A Killer Among Us

[martin II]

A Park
testifying that
1. he only saw the AA going into the house for a second or two
2. looked like black clothing but could have been anything.
3. could have been a black bathrobe.
4. all of his testimony was based on his best time estimates of when things
happened.

martin II
i Think Shapiro did the quesitons.

Q DID YOU EVER DESCRIBE MR. SIMPSON AS COMING OUT
OF THE HOUSE WEARING A BLACK OVERCOAT?
2 MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO TIME.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
3 THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.
THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
4 THE WITNESS: I REMEMBER HIM WEARING SOME KIND OF A
COAT.
5 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
Q DID YOU EVER TELL ANYONE THAT THE PERSON WHO CAME
6 OUT WAS WEARING AN OVERCOAT, A BLACK OVERCOAT?
A YES, I DID.
7 Q WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT WHEN MISS CLARK ASKED YOU
HOW THE MAN WAS DRESSED THIS MORNING?
8 A I GUESS I JUST DIDN'T GIVE FULL DETAIL.
Q DID YOU SAY THAT TO THE GRAND JURY, THAT THE MAN
9 WAS WEARING AN OVERCOAT?
A I DON'T REMEMBER.
10 Q DID YOU READ YOUR GRAND JURY TESTIMONY BEFORE YOU
TESTIFIED HERE?
11 A NO, I DIDN'T. NO, I DIDN'T.
Q WAS IT SHOWN TO YOU BY ANYONE?




Q: DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? AND YOU RECALL THAT, AS YOU HAVE TESTIFIED FOR US, THE FIGURE WAS WALKING TOWARDS THE DOOR WHEN YOU FIRST OBSERVED THAT FIGURE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU SAW THAT FIGURE FOR ONLY A SECOND OR SO; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU TOLD US THAT THAT FIGURE WAS ATTIRED IN SOMETHING DARK AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN A ROBE, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IT COULD HAVE BEEN A ROBE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: JUST SEEMED TO BE DARK CLOTHING. IT COULD HAVE BEEN ANYTHING.

Q: IT COULD HAVE BEEN ANYTHING BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S TRUE.

Q: YOU JUST GOT A FLEETING GLANCE; ISN'T THAT RIGHT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: SO YOU NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO SEE THE HEM OF A ROBE SWIRLING AROUND OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THIS TIME FRAME, YOU SHARED WITH US THAT IT WAS YOUR BELIEF THAT FROM THE TIME THAT YOU SAW THIS FIGURE TO THE TIME THAT YOU SAW MR. SIMPSON COME DOWN WITH A BAG, WHICH WE NOW KNOW IS THE LOUIS VITTON BAG, ONE OF THE DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS, ABOUT FIVE OR SIX MINUTES, HAD PAST; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND THAT IS ABOUT FIVE OR SIX MINUTES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS YOUR BEST ESTIMATE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU HAVE DONE THAT THROUGHOUT YOUR TESTIMONY HERE, GIVE US YOUR HONEST AND BEST ESTIMATE ISN'T THIS RIGHT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: YOU HAVE DONE THAT WITH REGARD TO THAT FIVE OR SIX-MINUTE PERIOD OF TIME; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU WERE SHOWN PEOPLE'S 112 FOR IDENTIFICATION, THE FOYER AREA OF THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE THERE, DO YOU RECALL ON THAT NIGHT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS EVER A RUG ANYWHERE IN THAT FOYER AREA WHEN YOU WERE IN THERE, WHEN YOU WERE INSIDE THERE?

A: NO.

Q: YOU RECALL THAT YOU WALKED SOME TWO TO THREE FEET IN THERE YOURSELF BUT YOU DON'T REMEMBER SEEING



Q: OKAY. AND THOSE ARE THE GOLF CLUBS HE GAVE TO KATO?

A: YES.

Q: AFTER THAT, DID YOU SEE HIM GO BACK INTO -- AFTER GOING IN AND OUT OF THE HOUSE A COUPLE TIMES DID EVER YOU SEE HIM GO BACK DOWN TO THE ROCKINGHAM GATE IN THAT -- NOT TO THE GATE, BUT IN THAT DIRECTION?

A: YES.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES?

A: UMM, AFTER HE GOT THE GOLF CLUBS?

Q: YES.

A: ONCE OR TWICE.

Q: DID YOU SEE WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HE BROUGHT BACK WITH HIM AT -- ON EITHER THAT ONCE OR TWICE THAT HE WENT BACK IN THE DIRECTION OF THE ROCKINGHAM GATE AFTER HE HAD GOTTEN THE GOLF CLUBS?

A: NOT THAT I REMEMBER, NO.

Q: IS IT THAT YOU DON'T REMEMBER OR THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING WITH HIM WHEN HE CAME BACK?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER.

[bobaugust]

martin II, I have no idea what point you are trying to make with this hodgepodge posting of testimony from the preliminary hearing and the criminal trial combined together. Try to organize your postings better by at least including the date of the testimony you are posting. It's really not that difficult.

All you are doing is confusing yourself and anyone who reads this.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, I have no idea what point you are trying to make with this hodgepodge posting of testimony from the preliminary hearing and the criminal trial combined together. Try to organize your postings better by at least including the date of the testimony you are posting. It's really not that difficult.

All you are doing is confusing yourself and anyone who reads this.

bobaugust

bob
not at all
whats important in the post is what A PARK SAID when he testified regardless of when it was.
martin II

[martin II]

bob
Lets talk about A Park
When quesitoned by Shaperio he admited that in the grand jury he testified that when oj came down stairs he was wearing a black overcoat.

At another time he was quesitoned about what oj had on as he came out and was getting ready to leave for the airport and he said something like jeans and a white shirt.

martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
Lets talk about A Park
When quesitoned by Shaperio he admited that in the grand jury he testified that when oj came down stairs he was wearing a black overcoat.

At another time he was quesitoned about what oj had on as he came out and was getting ready to leave for the airport and he said something like jeans and a white shirt.

martin II

martin II, in the preliminary hearing Shapiro asked Park, "Did you say that to the Grand Jury, that the man was wearing an overcoat? Park answered, "I don't remember." Park said he did not read his Grand Jury testimony.

Park didn't remember saying that in the Grand Jury because he never said it. In the Grand Jury Park was asked by Clark what clothing Simpson was wearing when he came out of the house to leave for the airport and he was asked again about the clothing when Clark asked him questions submitted from the jury.

June 21, 1994

Q. NOW, DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE WAY MR. SIMPSON WAS BEHAVING? DID HE APPEAR TO BE NERVOUS?
A. NO.
Q. DID HE APPEAR TO BE -- STRIKE THAT. WHAT WAS HE WEARING?
A. HE WAS WEARING A WHITE COLORED SHIRT, SHORT SLEEVES, BLUE JEANS AND THAT WAS ABOUT IT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF SHOES HE WAS WEARING. I DIDN'T NOTICE ANY OF THAT.

*** Jury Question ****

Q. WHEN YOU SAY, "DARK CLOTHING," DO YOU MEAN BLACK IN COLOR?
A. I CAN'T POSITIVELY SAY, "BLACK." BUT IT WAS A DARK COLOR. IT COULD HAVE BEEN DARK BROWN OR DARK BLUE.
Q. WHEN YOU SAY, "JEANS" --
A. IT COULD HAVE BEEN DARK JEANS.
Q. THE JEANS THAT YOU SAW MR. SIMPSON COME OUT OF THE HOUSE IN, WERE THOSE DARK BLUE?
A. NO, THEY WERE LIGHTER. THEY WERE MORE OF A STONE WASHED.
Q. SO THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THOSE JEANS?
A. NO. I WOULDN'T THINK SO, NO.
Q. THEY WERE DARKER THAN THAT?
A. YES.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, in the preliminary hearing Shapiro asked Park, "Did you say that to the Grand Jury, that the man was wearing an overcoat? Park answered, "I don't remember." Park said he did not read his Grand Jury testimony.

Park didn't remember saying that in the Grand Jury because he never said it. In the Grand Jury Park was asked by Clark what clothing Simpson was wearing when he came out of the house to leave for the airport and he was asked again about the clothing when Clark asked him questions submitted from the jury.

June 21, 1994

Q. NOW, DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE WAY MR. SIMPSON WAS BEHAVING? DID HE APPEAR TO BE NERVOUS?
A. NO.
Q. DID HE APPEAR TO BE -- STRIKE THAT. WHAT WAS HE WEARING?
A. HE WAS WEARING A WHITE COLORED SHIRT, SHORT SLEEVES, BLUE JEANS AND THAT WAS ABOUT IT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF SHOES HE WAS WEARING. I DIDN'T NOTICE ANY OF THAT.

*** Jury Question ****

Q. WHEN YOU SAY, "DARK CLOTHING," DO YOU MEAN BLACK IN COLOR?
A. I CAN'T POSITIVELY SAY, "BLACK." BUT IT WAS A DARK COLOR. IT COULD HAVE BEEN DARK BROWN OR DARK BLUE.
Q. WHEN YOU SAY, "JEANS" --
A. IT COULD HAVE BEEN DARK JEANS.
Q. THE JEANS THAT YOU SAW MR. SIMPSON COME OUT OF THE HOUSE IN, WERE THOSE DARK BLUE?
A. NO, THEY WERE LIGHTER. THEY WERE MORE OF A STONE WASHED.
Q. SO THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THOSE JEANS?
A. NO. I WOULDN'T THINK SO, NO.
Q. THEY WERE DARKER THAN THAT?
A. YES.



bob this is Parks testimony

bobaugust
i Think Shapiro did the quesitons.

Q DID YOU EVER DESCRIBE MR. SIMPSON AS COMING OUT
OF THE HOUSE WEARING A BLACK OVERCOAT?
2 MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO TIME.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
3 THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.

martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

OMG how many times can you ask this question?

Just another baiting question to stall for time so that he can think up his next assinine baiting question for Bob to answer!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

bob
Lets talk about A Park

<snipped for irrelevancy>

martin II

Good gawd!! Now you want to talk about A. Park? How many times does Bob have to go over this with you? It's is getting absolutely ridiculous; such a waste of time; such a waste of bandwidth. You don't get it and You will never get it! No matter how many times that Bob TRIES to explain it to you! Just give it up for gawd's sake! :flamemad:

JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

Good gawd!! Now you want to talk about A. Park? How many times does Bob have to go over this with you? It's is getting absolutely ridiculous; such a waste of time; such a waste of bandwidth. You don't get it and You will never get it! No matter how many times that Bob TRIES to explain it to you! Just give it up for gawd's sake! :flamemad:

JMO and MOO!!


:lol: He just goes around & around in circles & acts like it's new each time :shrug:

[bobaugust]

i Think Shapiro did the quesitons.

Q DID YOU EVER DESCRIBE MR. SIMPSON AS COMING OUT
OF THE HOUSE WEARING A BLACK OVERCOAT?
2 MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO TIME.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
3 THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.

martin II

martin II, I have no idea what your point is or why you are trying to make a big deal out of this meaningless subject..

In the testimony you posted Shapiro was referring to a telephone conversation that he and Skip Taft had with Allan Park a couple of days after the murders in which Park described what he thought Simpson was wearing when he left for the airport. Park referred to a coat. The fact is that Simpson was wearing a jacket.

July 5, 1994 Allan Park
Q IT WAS AT THAT TIME THAT WE ASKED YOU HOW MR. SIMPSON WAS DRESSED WHEN HE CAME OUT, AND YOU SAID, "HE WAS WEARING BLUE JEANS, A WHITE SHIRT AND ANOTHER KIND OF OVERCOAT, A BLACK OVERCOAT." DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES.
Q WAS THAT A HEAVY OVERCOAT?
A NO.
Q DID YOU KNOW HE WAS GOING TO CHICAGO?
A YES.
Q DID YOU KNOW WHAT THE WEATHER WAS LIKE IN CHICAGO?
A I HAVE NO IDEA.
Q HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE WEIGHT OF THE OVERCOAT WAS?
A THE WEIGHT?
Q YES.
A IT JUST LOOKED THIN.
Q DID YOU EVER CARRY IT?
A NO.
Q DID YOU EVER TRY IT ON?
A NO.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHAT MATERIAL IT WAS MADE OF?
A I COULDN'T TELL YOU.
Q DO YOU KNOW IF IT HAD A LINING?
A NO.

January 23, 1996 Simpson
Q: What did you wear to Chicago on the evening of June 12?
A: I believe some jeans, white shirt and jean jacket, and I may have had a windbreaker with me. Not a windbreaker, but a wet jacket.
Q: What were the -Were these stone-washed jeans?
A: Yes.
Q: What was the -who was the manufacturer?
A: I don't know.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, I have no idea what your point is or why you are trying to make a big deal out of this meaningless subject..

In the testimony you posted Shapiro was referring to a telephone conversation that he and Skip Taft had with Allan Park a couple of days after the murders in which Park described what he thought Simpson was wearing when he left for the airport. Park referred to a coat. The fact is that Simpson was wearing a jacket.

July 5, 1994 Allan Park
Q IT WAS AT THAT TIME THAT WE ASKED YOU HOW MR. SIMPSON WAS DRESSED WHEN HE CAME OUT, AND YOU SAID, "HE WAS WEARING BLUE JEANS, A WHITE SHIRT AND ANOTHER KIND OF OVERCOAT, A BLACK OVERCOAT." DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES.
Q WAS THAT A HEAVY OVERCOAT?
A NO.
Q DID YOU KNOW HE WAS GOING TO CHICAGO?
A YES.
Q DID YOU KNOW WHAT THE WEATHER WAS LIKE IN CHICAGO?
A I HAVE NO IDEA.
Q HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE WEIGHT OF THE OVERCOAT WAS?
A THE WEIGHT?
Q YES.
A IT JUST LOOKED THIN.
Q DID YOU EVER CARRY IT?
A NO.
Q DID YOU EVER TRY IT ON?
A NO.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHAT MATERIAL IT WAS MADE OF?
A I COULDN'T TELL YOU.
Q DO YOU KNOW IF IT HAD A LINING?
A NO.

January 23, 1996 Simpson
Q: What did you wear to Chicago on the evening of June 12?
A: I believe some jeans, white shirt and jean jacket, and I may have had a windbreaker with me. Not a windbreaker, but a wet jacket.
Q: What were the -Were these stone-washed jeans?
A: Yes.
Q: What was the -who was the manufacturer?
A: I don't know.

bobaugust

bob

The point is that at various times A Park gave different testimony about some issues. He clearly said that he testified that oj was wearing a black overcoat at one time and then that he was wearing jeans and white shirt
at another.

What i think is possible that between 6/12 and the time Park testified, he had seen many tv reports and pictures of rockingham in the media and that
some of these images, like two cars parked in the driveway on 6/13 was somehow transposed in his mind to the pont that he thought he saw this image ,two cars,on 6/12 when he was at rockingham.

I also believe that the prosecution OVER PREPARED(m Clarke) Park for his testimony and on the stand he found himself alone and he was trying to support the prosecutions story and became confused and made statements that were not true. I don't think he was trying to lie on purpose but that he became confused on what he was suppose to say.
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob

The point is that at various times A Park gave different testimony about some issues. He clearly said that he testified that oj was wearing a black overcoat at one time and then that he was wearing jeans and white shirt
at another.

What i think is possible that between 6/12 and the time Park testified, he had seen many tv reports and pictures of rockingham in the media and that
some of these images, like two cars parked in the driveway on 6/13 was somehow transposed in his mind to the pont that he thought he saw this image ,two cars,on 6/12 when he was at rockingham.

I also believe that the prosecution OVER PREPARED(m Clarke) Park for his testimony and on the stand he found himself alone and he was trying to support the prosecutions story and became confused and made statements that were not true. I don't think he was trying to lie on purpose but that he became confused on what he was suppose to say.
martin II

martin II, You still have it wrong, Park never testified Simpson was wearing a coat. It doesn't matter if Park got it exactly right as to what Simpson was wearing. There's no reason why he should have remembered these details specifically, but he was consistent in his testimony and later Simpson testified to pretty much the same thing. I'd say it's pretty good he got as close as he did.

Park testified Simpson was wearing a white shirt, and stone washed blue jeans.
Simpson testified he was wearing a white shirt, stone washed blue jeans, and a jean jacket.

You're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill with your meaningless dribble that Park was told what to say about this. That's pure bull. The prosecutors didn't tell witnesses what to say. Your claims are unsupported and pure fantasy.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, You still have it wrong, Park never testified Simpson was wearing a coat. It doesn't matter if Park got it exactly right as to what Simpson was wearing. There's no reason why he should have remembered these details specifically, but he was consistent in his testimony and later Simpson testified to pretty much the same thing. I'd say it's pretty good he got as close as he did.

Park testified Simpson was wearing a white shirt, and stone washed blue jeans.
Simpson testified he was wearing a white shirt, stone washed blue jeans, and a jean jacket.

You're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill with your meaningless dribble that Park was told what to say about this. That's pure bull. The prosecutors didn't tell witnesses what to say. Your claims are unsupported and pure fantasy.

bobaugust

bob

Here is Parks teastimony saying he DID testify that oj was wearing a black overcoat. But you still say he did not say this?

martin II



Originally Posted by martin II
i Think Shapiro did the quesitons.

Q DID YOU EVER DESCRIBE MR. SIMPSON AS COMING OUT
OF THE HOUSE WEARING A BLACK OVERCOAT?
2 MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO TIME.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
3 THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.

martin II

[bobaugust]

bob

Here is Parks teastimony saying he DID testify that oj was wearing a black overcoat. But you still say he did not say this?

martin II



Originally Posted by martin II
i Think Shapiro did the quesitons.

Q DID YOU EVER DESCRIBE MR. SIMPSON AS COMING OUT
OF THE HOUSE WEARING A BLACK OVERCOAT?
2 MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO TIME.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
3 THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.

martin II

martin II, you're still confused. You evidently didn't read any of the testimony leading up to that question, did you?. I explained to you that Park never testified that Simpson was wearing a coat. The question Shapiro asked him was based on what Park said in a telephone conversation with Shapiro and Taft, not what Park testified to.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, you're still confused. You evidently didn't read any of the testimony leading up to that question, did you?. I explained to you that Park never testified that Simpson was wearing a coat. The question Shapiro asked him was based on what Park said in a telephone conversation with Shapiro and Taft, not what Park testified to.

bobaugust

bob
so are you saying PARK lied in the phone interview?
When was oj wearing a black overcoat that would make Park's statement true?

martin II

[martin II]

bob
In this statement Park is testifying in court and he gives the following answer:



THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
4 THE WITNESS: I REMEMBER HIM WEARING SOME KIND OF A
COAT.
5 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
Q DID YOU EVER TELL ANYONE THAT THE PERSON WHO CAME
6 OUT WAS WEARING AN OVERCOAT, A BLACK OVERCOAT?
A YES, I DID.

NOW, He says he remembers oj wearing "some kind of a COAT" when he came out of the house.

He tetifies that he DID tell someone oj was wearing a black overcoat and then he says 'I REMEMBER HIM WEARING SOME KIND OF A COAT.

So what kind of a coat was oj wearing when he came down out of the house. or did Park make this statement up.
martin II

[martin II]

bob
In this statement Park is testifying in court and he gives the following answer:



THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
4 THE WITNESS: I REMEMBER HIM WEARING SOME KIND OF A
COAT.
5 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
Q DID YOU EVER TELL ANYONE THAT THE PERSON WHO CAME
6 OUT WAS WEARING AN OVERCOAT, A BLACK OVERCOAT?
A YES, I DID.

NOW, He says he remembers oj wearing "some kind of a COAT" when he came out of the house.

He tetifies that he DID tell someone oj was wearing a black overcoat and then he says 'I REMEMBER HIM WEARING SOME KIND OF A COAT.

So what kind of a coat was oj wearing when he came down out of the house. or did Park make this statement up.oj did not have on any kind of coat when he came out.
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
In this statement Park is testifying in court and he gives the following answer:



THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
4 THE WITNESS: I REMEMBER HIM WEARING SOME KIND OF A
COAT.
5 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
Q DID YOU EVER TELL ANYONE THAT THE PERSON WHO CAME
6 OUT WAS WEARING AN OVERCOAT, A BLACK OVERCOAT?
A YES, I DID.

NOW, He says he remembers oj wearing "some kind of a COAT" when he came out of the house.

He tetifies that he DID tell someone oj was wearing a black overcoat and then he says 'I REMEMBER HIM WEARING SOME KIND OF A COAT.

So what kind of a coat was oj wearing when he came down out of the house. or did Park make this statement up.oj did not have on any kind of coat when he came out.
martin II

martin II, there is no reason why Park should have remembered exactly what Simpson was wearing when he went to the airport. I think it's pretty good what he did remember was pretty close.

I repeat,
Park testified Simpson was wearing a white shirt, and stone washed blue jeans.
Simpson testified he was wearing a white shirt, stone washed blue jeans, and a jean jacket.

The some kind of coat that Park couldn't remember details about was evidently the jean jacket that Simpson testified he was wearing.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, there is no reason why Park should have remembered exactly what Simpson was wearing when he went to the airport. I think it's pretty good what he did remember was pretty close.

I repeat,
Park testified Simpson was wearing a white shirt, and stone washed blue jeans.
Simpson testified he was wearing a white shirt, stone washed blue jeans, and a jean jacket.

The some kind of coat that Park couldn't remember details about was evidently the jean jacket that Simpson testified he was wearing.

bobaugust

bob is there any reason why oj should remember every datail of what he did
on 6/12 I guess you will say yes.
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob is there any reason why oj should remember every datail of what he did
on 6/12 I guess you will say yes.
martin II

martin II, yes, I would expect Simpson to remember details of what he did less than 24 hours before the afternoon he gave his June 13 statement to the police especially since he knew they were investigating the murder of his ex wife. But as time went on his so called memory improved and he changed what he told the police under oath. Simpson later also had no memory problems recalling what golf clubs he used and where he hit his golf balls when he told what he supposedly did the night of the murders but he couldn't remember any details about how he cut his finger that night or how he sliced it open the morning after the murders.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, yes, I would expect Simpson to remember details of what he did less than 24 hours before the afternoon he gave his June 13 statement to the police especially since he knew they were investigating the murder of his ex wife. But as time went on his so called memory improved and he changed what he told the police under oath. Simpson later also had no memory problems recalling what golf clubs he used and where he hit his golf balls when he told what he supposedly did the night of the murders but he couldn't remember any details about how he cut his finger that night or how he sliced it open the morning after the murders.

bobaugust

bob
there are many instances where a person under questioning by le may say some incorrect things when trying to remember exactly what they were doing
and have to change their account later. Park and Kato are examples.
The civil trial was much later.
MARTIN ii

[bobaugust]

bob
there are many instances where a person under questioning by le may say some incorrect things when trying to remember exactly what they were doing
and have to change their account later. Park and Kato are examples.
The civil trial was much later.
MARTIN ii

martin II, their is no comparison. Park and Kaelin were witnesses who tried to recall things that were of no importance to them at the time they happened. Simpson was a suspect in these murders. Everything he said was critically important since his explanations would either eliminate him or incriminate him when he spoke to the police under oath and when he testified under oath. The fact is that Simpson changed his stories, he fabricated stories, and he clearly outright lied.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, their is no comparison. Park and Kaelin were witnesses who tried to recall things that were of no importance to them at the time they happened. Simpson was a suspect in these murders. Everything he said was critically important since his explanations would either eliminate him or incriminate him when he spoke to the police under oath and when he testified under oath. The fact is that Simpson changed his stories, he fabricated stories, and he clearly outright lied.

bobaugust

bob

Park and Kato changed their stories. You and i don't know the motivation for this. We do know both were heavily coached by the prosecution. We know Kato changed his story about the sound of the 'KNOCKS' from the criminal trial to something that Petrocelli coached him to say so as the make the knocks sound more like a person's body banging against the wall.Three times no less. I am not willing to ingore the changes in their testimony and then say oj had to be perfect in what he testified to.
All were under oath not just OJ.
MARTIN ii

[bobaugust]

bob

Park and Kato changed their stories. You and i don't know the motivation for this. We do know both were heavily coached by the prosecution. We know Kato changed his story about the sound of the 'KNOCKS' from the criminal trial to something that Petrocelli coached him to say so as the make the knocks sound more like a person's body banging against the wall.Three times no less. I am not willing to ingore the changes in their testimony and then say oj had to be perfect in what he testified to.
All were under oath not just OJ.
MARTIN ii

martin II, you're absolutely wrong and this has been explained to you many times before showing you why you are wrong. Neither Kaelin or Park changed their testimony. Neither were coached by the prosecution or by Petrocelli. The fact is that Kaelin was asked questions in his deposition and in the civil trial that he was never asked in the criminal trial. That's not changing testimony, that's testifying to more specific information.

Both were under oath and both testified truthfully.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, you're absolutely wrong and this has been explained to you many times before showing you why you are wrong. Neither Kaelin or Park changed their testimony. Neither were coached by the prosecution or by Petrocelli. The fact is that Kaelin was asked questions in his deposition and in the civil trial that he was never asked in the criminal trial. That's not changing testimony, that's testifying to more specific information.

Both were under oath and both testified truthfully.

bobaugust

BOB
:no:

MARTIN ii

[bobaugust]

BOB
:no:

MARTIN ii

martin II, I understand your loss of words. There is no explanation for why you continue to make false arguments no matter how many times you are shown they are false.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, I understand your loss of words. There is no explanation for why you continue to make false arguments no matter how many times you are shown they are false.

bobaugust

bob
no loss of words by me and no loss of words you are willing to post to give excuses for conflicting testimonies given by some prosecution witnesses.

I don't know if Park gave conflicting testimony on purpose or because he was
confused but we do know that the tryers of fact stated that his testimony
was of great concern to them. After discussing his testimony they all voted NOT GUILTY. Now if you were not bias against the defense team and the defendant, you would be able to understand why the NOT GUILTY verdict was rendered.
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
no loss of words by me and no loss of words you are willing to post to give excuses for conflicting testimonies given by some prosecution witnesses.

I don't know if Park gave conflicting testimony on purpose or because he was
confused but we do know that the tryers of fact stated that his testimony
was of great concern to them. After discussing his testimony they all voted NOT GUILTY. Now if you were not bias against the defense team and the defendant, you would be able to understand why the NOT GUILTY verdict was rendered.
martin II

martin II, neither Park nor Kaelin gave any conflicting testimony. You keep making these false accusations and when ever you post testimony you think supports your opinion you are always shown to be wrong.

I have no bias against the defense, I think they did a good job establishing the correct time of the murders.

It doesn't matter what you think the criminal trial jurors thought about Park's testimony, they evidently had as little understanding of what Park said as you do. The criminal trial verdict only means a killer will never go to jail for his crimes. As I have pointed out to you numerous times, this case didn't end with the criminal trial. Only people who can't accept the truth, like you, continue to ignore all the knew information, and new evidence that became known in the depositions and the civil trial.

The simple fact is that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. That fact was proven in a court of law and Simpson was given the maximum punishment available.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

martin II, I understand your loss of words. There is no explanation for why you continue to make false arguments no matter how many times you are shown they are false.

bobaugust

:D priceless & oh so true! :patriot:

[martin II]

martin II, neither Park nor Kaelin gave any conflicting testimony. You keep making these false accusations and when ever you post testimony you think supports your opinion you are always shown to be wrong.

I have no bias against the defense, I think they did a good job establishing the correct time of the murders.

It doesn't matter what you think the criminal trial jurors thought about Park's testimony, they evidently had as little understanding of what Park said as you do. The criminal trial verdict only means a killer will never go to jail for his crimes. As I have pointed out to you numerous times, this case didn't end with the criminal trial. Only people who can't accept the truth, like you, continue to ignore all the knew information, and new evidence that became known in the depositions and the civil trial.

The simple fact is that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. That fact was proven in a court of law and Simpson was given the maximum punishment available.

bobaugust

bob
you continue to say oj was guity because of NEW EVIDENCE that became available after the trial. Well, what about the new information that been offered since the civil trial that has been offered by Dear and other posters here. What about ecidence that was not presented by the prosecution that did not suppport their case.

The jury sat and watched Parks demeanor and credibility when he testified and watched and listened to all of the witnesses. i think that puts them in a better position to determine who was believable and who was not. You were not in that position.

I have no beef with ALL LE. I think that the majority go to work every day
in a dangerous job and do a good job. I have a beef with some Le departments that allow the sick, the overly agressive, the racist and the crimninal element to remain on the job. I also have a beef with officers that believe that they are doing the right thing when they protect bad cops by employing this BLUE WALL OF SILENCE when other officers have done wrong
against citizens.

Now, you may believe that this behavior is acceptable by some le officers and that you need to defend all cops, but in this case, i see no reason why LAPD, knowing what furhmnan said about minorities in his efforts to get early retirement should have allowed him to remain on the force.
martin II

[martin II]

martin II, neither Park nor Kaelin gave any conflicting testimony. You keep making these false accusations and when ever you post testimony you think supports your opinion you are always shown to be wrong.

I have no bias against the defense, I think they did a good job establishing the correct time of the murders.

It doesn't matter what you think the criminal trial jurors thought about Park's testimony, they evidently had as little understanding of what Park said as you do. The criminal trial verdict only means a killer will never go to jail for his crimes. As I have pointed out to you numerous times, this case didn't end with the criminal trial. Only people who can't accept the truth, like you, continue to ignore all the knew information, and new evidence that became known in the depositions and the civil trial.

The simple fact is that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. That fact was proven in a court of law and Simpson was given the maximum punishment available.

bobaugust

BOB
You are still having problems dealing with reality.

The charges against oj simpson ended as did the criminal trial when the jury returned a NOT GUILT verdict and the judge accepted the verdict as legal and it was recorded in the court records and oj was told by the judge go home.

The criminal trial verdict does mean more than "OJ WILL NEVER GO TO JAIL"
It means that 12 citizens of the jury listened to ALL testimony for 9 months and decided according to the law that the prosecution did not prove to them that oj commited the murders.

I realize that the decision was not approved or accepted by you but you have to remember that you were not a jury member and the CJS did not request that you advise the court on the validity or correctness of the verdict.

martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
you continue to say oj was guity because of NEW EVIDENCE that became available after the trial. Well, what about the new information that been offered since the civil trial that has been offered by Dear and other posters here. What about ecidence that was not presented by the prosecution that did not suppport their case.

The jury sat and watched Parks demeanor and credibility when he testified and watched and listened to all of the witnesses. i think that puts them in a better position to determine who was believable and who was not. You were not in that position.

I have no beef with ALL LE. I think that the majority go to work every day
in a dangerous job and do a good job. I have a beef with some Le departments that allow the sick, the overly agressive, the racist and the crimninal element to remain on the job. I also have a beef with officers that believe that they are doing the right thing when they protect bad cops by employing this BLUE WALL OF SILENCE when other officers have done wrong
against citizens.

Now, you may believe that this behavior is acceptable by some le officers and that you need to defend all cops, but in this case, i see no reason why LAPD, knowing what furhmnan said about minorities in his efforts to get early retirement should have allowed him to remain on the force.
martin II


martin II, new evidence offered by Dear? Evidence of what? Evidence that someone who was not involved in these murders has a lot of personal problems. So what? The new information and evidence I'm referring to are from the witnesses and the defendant in this case. Leaned in depositions. Presented in a court of law.

I watched Allan Park testify on television as well as the other witnesses who testified. Demeanor is not the determining factor as to what a witness says is credible. Other testimony and evidence relating to what a witness says is more important. If the criminal trial jurors dismissed what Allan Park said because they didn't like the way he looked, that's another reason that explains why they got it so wrong.

Your beliefs about Fuhrman have completely distorted any ability you might have to think as a reasonable person. You seem to think that because you perceive Fuhrman to be a racist than everything he said as to the evidence in this case should be ignored. And because every other police officer testified to the same evidence as Fuhrman then they too should all be ignored because they must be supporting a racist.

Despite problems some police officers may have had in this case, the reality of the evidence proves Simpson guilty and your excuses you use to ignore the reality of the evidence are ridiculous.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, new evidence offered by Dear? Evidence of what? Evidence that someone who was not involved in these murders has a lot of personal problems. So what? The new information and evidence I'm referring to are from the witnesses and the defendant in this case. Leaned in depositions. Presented in a court of law.

I watched Allan Park testify on television as well as the other witnesses who testified. Demeanor is not the determining factor as to what a witness says is credible. Other testimony and evidence relating to what a witness says is more important. If the criminal trial jurors dismissed what Allan Park said because they didn't like the way he looked, that's another reason that explains why they got it so wrong.

Your beliefs about Fuhrman have completely distorted any ability you might have to think as a reasonable person. You seem to think that because you perceive Fuhrman to be a racist than everything he said as to the evidence in this case should be ignored. And because every other police officer testified to the same evidence as Fuhrman then they too should all be ignored because they must be supporting a racist.

Despite problems some police officers may have had in this case, the reality of the evidence proves Simpson guilty and your excuses you use to ignore the reality of the evidence are ridiculous.

bobaugust

bob
you know this but i will repeat it.
Demeaner is not based on how a person looks physically.Tall, short, fat or thin. It is based on how the witness is reacting while giving testimony.Whether the witness acts evasive to direct questions, acts confused, changes testimony, nervous or is combatative to simple questions.
Refuses to give YES or No answers when requested etc.
Some of these isssues describe Park and kato and some others.
martin II

[weezer]

bob
you know this but i will repeat it.
Demeaner is not based on how a person looks physically.Tall, short, fat or thin. It is based on how the witness is reacting while giving testimony.Whether the witness acts evasive to direct questions, acts confused, changes testimony, nervous or is combatative to simple questions.
Refuses to give YES or No answers when requested etc.
Some of these isssues describe Park and kato and some others.
martin II

you should have told the simpson juror this bit of wisdom because she said she knew when Fuhrman was walking to the stand that he was racist...........go figure.

[martin II]

you should have told the simpson juror this bit of wisdom because she said she knew when Fuhrman was walking to the stand that he was racist...........go figure.

weezer

maby since furhman is such a critical case, his racism flows out and it reminded this person of last racist cops she had encountered.

The witness i refer to is the one sitting closest to the witness box who said when asked quesitons, furhman would push his feet against the witness box,
shift his weight and make facial expressions that indicated to her that he was telling lies. As it turned out she was correct as it did not take long for all to see that he was telling whoppers from the stand after Bailey got hold of him.

ps
i posted additional information about F Lee Bailey yesterday for your perusal.

martin II

[weezer]

weezer

maby since furhman is such a critical case, his racism flows out and it reminded this person of last racist cops she had encountered.

The witness i refer to is the one sitting closest to the witness box who said when asked quesitons, furhman would push his feet against the witness box,
shift his weight and make facial expressions that indicated to her that he was telling lies. As it turned out she was correct as it did not take long for all to see that he was telling whoppers from the stand after Bailey got hold of him.

ps
i posted additional information about F Lee Bailey yesterday for your perusal.

martin II

Fuhrman was only critical to you and yours -- he gave you an excuse to 'take care of one of your own.' There is and has never been any credible evidence that Fuhrman or any LE planted evidence. But that doesn't seem to matter to the orenthal apologists.

ps
looks like from everything I'm reading, bailey is a disgraced/disbarred old drunk but thanks for the additional info.

[martin II]

weezer

maby since furhman is such a critical case, his racism flows out and it reminded this person of last racist cops she had encountered.

The witness i refer to is the one sitting closest to the witness box who said when asked quesitons, furhman would push his feet against the witness box,
shift his weight and make facial expressions that indicated to her that he was telling lies. As it turned out she was correct as it did not take long for all to see that he was telling whoppers from the stand after Bailey got hold of him.

ps
i posted additional information about F Lee Bailey yesterday for your perusal.

martin II

weezer

ps

The part that the jury member observed about furhman shifting his weight, pushing his feet against the witness box wall and making facial expressions are good examples of the jury member observing a witness demeaner.
martin II

[bobaugust]

BOB
You are still having problems dealing with reality.

The charges against oj simpson ended as did the criminal trial when the jury returned a NOT GUILT verdict and the judge accepted the verdict as legal and it was recorded in the court records and oj was told by the judge go home.

The criminal trial verdict does mean more than "OJ WILL NEVER GO TO JAIL"
It means that 12 citizens of the jury listened to ALL testimony for 9 months and decided according to the law that the prosecution did not prove to them that oj commited the murders.

I realize that the decision was not approved or accepted by you but you have to remember that you were not a jury member and the CJS did not request that you advise the court on the validity or correctness of the verdict.

martin II

martin II, you have things backwards again. You're the one who can't accept the reality of the evidence in this case so you make excuses to avoid even learning about all of it.

The problem on this discussion group is you and other posters who do seem to think the criminal trial verdict means Simpson is innocent, that somehow he couldn't have been and wasn't the killer. The fact is that most people who watched the criminal trial don't agree with your opinions about the evidence or the verdict. As well as we know about all the information and evidence that became known in the depositions and civil trial including Simpson's lying testimony that proves we are right and you and the criminal trial jurors were wrong and you're still wrong.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, you have things backwards again. You're the one who can't accept the reality of the evidence in this case so you make excuses to avoid even learning about all of it.

The problem on this discussion group is you and other posters who do seem to think the criminal trial verdict means Simpson is innocent, that somehow he couldn't have been and wasn't the killer. The fact is that most people who watched the criminal trial don't agree with your opinions about the evidence or the verdict. As well as we know about all the information and evidence that became known in the depositions and civil trial including Simpson's lying testimony that proves we are right and you and the criminal trial jurors were wrong and you're still wrong.

bobaugust


bob

What most people think means absolutely nothing as far as the criminal trial is concerned. This was not a trial seeking a verdict based on public opinion.


The CJS required that the decision of guilty or not guilty be made by 12 LA regular citizens that had registered to vote. They are the ones that told us
oj was not guilty of the crime he was charged with.

martin II

[martin II]

Fuhrman was only critical to you and yours -- he gave you an excuse to 'take care of one of your own.' There is and has never been any credible evidence that Fuhrman or any LE planted evidence. But that doesn't seem to matter to the orenthal apologists.

ps
looks like from everything I'm reading, bailey is a disgraced/disbarred old drunk but thanks for the additional info.

weezer

you did read the governments FAILED appeal and the judges decision to toss out the judgement against Biley for all those millions.

If he is such a disgraced drunk as you say, why is he such a popular speaker at all the lawyers conferances all over the country.These legal professionals seem to value his experience.

Don't be so quick to toss the drunks in the dumpsters as bad people. Look at how far our president has risen up the ladder of success and how many people think he is just a grand guy.
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob

What most people think means absolutely nothing as far as the criminal trial is concerned. This was not a trial seeking a verdict based on public opinion.


The CJS required that the decision of guilty or not guilty be made by 12 LA regular citizens that had registered to vote. They are the ones that told us
oj was not guilty of the crime he was charged with.

martin II

martin II, not guilty, but not innocent. Simpson was later found to have killed both victims in another court of law and given the maximum punishment available.

The criminal trial verdict has absolutely nothing to do with your opinions or your false accusations or how uninformed you are about the evidence in this case. All of your arguments end the same way. You can't defend or support them so you revert back to the lame mantra that Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial like that somehow justifies everything you claim without ever admitting you are wrong. Funny.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

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

This is the only true part of your statement, " Simpson did not fall against Kaelin's wall."

[William Anthony]

weezer

you did read the governments FAILED appeal and the judges decision to toss out the judgement against Biley for all those millions.

If he is such a disgraced drunk as you say, why is he such a popular speaker at all the lawyers conferances all over the country.These legal professionals seem to value his experience.

Don't be so quick to toss the drunks in the dumpsters as bad people. Look at how far our president has risen up the ladder of success and how many people think he is just a grand guy.
martin II

Martin,

He is a grand something.

[martin II]

martin II, not guilty, but not innocent. Simpson was later found to have killed both victims in another court of law and given the maximum punishment available.

The criminal trial verdict has absolutely nothing to do with your opinions or your false accusations or how uninformed you are about the evidence in this case. All of your arguments end the same way. You can't defend or support them so you revert back to the lame mantra that Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial like that somehow justifies everything you claim without ever admitting you are wrong. Funny.

bobaugust

liable but not GUILTY
martin II

[bobaugust]

liable but not GUILTY
martin II

martin II, that's right, found responsible for the death of both victims by killing them. Something you still can't seem to comprehend.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, not guilty, but not innocent. Simpson was later found to have killed both victims in another court of law and given the maximum punishment available.

The criminal trial verdict has absolutely nothing to do with your opinions or your false accusations or how uninformed you are about the evidence in this case. All of your arguments end the same way. You can't defend or support them so you revert back to the lame mantra that Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial like that somehow justifies everything you claim without ever admitting you are wrong. Funny.

bobaugust

bob
when faced with the conflicts in parks testimony you say they are not conflicts. 'He did the best he could from memory" when kato and his girl say
the knocks were made at 10:45 you say he was only estimating. When Mazzalo said she put her initials on the envelopes and they were could not be found on the envelopes in court you say she made a mistake. When the judge said vanhatter was playing fast and loose with the truth you said vanhatter did lie or streatch the truth.When Paetis changed his testimony about how much blood he drew you say he never knew how much he drew.

It seems to me that you have excusses for all the problems in with these various testimonies.

OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial and that closed the deal . You can twist the meaning of NOT GUIlty to anything that satisfy yourself. but the attempt by the prosecution to put him in jail FAILED according to law.
martin II

[martin II]

martin II, that's right, found responsible for the death of both victims by killing them. Something you still can't seem to comprehend.

bobaugust

bob
you, me. the defense, Petrocelli, others and the judge knew when the civil trial started that it was a set up and oj had no chance to have his arguments
presented in the trial. The judge made sure he would be found liable.

The criminal trial was about taking away his freedom the civil trial was about
finding a way to make oj pay money.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
you, me. the defense, Petrocelli, others and the judge knew when the civil trial started that it was a set up

Rubbish. It wasn't "set up". That's absurd. :rolleyes:

[bobaugust]

bob
when faced with the conflicts in parks testimony you say they are not conflicts. 'He did the best he could from memory" when kato and his girl say
the knocks were made at 10:45 you say he was only estimating. When Mazzalo said she put her initials on the envelopes and they were could not be found on the envelopes in court you say she made a mistake. When the judge said vanhatter was playing fast and loose with the truth you said vanhatter did lie or streatch the truth.When Paetis changed his testimony about how much blood he drew you say he never knew how much he drew.

It seems to me that you have excusses for all the problems in with these various testimonies.

OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial and that closed the deal . You can twist the meaning of NOT GUIlty to anything that satisfy yourself. but the attempt by the prosecution to put him in jail FAILED according to law.
martin II

martin II, no, I don't make excuses, I give explanations for mistakes. My explanations are reasonable explanations based on what the witnesses said. Your problem is that you still can't tell the difference between a lie and a mistake. You also can't seem to comprehend that time estimates are not real times.

I don't have to twist the meaning of not guilty. In this case not guilty doesn't mean innocent or that Simpson didn't commit the murders. In one post you seem to be able to grasp this reality yet in other postings you don't.

The so called problems you perceive are only problems for you. I'm sorry to say you haven't made one credible argument in all the time you've been posting on this discussion group. You continually post false and misinformation that you have already been corrected on The only conclusion I have come to is that you are just not capable of understanding when you are shown to be wrong or your memory is so bad you keep forgetting that you are wrong.

Yes the prosecution lost their case, for many reasons some having nothing to do with the murders, and Simpson will not be going to jail for his crimes. That's a reality that society has to accept but it certainly doesn't change the fact that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. A fact that a small amount of fanatics or mentally challenged or ignorant or uninformed people still can't seem to understand.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. A fact that a small amount of fanatics or mentally challenged or ignorant or uninformed people still can't seem to understand.


:beer: And they spin around & around going over the same details :D

[bobaugust]

bob
you, me. the defense, Petrocelli, others and the judge knew when the civil trial started that it was a set up and oj had no chance to have his arguments
presented in the trial. The judge made sure he would be found liable.

The criminal trial was about taking away his freedom the civil trial was about
finding a way to make oj pay money.

martin II

martin II, your wrong again. The judge in the civil trial didn't make sure Simpson was found liable, the judge ruled according to the law. You're right about one thing, Simpson had no chance based on the evidence and the fact that he had to testify. That's why he lied.

The criminal trial was a distortion and an aberration based on a judge that allowed arguments and accusations that weren't supported by anything except imagination.

The civil trial was about justice and the real search for the truth about these murders and the truth was found. Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer. And yes the only punishment available to this jury was monetary so they made the mount as large as they possibly could.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, your wrong again. The judge in the civil trial didn't make sure Simpson was found liable, the judge ruled according to the law. You're right about one thing, Simpson had no chance based on the evidence and the fact that he had to testify. That's why he lied.

The criminal trial was a distortion and an aberration based on a judge that allowed arguments and accusations that weren't supported by anything except imagination.

The civil trial was about justice and the real search for the truth about these murders and the truth was found. Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer. And yes the only punishment available to this jury was monetary so they made the mount as large as they possibly could.

bobaugust


bob

Based on the accurate evaluation of simpsons finances and the fact that he had been black balled from his normal work profession, before the civil trial, the judgement should have been much less than what was approved.imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

bob

Based on the accurate evaluation of simpsons finances and the fact that he had been black balled from his normal work profession, before the civil trial, the judgement should have been much less than what was approved.imo
martin II

Now you claim to know more than the courts? What a hoot. :tongue: You think you have the "accurate evaluation of simpsons finances"? Hysterical.

[Jayme K]

martin II, your wrong again. The judge in the civil trial didn't make sure Simpson was found liable, the judge ruled according to the law. You're right about one thing, Simpson had no chance based on the evidence and the fact that he had to testify. That's why he lied.

The criminal trial was a distortion and an aberration based on a judge that allowed arguments and accusations that weren't supported by anything except imagination.

The civil trial was about justice and the real search for the truth about these murders and the truth was found. Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer. And yes the only punishment available to this jury was monetary so they made the mount as large as they possibly could.

bobaugust

I love people that make sense.

He should have just not shown up and allowed a default judgment to be placed against him. But narcissism overtook and he thought he could really get up there and spin a tale that would make him look innocent. I laughed ... laughed! ... when I read his testimony. I had actually thought before that he must be somewhat intelligent to have gotten away with this murder, and then I realized that he's really kinda dumb, it's just that the LAPD and prosecutors in the criminal trial treated him with kid gloves.

I'm sorry, but when you begin your opening argument apologizing to the jury for having to bring a murder charge against this man you have already lost your case.

[AmyW]

Martin,

What did Park lie about in his testimony? What questions did he refuse to give yes or no answers to?

Maybe the jury in the criminal trial found him not guilty, but that's only because the whole thing was a screw up and didn't go as it should have. If it had, In my opinion, they would have found him guilty. Because they didn't, doesn't mean he didn't kill Ron and Nicole. The civil trial jurors found him responsible for Ron and Nicole's death.

Why do you think the civil trial was a set up?

[martin II]

Martin,

What did Park lie about in his testimony? What questions did he refuse to give yes or no answers to?

Maybe the jury in the criminal trial found him not guilty, but that's only because the whole thing was a screw up and didn't go as it should have. If it had, In my opinion, they would have found him guilty. Because they didn't, doesn't mean he didn't kill Ron and Nicole. The civil trial jurors found him responsible for Ron and Nicole's death.

Why do you think the civil trial was a set up?

AmyW

i have said that i don't think Park deliberately lied. I think he was over coached by the prosecution and became confused as he was when he said he saw two cars in the driveway when there was only one. As when in his testimony about where he put certain bags in the trunk or inside the limo
(see his various testimony) and when he said he did not see the Bronco
parked at the rockingham gate when he left for the airpoort although it was only 3-4 feet from his window.

If you believe that the jury verdict of Not Guilty does not mean oj did not kill Ron and Nicole then one can say that because the civil jury found him liable does not mean that he was.imo
martin II

[martin II]

amyW
hi
ps

I left out a response to your last question.

The civil trial was held in a smaller community that was about 70-80 % white population and smaller in overall population than the location of the Criminal trial.
Public opinion demanded that Oj be purnished as many did not agree with the criminal trial verdict. The civil trial judge showed his bais against the defendant by the rulings he made that hampered the defense from arguing
certain aspects of their planned defense. Arguments that were allowed in the crimijnal trial.
martin II

[weezer]

amyW
hi
ps

I left out a response to your last question.

The civil trial was held in a smaller community that was about 70-80 % white population and smaller in overall population than the location of the Criminal trial.
Public opinion demanded that Oj be purnished as many did not agree with the criminal trial verdict. The civil trial judge showed his bais against the defendant by the rulings he made that hampered the defense from arguing
certain aspects of their planned defense. Arguments that were allowed in the crimijnal trial.
martin II

wonder why the 'dream team' wasn't there to defend orenthal in the civil trial instead of leaving it to baker and son? you don't suppose it had anything to do with being out of money do you?

[Jayme K]

The civil trial judge showed his bais against the defendant by the rulings he made that hampered the defense from arguing
certain aspects of their planned defense. Arguments that were allowed in the crimijnal trial.
martin II

I'd really love a description of your legal background and a detailed summary citing pertinent laws and legal reasoning of why you believe that certain rulings were unjust, incorrect or biased which you believe hampered the defense.

Apparently you believe that Fujisaki got it wrong, but if one judge can get it wrong then so can another. So might it be possible that it's actually Ito that got the rulings wrong and allowed in things that should have been inadmissable and didn't allow in things that should have been admissable?

[weezer]

I never understood Ito's rulings on evidence admission:

Dead body but can't introduce victim's writings -- in her own hand -- of abuse or testimony of people who witnessed abuse, etc., because it was ruled too distant from the time of the murder.

No evidence of planting or abuse by LE but allow the excerpts -- written in the same timeframe as diary and witness of abuse -- of a screenplay where the detective uses the 'n'-word to show there "could" have been.

Just don't get it.

[weezer]

wonder why the 'dream team' wasn't there to defend orenthal in the civil trial instead of leaving it to baker and son? you don't suppose it had anything to do with being out of money do you?

or maybe because they all believed orenthal guilty? :tongue:

[martin II]

or maybe because they all believed orenthal guilty? :tongue:

weezer

i will help you.

The criminal trial lawyers, JC was a criminal lawyer, represented oj in that trial. Civil trial lawyers represent defendants in civil trials.
However after JC was successful with several clients after OJ, P Diddy,etc He said he would only do civil work from that time on.

martion II

[weezer]

weezer

i will help you.

The criminal trial lawyers, JC was a criminal lawyer, represented oj in that trial. Civil trial lawyers represent defendants in civil trials.
However after JC was successful with several clients after OJ, P Diddy,etc He said he would only do civil work from that time on.

martion II

hmmmm -- wonder is his switch from criminal to civil had anything to do with him knowing he helped a butcher/double murderer walk free?

did you forget how to spell you name again? ;)

[bobaugust]

AmyW

i have said that i don't think Park deliberately lied. I think he was over coached by the prosecution and became confused as he was when he said he saw two cars in the driveway when there was only one. As when in his testimony about where he put certain bags in the trunk or inside the limo
(see his various testimony) and when he said he did not see the Bronco
parked at the rockingham gate when he left for the airpoort although it was only 3-4 feet from his window.

If you believe that the jury verdict of Not Guilty does not mean oj did not kill Ron and Nicole then one can say that because the civil jury found him liable does not mean that he was.imo
martin II

martin II, The prosecutors did not coach witnesses what to say and the answers that you somehow think Park was told to say only show how ridiculous your arguments are.

Park was asked details about many things that happened that evening. Details about things that he had no reason to remember, things that were not important to him at the time. Park testified honestly as to what he did remembered, and what he wasn't clear about. The small discrepancies in Park's testimony are completely meaningless to Simpson's guilt or innocence. What is important here are the details that Park did remember, not what he didn't clearly remember.

Important facts Park testified to, that he did remember were,
* When Park first arrived at Rockingham and located Simpson's house, no vehicle was parked outside Simpson's Rockingham gate.
* Park saw no activity or received any response from anyone in Simpson's house during the half hour he was there and the fifteen minutes he spent ringing the gate buzzer.
* Park saw Simpson walk up, enter his house and lights come on, shortly before 11:00.
* Park heard and saw Simpson tell Kaelin that he would get a small bag from the driveway. A bag that has never been seen again.

Your last statement makes absolutely no sense. The fact is that the criminal trial verdict does not mean Simpson wasn't the killer. The civil trial verdict does.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

weezer

i will help you.

The criminal trial lawyers, JC was a criminal lawyer, represented oj in that trial. Civil trial lawyers represent defendants in civil trials.
However after JC was successful with several clients after OJ, P Diddy,etc He said he would only do civil work from that time on.

martion II

martin II, I will help you.

Triumph of Justice,
"The Dream Team was intact in one form or another. Cochran and his firm remained behind the scenes. F. Lee Bailey's firm was handling the case full time. Bailey was positioned to try the case with Baker. But Bailey himself soon encountered legal problems in Florida that ultimately landed him in jail, things largely to testimony of his co-Dream Teamer Robert Shapiro. Bailey's partner, Daniel Leonard, replaced Bailey on the case and in the courtroom. DNA expert Bob Blasier was working full time and his colleagues Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were still in the fold. Private investigator Bill Pavelic was still on board. Law professors Gerry Uelmen and Alan Dershowitz were lurking in the background. They had all the materials, they had all the evidence, they had all the transcripts and files. They had just won the Trial of the Century twleve-zip in three hours. They knew everything, we knew nothing."

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, I will help you.

Triumph of Justice,
"The Dream Team was intact in one form or another. Cochran and his firm remained behind the scenes. F. Lee Bailey's firm was handling the case full time. Bailey was positioned to try the case with Baker. But Bailey himself soon encountered legal problems in Florida that ultimately landed him in jail, things largely to testimony of his co-Dream Teamer Robert Shapiro. Bailey's partner, Daniel Leonard, replaced Bailey on the case and in the courtroom. DNA expert Bob Blasier was working full time and his colleagues Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were still in the fold. Private investigator Bill Pavelic was still on board. Law professors Gerry Uelmen and Alan Dershowitz were lurking in the background. They had all the materials, they had all the evidence, they had all the transcripts and files. They had just won the Trial of the Century twleve-zip in three hours. They knew everything, we knew nothing."

bobaugust


BOB
You should have posted this to weezer.She is the one that offered reasons why the dream team was NOT involved.
martin II
martin ii

[bobaugust]

amyW
hi
ps

I left out a response to your last question.

The civil trial was held in a smaller community that was about 70-80 % white population and smaller in overall population than the location of the Criminal trial.
Public opinion demanded that Oj be purnished as many did not agree with the criminal trial verdict. The civil trial judge showed his bais against the defendant by the rulings he made that hampered the defense from arguing
certain aspects of their planned defense. Arguments that were allowed in the crimijnal trial.
martin II

martin II, the community that the civil trial jury came from was Simpson's community, a jury of his peers. Public opinion had no part in this trial, it wasn't televised. Judge Fujisaki, made intelligent rulings based on the law with no intention of hampering either side.

Unlike the criminal trial the civil trial was not a trial of smoke and mirrors. "The Criminal trial had been consumed by postulations and suppositions and wholesale fabrications about what might have happened. Well, what might have happened was not at issue in (the civl trial.)" What actually happened was.

The civil trial was the real search for the truth, and the truth was found.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, the community that the civil trial jury came from was Simpson's community, a jury of his peers. Public opinion had no part in this trial, it wasn't televised. Judge Fujisaki, made intelligent rulings based on the law with no intention of hampering either side.

Unlike the criminal trial the civil trial was not a trial of smoke and mirrors. "The Criminal trial had been consumed by postulations and suppositions and wholesale fabrications about what might have happened. Well, what might have happened was not at issue in (the civl trial.)" What actually happened was.

The civil trial was the real search for the truth, and the truth was found.

bobaugust


bob
Do you consider that CNN and other medis polls showing that 85 % of white people believed oj was guilty before the trial started ,was NOT PUBLIC or ON TELEVISION?
martin II

[weezer]

bob
Do you consider that CNN and other medis polls showing that 85 % of white people believed oj was guilty before the trial started ,was NOT PUBLIC or ON TELEVISION?
martin II

and the same polls showed that the majority of black 'said' they believed him not guilty. what's your point?

[martin II]

and the same polls showed that the majority of black 'said' they believed him not guilty. what's your point?

weezer

My point to BOB was that public opinion polls were mad public and on TV.
Did you get that?
martin II

[weezer]

weezer

My point to BOB was that public opinion polls were mad public and on TV.
Did you get that?
martin II

I 'got' that -- just can't figure out what point you were trying to make.

[martin II]

and the same polls showed that the majority of black 'said' they believed him not guilty. what's your point?

weezer

My point to BOB was that public opinion polls were made public and on TV.
Did you get that?
martin II

[martin II]

I 'got' that -- just can't figure out what point you were trying to make.

weezer
obviusly you did not read bob's post which is what i responded to HIM about.
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
Do you consider that CNN and other medis polls showing that 85 % of white people believed oj was guilty before the trial started ,was NOT PUBLIC or ON TELEVISION?
martin II

martin II, you posted that public opinion demanded that Simpson be punished and now you refer to polls of white people? Trying to use race as an excuse for your false claim is funny. The polls showed the majority of people who watched the criminal trial including blacks believed Simpson guilty.

The fact is that Judge Fujisaki ruled according to law, not according to public opinion. Simpson's defense wasn't hampered by his rulings or public opinion, it was hampered by the reality of the evidence and Simpson's lying testimony.

bobaugust.

[martin II]

martin II, you posted that public opinion demanded that Simpson be punished and now you refer to polls of white people? Trying to use race as an excuse for your false claim is funny. The polls showed the majority of people who watched the criminal trial including blacks believed Simpson guilty.

The fact is that Judge Fujisaki ruled according to law, not according to public opinion. Simpson's defense wasn't hampered by his rulings or public opinion, it was hampered by the reality of the evidence and Simpson's lying testimony.

bobaugust.

bob
Regardless of what you think the CNN polls showed 85%of whites believed oj was guilty before the trial. These polls were made public for all to see including the people that were eventually chosen as jurors in the civil trial.
This is what is called POISONING THE JURY POOL before a trial and is the reason why some trials are moved to a new venue.
MARTIN ii

[weezer]

bob
Regardless of what you think the CNN polls showed 85%of whites believed oj was guilty before the trial. These polls were made public for all to see including the people that were eventually chosen as jurors in the civil trial.
This is what is called POISONING THE JURY POOL before a trial and is the reason why some trials are moved to a new venue.
MARTIN ii

LOL -- you're kidding, right?

[socaldiva]

LOL -- you're kidding, right?

No, I think he's completely serious :tongue:

[martin II]

LOL -- you're kidding, right?

weezer
no, not kidding, but take your response to mean that you are uninformed on this issue.
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
no, not kidding, but take your response to mean that you are uninformed on this issue.
martin II

oh martin, martin, martin -- you continue to make me laugh. Do you even recognize your own racism when you make and believe such ignorant statements that white people knew he was guilty before the trial BUT black folks knew LE probably planted evidence to frame a black man?

[martin II]

oh martin, martin, martin -- you continue to make me laugh. Do you even recognize your own racism when you make and believe such ignorant statements that white people knew he was guilty before the trial BUT black folks knew LE probably planted evidence to frame a black man?

weezer

i see you are attempting to put YOUR words in MY post. I have not posted anything about what black people thought BEFORE the trial. So stop twisting my post.
I have posted what the cnn and other media poll results stated. That 85%
of white people thought that oj was guilty Before the trial.That cannot be denied.
So stop streatching and twisting.

martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
Regardless of what you think the CNN polls showed 85%of whites believed oj was guilty before the trial. These polls were made public for all to see including the people that were eventually chosen as jurors in the civil trial.
This is what is called POISONING THE JURY POOL before a trial and is the reason why some trials are moved to a new venue.
MARTIN ii

martin II, the simple fact that the majority of people in this country believed Simpson was guilty before the civil trial had nothing to do with the rulings Judge Fujisaki made in the ciivil trial. His rulings were based on law not public opinion. There was no poisoning of the jury pool for the civil trial.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, the simple fact that the majority of people in this country believed Simpson was guilty before the civil trial had nothing to do with the rulings Judge Fujisaki made in the ciivil trial. His rulings were based on law not public opinion. There was no poisoning of the jury pool for the civil trial.

bobaugust


BOB

I think you know better.

The marority of people in the counrty happen to be white. 85% of white people stated that they believed oj was guilty BEFORE the trial. I will guess that in Sant Monica where over 75% of the population is white that 85% of those people thought oj was guilty BEFORE the trial.

This perception was based on media reports to the public and prosecution leaks about the upcomming trial as there was no other rational reason of how these people could come to their conclusions before the trial had started and no evidence had been admitted in court. Unless there was another reason
for their early assessment of who commited the murders.

The media reports fed to the public had the effect of POISONING THE JURY POOL and the Santa Monica jury came from this pool.

Judges have wide latitude as far as how they rule and stay within the law. In the civil trial the judge allowed both sides a wide latitude in their arguments in a effort to give both sides opportunities to MAKE THEIR CASE. Fujisaki
decided that he would narrow the defense arguments which effectively prevented them from making certain defense arguments. He gave Petrocelli everything he asled for.
Addditionall i read yesterday that the ca legislature made a special law to allow the lady at the womans help center that received a call from someone that said she was Nicole to testify. i will look for verification.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I will guess that in Sant Monica where over 75% of the population is white that 85% of those people thought oj was guilty BEFORE the trial.


Sounds to me like you are saying that whites shouldn't have been allowed to judge Orenthal? A tad racist, I'd say. :rolleyes: Are you suggesting that other races didn't watch tv or read the papers? Or, did they watch & have more character in not judging him?;)

[bobaugust]

BOB

I think you know better.

The marority of people in the counrty happen to be white. 85% of white people stated that they believed oj was guilty BEFORE the trial. I will guess that in Sant Monica where over 75% of the population is white that 85% of those people thought oj was guilty BEFORE the trial.

This perception was based on media reports to the public and prosecution leaks about the upcomming trial as there was no other rational reason of how these people could come to their conclusions before the trial had started and no evidence had been admitted in court. Unless there was another reason
for their early assessment of who commited the murders.

The media reports fed to the public had the effect of POISONING THE JURY POOL and the Santa Monica jury came from this pool.

Judges have wide latitude as far as how they rule and stay within the law. In the civil trial the judge allowed both sides a wide latitude in their arguments in a effort to give both sides opportunities to MAKE THEIR CASE. Fujisaki
decided that he would narrow the defense arguments which effectively prevented them from making certain defense arguments. He gave Petrocelli everything he asled for.
Addditionall i read yesterday that the ca legislature made a special law to allow the lady at the womans help center that received a call from someone that said she was Nicole to testify. i will look for verification.

martin II

martin II, your claim that Judge Fujisaki made rulings based on public opinion is completely unsubstantiated and false. There was no poisoning of the jury pool for the civil trial. The civil trial jury was made up of a more diverse group of jurors with different opinions than the criminal trial jury was. The biggest problem the defense had in the civil trial was that their client was a liar a and a killer.

Based on the evidence presented and Simpson's lying testimony, the jury was unanimous in it's conclusion that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole and agreed to the maximum punishment available to them.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

martin II, The prosecutors did not coach witnesses what to say and the answers that you somehow think Park was told to say only show how ridiculous your arguments are.

Park was asked details about many things that happened that evening. Details about things that he had no reason to remember, things that were not important to him at the time. Park testified honestly as to what he did remembered, and what he wasn't clear about. The small discrepancies in Park's testimony are completely meaningless to Simpson's guilt or innocence. What is important here are the details that Park did remember, not what he didn't clearly remember.

Important facts Park testified to, that he did remember were,
* When Park first arrived at Rockingham and located Simpson's house, no vehicle was parked outside Simpson's Rockingham gate.
* Park saw no activity or received any response from anyone in Simpson's house during the half hour he was there and the fifteen minutes he spent ringing the gate buzzer.
* Park saw Simpson walk up, enter his house and lights come on, shortly before 11:00.
* Park heard and saw Simpson tell Kaelin that he would get a small bag from the driveway. A bag that has never been seen again.

Your last statement makes absolutely no sense. The fact is that the criminal trial verdict does not mean Simpson wasn't the killer. The civil trial verdict does.

bobaugust

The last sentence of your post is completely contrary to any intelligent understanding of legal standards.

[martin II]

Park testified that when he arrived at RockinghaM, that he did not see the bronco .this does not mean it was not there as he had eyesight problems on othetr issues that night.

Park saw oj walk back into his house after oj brought two bags down stairs.

what happened to the bag Vanhatter took from oj when he arrived from Chicago.
martin II

[bobaugust]

The last sentence of your post is completely contrary to any intelligent understanding of legal standards.

That's funny coming from someone like you who has made some of the most unintelligent arguments ever made about the Simpson case.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Park testified that when he arrived at RockinghaM, that he did not see the bronco .this does not mean it was not there as he had eyesight problems on othetr issues that night.

Park saw oj walk back into his house after oj brought two bags down stairs.

what happened to the bag Vanhatter took from oj when he arrived from Chicago.
martin II

martin II, Allan Park had no problems with his eyesight, the problem is your ridiculous claim, not Park's eyesight.

Allan Park testified how he found Simpson's house by looking at the house numbers on the curb. He told how there was no vehicle parked there. He had no doubt about that. The Bronco was later found parked right next to the those house numbers. If it was parked anywhere on Rockingham when Park arrived he would have seen it since he went back to Simpson's Rockingham gate again stopping his limousine right next to where the Bronco was later found.

Park never saw Simpson bring two bags out of the house and Simpson never said he brought two bags out of the house. Your ridiculous claim is again yours and yours alone based on your ignorance of the testimony.

What leads you to believe Vannatter took Simpson bag when he arrived from Chicago?

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, Allan Park had no problems with his eyesight, the problem is your ridiculous claim, not Park's eyesight.

Allan Park testified how he found Simpson's house by looking at the house numbers on the curb. He told how there was no vehicle parked there. He had no doubt about that. The Bronco was later found parked right next to the those house numbers. If it was parked anywhere on Rockingham when Park arrived he would have seen it since he went back to Simpson's Rockingham gate again stopping his limousine right next to where the Bronco was later found.

Park never saw Simpson bring two bags out of the house and Simpson never said he brought two bags out of the house. Your ridiculous claim is again yours and yours alone based on your ignorance of the testimony.

What leads you to believe Vannatter took Simpson bag when he arrived from Chicago?

bobaugust


bob
Park testified that he NEVER saw the bronco on Rockingham even when
le said it was definately there.
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
Park testified that he NEVER saw the bronco on Rockingham even when
le said it was definately there.
martin II

martin II, two completely different situations.

The first one is when Park arrived at Rockingham and was trying to find Simpson's house. He was aware that there were no cars parked at the curb where he saw the house numbers. The Bronco was later found to be parked right next to those house numbers. Park was also aware that there was no car parked near the gate when he drove his limousine back to the gate and stopped his limousine to check out entering that gate. His limousine was exactly where the Bronco was later found to have been parked. Do you think his limousine was on top of the Bronco?

The second situation is when Park exited the Rockingham gate and was concentrating on oncoming traffic so the could turn left. Park testified that doesn't mean there wasn't a parked vehicle to his right only that he wasn't concerned with parked vehicles to his right and and didn't remember seeing one there.

It's amazing and ridiculous how you still can't tell the difference.

What leads you to believe Vannatter took Simpson's bag when Simpson arrived from Chicago?

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, two completely different situations.

The first one is when Park arrived at Rockingham and was trying to find Simpson's house. He was aware that there were no cars parked at the curb where he saw the house numbers. The Bronco was later found to be parked right next to those house numbers. Park was also aware that there was no car parked near the gate when he drove his limousine back to the gate and stopped his limousine to check out entering that gate. His limousine was exactly where the Bronco was later found to have been parked. Do you think his limousine was on top of the Bronco?

The second situation is when Park exited the Rockingham gate and was concentrating on oncoming traffic so the could turn left. Park testified that doesn't mean there wasn't a parked vehicle to his right only that he wasn't concerned with parked vehicles to his right and and didn't remember seeing one there.

It's amazing and ridiculous how you still can't tell the difference.

What leads you to believe Vannatter took Simpson's bag when Simpson arrived from Chicago?

bobaugust






which bag is this? is this one of the missing bags?



http://www.smartfellowspress.com/missing_bags.htm



If you're wondering what happened to the small black duffle bag, this sequence from an KCOP/ ABC film clip of O.J. returning to Rockingham from Chicago should leave no doubt. Mark Fuhrman said that he found a key to a locked room of O.J.'s house where he witnessed the beginning of this sequence. The man carrying the bag in the photos at the bottom of the page with uniformed Officer Donald Thompson, attorney Howard Weitzman and O.J. is Det. Phil Vannatter. The car Vannatter is opening in the last picture where you see the bag in his hand is the police car he used to take O.J. to Parker Center for interrogation. This bag is the one where Vannatter and Lange said they found keys on a ring that matched Faye Resnick's description of Nicole's missing keys on a ring with a "little bear."

[bobaugust]

which bag is this? is this one of the missing bags?



http://www.smartfellowspress.com/missing_bags.htm



If you're wondering what happened to the small black duffle bag, this sequence from an KCOP/ ABC film clip of O.J. returning to Rockingham from Chicago should leave no doubt. Mark Fuhrman said that he found a key to a locked room of O.J.'s house where he witnessed the beginning of this sequence. The man carrying the bag in the photos at the bottom of the page with uniformed Officer Donald Thompson, attorney Howard Weitzman and O.J. is Det. Phil Vannatter. The car Vannatter is opening in the last picture where you see the bag in his hand is the police car he used to take O.J. to Parker Center for interrogation. This bag is the one where Vannatter and Lange said they found keys on a ring that matched Faye Resnick's description of Nicole's missing keys on a ring with a "little bear."

martin II, as I understand it, the travel bag that was seized on June 13 was returned to Simpson. After the Bronco chase the police found the same travel bag in Cowlings Bronco. That's when they found it contained Simpson's passport, his treasured NFL Hall of Fame ring, a disguise kit, a variety of credit cards, toilet articles, a change of underwear, and two sets of keys. All the items were then booked as evidence.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

That's funny coming from someone like you who has made some of the most unintelligent arguments ever made about the Simpson case.

bobaugust

I accept that remark as a compliment, because I consider the source.

[bobaugust]

I accept that remark as a compliment, because I consider the source.

Thank you. Since you take my comments regarding your ridiculous arguments as a compliment, I will be more than happy to continue complimenting you.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, as I understand it, the travel bag that was seized on June 13 was returned to Simpson. After the Bronco chase the police found the same travel bag in Cowlings Bronco. That's when they found it contained Simpson's passport, his treasured NFL Hall of Fame ring, a disguise kit, a variety of credit cards, toilet articles, a change of underwear, and two sets of keys. All the items were then booked as evidence.

bobaugust

bob
how do you know that this was not the duffle bag that Park/Kato said was near the Bently. The "missing " bag?
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
how do you know that this was not the duffle bag that Park/Kato said was near the Bently. The "missing " bag?
martin II

martin II, no one including Simpson ever claimed that the bag on the driveway was Simpson's black travel bag. Kaelin described the bag on the driveway as a knapsack and Allan Park testified it wasn't any of the bags that were shown in court.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, no one including Simpson ever claimed that the bag on the driveway was Simpson's black travel bag. Kaelin described the bag on the driveway as a knapsack and Allan Park testified it wasn't any of the bags that were shown in court.

bobaugust

i will read the article again but the bag that vanhatter took from oj was not submitted into testimony in the trial.

Park did not see the bag long enough to remember how it looked as he was too far away.
martin II

[bobaugust]

i will read the article again but the bag that vanhatter took from oj was not submitted into testimony in the trial.

Park did not see the bag long enough to remember how it looked as he was too far away.
martin II

martin II, the fact is that no one ever claimed or suggested that Simpson's black travel bag was the bag that Kaelin and Park saw on the driveway. Park may have not got a good look at the bag on the driveway but Kaelin did and Kaelin described it as a knapsack.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, the fact is that no one ever claimed or suggested that Simpson's black travel bag was the bag that Kaelin and Park saw on the driveway. Park may have not got a good look at the bag on the driveway but Kaelin did and Kaelin described it as a knapsack.

bobaugust

bob
one of the problems with all the bags is that they were described by different name by different people every time the subjece came up.
knapsack was called duffle bag . duffle bag was called grip, golf bag cover was called duffle bag. large bag, small bag kato/park/oj/ m clarke.
that is what caused some confusion on who loaded what where at rockingham.
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
one of the problems with all the bags is that they were described by different name by different people every time the subjece came up.
knapsack was called duffle bag . duffle bag was called grip, golf bag cover was called duffle bag. large bag, small bag kato/park/oj/ m clarke.
that is what caused some confusion on who loaded what where at rockingham.
martin II

martin II, both Park and Kaelin agreed there was a small dark colored bag on the driveway and that when Kaelin offered to get the bag, Simpson told him that he would get it. Simpson testified that never happened. But the fact is that small dark colored bag has never been seen again.

Simpson lied about what he was wearing before the murders, lied and fabricated stories about what he was doing during the time of the murders, and lied and fabricated what he said he did before leaving for the airport.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, both Park and Kaelin agreed there was a small dark colored bag on the driveway and that when Kaelin offered to get the bag, Simpson told him that he would get it. Simpson testified that never happened. But the fact is that small dark colored bag has never been seen again.

Simpson lied about what he was wearing before the murders, lied and fabricated stories about what he was doing during the time of the murders, and lied and fabricated what he said he did before leaving for the airport.

bobaugust

when one reads the various testimony from Park, Kato, pj the defense and the prosecution one will find that all of them misnamed those bags as i stated above. so i don't know if the bag vanhatter took from oj was the 'KNAPSACK' or "bag" or " small black bag" or not.
martin II

[weezer]

when one reads the work wukong did on 'follow the bags,' it's pretty obvious which bags were being discussed and it wasn't the new bag with tags that the defense tried to bring into court. ;)

[bobaugust]

when one reads the various testimony from Park, Kato, pj the defense and the prosecution one will find that all of them misnamed those bags as i stated above. so i don't know if the bag vanhatter took from oj was the 'KNAPSACK' or "bag" or " small black bag" or not.
martin II

martin II, of course you don't know since you don't even know what Simpson testified to regarding the bags. The fact is that not one of Simpson's defense attorneys or Simpson ever claimed or suggested that the small knapsack Kaelin and Park saw on the driveway was Simpson's travel bag.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Wukong did a lot of work in a attempt to explain the different testimony about the bags BUT his opinions were not a part of the trial.

Parks confusing testimony/memory.

"Allan Park's Memory -- Nothing O.J. said about his actions when Park was on Rockingham can stand alone in reconstructing what actually happened on the night of June 12, 1994 because of his obvious self-interest. Similarly, nothing that Allan Park said can stand alone because of his demonstrably poor memory of things that were not important to him at the time. Yet, the only standard of comparison between the bags that were put in the limo and the ones that returned from Chicago has always been Allan Park's memory combined with Marcia Clark's incriminating characterization of his testimony."

"Park's testimony changed from one court hearing to the next after conferring with Marcia and his mother about his previous testimony. Only the small black duffle bag and the blue cloth one with the beige leather trim match his memory but the blue one was not counted because it was not allowed into evidence. He recalled the two black "duffle bags" he saw when he entered the Ashford gate being identical even though he thought he loaded both of them in the passenger compartment of the limo and one was twice as long as the other. They were the same color and had the same fully loaded diameter. Both were black. The trouble with that scenario is that one of the bags he originally thought was a duffle bag was a golf bag sheath and everyone, including Park, agreed that Kato put the bag with the golf bags in the trunk. "

"Park's memory of his June 12th encounter with O.J. was tested numerous times against hard evidence and Kato's testimony. On every point that mattered to him when he went to Rockingham, his memory measured against that evidence and Kato's testimony was consistent. On every point that mattered only after the Bundy murders his memory was not consistent. He did not recall seeing O.J.'s Bronco on Rockingham when he left for LAX although it must have been there. He recalled O.J. saying something that Kato said. He recalled Kato standing on the north path when no one disputes Kato was down by the south path. Park recalled seeing a duffle bag open but described the contents of the golf bag sheeth. He recalled Arnelle's SAAB parked behind the Bentley when it could not have been there. He marked where he saw the blue bag almost dead center of where he recalled seeing the SAAB. "

"Marcia Clark's summary of Allan Park's testimony and the meaning that she attached to it was incriminating to O.J. Simpson. The testimony itself was not. "

[martin II]

martin II, of course you don't know since you don't even know what Simpson testified to regarding the bags. The fact is that not one of Simpson's defense attorneys or Simpson ever claimed or suggested that the small knapsack Kaelin and Park saw on the driveway was Simpson's travel bag.

bobaugust

bob

You continue to offer the idea that since the defense did not do this or that, it means that the prosecutions theory was correct.

When the defense believes that a situaiton such as the confusion on the identify of the bage has proven their point or that reasomable doubt has been acheived, there is no reason for them to then try to prove a point that they believe has already been proven in their favor.
martin II

[martin II]

Various witnesses identified the bags by different names which caused confusion as to which bag they saw where.

Park/Kato/OJ/ M clarke

GOLF BAG COVER WAS= golf bag---large duffle bag--sheath--garment bag.


BLUE BAG BEHINFD BENTLY WAS =small bag--black bag--smallo black bag--small duffle bag.


SMALL DUFFLE BAG WAS= grip--duffle bag-small duffle bag--tote bag.

martin II

[martin II]

O.J. Simpson's "Missing" Bags

"Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden theorized that O.J. put the missing shoes, "sweats" and murder weapon in a bag that "he would not let anyone touch" and disposed of the bag in an LAX trash container. Limo driver Allan Park recalled seeing only one of the travel bags below that returned on O.J.'s flight from Chicago. He said that he recognized the black tote bag that Johnnie Cochran showed him. He said that it was one of the bags he put in the passenger compartment of the limo. He originally identified it as a black duffle bag. Later it was referred to as a "small" duffle bag. This is the bag Marcia said O.J. would not let anyone touch. It is also the bag she suggested that O.J. put in the LAX trash container although it did not fit the size or color description of the small never referred to as a "duffle" bag that O.J. picked up behind the Bentley and it was obviously not missing. The only bag presented in the trial that looks like a duffle bag is the large black bag that covered the golf bag."

"If this sounds confusing, read the criminal trial transcripts and see how much more confusing it gets with one bag counted as two or three and two bags morphing into one. Exhibit numbers don't help because the blue bag that O.J. picked up behind the Bentley was not entered into evidence although it did receive an exhibit number. It therefore became a "wild card" that could be used to make it sound like a bag that received another exhibit number. Marcia's choice of words in describing it made it sound like the small black duffle bag that O.J. took to LAX. Using the prosecution's convoluted and inconsistent identification process there is no way to make an accurate count of the bags that left the Rockingham estate in the limo and the ones that returned. You can even argue that all of the bags were missing and suggest that the ones presented as evidence in court were substitutes for the originals with no evidence to support the argument. The prosecution did just that. "

[William Anthony]

Thank you. Since you take my comments regarding your ridiculous arguments as a compliment, I will be more than happy to continue complimenting you.

bobaugust

Again, I thank you, because what you consider ridiculous is the height of sound logic in the eyes of most normal and reasonable thinking people.

[martin II]

info on blood not found in oj's south walkway.

Most notable -- perhps 'infamous' is a better word -- is Bob August, who simply ignores the fact that no blood was found by literally saying "Blood drops were there, but the police just didn't find it." similar to his assertion that the foliage would show no sign of a large man passing through it, in spite of the fact that the most expereienced forensic scientist in the world went looking for it, and, not finding it, made mention of it.



August, being an obscure person, and probably not rich enough to go after in court, specifically names Arnelle Simpson as the one who cleaned up after her father.

http://www.smartfellowspress.com/missing_bags.htm

[martin II]

comment on Oj telling Arnell to wash items


"Mr. August says Arnelle received her father's call from the airport about 11:30. After what must have been one of the weirdest calls of her life (How often has someone called YOU and asked you to clean up anything in the middle of the night?) she then stayed out till 12:30 or 1:00. (According to Kaelin, in Eliott's book, she came home even later than that.), went to her room, stayed in it until 4:00 a.m., then came out, went to the front door, turned off the alarm, and went in and -- while leaving the lights off -- picked up the later-to-be-missing evidence and proceeded to launder the bloody seat suit. For some reason or another she then manages to get rid of the knife and shoes, but forgets the sweat suit in the washing machine. "

Now, dear reader, if you are going to believe that, I have this little bridge in Brooklyn I want you to look at; I can get you a great deal on it.....

First, why in the hell wait till 4:00 a.m. to start the coverup task? Because her father told her to? And why the hell would he do THAT? The cops could have discovered the bodies at any second and be over to Rockingham minutes later. You've just banged into an airconditioner a few minutes before in a total panic, and yet you are going NOW to tell your daughter/accomplice to go ahead, complete her date, go home, and WAIT THREE HOURS before doing the cleanup?

Moreover, you are going to order her to do a load of laundry before throwing the stuff away?

Knowing full well that Kaelin was in his room within earshot of the washing machine?


smartfellows.

[bobaugust]

bob

You continue to offer the idea that since the defense did not do this or that, it means that the prosecutions theory was correct.

When the defense believes that a situaiton such as the confusion on the identify of the bage has proven their point or that reasomable doubt has been acheived, there is no reason for them to then try to prove a point that they believe has already been proven in their favor.
martin II

martin II, I see so you think since no one ever argued or ever suggested that the knapsack Kaelin and Park saw Simpson pick up from the driveway was Simpson's black travel bag that means to you that it was Simpson's black travel bag.

You are so lost in your fantasies.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

O.J. Simpson's "Missing" Bags

"Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden theorized that O.J. put the missing shoes, "sweats" and murder weapon in a bag that "he would not let anyone touch" and disposed of the bag in an LAX trash container. Limo driver Allan Park recalled seeing only one of the travel bags below that returned on O.J.'s flight from Chicago. He said that he recognized the black tote bag that Johnnie Cochran showed him. He said that it was one of the bags he put in the passenger compartment of the limo. He originally identified it as a black duffle bag. Later it was referred to as a "small" duffle bag. This is the bag Marcia said O.J. would not let anyone touch. It is also the bag she suggested that O.J. put in the LAX trash container although it did not fit the size or color description of the small never referred to as a "duffle" bag that O.J. picked up behind the Bentley and it was obviously not missing. The only bag presented in the trial that looks like a duffle bag is the large black bag that covered the golf bag."

"If this sounds confusing, read the criminal trial transcripts and see how much more confusing it gets with one bag counted as two or three and two bags morphing into one. Exhibit numbers don't help because the blue bag that O.J. picked up behind the Bentley was not entered into evidence although it did receive an exhibit number. It therefore became a "wild card" that could be used to make it sound like a bag that received another exhibit number. Marcia's choice of words in describing it made it sound like the small black duffle bag that O.J. took to LAX. Using the prosecution's convoluted and inconsistent identification process there is no way to make an accurate count of the bags that left the Rockingham estate in the limo and the ones that returned. You can even argue that all of the bags were missing and suggest that the ones presented as evidence in court were substitutes for the originals with no evidence to support the argument. The prosecution did just that. "

martin II, I see you are still posting meaningless opinions without posting the source.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

comment on Oj telling Arnell to wash items


"Mr. August says Arnelle received her father's call from the airport about 11:30. After what must have been one of the weirdest calls of her life (How often has someone called YOU and asked you to clean up anything in the middle of the night?) she then stayed out till 12:30 or 1:00. (According to Kaelin, in Eliott's book, she came home even later than that.), went to her room, stayed in it until 4:00 a.m., then came out, went to the front door, turned off the alarm, and went in and -- while leaving the lights off -- picked up the later-to-be-missing evidence and proceeded to launder the bloody seat suit. For some reason or another she then manages to get rid of the knife and shoes, but forgets the sweat suit in the washing machine. "

Now, dear reader, if you are going to believe that, I have this little bridge in Brooklyn I want you to look at; I can get you a great deal on it.....

First, why in the hell wait till 4:00 a.m. to start the coverup task? Because her father told her to? And why the hell would he do THAT? The cops could have discovered the bodies at any second and be over to Rockingham minutes later. You've just banged into an airconditioner a few minutes before in a total panic, and yet you are going NOW to tell your daughter/accomplice to go ahead, complete her date, go home, and WAIT THREE HOURS before doing the cleanup?

Moreover, you are going to order her to do a load of laundry before throwing the stuff away?

Knowing full well that Kaelin was in his room within earshot of the washing machine?


smartfellows.

martin Ii, this is a good example of how Garrison uses false information in his arguments and then makes ridiculous comments. I've never said Simpson called Arnelle at 11:30. or suggested Arnelle got rid of Simpson's knife and shoes.

Even you should have caught that. Funny.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin Ii, this is a good example of how Garrison uses false information in his arguments and then makes ridiculous comments. I've never said Simpson called Arnelle at 11:30. or suggested Arnelle got rid of Simpson's knife and shoes.

Even you should have caught that. Funny.

bobaugust

bob
the point is that Kato was in his room not sleep. He did not hear the washing machine. He definately heard her come home as she walked by his room at about 1 am. he never testified that he heard her leave her room and go to the washing room which was close to him.

Another posted asked the correct question, "why wash the sweat suite when the intent was to get rid if it". This makes no sense
martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
the point is that Kato was in his room not sleep. He did not hear the washing machine. He definately heard her come home as she walked by his room at about 1 am. he never testified that he heard her leave her room and go to the washing room which was close to him.

Another posted asked the correct question, "why wash the sweat suite when the intent was to get rid if it". This makes no sense
martin II

martin II, Kaelin was in his room sleeping when Arnelle washed the clothes. Kaelin testified he had a hard time sleeping but he didn't said he never slept. If Simpson called Arnelle after he arrived in Chicago then Arnelle washed that clothing about a hour or less before the police arrived at Rockingham. When the police entered the estate and knocked on Kaelin's door they woke him up. He was sleeping.

Why wash the clothing when the intent was to get rid of it? Because Simpson didn't have a chance to get rid of it before he left for Chicago. He evidently didn't want to take the chance of carrying around bloody clothing. When he called Arnelle to wash the sweat suit he most likely never anticipated that the police would be searching his house before he got home. Arnelle would have left Simpson's house while the washing machine was still running and went back to her room to sleep. She also had no reason to believe the police would search the house. She may very well have intended to get rid of the sweatsuit later that day after it had been washed and dried.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, Kaelin was in his room sleeping when Arnelle washed the clothes. Kaelin testified he had a hard time sleeping but he didn't said he never slept. If Simpson called Arnelle after he arrived in Chicago then Arnelle washed that clothing about a hour or less before the police arrived at Rockingham. When the police entered the estate and knocked on Kaelin's door they woke him up. He was sleeping.

Why wash the clothing when the intent was to get rid of it? Because Simpson didn't have a chance to get rid of it before he left for Chicago. He evidently didn't want to take the chance of carrying around bloody clothing. When he called Arnelle to wash the sweat suit he most likely never anticipated that the police would be searching his house before he got home. Arnelle would have left Simpson's house while the washing machine was still running and went back to her room to sleep. She also had no reason to believe the police would search the house. She may very well have intended to get rid of the sweatsuit later that day after it had been washed and dried.

bobaugust

bob
you have no idea of when oj was suppose to have called Arnell so you just say he called her and that is suppose to be a fact.

IF oj had any bloody sweat suite he could have put it in the LVL bag and brought it down stairs and to chicago like you think he did with the shoes and knife.

I do notice that this time when you are guessing you do say 'SHE MAY VERY WELL HAVE"

martin II

[weezer]

I went looking but could not find any reference to the police/Arnelle saying she was sleeping when they went to her bungalow. Anyone know?

[weezer]

*Snipped*[QUOTE=martin II;8841391]. . .Arnelle received her father's call from the airport about 11:30. After what must have been one of the weirdest calls of her life (How often has someone called YOU and asked you to clean up anything in the middle of the night?) she then stayed out till 12:30 or 1:00. QUOTE]

hmm. . . Arnelle testified in her deposition that she got home 12 or 12:30 -- seems to me that she didn't wait long after getting daddy's call at 11:30.

[weezer]

I went looking but could not find any reference to the police/Arnelle saying she was sleeping when they went to her bungalow. Anyone know?

I read back through her civil deposition and although in forming one of his questions, Petrocelli describes the police waking her, she never says that she was asleep.

[martin II]

MR. COCHRAN: So you returned home and was anyone at home when you returned home after 12:30 on now June 13, 1994?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And who was home?

MS. SIMPSON: Kato.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Anybody else that you are aware was there?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

THE COURT: I think we know who she is talking about, but since we have two Katos here--

MS. SIMPSON: I'm sorry, Kato Kaelin.

MR. COCHRAN: Kato the human being?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Kato Kaelin. All right. When you returned home, where did you go at that point, if you recall?

MS. SIMPSON: To my room.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. That is Arnelle's room; is that correct?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then do you know about--did you at some point go to sleep?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know what time approximately you went to bed, went to sleep?

MS. SIMPSON: It had to have been around one o'clock. Between 1:00 and 1:30.

MR. COCHRAN: When you returned home did you notice anything unusual at all about the residence?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, if you went to bed and went to sleep about 1:00, 1:30 or thereabouts, did there come a time that you were awakened on the morning hours of June 13, 1994?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Describe for the Court and jury the circumstances that you were awakened, ma'am, if you recall.

MS. SIMPSON: Umm, I was awakened around between 5:00 and 5:30 by two gentlemen knocking at my door.

MR. COCHRAN: And these gentlemen knocking at your door, what did they say, if you recall?

MS. SIMPSON: They just--they were knocking on my door and

[martin II]

MR. COCHRAN: All right. I presume, having been in bed, you were attired in your pajamas or whatever?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you get up at that point?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And then tell us what happened at that point.

MS. SIMPSON: Umm, they had told me that they needed to get in touch with my father and if I knew where he was.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. What did you say in response to that?

MS. SIMPSON: I said that, umm, he wasn't home but I didn't know where he was but I knew how to get in touch with him.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then what happened after that?

MS. SIMPSON: Umm, we left out of my room and I went to--to go to get my phone book to get in touch with somebody who would know where my dad was.

MR. COCHRAN: When you say you went to get your phone book, I presume you didn't have your phone book with you at that point?

MS. SIMPSON: No, it wasn't.

MR. COCHRAN: With the Court's permission, did you go to some location to get your phone book?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You were talking to two men, were you?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: These two people, were they Los Angeles Police Department detectives?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know their names now?

MS. SIMPSON: I believe Phillips and Lange.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Can you describe the person you think is Lange for us?

MS. SIMPSON: Lange would be the salt and pepper, he has more hair on him, and I think Phillips is the one with the mustache and the bald head.

MR. COCHRAN: You may have them reversed. There was one with a bald head?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Let's call him Lange.

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Phillips, describe him again.

MS. SIMPSON: Salt and pepper hair, older, bigger build.

MR. COCHRAN: Let's for the time being call him Phillips?

MS. SIMPSON: I switched.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion then--would you step down and I want you to show the jury and the Court the route that you took as you sought to get this number so you could try to find your father. You could step all the way down if you want.

MS. SIMPSON: (Witness complies.) You want me to do what?

MR. COCHRAN: The question is can you look at this diagram and draw with the pointer the route that you took as you went to get your book to get the number to call--locate your dad?

MS. SIMPSON: Okay. Out of here, (Indicating), this way.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, she is leaving, your Honor, the area marked "Arnelle's room" and she walks west to an area with some stairs. She goes up the stairs and proceeds past the pool.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that right?

MS. SIMPSON: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: She went around the north side of the house to an area marked "Driveway" again on People's 66.

MR. COCHRAN: And you went to an area marked "Entrance." Now, is that the entrance to the Rockingham residence?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what did you do when you got to that entrance, ma'am?

MS. SIMPSON: I went over here to the kitchen, through the kitchen to the phone here and then walked through here, (Indicating), to get to my car.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Let's back up for a moment. When you went to--got to the front door of the residence there, did you have to do anything before you got inside that residence?

MS. SIMPSON: I had to turn the alarm off.

MR. COCHRAN: There was an alarm on?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you turned the alarm off; is that correct?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: When you walked that route that you just described for the Court and the jury, was anyone accompanying you at that point?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Who was?

MS. SIMPSON: The two detectives.

MR. COCHRAN: The two people we described earlier?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Lange and Phillips?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You walked around and took the alarm off before you went inside?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me ask you specifically did you ever at any time walk from your residence here marked "Arnelle's room" and go through some door here at the back of the house?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MR. COCHRAN: When the alarm is on is that possible?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Can't go in that way; is that right?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MR. COCHRAN: The alarm key pad is where?

MS. SIMPSON: In the front of the house.

MR. COCHRAN: So you went around to the front of the house and turned off that alarm and then these two detectives came in behind you; is that correct?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you described for the jury that you went into the kitchen area; is that correct?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: They were still there with you?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

[weezer]

January 14th - Arnelle Simpson testimony - civil trial:

Q. Okay. Now, I want to direct your attention to the morning of June 13, 1994. First of all, where had you been the night before, that was the night of June 12?

A. I was out at the movies.

Q. What time did you return home approximately?

A. I had to have returned home around 12:30; between 12 and 12:30.

[weezer]

January 14 - civil trial testimony - Arnelle Simpson:
MR. PETROCELLI:
Q. And you see the reference to the maid's room?

A. Um-hum.

Q. Now, outside the maid's room, where the laundry room is, that's on the outside of the inside of the house?

A. Yes.

Q. And going to that key pad, when you enter the rear door, if the alarm is on, you can disarm the alarm from the key pad on the inside of the house that's near the maid's room, right?

A. That room or the front door.

Q. Or the front door?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, there's one upstairs?

A. Yes.

MR. LEONARD: Object. Beyond the scope. He is now talking about a different door.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) So if you enter through the rear door, you have 40 seconds to get to a key pad to disarm the alarm, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the maid's room has a key pad in it for the alarm, right? Not in the maid's room, but just outside it?

A. Yeah.

Q. And what you were talking about is how you disarm the alarm from the inside of the house when you enter through the rear door, because the rear door has a 40-second delay on it, as you laid out in your testimony in the criminal trial, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay.

[martin II]

trick question by slick petrocelli

"that's on the outside of the inside of the house?"
He was talking about a different door.


Arnell never laid this out in her criminal testimony.
martin II

[weezer]

no trick question -- Arnelle/Cochran mislead (all but lied) in the criminal trial about how she had to disarm the system. The fact is, there were two places in the house with keypads (outside the maid's room and upstairs) as well as the one at the front door.

[martin II]

There was no key pad on the back door near the pool area.

Arnel was a beautiful witness in many ways.
martin II

[weezer]

Arnelle/Cochran mislead (all but lied) in the criminal trial about how she had to disarm the system. The fact is, there were two places in the house with keypads (outside the maid's room and upstairs) as well as the one at the front door.

[bobaugust]

There was no key pad on the back door near the pool area.

Arnel was a beautiful witness in many ways.
martin II

martin II, that's right and the rear door could only be locked from the inside. When Arnelle let the detectives into Simpson's house opening that rear door, no alarm went off, no warning beeps went off. The door was unlocked and the house alarm was off.

You may think Arnelle is a beautiful witness, but that doesn't change the fact that she outright lied under oath. Her story was impeached by four detectives and her friend Kato Kaelin.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, that's right and the rear door could only be locked from the inside. When Arnelle let the detectives into Simpson's house opening that rear door, no alarm went off, no warning beeps went off. The door was unlocked and the house alarm was off.

You may think Arnelle is a beautiful witness, but that doesn't change the fact that she outright lied under oath. Her story was impeached by four detectives and her friend Kato Kaelin.

bobaugust

bob
that according to you and vanhatter and his pals.
martin II

[socaldiva]

bob
that according to you and vanhatter and his pals.
martin II

Maybe if you weren't busy thinking about how beautiful (gag) you think she looked you would have heard her lies. :rolleyes:

[weezer]

anyone know how/if arnelle supports herself?

[Kayleighjo]

anyone know how/if arnelle supports herself?


Last I heard she was a fashion stylist in Los Angeles.

[weezer]

Last I heard she was a fashion stylist in Los Angeles.

really? man does she need someone to help her with her look. :D

[martin II]

really? man does she need someone to help her with her look. :D

With the people that COUNT she seems to be doing quite well in her chosen profession. But i would not expect some to have any knowledge in that area.
martin II

[martin II]

anyone know how/if arnelle supports herself?

Do you consider the subject of how Arnell supports herself to be of concern to you.Like any of your business?
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

really? man does she need someone to help her with her look. :D

Yeah, Stella McCarthy she aint! What an ugly, skanky, lying which! IMO!

[socaldiva]

Do you consider the subject of how Arnell supports herself to be of concern to you.Like any of your business?
martin II

Like it's any of your business what Fred does :rolleyes:

[2L8 4A D8]

With the people that COUNT she seems to be doing quite well in her chosen profession. But i would not expect some to have any knowledge in that area.
martin II

That's only your opinion which means ZILCH with ZERO CREDIBILITY.

Who are "the people that COUNT?" Start naming names!

And, who are the "some to have any knowledge in that area?" Start naming names!

Are you like some Arnelle know-it-all now? I am sure that you would like to think that you are, but if it is anything like you thinking that you have any knowledge or expertise on this OJ Simpson Double Murder Case Board and Threads, I'll just consider the source, thanks!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Like it's any of your business what Fred does :rolleyes:

:beer: Excellent, Excellent Diva! :beer: