Anybody know about this?

[Beebee]

This is from OJ's civil trial.... does anyone know about this pendant, and why it was not booked as evidence for 10 weeks?

28 Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Where was that?
 Thomas Lange - Cross - Vol. 7 - 11/1/96 69

1 A. The pendant was in the -- approximately
2 the driveway area, I believe, adjacent to the garage
3 door.
4 Q. Now, when was that item -- strike that.
5 That was an item of evidence?
6 A. It was ultimately booked evidence. It
7 wasn't initially, but ultimately I did book it.
8 Q. Well, it was -- that's the ruler of
9 Mr. Rokahr, the photographer, that he put down beside
10 that, done on June 13, 1994?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. That item was booked as evidence August
13 26, 1994, ten weeks later?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What happened to it between the 13th and
16 the 26th, Mr. Lange?
17 A. I collected it, Mr. Baker. It was in
18 my --
19 Q. What did you do with it?
20 A. -- It was in my desk drawer for that
21 amount of time.
22 Q. It was in your desk drawer?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. For ten weeks.
25 MR. MEDVENE: Objection.
26 THE WITNESS: Yes.

from: http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/simpson.civil.trial/transcripts.november/11.01.transcript.html

[martin II]

This is from OJ's civil trial.... does anyone know about this pendant, and why it was not booked as evidence for 10 weeks?



from: http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/simpson.civil.trial/transcripts.november/11.01.transcript.html

beebee
i did not know this, i woinder what else was left at thew crime scene or held back from evidence.
martin II

[weezer]

beebee
i did not know this, i woinder what else was left at thew crime scene or held back from evidence.
martin II

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Beebee]

Hi Martin,

I never heard of this pendant found. I wonder if it was determined to be Nicoles?

I wonder why Lange held on to it? Could it be one of those situations where LE holds back certain info from the public for investigative purposes?

[Beebee]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Well do you know anything about it??

[socaldiva]

Yesterday the coroners were on trial here & now it's a mysterious pendant :D

Here is more from the link:

THE WITNESS: Would you like me to explain,
2 Mr. Baker?
3 Q. BY MR. BAKER: Now, did you, personally,
4 take any other evidence and have it in your custody
5 and control without booking it?
6 A. I'm not aware of any evidence that wasn't
7 booked.
8 Q. Well, you're suppose to book things as
9 soon as practical, true?
10 A. That's the key word, "practical." It was
11 not practical to book this item at that particular
12 time.
13 Q. It wasn't practical to book that piece of
14 evidence for ten weeks while it sat in your drawer?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. Okay. So your drawer, and in the area
17 where you can book evidence, what is it; two floors
18 away?
19 A. More like two miles.
20 Q. So couldn't book it for the ten weeks?
21 A. No. It's not that I couldn't.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. I didn't want to. I specifically
24 withheld that particular item for a purpose.
25 Q. Oh, okay. Did you with hold any other
26 evidence, Mr. Lange?
27 A. No.

[Beebee]

Socaldiva,

I'm not calling it "mysterious".... I'm wondering if it was Nicoles, and why it was found at the crime scene. Do you have any idea?

[socaldiva]

Socaldiva,

I'm not calling it "mysterious".... I'm wondering if it was Nicoles, and why it was found at the crime scene. Do you have any idea?

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that you were referring to it as mysterious. No, offhand I can't recall anything about this item.

[weezer]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that you were referring to it as mysterious. No, offhand I can't recall anything about this item.

wasn't it found by Nicole's car door that was partially open?

[socaldiva]

wasn't it found by Nicole's car door that was partially open?

Could very well be. I do recall the door being ajar & something relative to coins being scattered, but I don't remember if that was by her car or where the Bronco would have been. I think when you've got small kids, stuff drops out of the car all the time.

[Beebee]

From what I read, it was found by her Jeep.... but a blood drop was mentioned also in the same area.
Lange kept the pendant for ten weeks before booking it as evidence, so he must have thought it had some significance.... I'm trying to figure out what it was.

I don't remember reading the door to the jeep was ajar.

[attorneywan2be]

From what I read, it was found by her Jeep.... but a blood drop was mentioned also in the same area.
Lange kept the pendant for ten weeks before booking it as evidence, so he must have thought it had some significance.... I'm trying to figure out what it was.

I don't remember reading the door to the jeep was ajar.


Hi BeeBee :seeya:

I didn't know about it..why would Lange keep it for 10 weeks?....something is not right..hmmm

[martin II]

Hi BeeBee :seeya:

I didn't know about it..why would Lange keep it for 10 weeks?....something is not right..hmmm

You got that right. SOMETHING WRONG again.

So it seems that the detectives were able to include some evidence found and keep sone evidence out of the trial until THEY felt it should be included.

Maby there should be some rule that requires the detectives desk to be searched and for them to have to empty their pockets when they leave a crime scene.

This means that Lang did not tell Fung of his find.

martin II

[Beebee]

Martin,

Lange had to have a reason for keeping it..... what could it be?

I don't think the pendant proves anything one way or the other, I'm just curious as to why he kept it, and what significance it may have had. Was Nicole wearing it that night?

[attorneywan2be]

You got that right. SOMETHING WRONG again.

So it seems that the detectives were able to include some evidence found and keep sone evidence out of the trial until THEY felt it should be included.

Maby there should be some rule that requires the detectives desk to be searched and for them to have to empty their pockets when they leave a crime scene.

This means that Lang did not tell Fung of his find.

martin II


I wish they would make it a rule to videotape police searches of crime scenes..the collecting of evidence..had they done that, IMO, both gloves would have been found at Bundy...!

[tv]

I wish they would make it a rule to videotape police searches of crime scenes..the collecting of evidence..had they done that, IMO, both gloves would have been found at Bundy...!That would be a great rule. IMO, it would have proven that only ONE glove was found at Bundy.

[attorneywan2be]

That would be a great rule. IMO, it would have proven that only ONE glove was found at Bundy.


But it they had that rule we wouldn't be debating the glove..!!

[attorneywan2be]

Martin,

Lange had to have a reason for keeping it..... what could it be?

I don't think the pendant proves anything one way or the other, I'm just curious as to why he kept it, and what significance it may have had. Was Nicole wearing it that night?

Exactly..I don't think we will ever know whether or not that pendant proves anything or not..UNFORTUNATELY!

ETA..is there a picture of Nicole that was taken that day..as far as I remember, there was a school event that she attended and someone videotaped it....!

[Beebee]

Are the exhibits from the civil trial available anywhere online? The pendant was exhibit 859.

[weezer]

Exactly..I don't think we will ever know whether or not that pendant proves anything or not..UNFORTUNATELY!

ETA..is there a picture of Nicole that was taken that day..as far as I remember, there was a school event that she attended and someone videotaped it....!

imo - arnelle was wearing the pendant that night. :eek:

[Beebee]

imo - arnelle was wearing the pendant that night. :eek:

Is this your way of saying you know nothing about the pendant or why Lang kept it in his desk for ten weeks?

If so, you don't need to mock people wondering about it. It WAS eventually booked as evidence. If you don't know, you don't know.

[martin II]

wasn't it found by Nicole's car door that was partially open?

weezer
did you read this someplace? If so where?
martin II

[weezer]

Is this your way of saying you know nothing about the pendant or why Lang kept it in his desk for ten weeks?

If so, you don't need to mock people wondering about it. It WAS eventually booked as evidence. If you don't know, you don't know.

boy -- are you spoiling for a fight or what? You posted the testimony where he said he kept it for a reason. Obviously the pendant turned out not to be important to either the prosecution or the defense. imo

[martin II]

But it they had that rule we wouldn't be debating the glove..!!

I agree

If they turned furhmans pockets inside out they may have looked blood red.imo
martin II

[martin II]

boy -- are you spoiling for a fight or what? You posted the testimony where he said he kept it for a reason. Obviously the pendant turned out not to be important to either the prosecution or the defense. imo

so why the ARNELL comment??
martin II

[martin II]

That would be a great rule. IMO, it would have proven that only ONE glove was found at Bundy.

it may show furhman standing in the background at the back gate stuffing a glove in his pocket.

imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

it may show furhman standing in the background at the back gate stuffing a glove in his pocket.

imo
martin II

Pure fantasy on your part :no:

[socaldiva]

I agree

If they turned furhmans pockets inside out they may have looked blood red.imo
martin II

There is nothing to support this fantasy, except your imagination :no:

[Beebee]

boy -- are you spoiling for a fight or what? You posted the testimony where he said he kept it for a reason. Obviously the pendant turned out not to be important to either the prosecution or the defense. imo

No fight.... I guess you were just trying to be funny. The thing is, I'm curious as to why Lang would keep it. I'm wondering what his reason was. It could be perfectly legit.... I still want to know. He must have considered it evidence of some kind. Was Nicole wearing it? Did the killer take it off?? Did it even belong to Nicole? There was blood nearby where it was found...

The officer who found it only testified at the civil trial that I can tell.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Was Nicole wearing it? Did the killer take it off?? Did it even belong to Nicole?

The murder didn't take place back there & there was no indication that there was any altercation in that area. If it had been taken off by the killer, I imagine it would have torn her dress. :shrug:

[martin II]

No fight.... I guess you were just trying to be funny. The thing is, I'm curious as to why Lang would keep it. I'm wondering what his reason was. It could be perfectly legit.... I still want to know. He must have considered it evidence of some kind. Was Nicole wearing it? Did the killer take it off?? Did it even belong to Nicole? There was blood nearby where it was found...

The officer who found it only testified at the civil trial that I can tell.

beebee
thank for this link.
could this mean that Nicole came out her back door and was attacked there and dropped it and made to go to the front yard? Was there another woman in that back way and she dropped it.

I thought that D Fung was responsible for collecting everything at the crime scene? Why would a seasoned detective collect a piece of evidence and keep it in his desk drawer for 10 weeks? That is the quesiton.

I wonder if anything else was keep out of evidence for 10 weeks? We will never know.
imo
martin II

[weezer]

*Snipped* . . .Was there another woman in that back way and she dropped it.

maybe orenthal was telling the truth in his book when he said he stripped down naked and then he had arnelle go get the sweat suit from Bundy and wash it at Rockingham with her clothes? imo

[William Anthony]

beebee
thank for this link.
could this mean that Nicole came out her back door and was attacked there and dropped it and made to go to the front yard? Was there another woman in that back way and she dropped it.

I thought that D Fung was responsible for collecting everything at the crime scene? Why would a seasoned detective collect a piece of evidence and keep it in his desk drawer for 10 weeks? That is the quesiton.

I wonder if anything else was keep out of evidence for 10 weeks? We will never know.
imo
martin II

Martin,

Didn't Vanatter place Simpson's blood in his desk drawer for a while? Perhaps, he had a reason to do that too.

[William Anthony]

maybe orenthal was telling the truth in his book when he said he stripped down naked and then he had arnelle go get the sweat suit from Bundy and wash it at Rockingham with her clothes? imo

If MF did smear evidence inside the Bronco, what does this mean he was smearing? If MF did do the smearing, I am willing to guess, imhotaac, that he is thoroughly irate now.

[martin II]

Martin,

Didn't Vanatter place Simpson's blood in his desk drawer for a while? Perhaps, he had a reason to do that too.

william'

I am not too sure but the original missing sheet from Fungs evidence sheets was found in someones desk.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

william'

I am not too sure but the original missing sheet from Fungs evidence sheets was found in someones desk.imo
martin II

martin II, just out of curiosity why do you post remarks like this when you really don't know what you are talking about? There was no missing page and it wasn't found in anyone's desk.

Scheck falsely accused Fung of lying about the time he received Simpson's blood sample simply because page 4 of the crime scene reports the defense was given was a photocopy of a blank page, not the original. Before Fung had turned the original forms over to the defense he had made a set of photocopies and when he put the forms back together he accidentally replaced a photocopy of page 4 for the original. When court recessed Goldberg and Fung checked Fung's notebook that contained the photocopies and found the original page 4. When they returned to court with the original blank page 4 Fung continued his testimony comparing the staple holes in the original page 4 to the photocopy of page 4 making it clear what had happened . This incident clearly showed the depths to which the defense sank in making totally groundless, irresponsible allegations against good people.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, just out of curiosity why do you post remarks like this when you really don't know what you are talking about? There was no missing page and it wasn't found in anyone's desk.

Scheck falsely accused Fung of lying about the time he received Simpson's blood sample simply because page 4 of the crime scene reports the defense was given was a photocopy of a blank page, not the original. Before Fung had turned the original forms over to the defense he had made a set of photocopies and when he put the forms back together he accidentally replaced a photocopy of page 4 for the original. When court recessed Goldberg and Fung checked Fung's notebook that contained the photocopies and found the original page 4. When they returned to court with the original blank page 4 Fung continued his testimony comparing the staple holes in the original page 4 to the photocopy of page 4 making it clear what had happened . This incident clearly showed the depths to which the defense sank in making totally groundless, irresponsible allegations against good people.

bobaugust


based on your post Fung needed a copier that colates. Surprised he did not have one.

martinii

[sassylassy]

hi all.

I hope everyone is doing well.

I just wanted to comment in this pendant, this is the first I ever heard about it....do we know what it looks like or has anyone from Nicoles family claimed it to be hers ?

I find it strange it was sitting in a desk for 10 wks, it should have been booked!

imo :)

c-ya

[William Anthony]

william'

I am not too sure but the original missing sheet from Fungs evidence sheets was found in someones desk.imo
martin II

Martin,

As I recall, Vanatter went to his office, drank some coffee or something, and placed the blood vial in his desk drawer before going to Bundy. I wonder what all is in those desk drawers. You think there could have been an empty top vial with a top other than the color purple and a needle?

[martin II]

Martin,

As I recall, Vanatter went to his office, drank some coffee or something, and placed the blood vial in his desk drawer before going to Bundy. I wonder what all is in those desk drawers. You think there could have been an empty top vial with a top other than the color purple and a needle?

william
i think that the nurse used a SYRINGE to draw the blood from oj instead of a butterfly and vacutainer because the vaccutainer had edta in it. The use of the syringe would allow a person to transfer blood from the syringe into a vile with no edta( for possible mixing and planting) and to one that had edta.(the official vile) imo
The possibility is there.
martin II

[martin II]

Martin,

As I recall, Vanatter went to his office, drank some coffee or something, and placed the blood vial in his desk drawer before going to Bundy. I wonder what all is in those desk drawers. You think there could have been an empty top vial with a top other than the color purple and a needle?

william
it may be that he was doing something but it did not have to be drinking anything. imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

william
it may be that he was doing something but it did not have to be drinking anything. imo
martin II

I agree that he might not have been drinking coffee and I do not think there was an empty vial in his office. There may have been an empty bottle when he left, imho.

[Martyrdom]

I agree that he might not have been drinking coffee and I do not think there was an empty vial in his office. There may have been an empty bottle when he left, imho.

You write fiction novels in your spare time man?

[weezer]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1996; Medvene examination of MIGUEL TERRAZAS:

Q. When you arrived at the rear, did you make any observation?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What did you see?

A. I saw a black Jeep Cherokee parked in the rear of 875 south Bundy. And adjacent to the black Jeep Cherokee towards the passenger side, I observed a drop of blood. I believe there was some change and a pendant.

[martin II]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1996; Medvene examination of MIGUEL TERRAZAS:

Q. When you arrived at the rear, did you make any observation?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What did you see?

A. I saw a black Jeep Cherokee parked in the rear of 875 south Bundy. And adjacent to the black Jeep Cherokee towards the passenger side, I observed a drop of blood. I believe there was some change and a pendant.

The pendant was found on 6/13 this is testimony from the civil trial. so the question remains why did lang hide this evidence for 10 weeks??
martin II

[weezer]

The pendant was found on 6/13 this is testimony from the civil trial. so the question remains why did lang hide this evidence for 10 weeks??
martin II

if other people saw it, how do you figure Lange hid it?

[martin II]

if other people saw it, how do you figure Lange hid it?

bee bee posted the testimony of lang, if you did not read it, thats on you.
martinii

[weezer]

bee bee posted the testimony of lang, if you did not read it, thats on you.
martinii

oh that's a real grown-up answer.

[martin II]

oh that's a real grown-up answer.

weezer
if i remember correctly you were busy trying to bash ARNELL and maby did not read the posters first post or the link.
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
if i remember correctly you were busy trying to bash ARNELL and maby did not read the posters first post or the link.
martin II

I wasn't bashing arnelle -- I was accounting for orenthal's recitation of what he did after the murders (stripped naked) and what we know to be the truth -- the sweat suit in the washing machine with arnelle's clothes. I'm simply suggesting that in order to marry the two, maybe arnelle went to Bundy to collect the sweat suit and lost her pendant. Isn't that what you guys call 'reasonable doubt'?

[William Anthony]

You write fiction novels in your spare time man?

I leave that task to people who do not have information or whish to discuss the issues in a civil manner but do want to make snide remarks whenever possible. I only question the evidence presented and draw inferences from the evidence. I think that it would have been just as easy to buy coffee, drink it on the way to Bundy, since he believed there was such an urgent need to get the vial to Bundy and allegedly to DF, instead of booking it. What are your thoughts on that matter?

[jotun]

This is from OJ's civil trial.... does anyone know about this pendant, and why it was not booked as evidence for 10 weeks?



from: http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/simpson.civil.trial/transcripts.november/11.01.transcript.html


Beebee-Welcome Back!

Blue Plastic Heart Pendant

ALL---
If you search alot it says:

# 859-photo of blue plastic heart.
found adjacent to garage door.

Held for a purpose.
Lange---from time to time there are items from a crime scene in a case that an investigator may want to hold for personal identification purposes.It's a lot more practial to do that,than book an item and not be able to have access to it when you want it. SO THAT'S WHY I HELD ONTO THAT PARTICULAR PENDANT.

jotun

[martin II]

Beebee-Welcome Back!

Blue Plastic Heart Pendant

ALL---
If you search alot it says:

# 859-photo of blue plastic heart.
found adjacent to garage door.

Held for a purpose.
Lange---from time to time there are items from a crime scene in a case that an investigator may want to hold for personal identification purposes.It's a lot more practial to do that,than book an item and not be able to have access to it when you want it. SO THAT'S WHY I HELD ONTO THAT PARTICULAR PENDANT.

jotun


jotun

So this is a way lang, lapd regurlarly manipulate what evidence is booked and entered into evidence. So from this we do not know if there was other evidence found at bundy or rockingham by lang or lapd that would have pointed to two killers or someone other than oj.
This is a reason not to fully trust these lapd coppers. william

imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

jotun

So this is a way lang, lapd regurlarly manipulate what evidence is booked and entered into evidence. So from this we do not know if there was other evidence found at bundy or rockingham by lang or lapd that would have pointed to two killers or someone other than oj.
This is a reason not to fully trust these lapd coppers. william

imo
martin II

Martin,

Another excellent post and I must remember not to become agitated by some who wish to ridicule. I wonder if this is in line with LAPD's protocol on booking of evidence.

[martin II]

Martin,

Another excellent post and I must remember not to become agitated by some who wish to ridicule. I wonder if this is in line with LAPD's protocol on booking of evidence.

william

i agree.
i always believed that le and prosecution had a responsibility to turn over all information about evidence to the defense as it was gathered. The defense was able to visit the lab to examine the glove, blood cap etc a few days after it was collected. I see no reason why the broach lang had was any different.
I guess the cop that found the broach gave it to Lang and Lang just decided to hide it from the court in his desk.
Another poster suggested that the cops should be video taped as they examine and collect evidence just as they did in ojs house. This way we do not have to trust their word for what they did or did not do.imo

martin II

[martin II]

william
i think that the nurse used a SYRINGE to draw the blood from oj instead of a butterfly and vacutainer because the vaccutainer had edta in it. The use of the syringe would allow a person to transfer blood from the syringe into a vile with no edta( for possible mixing and planting) and to one that had edta.(the official vile) imo
The possibility is there.
martin II


william this is a test post.
martin II

[William Anthony]

william this is a test post.
martin II

Thanks again Martin.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I guess the cop that found the broach gave it to Lang and Lang just decided to hide it from the court in his desk.


What are you talking about? The murders happened in June. Lang said he booked it into evidence after 10 weeks, which would be approximately the beginning of September. The trial didn't start until January, yet you deduce that Lang "just decided to hide it from the court in his desk"?:no:

[weezer]

What are you talking about? The murders happened in June. Lang said he booked it into evidence after 10 weeks, which would be approximately the beginning of September. The trial didn't start until January, yet you deduce that Lang "just decided to hide it from the court in his desk"?:no:

even better than that -- martin turned it into a broach! LOL

[tazzybaby]

I wonder if they ever questioned OJ about where that pendant came from? I wonder if they asked him if it meant something?? I wonder if that pendant triggered something in OJ? Or did he have it in his pocket to give to another woman? Did he find it in the jeep when he looked in there? Did he think she got it from another man?

[weezer]

I wonder if they ever questioned OJ about where that pendant came from? I wonder if they asked him if it meant something?? I wonder if that pendant triggered something in OJ? Or did he have it in his pocket to give to another woman? Did he find it in the jeep when he looked in there? Did he think she got it from another man?

the only description I've read of the pendant was 'blue plastic' -- has anyone found anything that actually describes it?

[martin II]

the only description I've read of the pendant was 'blue plastic' -- has anyone found anything that actually describes it?

the quesiton still ramains what kept Lang from turning it in to the evidence collectors when it was found as we believe everything else was.?
martin II

[pearyb]

william
i think that the nurse used a SYRINGE to draw the blood from oj instead of a butterfly and vacutainer because the vaccutainer had edta in it. The use of the syringe would allow a person to transfer blood from the syringe into a vile with no edta( for possible mixing and planting) and to one that had edta.(the official vile) imo
The possibility is there.
martin II

Take it from an expert...butterfly needles are used only for tiny veins and difficult or poor access. Football players, old and young, would have good veins. Needle directly into vaccutainer is typical used. But if you weren't there, all is speculation, and not worth much. But interesting or I wouldn't be here.

[martin II]

even better than that -- martin turned it into a broach! LOL

i made a mistake and called it a broach. That does not change it from a pendant to a broach as you suggest.imo

i don't wear either so it was a mistake on my part.
martin II

[martin II]

Take it from an expert...butterfly needles are used only for tiny veins and difficult or poor access. Football players, old and young, would have good veins. Needle directly into vaccutainer is typical used. But if you weren't there, all is speculation, and not worth much. But interesting or I wouldn't be here.

I have asked this quesiton of several RN's and all have not agreed that it would be necessary to use a syringe as opposed to a vaccutainer because of size of veins.

Everyone here is speculating based on what they have been told or read as no one was there. So based on your post everything said here is not worth much?

imo
martin II

[tazzybaby]

the only description I've read of the pendant was 'blue plastic' -- has anyone found anything that actually describes it?


So, maybe it was a child's pendant. Maybe OJ thought it was something more and discarded it when he realized it was a childs pendant.

It seems if Lange was trying to do something wrong by holding it he would never have booked it in the first place.

[martin II]

So, maybe it was a child's pendant. Maybe OJ thought it was something more and discarded it when he realized it was a childs pendant.

It seems if Lange was trying to do something wrong by holding it he would never have booked it in the first place.

tazzu hi

As far as we know everthing found was immediately turned into fung or the evidence colleciton people. My quesiton is still why did lang hold this item for 10 weeks before turning it in?

martin II

[weezer]

So, maybe it was a child's pendant. Maybe OJ thought it was something more and discarded it when he realized it was a childs pendant.

It seems if Lange was trying to do something wrong by holding it he would never have booked it in the first place.

I do not see anything sinister in the detective holding onto a piece of evidence (?) from a murder scene. From my understanding, it is not uncommon for the police to keep some things from a crime scene from public knowledge.

Some posters read 'boogey-man' into everything LE did/does. IIRC, other LE saw the pendant so the insinuation that Lange somehow 'hid' the pendant is silly. imo

[martin II]

I do not see anything sinister in the detective holding onto a piece of evidence (?) from a murder scene. From my understanding, it is not uncommon for the police to keep some things from a crime scene from public knowledge.

Some posters read 'boogey-man' into everything LE did/does. IIRC, other LE saw the pendant so the insinuation that Lange somehow 'hid' the pendant is silly. imo

WEEZER
I did not know that cops had the right to hold back evidence from the court
found at a murder scene.Does this mean that Lang could have, on his own, if he decided to, hold back say the cap? or the ice cream package or anything else found at Bundy? sounds kinda strange to me.
imo
martin II

[tazzybaby]

I do not see anything sinister in the detective holding onto a piece of evidence (?) from a murder scene. From my understanding, it is not uncommon for the police to keep some things from a crime scene from public knowledge.

Some posters read 'boogey-man' into everything LE did/does. IIRC, other LE saw the pendant so the insinuation that Lange somehow 'hid' the pendant is silly. imo

Hi Weezer,

I agree. It would mean more to me to withhold evidence completely. Kinda like what Dr Henry Lee did in his latest case with the fingernail.

:shrug:

[socaldiva]

WEEZER
I did not know that cops had the right to hold back evidence from the court
found at a murder scene.Does this mean that Lang could have, on his own, if he decided to, hold back say the cap? or the ice cream package or anything else found at Bundy? sounds kinda strange to me.
imo
martin II

Once again you are stating that Lang held evidence back "from the court". He held onto the pendant for 10 weeks. The trial didn't begin until well after the pendant was turned in :no:

[William Anthony]

Hi Weezer,

I agree. It would mean more to me to withhold evidence completely. Kinda like what Dr Henry Lee did in his latest case with the fingernail.

:shrug:

There is a difference in not informing the public and booking evidence. I think that if someone wanted, which is not to say that was someone's intentions in this case, to falsely incriminate someone they could get something that they believed tied that person to the crime and later claim they found it at the crime scene and held on to it. I think the better method would have been to have it collected and booked to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I find it odd that LE would do such a thing, but I do not know how often it is done.

[Kate Sachel]

There is a difference in not informing the public and booking evidence. I think that if someone wanted, which is not to say that was someone's intentions in this case, to falsely incriminate someone they could get something that they believed tied that person to the crime and later claim they found it at the crime scene and held on to it. I think the better method would have been to have it collected and booked to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I find it odd that LE would do such a thing, but I do not know how often it is done.

I would actually tend to agree with this posting.

Kate

[weezer]

I would actually tend to agree with this posting.

Kate

I think I would too -- but I understood that other officers saw it so I don't know if it was logged and kept from public knowledge or not logged and eventually turned over. Anybody read anything about that?

[William Anthony]

I would actually tend to agree with this posting.

Kate

I do not think that this is the first time we have agreed, and do not understand the inclusion of the word actually, :).

[William Anthony]

I think I would too -- but I understood that other officers saw it so I don't know if it was logged and kept from public knowledge or not logged and eventually turned over. Anybody read anything about that?

I thing the situation calls into question credibility and, if the other officers saw it, why did they not question where it was.

[weezer]

I thing the situation calls into question credibility and, if the other officers saw it, why did they not question where it was.

so you think it is unusual that LE would keep a piece of evidence found at a murder scene from public knowledge?

[martin II]

I thing the situation calls into question credibility and, if the other officers saw it, why did they not question where it was.

william

i thought only fung was suppose to pick itmes up at a crime scene? Did the item have DNA,fingerprints on it.you think maby he had planned to give it to a love one, but changed his mind when someone asked about it?

martin II

[weezer]

william

i thought only fung was suppose to pick itmes up at a crime scene? Did the item have DNA,fingerprints on it.you think maby he had planned to give it to a love one, but changed his mind when someone asked about it?

martin II

LOL -- I think orenthal wore it that night and dropped it. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

so you think it is unusual that LE would keep a piece of evidence found at a murder scene from public knowledge?

How could you agree with kate, who actually tended to agree with me, and then ask this question, if you are not trying to bait me. Here are the relevant posts.

"Originally Posted by William Anthony
There is a difference in not informing the public and booking evidence. I think that if someone wanted, which is not to say that was someone's intentions in this case, to falsely incriminate someone they could get something that they believed tied that person to the crime and later claim they found it at the crime scene and held on to it. I think the better method would have been to have it collected and booked to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I find it odd that LE would do such a thing, but I do not know how often it is done.

I would actually tend to agree with this posting.

Kate"

Your post.

"Originally Posted by Kate Sachel
I would actually tend to agree with this posting.

Kate

I think I would too -- but I understood that other officers saw it so I don't know if it was logged and kept from public knowledge or not logged and eventually turned over. Anybody read anything about that?"

I think my post was clear, which was I find it odd that LE would keep a piece of evidence and not immediately book it. Logging might just be placing it on the log as collected, whereas booking may include placing it in the proper chain of custody with an identification number. You will note that I said booked. There may be some credibility in Martin's posts that you try to change posters' statements in order to bait, imho. However, the evidence is unclear as to your understanding of logging and booking.

[martin II]

so you think it is unusual that LE would keep a piece of evidence found at a murder scene from public knowledge?

i don't think the rules state detectives can find evidence at a crime scene
and not log it in immediately.(same day) If they do then the rules need to be changed.

imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

william

i thought only fung was suppose to pick itmes up at a crime scene? Did the item have DNA,fingerprints on it.you think maby he had planned to give it to a love one, but changed his mind when someone asked about it?

martin II

Martin,

If some will allow me to speculate in the same manner as I think some do, then I would say that, because the item was plastic, Vanatter may have thought it belonged to the children or had some sentimental value, i.e. it was given to Nicole by a child. Thus the pendant would have had some sentimental value to the person who gave it to her and could have been ripped off her during the attack by the child now an adult.

If we are to assume that the murders were committed by one person, then I think it reasonable to assume the person was a male, but, that does not exclude a female. Given the evidence that someone was with Simpson, who he asked about scores, we can assume that this person was a male. What male child would have given Nicole a pendant and was familiar with Simpson?

[William Anthony]

Martin,

If some will allow me to speculate in the same manner as I think some do, then I would say that, because the item was plastic, Vanatter may have thought it belonged to the children or had some sentimental value, i.e. it was given to Nicole by a child. Thus the pendant would have had some sentimental value to the person who gave it to her and could have been ripped off her during the attack by the child now an adult.

If we are to assume that the murders were committed by one person, then I think it reasonable to assume the person was a male, but, that does not exclude a female. Given the evidence that someone was with Simpson, who he asked about scores, we can assume that this person was a male. What male child would have given Nicole a pendant and was familiar with Simpson?

Correction-Lang may have thought.

[William Anthony]

Here is Lang's testimony

1 A. The pendant was in the -- approximately
2 the driveway area, I believe, adjacent to the garage
3 door.
4 Q. Now, when was that item -- strike that.
5 That was an item of evidence?
6 A. It was ultimately booked evidence. It
7 wasn't initially, but ultimately I did book it.
8 Q. Well, it was -- that's the ruler of
9 Mr. Rokahr, the photographer, that he put down beside
10 that, done on June 13, 1994?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. That item was booked as evidence August
13 26, 1994, ten weeks later?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What happened to it between the 13th and
16 the 26th, Mr. Lange?
17 A. I collected it, Mr. Baker. It was in
18 my --
19 Q. What did you do with it?
20 A. -- It was in my desk drawer for that
21 amount of time.
22 Q. It was in your desk drawer?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. For ten weeks.
25 MR. MEDVENE: Objection.
26 THE WITNESS: Yes.

He did not say he logged it.

[weezer]

Martin,

If some will allow me to speculate in the same manner as I think some do, then I would say that, because the item was plastic, Vanatter may have thought it belonged to the children or had some sentimental value, i.e. it was given to Nicole by a child. Thus the pendant would have had some sentimental value to the person who gave it to her and could have been ripped off her during the attack by the child now an adult.

If we are to assume that the murders were committed by one person, then I think it reasonable to assume the person was a male, but, that does not exclude a female. Given the evidence that someone was with Simpson, who he asked about scores, we can assume that this person was a male. What male child would have given Nicole a pendant and was familiar with Simpson?

hmmm -- IIRC, orenthal was the only one known to give Nicole jewelry -- maybe he just had really, really bad taste. imo

[William Anthony]

hmmm -- IIRC, orenthal was the only one known to give Nicole jewelry -- maybe he just had really, really bad taste. imo

By the evidence and the posts, Nicole had expensive tastes. If we are to assume that she wore the pendant, then I think it only logical that she wore it for sentimental value as it was a gift from someone who was once a child, or it could have been given to her by her children. The gift would have been easily identified if it came from the children she gave birth to, imho.

[weezer]

By the evidence and the posts, Nicole had expensive tastes. If we are to assume that she wore the pendant, then I think it only logical that she wore it for sentimental value as it was a gift from someone who was once a child, or it could have been given to her by her children. The gift would have been easily identified if it came from the children she gave birth to, imho.

or maybe none of the above. :D

[William Anthony]

or maybe none of the above. :D

Yes, you are right. As the evidence could have belonged or been in posession of the murderer(s) and, as we all know, the first 24 hours of an investigation are the most important, Lang could have helped the murderer escape by hidding the pendant in his drawer.

[weezer]

Yes, you are right. As the evidence could have belonged or been in posession of the murderer(s) and, as we all know, the first 24 hours of an investigation are the most important, Lang could have helped the murderer escape by hidding the pendant in his drawer.

24 huh? I thought it was 48. . . .there you have it. LOL -- now we've included Detective Lange in the conspiracy. My, My, My. . . it just grows and grows doesn't it? imo

[martin II]

hmmm -- IIRC, orenthal was the only one known to give Nicole jewelry -- maybe he just had really, really bad taste. imo

for all you know maby one of the MANY other men she was involved with gave it to her.

imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

24 huh? I thought it was 48. . . .there you have it. LOL -- now we've included Detective Lange in the conspiracy. My, My, My. . . it just grows and grows doesn't it? imo

24 or 48 but not 1, 680. I did not include Lang in a conspiracy as I did not consider that as a possibility, unless you are saying that he was a part of the blue wall of silence and the murder was a LE member. What I thought was that Lang was sloppy and forgot he had it or had second thoughts about trying to incriminate someone, because he could not tie that someone to the pendant.

[tv]

for all you know maby one of the MANY other men she was involved with gave it to her.

imo
martin IImartin, this comment was unnecessary. Nicole Brown Simpson was free (or should have been) to pursue any relationships she chose just as Simpson was.

[William Anthony]

martin, this comment was unnecessary. Nicole Brown Simpson was free (or should have been) to pursue any relationships she chose just as Simpson was.

Tv,

I agree and I do not believe that she would have pursued a relationship with any one that gave her a plastic pendant. Do you think the suitor became enraged when she tried to return it? :)

[weezer]

martin, this comment was unnecessary. Nicole Brown Simpson was free (or should have been) to pursue any relationships she chose just as Simpson was.

oh come on tv -- don't deny martin the opportunity to bash the victims and/or families. imo

[martin II]

martin, this comment was unnecessary. Nicole Brown Simpson was free (or should have been) to pursue any relationships she chose just as Simpson was.

tv

Nicol was indeed free to do what she wanted to do. that is what she told oj.
She did see multiple men according to testimony which i have posted. so what is the problem with one of these guys wanting to show his love by giving her the pendant. It is my understanding that oj gave diamonds.

martin II

[weezer]

tv

Nicol was indeed free to do what she wanted to do. that is what she told oj.
She did see multiple men according to testimony which i have posted. so what is the problem with one of these guys wanting to show his love by giving her the pendant. It is my understanding that oj gave diamonds.

martin II

and took them back but then he also gave lighters. . . .

[martin II]

william
i am willing to make a wager that the pendant did not come from oj as we all
know he only gave diamonds.

martin II

[martin II]

and took them back but then he also gave lighters. . . .

I am not aware oj taking any diamonds back but you may know better.

But the question is who may have given her a plastic pendant if it was given to her.

martin II

[weezer]

I am not aware oj taking any diamonds back but you may know better.

But the question is who may have given her a plastic pendant if it was given to her.

martin II

I'm still betting it belonged to orenthal or arnelle. :tongue:

[martin II]

I'm still betting it belonged to orenthal or arnelle. :tongue:

Then i am thinking if it was given to nicole , it may have been given to her by Keith Z on the evening that some claim oj was peeking at them on that sofa.
imo
martin II

[tv]

Tv,

I agree and I do not believe that she would have pursued a relationship with any one that gave her a plastic pendant. Do you think the suitor became enraged when she tried to return it? :)Possibly, but I don't think it led the giver to murder her. Actually, I've thought it might be something that belonged to Sydney. :)

[tv]

Then i am thinking if it was given to nicole , it may have been given to her by Keith Z on the evening that some claim oj was peeking at them on that sofa.
imo
martin IISimpson peeking at her during private moments...creepy. :eek: Looks like he made a habit of creeping around in the dark.

[tv]

oh come on tv -- don't deny martin the opportunity to bash the victims and/or families. imoYou're right, weezer. :tongue:

Bash away, martin!

[William Anthony]

william
i am willing to make a wager that the pendant did not come from oj as we all
know he only gave diamonds.

martin II

Martin,

Simpson was smart enough to know that diamonds are a girl's best friend, imho. If he would have given plastic, it would have been a visa or master card, imho.

[William Anthony]

Possibly, but I don't think it led the giver to murder her. Actually, I've thought it might be something that belonged to Sydney. :)

Tv,

My thought is that it belonged to Sydney, also. :)

[tv]

Tv,

My thought is that it belonged to Sydney, also. :)William, you know what they say about great minds. :beer:

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Simpson peeking at her during private moments...creepy. :eek: Looks like he made a habit of creeping around in the dark.eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwww!

[weezer]

Possibly, but I don't think it led the giver to murder her. Actually, I've thought it might be something that belonged to Sydney. :)

I agree --

[William Anthony]

William, you know what they say about great minds. :beer:

I am not a drinker, but I agree with your sentiments. :)

[William Anthony]

I agree --

I am afraid of that. :)

[weezer]

I am afraid of that. :)

I didn't want to be left out of the 'great minds' :D

[tv]

I am not a drinker, but I agree with your sentiments. :)It's rootbeer. ;)

[William Anthony]

I didn't want to be left out of the 'great minds' :D

Why would we leave you out?:)

[William Anthony]

It's rootbeer. ;)

Tv,

Since its rootbeer, make mine a double.

[tv]

Why would we leave you out?:)weezer, Here's some rootbeer for you. :beer:

[William Anthony]

Now that the great minds have resolved the question of to whom the pendant belonged, we must ask ourselves why did Lang collect it and place it in his drawer for ten weeks. I am of the opinion that LE overlooked some evidence, which we will never know whether that overlooked evidence belonged to Simpson or someone else who may have been the murderer. What I am saying is that LE overlooked evidence that was germaine and material to the case and collected and hid, either intentionally or not, evidence that was unimportant by the consensus of at least three great minds :) . This fact alone causes one to wonder what was on LE's mind.

[William Anthony]

I didn't want to be left out of the 'great minds' :D

When you decide to switch your point of view, I will buy you a quart of root beer. :)

[weezer]

Now that the great minds have resolved the question of to whom the pendant belonged, we must ask ourselves why did Lang collect it and place it in his drawer for ten weeks. I am of the opinion that LE overlooked some evidence, which we will never know whether that overlooked evidence belonged to Simpson or someone else who may have been the murderer. What I am saying is that LE overlooked evidence that was germaine and material to the case and collected and hid, either intentionally or not, evidence that was unimportant by the consensus of at least three great minds :) . This fact alone causes one to wonder what was on LE's mind.

I believe it is common practice and common knowledge that LE often do not disclose all of the evidence/testimony in a case -- things that would help them. I am still looking for the actual description of the pendant.

How would they know what was germaine and material to a case at the point it is being collected?

Only people who do not understand or do not know the facts of this case can come to any conclusion other than orenthal james simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. imo

[weezer]

weezer, Here's some rootbeer for you. :beer:

thanks tv -- would you mind putting a scoop of ice cream in it? :tongue:

[martin II]

I believe it is common practice and common knowledge that LE often do not disclose all of the evidence/testimony in a case -- things that would help them. I am still looking for the actual description of the pendant.

How would they know what was germaine and material to a case at the point it is being collected?

Only people who do not understand or do not know the facts of this case can come to any conclusion other than orenthal james simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. imo

weezer
i thought that everything found at a murder scene is important to the case.

example; last week in n.j. some men shot four students. le found a empty beer bottle a little ways from the scene. they took it tested it and found a fingerprint. checked it from their files and found the guy that was involved.

martin II

[weezer]

weezer
i thought that everything found at a murder scene is important to the case.

example; last week in n.j. some men shot four students. le found a empty beer bottle a little ways from the scene. they took it tested it and found a fingerprint. checked it from their files and found the guy that was involved.

martin II

who said they didn't think it was important? The discussion is whether or not they disclose all of the information to the public. I'm sure you have, like me, heard/read where the perpetrator of a crime was found because of something that only the perpetrator would have known. imo

[martin II]

who said they didn't think it was important? The discussion is whether or not they disclose all of the information to the public. I'm sure you have, like me, heard/read where the perpetrator of a crime was found because of something that only the perpetrator would have known. imo

weezer

i do not believe that the lapd crime scene regulations allow for any detective to make a decision on what should be collected and given to the lab colleciton people on the day of the crime. i believe that the crimescene colleciton people like fung is required to collect everything showed them or that they find.

If you believe it is proper that detectives can find items at a crime scene and just decided not to have it booked until they decide to, so be it, but i don't see how any lapd procedures would allow this.

imo
martin II

[martin II]

who said they didn't think it was important? The discussion is whether or not they disclose all of the information to the public. I'm sure you have, like me, heard/read where the perpetrator of a crime was found because of something that only the perpetrator would have known. imo


Lang did not log in the evidence into the lapd crime scene evidence book like everything else was. not to the public. it should have been logged into the same log book as the glove, blood samples etc. on the day it was discovered.
imo
martin II

[weezer]

Lang did not log in the evidence into the lapd crime scene evidence book like everything else was. not to the public. it should have been logged into the same log book as the glove, blood samples etc. on the day it was discovered.
imo
martin II

do you know what evidence number given to the pendant?

[weezer]

Wonder why this was kept quiet during the criminal trial? you would think that orenthal would have told LE and helped them narrow the window that the crime could have happened. :eek:

"Sources say Simpson called Nicole night of murder
LOS ANGELES - Less than two hours before Nicole Brown Simpson was slashed to death, O.J. Simpson telephoned her and demanded to speak to their daughter, according to sources who recounted Simpson's deposition.

Simpson testified last week that he talked with his daughter Sydney about her dance recital earlier that evening and avoided talking to his ex-wife, sources told The Associated Press on Thursday.

The call from Simpson's mansion, never disclosed during his trial, was made between one and two hours before the time prosecutors contend Ms. Simpson and her friend were killed, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity."

Simpson testified that all he said to his ex-wife was, "Let me speak to Sydney." He said he was trying to avoid talking to Ms. Simpson because he - not she - had broken off their relationship a month earlier.

[martin II]

Wonder why this was kept quiet during the criminal trial? you would think that orenthal would have told LE and helped them narrow the window that the crime could have happened. :eek:

"Sources say Simpson called Nicole night of murder
LOS ANGELES - Less than two hours before Nicole Brown Simpson was slashed to death, O.J. Simpson telephoned her and demanded to speak to their daughter, according to sources who recounted Simpson's deposition.

Simpson testified last week that he talked with his daughter Sydney about her dance recital earlier that evening and avoided talking to his ex-wife, sources told The Associated Press on Thursday.

The call from Simpson's mansion, never disclosed during his trial, was made between one and two hours before the time prosecutors contend Ms. Simpson and her friend were killed, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity."

Simpson testified that all he said to his ex-wife was, "Let me speak to Sydney." He said he was trying to avoid talking to Ms. Simpson because he - not she - had broken off their relationship a month earlier.

If le did not have oj's home and cell phone records at the criminal trial it is their fault. but i thought they did.
martin II

[weezer]

If le did not have oj's home and cell phone records at the criminal trial it is their fault. but i thought they did.
martin II

we know they had the cell records and I don't believe the home records would have shown a local call. I'm just wondering why he lied/omitted talking to Nicole that night -- seems to me that someone without something to hide would have volunteered that she was alive when he called after 9p. Unless of course, he was the 'friend' that 'made mommy cry.' That might explain leaving that out of any conversation. imo

[martin II]

we know they had the cell records and I don't believe the home records would have shown a local call. I'm just wondering why he lied/omitted talking to Nicole that night -- seems to me that someone without something to hide would have volunteered that she was alive when he called after 9p. Unless of course, he was the 'friend' that 'made mommy cry.' That might explain leaving that out of any conversation. imo

it seems that your love for le may cause you to think that people are suppose
to volunteers information to them.
Your last statement seems to mean that Sidney did not know the difference between her dad and a friend. haha

imo
martin II

[weezer]

it seems that your love for le may cause you to think that people are suppose
to volunteers information to them.
Your last statement seems to mean that Sidney did not know the difference between her dad and a friend. haha

imo
martin II

:no: It's not my 'love' for LE that makes me say that! It would seem to me that if I found out someone I knew had been murdered, I would tell LE that I had just talked to that person the night before. I think the better question is: why didn't orenthal tell LE that he had talked with Nicole and at what time? It would seem to be a fairly important thing to add to a murder investigation as I'm sure LE was trying to find out all they could about the hours leading up to her death.

haha -- no one knows why 'sidney' said it was a 'friend' -- it is quite possible that that is what Nicole told her? Maybe he didn't know Nicole covered for him by telling 'sidney' that it was a 'friend' instead of it was 'daddy'?

imo

[socaldiva]

it seems that your love for le may cause you to think that people are suppose
to volunteers information to them.
Your last statement seems to mean that Sidney did not know the difference between her dad and a friend. haha

imo
martin II

Huh? If Orenthal wasn't involved in the murders, why wouldn't he volunteer everything he knew about the time surrounding her death?

How was Sidney suppose to tell the difference between her dad & a friend if she couldn't hear the voice? Geesh!

[martin II]

:no: It's not my 'love' for LE that makes me say that! It would seem to me that if I found out someone I knew had been murdered, I would tell LE that I had just talked to that person the night before. I think the better question is: why didn't orenthal tell LE that he had talked with Nicole and at what time? It would seem to be a fairly important thing to add to a murder investigation as I'm sure LE was trying to find out all they could about the hours leading up to her death.

haha -- no one knows why 'sidney' said it was a 'friend' -- it is quite possible that that is what Nicole told her? Maybe he didn't know Nicole covered for him by telling 'sidney' that it was a 'friend' instead of it was 'daddy'?

imo

WEEZER
There are many "quite possibles" one can think of in the absence of proof.
I believe it could very well have been Faye from the rehab. Maby angry with Nicole for not comming to rehab with her. But then it could also have been someone looking for faye or money.(some of the people that nicole said use to come to the house to see Faye that nicole said bothered her or she did not like) all my opinion.

martin II

[martin II]

:no: It's not my 'love' for LE that makes me say that! It would seem to me that if I found out someone I knew had been murdered, I would tell LE that I had just talked to that person the night before. I think the better question is: why didn't orenthal tell LE that he had talked with Nicole and at what time? It would seem to be a fairly important thing to add to a murder investigation as I'm sure LE was trying to find out all they could about the hours leading up to her death.

haha -- no one knows why 'sidney' said it was a 'friend' -- it is quite possible that that is what Nicole told her? Maybe he didn't know Nicole covered for him by telling 'sidney' that it was a 'friend' instead of it was 'daddy'?

imo



weezer
it is not the responsibility of a defendant to volunteer info to le. Defense lawyers tell their clients to keep quite unless he is present. Neither vanhatter or lang asked oj this quesiton and he had no reason to give any free info.

martin II

[martin II]

weezer
so you believe oj should have told le he had talked to nicole some time before she was murdered so that they could twist that phone call into something negative just as you are trying to do now?

martin II

[bobaugust]

When Simpson was first interviewed on June 13, 1994 Vannatter asked him if he talked to Nicole the night before and Simpson said he did.

June 13. 1994
Vannatter: Did Nicole have words with you last night?
Simpson: Pardon me?
Vannatter: Did Nicole have words with you last night?
Simpson: No, not at all.
Vannatter: Did you talk to her last night?
Simpson: To ask to speak to my daughter, to congratulate my daughter, and everything.
Vannatter: But you didn't have a conversation with her?
Simpson: No, no.

bobaugust

[martin II]

:no: It's not my 'love' for LE that makes me say that! It would seem to me that if I found out someone I knew had been murdered, I would tell LE that I had just talked to that person the night before. I think the better question is: why didn't orenthal tell LE that he had talked with Nicole and at what time? It would seem to be a fairly important thing to add to a murder investigation as I'm sure LE was trying to find out all they could about the hours leading up to her death.

haha -- no one knows why 'sidney' said it was a 'friend' -- it is quite possible that that is what Nicole told her? Maybe he didn't know Nicole covered for him by telling 'sidney' that it was a 'friend' instead of it was 'daddy'?

imo

weezer
you don't really know "Nicole covered for him by telling Sidney that it was a "friend " instead of daddy" now do you?

martin II

[martin II]

When Simpson was first interviewed on June 13, 1994 Vannatter asked him if he talked to Nicole the night before and Simpson said he did.

June 13. 1994
Vannatter: Did Nicole have words with you last night?
Simpson: Pardon me?
Vannatter: Did Nicole have words with you last night?
Simpson: No, not at all.
Vannatter: Did you talk to her last night?
Simpson: To ask to speak to my daughter, to congratulate my daughter, and everything.
Vannatter: But you didn't have a conversation with her?
Simpson: No, no.

bobaugust

bob

Thanks i missed that in the interview.

martinII

[martin II]

weezre
based on bob's post there was no reason for you to ask your original question
as oj did tell about his call to nicoles.

martin II

[weezer]

weezre
based on bob's post there was no reason for you to ask your original question
as oj did tell about his call to nicoles.

martin II

my point was that he didn't volunteer the information that he had talked with her until he was prodded by LE. And then he lied (imo) about the conversation they had.

martin, orenthal has told the world about Nicole's shortcomings and trashed her name every opportunity he got but you seem to think that he was 'keeping quiet'? Please.

imo

[weezer]

weezer
you don't really know "Nicole covered for him by telling Sidney that it was a "friend " instead of daddy" now do you?

martin II

and you don't know she didn't now do you?

[weezer]

weezer
so you believe oj should have told le he had talked to nicole some time before she was murdered so that they could twist that phone call into something negative just as you are trying to do now?

martin II

why not? he told them everything else -- except of course, he saved the details for his and arnelle's confessional book. imo

[weezer]

When Simpson was first interviewed on June 13, 1994 Vannatter asked him if he talked to Nicole the night before and Simpson said he did.

June 13. 1994
Vannatter: Did Nicole have words with you last night?
Simpson: Pardon me?
Vannatter: Did Nicole have words with you last night?
Simpson: No, not at all.
Vannatter: Did you talk to her last night?
Simpson: To ask to speak to my daughter, to congratulate my daughter, and everything.
Vannatter: But you didn't have a conversation with her?
Simpson: No, no.

bobaugust

do you think that he got the same reception on the phone that he got at the recital and that added to the anger?

I still say it's odd that he had to be asked before he said he'd called the house. Don't you think that information would be important IF you were wanting to help LE pin down the timeline?

imo

[martin II]

weezeer

The link that you posted was wrong.

martin II

[martin II]

do you think that he got the same reception on the phone that he got at the recital and that added to the anger?

I still say it's odd that he had to be asked before he said he'd called the house. Don't you think that information would be important IF you were wanting to help LE pin down the timeline?

imo

wezer

If you had read oj s interview on 6/13 you would have known that oj was asked the quesiton and he answered. This was his first interview within hours of returning from chicago. vanhatter was conductiong the interview not oj.

I don't know what you mean by it is odd that he had to be asked.
you may not know it but in a interview the cops ask the quesitons and the defendant answers.
maby you should delete your original post as you now know that the information was wrong and there is no reason to leave false info on the thread. someone may believe it.:no: :no:
martin II

[martin II]

and you don't know she didn't now do you?

weezer
you made the claim not me.

martin II

[martin II]

weezer
ojs lapd interview was given within hours after he returned from chicago.
He gave it without his lawyer being present. This was one of the first documents in the case.
i am surprised that you did not know of this interview.
But at any rate now you must admit that your link was false and that there was no reason for you to ask your orignal question. RIGHT?

MARTIN ii

[weezer]

weezer
ojs lapd interview was given within hours after he returned from chicago.
He gave it without his lawyer being present. This was one of the first documents in the case.
i am surprised that you did not know of this interview.
But at any rate now you must admit that your link was false and that there was no reason for you to ask your orignal question. RIGHT?

MARTIN ii

I knew about the interview -- even read it. That's why I thought it odd that he didn't say -- without being asked specifically -- that he'd spoken to her that late. Had LE not asked the question, he would have left the impression that the last he knew of Nicole was when she left the recital. imo

[weezer]

wezer

If you had read oj s interview on 6/13 you would have known that oj was asked the quesiton and he answered. This was his first interview within hours of returning from chicago. vanhatter was conductiong the interview not oj.

I don't know what you mean by it is odd that he had to be asked.
you may not know it but in a interview the cops ask the quesitons and the defendant answers.
maby you should delete your original post as you now know that the information was wrong and there is no reason to leave false info on the thread. someone may believe it.:no: :no:
martin II

why would I delete the original post? I didn't write the article -- I just posted the link.

[martin II]

my point was that he didn't volunteer the information that he had talked with her until he was prodded by LE. And then he lied (imo) about the conversation they had.

martin, orenthal has told the world about Nicole's shortcomings and trashed her name every opportunity he got but you seem to think that he was 'keeping quiet'? Please.

imo

NO
Your claim was that oj did not tell anyone about the call he made to nicole on 6/12. bob posted the interview of 6/13 showing that he did infact tell
Vanhatter and lang that he talked to her on 6/12.

so lets not change the subject of your post/claim.
ok

imo
martin II

[weezer]

NO
Your claim was that oj did not tell anyone about the call he made to nicole on 6/12. bob posted the interview of 6/13 showing that he did infact tell
Vanhatter and lang that he talked to her on 6/12.

so lets not change the subject of your post/claim.
ok

imo
martin II

this was my post: "I'm just wondering why he lied/omitted talking to Nicole that night -- seems to me that someone without something to hide would have volunteered that she was alive when he called after 9p."

what part of it is wrong?

[martin II]

why would I delete the original post? I didn't write the article -- I just posted the link.

But you do have some responsibility to make sure your post is correct especially since you did make many post supporting your argument that oj did not tell about his call when in fact he did. don't you think.

Since it is false info that you posted i believe you should delete it or ask the moderator to delete it for you.imo
martin II

[weezer]

But you do have some responsibility to make sure your post is correct especially since you did make many post supporting your argument that oj did not tell about his call when in fact he did. don't you think.

Since it is false info that you posted i believe you should delete it or ask the moderator to delete it for you.imo
martin II

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns097.htm

[martin II]

this was my post: "I'm just wondering why he lied/omitted talking to Nicole that night -- seems to me that someone without something to hide would have volunteered that she was alive when he called after 9p."

what part of it is wrong?

weezer
nope this is your post including your claim and quesitons.
1. it was not keep quite it was a interview given to lapd.
2. you claim oj did not tell le about the call. he did.



Quote:
Originally Posted by fbgweezer
Wonder why this was kept quiet during the criminal trial? you would think that orenthal would have told LE and helped them narrow the window that the crime could have happened.

"Sources say Simpson called Nicole night of murder
LOS ANGELES - Less than two hours before Nicole Brown Simpson was slashed to death, O.J. Simpson telephoned her and demanded to speak to their daughter, according to sources who recounted Simpson's deposition.

Simpson testified last week that he talked with his daughter Sydney about her dance recital earlier that evening and avoided talking to his ex-wife, sources told The Associated Press on Thursday.

The call from Simpson's mansion, never disclosed during his trial, was made between one and two hours before the time prosecutors contend Ms. Simpson and her friend were killed, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity."

Simpson testified that all he said to his ex-wife was, "Let me speak to Sydney." He said he was trying to avoid talking to Ms. Simpson because he - not she - had broken off their relationship a month earlier.

If le did not have oj's home and cell phone records at the criminal trial it is their fault. but i thought they did.
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
nope this is your post including your claim and quesitons.
1. it was not keep quite it was a interview given to lapd.
2. you claim oj did not tell le about the call. he did.



Quote:
Originally Posted by fbgweezer
Wonder why this was kept quiet during the criminal trial? you would think that orenthal would have told LE and helped them narrow the window that the crime could have happened.

"Sources say Simpson called Nicole night of murder
LOS ANGELES - Less than two hours before Nicole Brown Simpson was slashed to death, O.J. Simpson telephoned her and demanded to speak to their daughter, according to sources who recounted Simpson's deposition.

Simpson testified last week that he talked with his daughter Sydney about her dance recital earlier that evening and avoided talking to his ex-wife, sources told The Associated Press on Thursday.

The call from Simpson's mansion, never disclosed during his trial, was made between one and two hours before the time prosecutors contend Ms. Simpson and her friend were killed, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity."

Simpson testified that all he said to his ex-wife was, "Let me speak to Sydney." He said he was trying to avoid talking to Ms. Simpson because he - not she - had broken off their relationship a month earlier.

If le did not have oj's home and cell phone records at the criminal trial it is their fault. but i thought they did.
martin II

I know what I posted -- even read it. What part of it is wrong? orenthal did not volunteer that he had talked with her and at what time -- I still find that odd.

I have posted many times that I believe it was orenthal that called Nicole that night and not a 'friend' that made her cry.

imo

[martin II]

:no: It's not my 'love' for LE that makes me say that! It would seem to me that if I found out someone I knew had been murdered, I would tell LE that I had just talked to that person the night before. I think the better question is: why didn't orenthal tell LE that he had talked with Nicole and at what time? It would seem to be a fairly important thing to add to a murder investigation as I'm sure LE was trying to find out all they could about the hours leading up to her death.

haha -- no one knows why 'sidney' said it was a 'friend' -- it is quite possible that that is what Nicole told her? Maybe he didn't know Nicole covered for him by telling 'sidney' that it was a 'friend' instead of it was 'daddy'?

imo


"Why didn't orenthal tell le that the had talked with nicole and at what time."

that is your claim question /claim

martin II

[martin II]

no need to continue this since we both now know oj did tell le about the call.

martin I:seeya:

[weezer]

"Why didn't orenthal tell le that the had talked with nicole and at what time."

that is your claim question /claim

martin II

and it is still my question. :shrug:

[weezer]

no need to continue this since we both now know oj did tell le about the call.

martin I:seeya:

I have not said that he didn't tell LE -- my question was why he didn't volunteer the information. Why would it be way, way into the interview and LE had to specifically ask. So I guess if LE had not specifically asked the question, orenthal would have never said. hmmm

imo

[martin II]

I have not said that he didn't tell LE -- my question was why he didn't volunteer the information. Why would it be way, way into the interview and LE had to specifically ask. So I guess if LE had not specifically asked the question, orenthal would have never said. hmmm

imo

what are you trying to suggest? That when the interview started and before Vanhatter asked the first quesiton ,oj should have blutered out I TALKED TO NICOLE LAST NIGHT?

your question was asked in a manner indicating that you believed that he had not told le about his call to nicole as you said WHY DIDN'T HE TELL THEM ABOUT HIS CALL.If you were not making a statement that he did not tell, why ask this question and then talk about what he did or why he did not want le to know he did call.

nonsence


had you ever read oj's interview held on 6/13

imo
martin II

[martin II]

and it is still my question. :shrug:

even though you now have been corrected and know he did tell le about the call, this is still you question.

hahahaha

thats funny.


imo'

martin II

[Suzee10]

Yesterday the coroners were on trial here & now it's a mysterious pendant :D

Here is more from the link:

THE WITNESS: Would you like me to explain,
2 Mr. Baker?
3 Q. BY MR. BAKER: Now, did you, personally,
4 take any other evidence and have it in your custody
5 and control without booking it?
6 A. I'm not aware of any evidence that wasn't
7 booked.
8 Q. Well, you're suppose to book things as
9 soon as practical, true?
10 A. That's the key word, "practical." It was
11 not practical to book this item at that particular
12 time.
13 Q. It wasn't practical to book that piece of
14 evidence for ten weeks while it sat in your drawer?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. Okay. So your drawer, and in the area
17 where you can book evidence, what is it; two floors
18 away?
19 A. More like two miles.
20 Q. So couldn't book it for the ten weeks?
21 A. No. It's not that I couldn't.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. I didn't want to. I specifically
24 withheld that particular item for a purpose.
25 Q. Oh, okay. Did you with hold any other
26 evidence, Mr. Lange?
27 A. No.


Is this all of this or is there more?

[socaldiva]

Is this all of this or is there more?

Hi Suzee, good to see you :seeya:

I'm sorry, that link/post was from a few days ago as I recall, I'll have to go back & check into it. I'm off for tonight, but I'll look for it tomorrow.

[Kate Sachel]

Now that the great minds have resolved the question of to whom the pendant belonged, we must ask ourselves why did Lang collect it and place it in his drawer for ten weeks. I am of the opinion that LE overlooked some evidence, which we will never know whether that overlooked evidence belonged to Simpson or someone else who may have been the murderer. What I am saying is that LE overlooked evidence that was germaine and material to the case and collected and hid, either intentionally or not, evidence that was unimportant by the consensus of at least three great minds :) . This fact alone causes one to wonder what was on LE's mind.

I'm baffled on this one to be frank.

I understand the idea of not making certain evidence recovered at a crime scene public, but don't you still book it? Surely you're not supposed to keep it hidden away from everyone.

I find it difficult to believe that this pendant was found to have value, and I think that if he had bad intentions it would not have been booked by him at any point and yet I still cannot resolve in my mind why he would choose to keep it in his desk.

This one requires a little more research on my part.

Kate

[weezer]

I'm baffled on this one to be frank.

I understand the idea of not making certain evidence recovered at a crime scene public, but don't you still book it? Surely you're not supposed to keep it hidden away from everyone.

I find it difficult to believe that this pendant was found to have value, and I think that if he had bad intentions it would not have been booked by him at any point and yet I still cannot resolve in my mind why he would choose to keep it in his desk.

This one requires a little more research on my part.

Kate

I think we may have more than one question on this -- or at least in my mind I do.

Was the pendant logged and given an evidence number? Does anyone know the evidence number it was given?

[martin II]

I think we may have more than one question on this -- or at least in my mind I do.

Was the pendant logged and given an evidence number? Does anyone know the evidence number it was given?

wezer
i think that when a item is logged in, it gets a evidence number at that time.
Remember Vanhatter said he did not log in oj's blood at SID where he was because he wanted to give it to fung so it could be logged in and given a evidence number by fung on his evidence sheet.imo
martin II

[weezer]

wezer
i think that when a item is logged in, it gets a evidence number at that time.
Remember Vanhatter said he did not log in oj's blood at SID where he was because he wanted to give it to fung so it could be logged in and given a evidence number by fung on his evidence sheet.imo
martin II

so do you know what evidence number it was given?

[Suzee10]

Hi Suzee, good to see you :seeya:

I'm sorry, that link/post was from a few days ago as I recall, I'll have to go back & check into it. I'm off for tonight, but I'll look for it tomorrow.


Good to see you too, socaldiva. Ok, just take your time. I was just curious.

[bobaugust]

wezer
i think that when a item is logged in, it gets a evidence number at that time.
Remember Vanhatter said he did not log in oj's blood at SID where he was because he wanted to give it to fung so it could be logged in and given a evidence number by fung on his evidence sheet.imo
martin II

martin II, that's not correct. Vannatter was referring to a DR number not an evidence number.

Evidence Dismissed,
"Receiving a DR number - which is designed for record keeping purposes - is not a priority during the initial stages of any investigation. However, any property report or analyzed evidence report must be accompanied by the case's DR number before being circulated. And NOTHING may be booked as evidence at the LAPD Property Division - unless it is accompanied by an appropriate DR number. In other words, property must be booked in sequence; and, without a DR number, it many not be booked at all.

Further, in this particular case, the sequence of evidence is being arranged by SID criminalist Dennis Fung, who has been collecting and identifying evidence at both crime scenes. Even though the case does not have its DR number, the criminalist is still assigning item numbers to evidence that has been collected. Fung is preparing the property
report, cataloging all of the items he books as evidence. Hours earlier, Fung had documented and collected the first item in his sequence: the blood stain on Simpson's Bronco."

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

Good to see you too, socaldiva. Ok, just take your time. I was just curious.

Ok, my post was quoting from the initial link on this thread. Here is the link:


http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/simpson.civil.trial/transcripts.november/11.01.transcript.html

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8942269
How would they know what was germaine and material to a case at the point it is being collected?

[/QUOTE]

Another excellent post, which calls into question why all the blood evidence was not collected.

[William Anthony]

we know they had the cell records and I don't believe the home records would have shown a local call. I'm just wondering why he lied/omitted talking to Nicole that night -- seems to me that someone without something to hide would have volunteered that she was alive when he called after 9p. Unless of course, he was the 'friend' that 'made mommy cry.' That might explain leaving that out of any conversation. imo

I think that Simpson was listed on her speed dial list as daddy and not friend. I think the friend was someone other than Simpson with whom Nicole had a relationship, which is not to say that the relationship was anything more than platonic.

[William Anthony]

WEEZER
There are many "quite possibles" one can think of in the absence of proof.
I believe it could very well have been Faye from the rehab. Maby angry with Nicole for not comming to rehab with her. But then it could also have been someone looking for faye or money.(some of the people that nicole said use to come to the house to see Faye that nicole said bothered her or she did not like) all my opinion.

martin II

Martin,

I would think that, if the child saw her mother crying when she gave her the phone and had watched her mother talking on the phone, the child would have known that mommy was speaking to daddy.

[William Anthony]

my point was that he didn't volunteer the information that he had talked with her until he was prodded by LE. And then he lied (imo) about the conversation they had.

martin, orenthal has told the world about Nicole's shortcomings and trashed her name every opportunity he got but you seem to think that he was 'keeping quiet'? Please.

imo

Is there any evidence to support your opinion that he lied about the call, i.e. something that tends to show he said more to her than put his daughter on the phone?

[William Anthony]

martin II, that's not correct. Vannatter was referring to a DR number not an evidence number.

Evidence Dismissed,
"Receiving a DR number - which is designed for record keeping purposes - is not a priority during the initial stages of any investigation. However, any property report or analyzed evidence report must be accompanied by the case's DR number before being circulated. And NOTHING may be booked as evidence at the LAPD Property Division - unless it is accompanied by an appropriate DR number. In other words, property must be booked in sequence; and, without a DR number, it many not be booked at all.

Further, in this particular case, the sequence of evidence is being arranged by SID criminalist Dennis Fung, who has been collecting and identifying evidence at both crime scenes. Even though the case does not have its DR number, the criminalist is still assigning item numbers to evidence that has been collected. Fung is preparing the property
report, cataloging all of the items he books as evidence. Hours earlier, Fung had documented and collected the first item in his sequence: the blood stain on Simpson's Bronco."

bobaugust

Bobaugust,

Did I not post Lang's testimony where he he did not say he logged it?

[William Anthony]

I'm baffled on this one to be frank.

I understand the idea of not making certain evidence recovered at a crime scene public, but don't you still book it? Surely you're not supposed to keep it hidden away from everyone.

I find it difficult to believe that this pendant was found to have value, and I think that if he had bad intentions it would not have been booked by him at any point and yet I still cannot resolve in my mind why he would choose to keep it in his desk.

This one requires a little more research on my part.

Kate

This part of the testimony is more baffling to me than any,

20 Q. So couldn't book it for the ten weeks?
21 A. No. It's not that I couldn't.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. I didn't want to. I specifically
24 withheld that particular item for a purpose.
25 Q. Oh, okay. Did you with hold any other
26 evidence, Mr. Lange?
27 A. No.

What was his specific purpose about a plasctic pendant?

[bobaugust]

Bobaugust,

Did I not post Lang's testimony where he he did not say he logged it?

My posting was about what Vannatter did. What are you talking about?

[William Anthony]

My posting was about what Vannatter did. What are you talking about?

I see that you were indeed talking about Vanatter. However, let us see what your post states in the relevant part. Here it is,

Evidence Dismissed,
"Receiving a DR number - which is designed for record keeping purposes - is not a priority during the initial stages of any investigation. However, any property report or analyzed evidence report must be accompanied by the case's DR number before being circulated.

Do you now see that Lang did not follow the protocol proclaimed by whomsoever wrote this work of fiction, which has been the topic of discussion as well as the questions arising from his failure on this thread?

[bobaugust]

I see that you were indeed talking about Vanatter. However, let us see what your post states in the relevant part. Here it is,

Evidence Dismissed,
"Receiving a DR number - which is designed for record keeping purposes - is not a priority during the initial stages of any investigation. However, any property report or analyzed evidence report must be accompanied by the case's DR number before being circulated.

Do you now see that Lang did not follow the protocol proclaimed by whomsoever wrote this work of fiction, which has been the topic of discussion as well as the questions arising from his failure on this thread?

What are you claiming Lange did or didn't do?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

What are you claiming Lange did or didn't do?

bobaugust

There is no evidence that Lang logged in the pendant he allegedly found or booked it prior to ten weeks. The question the becomes what did he think in his mind that was so special about this plastic pendant, which would assist in the resolution of the murders. This is a question that should be asked of someone like you who claims to know the truth and the facts, imhotaaaaac.

[bobaugust]

There is no evidence that Lang logged in the pendant he allegedly found or booked it prior to ten weeks. The question the becomes what did he think in his mind that was so special about this plastic pendant, which would assist in the resolution of the murders. This is a question that should be asked of someone like you who claims to know the truth and the facts, imhotaaaaac.

I know of no evidence that the plastic pendant was relevant to the murders. And it has nothing to do with Vannatter's testimony regarding a DR number.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I know of no evidence that the plastic pendant was relevant to the murders. And it has nothing to do with Vannatter's testimony regarding a DR number.

bobaugust

So, LE or more appropriately one of the head detectives on a double murder case was running around collecting and eventually booking evidence, which was not tested, while not assuring that all the blood evidence was collected and tested? Do you think the fact that he hid it in his desk for ten weeks prevented someone from investigating/determing if the pendant was relevant?

[bobaugust]

So, LE or more appropriately one of the head detectives on a double murder case was running around collecting and eventually booking evidence, which was not tested, while not assuring that all the blood evidence was collected and tested? Do you think the fact that he hid it in his desk for ten weeks prevented someone from investigating/determing if the pendant was relevant?

No, I don't believe that someone was prevented from investigating or determining if the pendant was relevant since the someone's who were investigating this case knew of the pendant.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No, I don't believe that someone was prevented from investigating or determining if the pendant was relevant since the someone's who were investigating this case knew of the pendant.

bobaugust

Certainly, you are not suggesting that only the lead detectives were supposed to investigate. You have not answered my question about the fact that irrelevant evidence, as you call it, being collected while blood evidence was not. Do you call this proper LE proceedure?

[bobaugust]

Certainly, you are not suggesting that only the lead detectives were supposed to investigate. You have not answered my question about the fact that irrelevant evidence, as you call it, being collected while blood evidence was not. Do you call this proper LE proceedure?

The lead detectives were responsible for the investigation conducted by themselves and other detectives assigned to help them. The criminalist was responsible for collecting the blood and other evidence as he was trained to do at the crime scenes as well as following any specific instructions given to him by the lead detectives. I don't believe anyone expected every drop of blood to be collected at Bundy. Specific blood drops and random samples were collected based on the judgment by the criminalist.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The lead detectives were responsible for the investigation conducted by themselves and other detectives assigned to help them. The criminalist was responsible for collecting the blood and other evidence as he was trained to do at the crime scenes as well as following any specific instructions given to him by the lead detectives. I don't believe anyone expected every drop of blood to be collected at Bundy. Specific blood drops and random samples were collected based on the judgment by the criminalist.

bobaugust

You would be wrong about your statement that you do not believe anyone expected every drop of blood to be collected, as I am one that did. I do not believe that I stand alone on this issue. However, what I did not expect was to have, what you call irrelevant evidence, collected and booked sometime much later. The lead detectives could have delegated the responsibility of having what you call irrelevant evidence investigated or investigated the irrelevant evidence themselves. As another poster or maybe it was you stated, LE had no idea of what evidence would be germaine, relevant or probative at the time it was collected. Therefore, it stands to reason that blood drops would have more likely have been relevant as opposed to a plastic pendant. The lead detectives are in charge of the crime scene to include determining which evidence should be collected. I do not think any lead detective, worth his weight in salt would tell a criminalist just collect what you think is releveant. I do not think that any defendant should be convicted on such sloppy and questionable proceedures.

[Beebee]

Beebee-Welcome Back!

Blue Plastic Heart Pendant

ALL---
If you search alot it says:

# 859-photo of blue plastic heart.
found adjacent to garage door.

Held for a purpose.
Lange---from time to time there are items from a crime scene in a case that an investigator may want to hold for personal identification purposes.It's a lot more practial to do that,than book an item and not be able to have access to it when you want it. SO THAT'S WHY I HELD ONTO THAT PARTICULAR PENDANT.

jotun

Hi everyone-- I have not read the entire thread yet.... but wanted to ask.... is it certain that the pendant was a blue plastic heart?? I can't see Nicole wearing plastic.... can anyone else?? That almost seems child-like... was it hers??

Also, is the autopsy report anywhere online? Most reports list clothing and jewelry, maybe we could find something there?

[William Anthony]

Hi everyone-- I have not read the entire thread yet.... but wanted to ask.... is it certain that the pendant was a blue plastic heart?? I can't see Nicole wearing plastic.... can anyone else?? That almost seems child-like... was it hers??

Also, is the autopsy report anywhere online? Most reports list clothing and jewelry, maybe we could find something there?

Hello jotun,

I only know what has been posted on the board. I think the only way Nicole would have worn the plastic pendant, if it was plastic, was because it held some sentimental value. There has been a feeling expressed by two other posters and me that the pendant belonged to Sydney.

I am not sure about the autopsy report. What I am interested in is knowing the purpose for which Lang witheld the pendant and his explanation that the investigator would not have access to the item once it was booked makes little sense to me. I wonder if there was a murder that was leaving blue plastic hearts at murder scenes.

[socaldiva]

What's with the all the SHOUTING? This is a message board for cryin' out loud, not some do or die situation.

Are we now being asking to list our posting habits & inform others of our opinions of other jurors in other cases? Is the poster asking the question offering up theirs? Last I checked the TOS, I understood it to say that we weren't to bring up other boards, even those within CourtTv. :shrug:

[limakey]

BeeBee,

It seems that jewerly did play more of a significant role in this trial. Apparently that both Nicole and Ron had markings on their bodies that the DA's and plaintiffs thought could have come from a ring or from a emblem on a knife. Also, there was that one witness who was looking at Simpson's hands to see if he was wearing ring that night.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Apparently that both Nicole and Ron had markings on their bodies that the DA's and plaintiffs thought could have come from a ring or from a emblem on a knife.


:confused: :shrug:

[limakey]

S-Diva,

Clark asked the defense to turn over all rings that Simpson wore. However, I think it was Dr. Spitz who really went into this during his testimony in the civil trial. I can't remember where on the bodies these were only that both Ron and Nicole had them. Maybe Mr. August remembers?

I think these markings may have been another reason why the DA's were very happy to drop the "envelope" and never really persue what type of knife it was. They were happy with the double edge, etc. debate.

[weezer]

S-Diva,

Clark asked the defense to turn over all rings that Simpson wore. However, I think it was Dr. Spitz who really went into this during his testimony in the civil trial. I can't remember where on the bodies these were only that both Ron and Nicole had them. Maybe Mr. August remembers?

I think these markings may have been another reason why the DA's were very happy to drop the "envelope" and never really persue what type of knife it was. They were happy with the double edge, etc. debate.

:confused: :shrug:

[weezer]

I think we all agree that orenthal was culpable in the murders of Ron and Nicole. imo

[William Anthony]

I think we all agree that orenthal was culpable in the murders of Ron and Nicole. imo

The civil verdict did not state that he had any culpability in the death of Nicole. The criminal verdict stated that he was not guilty of the murders. I do not know who you call "all", but I will acknowledge that MOST OF AMERICA SHARE YOUR SENTIMENT.

[jotun]

Correction-I have the integrity to admit when I was mistaken, but, in this instance I do not need to.

Bobaugust, I believe you may be mistaken and are considering



OFF-TOPIC AGAIN!!!


IMO

jotun

[weezer]

You need to consider the facts about the OJ criminal case. He had a monumental stack of charges against him by the prosecutors, and he was found not guikty on every single one if those charges. The later civil verdicts really do not amount to a hill-of-beansd for a numerous array of reasons. Stay focused on the fact the OJ was not found guilty of murdering Nicole nd her boyfriend, end of story no matter how much you may dispise those facts. :patriot:

I think most reasonable thinking people have considered the facts and came to the conclusion that orenthal james simpson murdered two human beings: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

imo