responsible for the murders and Simpson was given the maximum punishment available.

Your assumptions are based on imaginary, false, and misinformation. You have so much in common with the weirdo fanatics, I have no doubt they would welcome you with open arms even now and will help you find your way to their truth.

bobaugust

IMO, the above post in answer to Weezer's post pretty much sums up your post, Bob!

William Anthony

03-22-2007, 08:58 PM

The fact that you think that I was praising you only shows how out of touch with reality you are. Our American system of justice did find Simpson responsible for the murders and Simpson was given the maximum punishment available.

Your assumptions are based on imaginary, false, and misinformation. You have so much in common with the weirdo fanatics, I have no doubt they would welcome you with open arms even now and will help you find your way to their truth.

bobaugust

My reality differs 180 degrees from yours, imho. I find praise in your scorn. Our American System of Judisprudence can never find him guilty of the murders or responsible for the murders, because, thus far, the concept of double jepoardy acts as an absolute bar against further prosecution on that charge. He has been found liable for the wrongful deaths.

bobaugust

03-23-2007, 07:25 AM

My reality differs 180 degrees from yours, imho. I find praise in your scorn. Our American System of Judisprudence can never find him guilty of the murders or responsible for the murders, because, thus far, the concept of double jepoardy acts as an absolute bar against further prosecution on that charge. He has been found liable for the wrongful deaths.

That's right Simpson was found liable for the wrongful deaths. He was found to have willfully cause the death of Ronald Goldman, to have committed battery against Ronald Goldman, to have committed oppression and malice, to have committed battery against Nicole Brown Simpson, to have committed oppression and malice.

Simply put, Simpson was found to have killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

AmyW

03-23-2007, 07:39 AM

Kayleighjo

03-23-2007, 08:26 AM

This is probably going to sound ignorant, and I apologize in advance. Can someone please explain to me how, if Simpson was found liable for their deaths, he isn't in prison? I mean, the jury is saying he did it, so why is he not being punished and why isn't he being forced to pay the families?

It's been so long since I've read anything about it, I'm having trouble making my way through all of the evidence. Again, I apologize. There are so many here who are much more knowledgeable than I am at this point in time, I hope you don't mind the question. Thanks!

It doesn't sound ignorant at all!

He was found liable for their deaths in a civil trial, brought against him by the families of the murder victims and it's a seperate action from a criminal complaint brought against him through the state of California. He was aquitted (wrongly, in my opinion) in the criminal trial and because of double jeopardy can never be tried again even if he confessed.

A civil trial won't send someone to jail, it can only award monetary sanctions.

Though if you ask me, the civil trial awarded alot more than monetary sanctions. It awarded people the opportunity to see what a lying SOB OJ Simpson really is and it stripped him clean of his "Juice" persona and ruined his public image to the highest degree possible.

I will forever be thankful for that.

martin II

03-23-2007, 01:03 PM

This is probably going to sound ignorant, and I apologize in advance. Can someone please explain to me how, if Simpson was found liable for their deaths, he isn't in prison? I mean, the jury is saying he did it, so why is he not being punished and why isn't he being forced to pay the families?

It's been so long since I've read anything about it, I'm having trouble making my way through all of the evidence. Again, I apologize. There are so many here who are much more knowledgeable than I am at this point in time, I hope you don't mind the question. Thanks!

Amyw

I will try to give you some answers.

a criminal trial is about taking ones freedom away. A person is either found
GUILTY or not GUILTY. If one is found Guilty one goes to jail and is a felon.
The prosecution has the burder of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to prove anything.

In the criminal trial Oj was found to be NOT GUILTY of murder.So no jail time

a Civil trial's burden of proof is must less than reasonable doubt. It is much easier to find one liable. This civil trial does not carry any Jail time as it is about finding one liable and determining how much Money should be paid to the plantiffs.(family members)

In the civil trial oj was found Liable and a judgement was issued.

A civil court can issue a JUGEMENT against a defendant and in favor of the plaintiff but this civil court has no responsibility to collect money due under the judgement for the plaintiff.

all of this is my opinion. a lawyer may be able to give you more details.
martin II

martin II

03-23-2007, 01:05 PM

That's right Simpson was found liable for the wrongful deaths. He was found to have willfully cause the death of Ronald Goldman, to have committed battery against Ronald Goldman, to have committed oppression and malice, to have committed battery against Nicole Brown Simpson, to have committed oppression and malice.

Simply put, Simpson was found to have killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

bob
I think oj was found more likely to have commited murder than not.
martin II

bobaugust

03-23-2007, 04:26 PM

bob
I think oj was found more likely to have commited murder than not.
martin II

martin II, you can think anything you want, but the fact is the civil trial jury unanimously found that Simpson committed the murders based on the evidence presented and Simpson's lying testimony. It seems you have the same mental block that William does when it comes to comprehending what it means when a defendant blatantly lies on the witness stand.

bobaugust

AmyW

03-23-2007, 06:54 PM

Thanks so much for the information. I understand the difference now; jail time - vs - money. I looked around on the web and read about the civil trial. What I find unbelievable about it is, the jury found him liable for the deaths of Nicole and Ron, but they could only consider how much money he should pay their parents.

If my child had been murdered and the defendent found liable for his/her death, I wouldn't care about the money. What good would it do? I understand about double jeopardy, but in my opinion, in a case like this, there should be an exception made.

There were a lot of mistakes made in the criminal trial that allowed OJ to go free and, even though a jury found him responsible for the deaths, he can't be punished. He's only supposed to pay a monetary amount that he isn't even paying, not that it matters.

************************************************** ********
Questions the jury had to answer
Jurors in the O.J. Simpson civil trial answered "yes" to all the questions put to them about Simpson's liability; they will have to consider punitive damages because they answered "yes" to questions 3, 4, 6 or 7. If they had answered "no" to questions 1 and 5, they would have ignored the other questions.

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

2. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson committed battery against Ronald Goldman?

3. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Ronald Goldman?

4. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Ronald Goldman?

5. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson committed battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?

6. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?

7. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?

8. In a question about compensatory damages, jurors were asked how much money Goldman's parents, Fred Goldman and Sharon Rufo, should receive for loss of their son's companionship. Jurors were to determine a lump sum and they decided on $8.5 million, which the judge will divide between the two parents. Nicole Brown Simpson's estate did not seek damages for loss of companionship.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns177.htm

************************************************** ********

I guess I just wonder if it wouldn't be better if there could be exceptions to the rule. I find it outrageous and disgusting that he was found responsible but because of a "legal technicality" (link below), he is free to walk among us and slap everyone in the face with "If I Did It".

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

:flamemad:

martin II

03-23-2007, 07:56 PM

martin II

03-24-2007, 08:29 AM

AMYW

If not for the double jeoparty provision in the constitution you or i could be found not guilty of murder on friday and retried for the same murder the following week. Oj is no different from the thousands of other defendants found not guilty in a criminal trial and are free. If you believe that we should scrap the constitution because Oj was the defendant , then that is another issue all togeather.

martin II

AmyW

03-24-2007, 06:09 PM

I don't believe we should "scrap the consitution" and I didn't say that.

martin II

03-24-2007, 07:03 PM

I don't believe we should "scrap the consitution" and I didn't say that.

Amyw

I see no reason why oj simpson should not be awarded the same rights under the rules of the CJS as any other defendant found not guilty of a crime.

The rule of double jeoparty is not some fluke. It is supported by the u.s.costitution and the U.S. Supreme court decision.

We cannot change the system of justice because we happen not to like a particular defendant.
martin II

socaldiva

03-24-2007, 07:29 PM

*snip*
It is supported by the u.s.costitution

"costitution"? Do you get that at Costco? :biggrin:

socaldiva

03-24-2007, 07:31 PM

*snip*
If not for the double jeoparty provision in the constitution you or i could be found not guilty of murder on friday and retried for the same murder the following week.

Prosecutors don't go door to door charging the average Joe with murder. There has to be probable cause. Duh!~

martin II

03-24-2007, 07:44 PM

AmyW

03-24-2007, 08:49 PM

Amyw

I see no reason why oj simpson should not be awarded the same rights under the rules of the CJS as any other defendant found not guilty of a crime.

The rule of double jeoparty is not some fluke. It is supported by the u.s.costitution and the U.S. Supreme court decision.

We cannot change the system of justice because we happen not to like a particular defendant.
martin II

You have good points, and I agree that we can't change the system because we don't like a particular person. It's not that I don't like him, it's that I believe that he's guilty and so did the jury during his civil trial. I understand what you're saying and I respect that.

William Anthony

03-25-2007, 08:29 PM

It like most things in the law are not absolute. The circumstances allow any judge to semantically proscribe/sustain or prohibit/overrule probable cause.

weezer

03-30-2007, 07:58 PM

There is no evidence that he was stalking her, but there is evidence that he had decided to move on with his life. No, I do not think it was coincedental that there was a knock on the wall. I think that this was an opportunity for someone to plant the glove. The location of where the blood was found at the scene obviates for his innocence. The cut on his finger, by the blood trail at Rockingham, is more consistent with Simpson's theory than the prosecution's theory. There were picitures of Simpson wearing some similar shoes that were never found. This would lead one to think that the murders were committed by someone with knowledge of Simpson's attire-probably most football fans. The glove did not fit and the cap could have been left at Bundy at anytime, and there was a glove seen on the blanket at Bundy. I watched the tape and the glove was obvious, although Mazzola claimed she could not be sure it was a glove.

you do understand that for your story to work, Kato and his friend on the phone had to be in on it before anyone knew the murders occurred?

There was no glove on the blanket.

martin II

03-30-2007, 09:16 PM

you do understand that for your story to work, Kato and his friend on the phone had to be in on it before anyone knew the murders occurred?

There was no glove on the blanket.

wezer

Exactly why is that?

martin II

weezer

03-30-2007, 09:33 PM

wezer

Exactly why is that?

martin II

:shrug: What part of timeline and evidence do you not understand?

martin II

03-30-2007, 11:47 PM

:shrug: What part of timeline and evidence do you not understand?

weezer
oj was in his house doing what you claim he was doing so the murder timeline has nothing to do with him. Remember according to the presented timeline
oj was supposed to be at bundy and Dorothy at 10:45 and falling into the back wall at 10:45.
martin II

martin II

03-31-2007, 06:47 AM

:shrug: What part of timeline and evidence do you not understand?

weezer

You may be the one that does not understand the time line the prosecution presented in the criminal trial. it was 10:20 or just before. What part of that
do you understand and agree with.
martin II

martin II

03-31-2007, 06:48 AM

:shrug: What part of timeline and evidence do you not understand?

non-responsive to the question.
martin II

bobaugust

03-31-2007, 08:01 AM

weezer
oj was in his house doing what you claim he was doing so the murder timeline has nothing to do with him. Remember according to the presented timeline
oj was supposed to be at bundy and Dorothy at 10:45 and falling into the back wall at 10:45.
martin II

martin II, Simpson did not fall against Kaelin's wall at 10:45. That's an incorrect time estimate that you continually choose to use to confuse yourself. Simpson fell against Kaelin's wall about seven or eight minutes after Heidstra saw what we believe was Simpson's Bronco speed away from Bundy.

bobaugust

martin II

03-31-2007, 10:29 AM

martin II, Simpson did not fall against Kaelin's wall at 10:45. That's an incorrect time estimate that you continually choose to use to confuse yourself. Simpson fell against Kaelin's wall about seven or eight minutes after Heidstra saw what we believe was Simpson's Bronco speed away from Bundy.

bobaugust

BOB
You and i were not at rockingham when the knocks Kato said he heard were made. Kato and his girlfriend testified more than once that it was made at 10:40--10:45 no need not to believe them over what you think.
martin II

weezer

03-31-2007, 02:01 PM

non-responsive to the question.
martin II

I wasn't going to respond to your non-sensical post but can't help myself. As bobaugust has pointed out to you on numerous posts, the 'dream team' argued the actual timeline of the murders. There is and has never been any credible evidence that anyone but orenthal james simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

bobaugust

03-31-2007, 05:10 PM

BOB
You and i were not at rockingham when the knocks Kato said he heard were made. Kato and his girlfriend testified more than once that it was made at 10:40--10:45 no need not to believe them over what you think.
martin II

martin, there is also no need to explain to you again and again that estimated times are not real times, you just can't seem to grasp this reality. Both Kaelin and Rachel were only guessing at the times. Neither looked at a watch or a clock during their telephone conversation. Kaelin's guess was closer to the actual time but Rachel's guesses were way off.

Telephone records help us determine the time that Simpson fell against Kaelin's wall, not guesses.

bobaugust

martin II

03-31-2007, 06:41 PM

martin, there is also no need to explain to you again and again that estimated times are not real times, you just can't seem to grasp this reality. Both Kaelin and Rachel were only guessing at the times. Neither looked at a watch or a clock during their telephone conversation. Kaelin's guess was closer to the actual time but Rachel's guesses were way off.

Telephone records help us determine the time that Simpson fell against Kaelin's wall, not guesses.

bobaugust

bob
if you are to be selective about kato and his girl were guessing in order to fit you theory, i suggest that Park was guessing how many time he rang the bell just as he guessed about the number of cars that he said was in the driveway.
martin II

martin II

03-31-2007, 06:46 PM

I wasn't going to respond to your non-sensical post but can't help myself. As bobaugust has pointed out to you on numerous posts, the 'dream team' argued the actual timeline of the murders. There is and has never been any credible evidence that anyone but orenthal james simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

weezer

you you do have a way of not answering the question asked.
the prosecution presented a time line starting at 10:20 for the murders.
martin II

weezer

03-31-2007, 06:49 PM

weezer

you you do have a way of not answering the question asked.
the prosecution presented a time line starting at 10:20 for the murders.
martin II

and we know from the civil trial evidence that the 'dream team' actually argued the correct timeline.

martin II

03-31-2007, 07:12 PM

and we know from the civil trial evidence that the 'dream team' actually argued the correct timeline.

weezer

JC often said, the timeline proved that oj did not do the crime as there was never enough time for him to have murdered anyone. that may be difficult for you to understand as you do seem to want to accept what fits you belief and reject what was plain for the jury to see. However this fact did cause some outsiders to wrongly accuse the jury of being ignorant , uneducated, jelous of nicole and a bunch of other crap because the jury did give them to verdict they thought they deserved.imo
martin II

bobaugust

03-31-2007, 07:31 PM

bob
if you are to be selective about kato and his girl were guessing in order to fit you theory, i suggest that Park was guessing how many time he rang the bell just as he guessed about the number of cars that he said was in the driveway.
martin II

martin II, you again show you can't comprehend the reality of what witnesses told us happened by your attempt to lump together different unrelated events. Funny.

All the times Park testified to where based on his car clock. His telephone records establish the time of the telephone calls he made. Kaelin and Rachel were making guesses as to the time of what they said and did that night since neither of them looked at a watch or a clock.

bobaugust

bobaugust

03-31-2007, 07:44 PM

weezer

JC often said, the timeline proved that oj did not do the crime as there was never enough time for him to have murdered anyone. that may be difficult for you to understand as you do seem to want to accept what fits you belief and reject what was plain for the jury to see. However this fact did cause some outsiders to wrongly accuse the jury of being ignorant , uneducated, jelous of nicole and a bunch of other crap because the jury did give them to verdict they thought they deserved.imo
martin II

martin II, Cochran used witnesses who were outside Nicole's condo, not inside their houses, and he argued the correct time of the murders as after 10:30 to contradict Clark's scenario. Cochran knew Simpson had the time to commit the murders and be back home so he deceived the jury using Dr. Baden's first incorrect opinion that it took the killer twenty minutes just to kill Goldman.

Dr. Baden later recanted that time estimate and agreed that it took only minutes for the killer to kill Goldman. After Dr. Golden changed his opinion Cochran never referred to it and the criminal trial jury either ignored it or didn't understand it just like they ignored the crime scene photograph that was produced that showed blood on the rear gate proving the defense claim false that blood was not on the gate the morning after the murders, but later planted.

Dr. Spitz later testified that it took the killer only a minute or less to inflict all the cuts and wounds on Goldman. Simpson had plenty of time to kill both victims and drive back to his house, scale his fence, and be seen by Allan park when he entered his house.

bobaugust

martin II

03-31-2007, 09:50 PM

martin II, Cochran used witnesses who were outside Nicole's condo, not inside their houses, and he argued the correct time of the murders as after 10:30 to contradict Clark's scenario. Cochran knew Simpson had the time to commit the murders and be back home so he deceived the jury using Dr. Baden's first incorrect opinion that it took the killer twenty minutes just to kill Goldman.

Dr. Baden later recanted that time estimate and agreed that it took only minutes for the killer to kill Goldman. After Dr. Golden changed his opinion Cochran never referred to it and the criminal trial jury either ignored it or didn't understand it just like they ignored the crime scene photograph that was produced that showed blood on the rear gate proving the defense claim false that blood was not on the gate the morning after the murders, but later planted.

Dr. Spitz later testified that it took the killer only a minute or less to inflict all the cuts and wounds on Goldman. Simpson had plenty of time to kill both victims and drive back to his house, scale his fence, and be seen by Allan park when he entered his house.

bobaugust

Dr Spitz was only a hired gun testifying to support the prosecutions theory.
No way one person cut and slashed these two people over 40 times, fought a major struggle with Ron,knocked Nicole out and then slit her neck in 1 1/2
minutes.imo
martin II

martin II

03-31-2007, 09:52 PM

martin II, you again show you can't comprehend the reality of what witnesses told us happened by your attempt to lump together different unrelated events. Funny.

All the times Park testified to where based on his car clock. His telephone records establish the time of the telephone calls he made. Kaelin and Rachel were making guesses as to the time of what they said and did that night since neither of them looked at a watch or a clock.

bobaugust

bob
so you know that KATO, after returning to his room never looked at his clock
before the knocks or after the knocks. or tv.

martin II

bobaugust

04-01-2007, 06:34 AM

Dr Spitz was only a hired gun testifying to support the prosecutions theory.
No way one person cut and slashed these two people over 40 times, fought a major struggle with Ron,knocked Nicole out and then slit her neck in 1 1/2
minutes.imo
martin II

martin II, that's funny. Dr. Baden and Dr. Spitz were referring to how long ti took for Simpson to stab and cut Ron, not Nicole. A minute is a long time in a fight. Many blows can be delivered in only seconds. Dr. Spitz demonstrated how long a minute is by having complete silence in the court room as he timed one minute. Try timing it for yourself and visualize someone continually stabbing someone else and learn about reality

bobaugust

bobaugust

04-01-2007, 06:41 AM

bob
so you know that KATO, after returning to his room never looked at his clock
before the knocks or after the knocks. or tv.

martin II

martin II, Kaelin testified he never looked at a watch or a clock during that telephone call. Kaelin never said he was watching TV.

November 19, 1996 Kato Kaelin

Q. Before we get to that, during the time that you're in your room talking to Rachel about a typewriter, did you leave the room at all?
A. No.
Q. Did you see Mr. Simpson at all?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear him?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Were you looking at the clock and watch at all?
A. No.
*
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When the noises occurred, did you look at a watch or a clock?
A. No.
*
Q. Okay. Now, when you got off the phone, did you look at a watch or a clock?
A. No.
*
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Okay. Do you have an estimate of the time that you heard these noises?
A. In between the 10:40 to 10:50 hour.
Q. Okay. Now, is that -- what do you base that on?
A. The phone calls.
Q. All right. Did you at any time --
A. I didn't, I never looked at a clock.
Q. I can't hear you.
A. I didn't look at a clock.
Q. At any time?
A. No.

bobaugust

martin II

04-01-2007, 12:50 PM

martin II, that's funny. Dr. Baden and Dr. Spitz were referring to how long ti took for Simpson to stab and cut Ron, not Nicole. A minute is a long time in a fight. Many blows can be delivered in only seconds. Dr. Spitz demonstrated how long a minute is by having complete silence in the court room as he timed one minute. Try timing it for yourself and visualize someone continually stabbing someone else and learn about reality

bobaugust

bob
how long did it take for Nicole to be killed.
lets assume that Heidstra was correct and that he heard hey hey hey at 10:40 and lets assume that this was Ron yelling.(no proof of who was yelling)

If the murders started at that time and if heidstra saw a jeep at 10;45 at bundy and Dorothy and the killer was in this jeep, (there is no proof that this jeep had any connection to the murders) then it took the killer 5 minutes to kill both and drive to Bundy and Dorothy.

martin II