Issues In The Criminal Trial

[William Anthony]

What is the relevance to the poster's experiment to the the criminal trial?

[tv]

Not quite correct. You said he testified that the struggle took 20 minutes. He actually testified that Ron would have been alive for 10 to 20 minutes, although he may have been unconscious, after the jugular was cut.Actually, I believe he did say 20 minutes and if and when I find it I will post it. Until then, you can proceed with your version of his testimony.

[William Anthony]

Actually, I believe he did say 20 minutes and if and when I find it I will post it. Until then, you can proceed with your version of his testimony.

It is not my version. I posted the testimony from the transcript. Until you find a link, showing a transcript that Baden testified the struggle took 20 minutes, which is what you posted, then I have no outlet but to say this is your version of what you think he said. I believe I posted the date of his testimony.

[tv]

The inadvertence I speak of is your posting of Baden's testimony from the criminal trial on the wrong thread. I don't demand apologies; I request or suggest an apology for being rude, uncivil, disrespectful, making false accusations and personal attacks.

This happened last night. I moved it to the proper thread when I realized it was in the wrong thread. Why is this still being discussed?

[tv]

It is not my version. I posted the testimony from the transcript. Until you find a link, showing a transcript that Baden testified the struggle took 20 minutes, which is what you posted, then I have no outlet but to say this is your version of what you think he said. I believe I posted the date of his testimony.Uh, William, I believe that's what I just said.

[William Anthony]

This happened last night. I moved it to the proper thread when I realized it was in the wrong thread. Why is this still being discussed?

Because you asked what inadvertence.

[tv]

Because you asked what inadvertence.That's because you mentioned an advertence and I didn't know what you were talking about. If I had known it was about posting in the wrong thread I wouldn't have asked you what you meant. We've spent enough time on this. :mad:

[William Anthony]

Uh, William, I believe that's what I just said.

Not quite correct, you called what I posted, which was the testimony from the transcript, my version. I did not testify or create the transcripts. I do not have a version, while you, on the other hand do, which you called your belief.

[William Anthony]

That's because you mentioned an advertence and I didn't know what you were talking about. If I had known it was about posting in the wrong thread I wouldn't have asked you what you meant. We've spent enough time on this. :mad:


To use your words, now, you know.:)

[tv]

To use your words, now, you know.:)Now that I've been duly informed are you going to let it go?

[William Anthony]

Now that I've been duly informed are you going to let it go?

Certainly, did you want to discuss your version or would you like me to continue the assessment?

[William Anthony]

Let's do it this way, if you'd like?

Was there any knife entered into evidence that the prosecution claimed Simpson used to murder Ron and Nicole? You must answer yes or no and then I will accept your explanation. :)

[tv]

In the criminal trial thread someone questioned if OJ Simpson had any areas on his arms. Here is the testimony of Dr. Baden about that --

Q DID YOU SEE ANY CUTS TO THE PALM OF HIS
HAND?
A NO. HIS PALMS OF HIS HANDS HAD NO CUTS
AS I RECALL.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY CUTS ALONG THE EDGE WHERE
THE PINKY FINGER IS?
A NO. I HAD THE -- YOU HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPH
SHOWING THE SCRAPE MARKS ON -- ON THE INSIDE OF THE
WRIST AT THAT AREA.
Q THOSE ARE NOT CUTS, ARE THEY, SIR?
A WELL, THEY'RE SCRAPES. THEY'RE NOT
CUTS. THEY'RE SCRAPES.

[martin II]

Let's do it this way, if you'd like?

Was there any knife entered into evidence that the prosecution claimed Simpson used to murder Ron and Nicole? You must answer yes or no and then I will accept your explanation. :)

HHHMMMM
They CLAIMED there was a knife was used to kill the victims BUT that claim was another empty claim as NO ONE has been able to connect oj to any knife
in the whole state of california.First they thought it was a long stiletto knife, then the autopsy doctor said two knifes was used,Then another prosecution witness said NOPE it was one 3 -4 inch knife.Then Furhman said what about the knife box.(No one had been cut with a knife box)then vanhhater said that knife box had nothing to do with the case.

The jury must have said WTH are they talking about.imo

[martin II]

In the criminal trial thread someone questioned if OJ Simpson had any areas on his arms. Here is the testimony of Dr. Baden about that --

Q DID YOU SEE ANY CUTS TO THE PALM OF HIS
HAND?
A NO. HIS PALMS OF HIS HANDS HAD NO CUTS
AS I RECALL.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY CUTS ALONG THE EDGE WHERE
THE PINKY FINGER IS?
A NO. I HAD THE -- YOU HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPH
SHOWING THE SCRAPE MARKS ON -- ON THE INSIDE OF THE
WRIST AT THAT AREA.
Q THOSE ARE NOT CUTS, ARE THEY, SIR?
A WELL, THEY'RE SCRAPES. THEY'RE NOT
CUTS. THEY'RE SCRAPES.


AND
MARTINII

[martin II]

In the criminal trial thread someone questioned if OJ Simpson had any areas on his arms. Here is the testimony of Dr. Baden about that --

Q DID YOU SEE ANY CUTS TO THE PALM OF HIS
HAND?
A NO. HIS PALMS OF HIS HANDS HAD NO CUTS
AS I RECALL.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY CUTS ALONG THE EDGE WHERE
THE PINKY FINGER IS?
A NO. I HAD THE -- YOU HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPH
SHOWING THE SCRAPE MARKS ON -- ON THE INSIDE OF THE
WRIST AT THAT AREA.
Q THOSE ARE NOT CUTS, ARE THEY, SIR?
A WELL, THEY'RE SCRAPES. THEY'RE NOT
CUTS. THEY'RE SCRAPES.

This testimony is about his pinki finger and wrist.NOT HIS ARMS.GEES

[martin II]

I am waiting for the link to the pictures of ojs bare arms that a poster said was taken after the recital.

[tv]

I am waiting for the link to the pictures of ojs bare arms that a poster said was taken after the recital.

There was a video of OJ Simpson taken at the recital -- we've all seen it many times. If you can find it then you can look at his arms. Dr. Baden examined Simpson at Robert Kardashian's house the day after the murders and saw the abrasions on his wrist. You're not doubting Dr. Baden are you?

[tv]

This testimony is about his pinki finger and wrist.NOT HIS ARMS.GEES

The wrist is part of the arm.

[William Anthony]

There was a video of OJ Simpson taken at the recital -- we've all seen it many times. If you can find it then you can look at his arms. Dr. Baden examined Simpson at Robert Kardashian's house the day after the murders and saw the abrasions on his wrist. You're not doubting Dr. Baden are you?

Not quite correct. He examined Simpson on June 17th.

[tv]

Not quite correct. He examined Simpson on June 17th.If that's so that is even worse for Simpson. They must have been significant abrasions to still be there five days later. Thanks, William. :)

[William Anthony]

If that's so that is even worse for Simpson. They must have been significant abrasions to still be there five days later. Thanks, William. :)

You're welcome. I think you should look at Baden's testimony. He said he could not tell when the abrasions were done and, IIRC, said maybe on Tuesday. Let's not forget that he was handcuffed, however briefly. I always want to allow you the opportunity to honestly look at the evidence.

[tv]

You're welcome. I think you should look at Baden's testimony. He said he could not tell when the abrasions were done and, IIRC, said maybe on Tuesday. Let's not forget that he was handcuffed, however briefly. I always want to allow you the opportunity to honestly look at the evidence.

How do you think I posted Dr. Baden's testimony if I didn't read it? I can assure you I always look at the evidence honestly. My point in posting the information about the abrasions was to show that he did indeed have scrapes on his arm when he was examined. No one has testified that they were seen at the recital that I recall. If someone did see them I'd be interested in the testimony. If Dr. Baden couldn't tell when the abrasions occurred than I suggest we throw Tuesday out the window as being the correct day.

[martin II]

The wrist is part of the arm.

nope
wonder why the call it writs and not "part of th arm" hahaha.
then it is also a part of the chest.

[martin II]

How do you think I posted Dr. Baden's testimony if I didn't read it? I can assure you I always look at the evidence honestly. My point in posting the information about the abrasions was to show that he did indeed have scrapes on his arm when he was examined. No one has testified that they were seen at the recital that I recall. If someone did see them I'd be interested in the testimony. If Dr. Baden couldn't tell when the abrasions occurred than I suggest we throw Tuesday out the window as being the correct day.

Wrist not arms. lets be honest

[William Anthony]

How do you think I posted Dr. Baden's testimony if I didn't read it? I can assure you I always look at the evidence honestly. My point in posting the information about the abrasions was to show that he did indeed have scrapes on his arm when he was examined. No one has testified that they were seen at the recital that I recall. If someone did see them I'd be interested in the testimony. If Dr. Baden couldn't tell when the abrasions occurred than I suggest we throw Tuesday out the window as being the correct day.

The same way you said he said the struggle took twenty minutes and he examined Simpson the morning after the murders. He had scrapes on his wrist, were handcuffs are placed. I am not conclusively saying that the abrasions came from the handcuffs. I am drawing a reasonable inference, honestly. If he can't tell when they occurred, then we can also throw Sunday and Monday out of the window. I don't think he testified Tuesday was the correct day.

[martin II]

There was a video of OJ Simpson taken at the recital -- we've all seen it many times. If you can find it then you can look at his arms. Dr. Baden examined Simpson at Robert Kardashian's house the day after the murders and saw the abrasions on his wrist. You're not doubting Dr. Baden are you?

a video showing ojs wrist with scratches? i never saw video that was that close to oj. why don;t you just show it to me.i bet nothahaha

[martin II]

If that's so that is even worse for Simpson. They must have been significant abrasions to still be there five days later. Thanks, William. :)

not really

[tv]

nope
wonder why the call it writs and not "part of th arm" hahaha.
then it is also a part of the chest.It's like your nose being a part of your face. If you want to think the wrist is part of the chest it's okay with me. hahaha

[martin II]

It's like your nose being a part of your face. If you want to think the wrist is part of the chest it's okay with me. hahaha

everything is connected but a wrist is a wrist.Regardless of what you may think it is.

[tv]

a video showing ojs wrist with scratches? i never saw video that was that close to oj. why don;t you just show it to me.i bet nothahahaIf you never saw the video of OJ Simpson outside after the recital it's not my problem. hahaha

[William Anthony]

a video showing ojs wrist with scratches? i never saw video that was that close to oj. why don;t you just show it to me.i bet nothahaha

Martin,

I am sure you remember the video, especially the part where they asked Simpson to show his wrists and then they took a close up of the insides of his wrist. You remember they asked for this particular shot, because they knew he was going to commit a double murder that night and would get scratched.

[William Anthony]

Was any DNA taken of any skin that belonged to Simpson, which was found on the victims' nails?

[tv]

Was any DNA taken of any skin that belonged to Simpson, which was found on the victims' nails?I'm sure you can look that up.

[William Anthony]

I'm sure you can look that up.

If no DNA was found under the nails, then it is a moot point about any abrasions, imho.

[tv]

Wrist not arms. lets be honestYes, you should be honest, martin. Give it a try.

[tv]

The same way you said he said the struggle took twenty minutes and he examined Simpson the morning after the murders. He had scrapes on his wrist, were handcuffs are placed. I am not conclusively saying that the abrasions came from the handcuffs. I am drawing a reasonable inference, honestly. If he can't tell when they occurred, then we can also throw Sunday and Monday out of the window. I don't think he testified Tuesday was the correct day.You have a very unpleasant tendency to take a mistake and beat it beyond recognition. I told you I was mistaken about that and that I thought he actually said 10 minutes. After reviewing the testimony I see that what he said was that Ron could have been standing as long as 15 minutes.


Q COULD IT HAVE BEEN AS LONG AS 15 MINUTES
BETWEEN THE TIME THE JUGULAR VEIN WAS CUT AND THE
CHEST WOUNDS?
A THERE'S SO MANY FACTORS INVOLVED,
INDIVIDUAL FACTORS, IT'S POSSIBLE -- YES, IT COULD
BE. COULD BE.

[William Anthony]

You have a very unpleasant tendency to take a mistake and beat it beyond recognition. I told you I was mistaken about that and that I thought he actually said 10 minutes. After reviewing the testimony I see that what he said was that Ron could have been standing as long as 15 minutes.


Q COULD IT HAVE BEEN AS LONG AS 15 MINUTES
BETWEEN THE TIME THE JUGULAR VEIN WAS CUT AND THE
CHEST WOUNDS?
A THERE'S SO MANY FACTORS INVOLVED,
INDIVIDUAL FACTORS, IT'S POSSIBLE -- YES, IT COULD
BE. COULD BE.

I must differ. I do not beat mistakes beyond recognition. What happens is that people try to right what they said by changing what they said, imho. Your original post was that Baden said they were struggling for 20 minutes and you found that unreasonable, comparing it to a boxing match. You now want to say standing. My point is that the jury had the benefit of the read backs of testimony. You spoke of my version, when I posted his actual testimony, which only dealt with how long Ronald would have been alive after the jugular was cut. You changed your version three times; once from struggling with the assailant for 20 minutes, to ten minutes and now standing for 15 minutes. Sounds like the prosecution case, imho. If this does not fit, then try this. If that does not fall in line, then let us try one more time. :)

Perhaps my tendencies would not seem so unpleasant, if some would stop trying to say that I am inaccurate and make sure they are accurate in what they post. Just a thought, smile.

[martin II]

I must differ. I do not beat mistakes beyond recognition. What happens is that people try to right what they said by changing what they said, imho. Your original post was that Baden said they were struggling for 20 minutes and you found that unreasonable, comparing it to a boxing match. You now want to say standing. My point is that the jury had the benefit of the read backs of testimony. You spoke of my version, when I posted his actual testimony, which only dealt with how long Ronald would have been alive after the jugular was cut. You changed your version three times; once from struggling with the assailant for 20 minutes, to ten minutes and now standing for 15 minutes. Sounds like the prosecution case, imho. If this does not fit, then try this. If that does not fall in line, then let us try one more time. :)

Perhaps my tendencies would not seem so unpleasant, if some would stop trying to say that I am inaccurate and make sure they are accurate in what they post. Just a thought, smile.


I did become confused about which condition was being discussed.alive, standing or struggling.

I think it was Dr Lee that said difficult to tell exactly to the minute.

I am not really sure it matters,unless i am missing something. The murders started at some time , the prosecution thought at about 10:20 ,and the killers left at a time and the victims died at a certain time and were discovered later.imo

[martin II]

If you never saw the video of OJ Simpson outside after the recital it's not my problem. hahaha

NO. That is not my problem I saw the video of oj and the family outside after the recital. hugging and kissing etc But from my memory it was a normal stand off shot showing full bodies not of a close up specifically of the inside of ojs wrist or arm where one would be able to see if there was a scratch or not. You seem to know of this close up video and that is what i have asked assistance in finding from you.
Why would somone take a close up of ojs wrist after the recital?

[martin II]

Yes, you should be honest, martin. Give it a try.

Baden testified about ojs wrist, you indicates he was talking about ojs arm saying they are the same. I dissagree.

[martin II]

Yes, you should be honest, martin. Give it a try.

tv
ok

One question.

Have you ever seen a video of oj simpson taken on 6/12 after the recital showing a close up of the inside of his WRIST??

[martin II]

tv

Cause of the marks on ojs wrist.

If there was no DNA taken from either victims fingernails that belonged to oj simpsom, then why is this a issue? If there was dna taken from fingernails of either victim, who did it belong to.

[William Anthony]

I did become confused about which condition was being discussed.alive, standing or struggling.

I think it was Dr Lee that said difficult to tell exactly to the minute.

I am not really sure it matters,unless i am missing something. The murders started at some time , the prosecution thought at about 10:20 ,and the killers left at a time and the victims died at a certain time and were discovered later.imo

It does not matter, imho. However, some here are quick to accuse others of posting inaccuracies and post nothing to show that what was posted was inaccurate. When their inaccurate posts are pointed out, they want to complain, imho.

[tv]

I must differ. I do not beat mistakes beyond recognition. What happens is that people try to right what they said by changing what they said, imho. Your original post was that Baden said they were struggling for 20 minutes and you found that unreasonable, comparing it to a boxing match. You now want to say standing. My point is that the jury had the benefit of the read backs of testimony. You spoke of my version, when I posted his actual testimony, which only dealt with how long Ronald would have been alive after the jugular was cut. You changed your version three times; once from struggling with the assailant for 20 minutes, to ten minutes and now standing for 15 minutes. Sounds like the prosecution case, imho. If this does not fit, then try this. If that does not fall in line, then let us try one more time. :)

Perhaps my tendencies would not seem so unpleasant, if some would stop trying to say that I am inaccurate and make sure they are accurate in what they post. Just a thought, smile.By standing I mean struggling. Your nitpicking does not make Simpson an innocent man. I admitted I had made a mistake and corrected it which you seldom do.

[Kate Sachel]

I did become confused about which condition was being discussed.alive, standing or struggling.

I think it was Dr Lee that said difficult to tell exactly to the minute.

I am not really sure it matters,unless i am missing something. The murders started at some time , the prosecution thought at about 10:20 ,and the killers left at a time and the victims died at a certain time and were discovered later.imo

Why wouldn't it matter how long the struggle lasted? It definitely matters in terms of whether or not OJ could have actually had time to commit the murders.

Or am I not understanding what you are saying?

Kate

[tv]

It does not matter, imho. However, some here are quick to accuse others of posting inaccuracies and post nothing to show that what was posted was inaccurate. When their inaccurate posts are pointed out, they want to complain, imho.

When someone makes a mistake, for instance you and and martin, I may point it out but then I move on. Once again you are going on post after post rehashing it and pointing it out just like you did with the wrong thread being posted in the day before. Time for you to realize I admitted the mistake and move on. It's called maturity.

[tv]

tv
ok

One question.

Have you ever seen a video of oj simpson taken on 6/12 after the recital showing a close up of the inside of his WRIST??You may as well save your baiting questions because I'm not answering them.

[William Anthony]

By standing I mean struggling. Your nitpicking does not make Simpson an innocent man. I admitted I had made a mistake and corrected it which you seldom do.

Not quite correct. I readily admit my mistakes and say I stand corrected. I do not try to change standing to struggling. In your last post of the testimony, I only saw the time between stab wounds and nothing about the length of time he was standing. Please, post the relevant part.

[tv]

Not quite correct. I readily admit my mistakes and say I stand corrected. I do not try to change standing to struggling. In your last post of the testimony, I only saw the time between stab wounds and nothing about the length of time he was standing. Please, post the relevant part.If you're so interested look it up yourself. It was Dr. Baden's testimony on cross by Brian Kelberg on August 10.

[William Anthony]

Why wouldn't it matter how long the struggle lasted? It definitely matters in terms of whether or not OJ could have actually had time to commit the murders.

Or am I not understanding what you are saying?

Kate

The murders were committed by a killer or killers. The time of the struggle only means how long the murder or murders were there. The last time that Nicole was known to be alive, by the phone records as stipulated, would have been at approximately 9:40. I cannot remember, if there was testimony that someone seen her alive after that (the ice cream). The prosecution wanted to make the time of the death at approximately 10:20, IIRC, which would mean that the killer or killers could have been there approximately 40 minutes before the death. What was occurring during that time is speculation. What this also allows in a suspicion about the unidentified Caucasian hair, the blood type not belonging to Simpson, Nicole or Ronald, in connection with the person who was seen crouching in Nicole's bushes approximately 30-40 minutes before the last time she was known to be alive. What is questionable is what the killer or killers were doing prior to the time of Ronald's arrival, since I doubt it would have taken that long to murder Nicole and why they were still there upon his arrival.

[William Anthony]

If you're so interested look it up yourself. It was Dr. Baden's testimony on cross by Brian Kelberg on August 10.

I think my request was respectfully submitted and that you were the one that made the claim. I do believe the rules allow for my type of request. However, if you are not inclined to follow the rules, then so be it.

[William Anthony]

If you're so interested look it up yourself. It was Dr. Baden's testimony on cross by Brian Kelberg on August 10.

I found this testimony for August 10th but I will continue to look.

MR. SHAPIRO: In viewing this injury to the throat, do you have an opinion as to how long Mr. Goldman could have been standing after that injury?

DR. BADEN: In my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, after the jugular vein was cut, from the time of the cutting until he would collapse because of blood loss could be many minutes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could a person survive that wound?

DR. BADEN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: How long could a person survive that wound?

DR. BADEN: If a person is brought promptly to a hospital, the jug--as opposed to the carotid arteries, which incapac--which caused--the injury which caused the death of Miss Simpson which caused rapid bleeding very quickly and cuts off blood--oxygen going to the brain, the veins, the jugular vein is a low pressure system and it's bringing blood back to the heart, and it bleeds very much more slowly and it would take many minutes of bleeding from the jugular vein to lower the blood pressure enough so a person would even get woozy and fall to the ground. At that time, the person would still be alive.

[William Anthony]

I found this from August 10th

MR. SHAPIRO: Could it have been as long as 15 minutes between the time the jugular vein was cut and the chest wounds?

DR. BADEN: There's so many factors involved, individual factors, it's possible--yes, it could be. Could be.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know when in the struggle in time from the beginning to the time--how much time elapsed before Mr. Goldman's jugular vein was cut?

DR. BADEN: No. No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could have been one, two, three minutes into the struggle?

DR. BADEN: Yeah. There could have been a struggle going on, hand cuts, other injuries. I can only start dating the length of time to die once the left jugular vein is cut. At some point, the left jugular vein gets cut and then he will bleed slowly for many minutes until his heart can no longer pump blood when his lung is cut.

MR. SHAPIRO: Was the cut to the chest, which you have told us could have been as long as 15 minutes, more likely 10 minutes and as little as 5 minutes after the jugular vein, was that necessarily the last wound to Mr. Goldman?

DR. BADEN: No. No.

MR. SHAPIRO: If Ronald Goldman began a struggle with his assailants at 10:40 P.M., within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, can you tell us when the stab wounds to the chest would have occurred?

DR. BADEN: My opinion would be at least five minutes, more likely around 10 minutes after the neck started to bleed.

MR. SHAPIRO: So if the struggle started--just take basic minimum times now. If the struggle started at 10:40, taking into account that there could have been injuries and struggle before the jugular vein was cut and there could have been injuries after the chest, what is the earliest time, the earliest time that he would have been cut in the chest in your opinion?

DR. BADEN: In my opinion, 10--10:45.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could have been as late as 10:50?

DR. BADEN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Or later?

DR. BADEN: Yes.

I did not see any question by the prosecution of how long the struggle or standing lasted. I will look under August 11th.

[tv]

I think my request was respectfully submitted and that you were the one that made the claim. I do believe the rules allow for my type of request. However, if you are not inclined to follow the rules, then so be it.Then so be it. I believe he was standing between stab wounds. If you have testimony that says he wasn't standing between the stab wounds then post it. This all makes no difference because Dr. Baden drastically changed his testimony in the civil trial. Maybe he just can't make up his mind.

[William Anthony]

Then so be it. I believe he was standing between stab wounds. If you have testimony that says he wasn't standing between the stab wounds then post it. This all makes no difference because Dr. Baden drastically changed his testimony in the civil trial. Maybe he just can't make up his mind.

With all due respect, the title of this thread is Issues in the Criminal Trial. You may want to address the change on the Key Testimony in the Civil Trial thread.
I think Baden's opinion was that he was standing between stab wounds, so you and he agree. I found this testimony from August 11th and the prosecution seemingly wanted to limit the amount of time the wounds caused death. I think this is in line with Kate's post. The longer the time of death, the less amount of time for Simpson to be found guilty, imho. Simpson would not have had time to get back to Bundy and bang on the wall three times, imho. I understood Kate's point but my point is that the longer estimate allows for other suspects that may have been overlooked in the rush to judgment, imho.

MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, if in fact, as Dr. Lakshmanan testified, that the blood along the left pant leg is consistent with the thigh wound to the left thigh area and was inflicted very early on in the struggle and that Mr. Goldman was in an upright position at the time that was inflicted, would that change your opinion--if those circumstances were true, would that change your opinion as to the time required for Mr. Goldman to have died from a combination of the jugular vein and the chest wounds and the abdominal aorta stab wound on the left side?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. BADEN: You can't die from five or 10 or 15 or 20 minutes of bleeding from the left thigh wound that doesn't hit any significant blood vessels. I mean, there's a lot of capillaries, and a person can bleed, but won't die from it. The major reason for Mr. Goldman--major reason for Mr. Goldman's death by bleeding is from the jugular vein. All the other stab wounds contribute something to it. Every cut and every stab wound does bleed, can contribute to it, but the major source is the jugular vein returning all the blood that's being pumped, as we sit here, through our brain, it all comes down the jugular vein. That's the major source of the bleeding. The others can contribute to it, but not--not in great quantity.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, setting aside the jugular vein, the kind of chest stab wounds that we see in photograph G10, how long would it take for a person to bleed to death from those stab wounds?

DR. BADEN: Oh, umm, taking both stab wounds on the right, his chest cavity could fill up with blood in about--given the autopsy description of the lungs, 10, 15 minutes from the--from the stab wound to the lung. That didn't happen here because it didn't fill up. There was not enough blood to go into the chest cavity. But stab wounds of the lung are certainly treated--every day people get stab wounds of the lung like this, get brought to a hospital 10, 20, 30 minutes later and survive, and then survive.

MR. KELBERG: And how long, sir would it take, forgetting any other stab wounds received by Mr. Goldman, for him to die from an abdominal aorta stab wound such as seen in the photograph G5 along the left side of the body?

DR. BADEN: Yeah. Dr. Golden describes that as going in and out of the aorta. So it's really one stab wound or two I think half inch cuts of the aorta, and that could cause a rapid filling of the abdominal cavity with blood and death in also 10 or 15 minutes. And again, people get stabbed and do get to hospitals out in the street in the aorta and survive. They'll die quicker from the aorta stab wound than from the lung stab wounds.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it be accurate to say that one could inflict the number of stab wounds seen on the body of Ronald Goldman very rapidly by going as I am going and as Dr. Lakshmanan did with rapid thrusts of a knife against a victim that the perpetrator is motivated to kill with that knife?

DR. BADEN: Sure. There can be rapid infliction of stab wounds as you indicate, but stab wounds don't cause death. It's bleeding or injury to the organ that causes death, and you have to bleed out enough blood to die. The stab wound itself doesn't cause the death.

[tv]

I'm allowed to reference the civil trial if it's relevant to the subject being discussed. What I cannot do is go off on a rant regarding the civil trial and take the thread off-topic. I respectfully ask you to stop nit-picking.

[William Anthony]

Then so be it. I believe he was standing between stab wounds. If you have testimony that says he wasn't standing between the stab wounds then post it. This all makes no difference because Dr. Baden drastically changed his testimony in the civil trial. Maybe he just can't make up his mind.

With all due respect, the issue was whether it was reasonable to believe Baden when he said that there was a twenty minute struggle. You seem to think that, because someone was standing, they were struggling. I think they might have been leaning against a tree. However, that is all moot, because Baden explained in my last post why he thought Ronald lived for approximately 15 minutes after the cut to the jugular. The obvious import of the prosecution's and the defense's line of questioning is that the killer or killers remained until after the death, because he or they did not want to be identified, imho.

[tv]

With all due respect, the issue was whether it was reasonable to believe Baden when he said that there was a twenty minute struggle. You seem to think that, because someone was standing, they were struggling. I think they might have been leaning against a tree. However, that is all moot, because Baden explained in my last post why he thought Ronald lived for approximately 15 minutes after the cut to the jugular. The obvious import of the prosecution's and the defense's line of questioning is that the killer or killers remained until after the death, because he or they did not want to be identified, imho.So you think Ron was standing and leaning against a tree? Did he stop for a cigarette or just take a break from being killed? If he had stopped struggling why would the killer keep him standing? If he was conscious and standing why would he just stand there and allow himself to be slaughtered? You're not making a lot of sense. Maybe Dr. Baden hit the nail on the head on the Geraldo Rivera show when he said Ron stopped to talk. Riiiight...:D

[William Anthony]

I'm allowed to reference the civil trial if it's relevant to the subject being discussed. What I cannot do is go off on a rant regarding the civil trial and take the thread off-topic. I respectfully ask you to stop nit-picking.


With all due respect, I started this thread and this was my first post;

For those who would like to discuss issues encompassed in the criminal trial.

As I am certain you are aware, the civil trial happened after the criminal trial, which means it was precluded from being encompassed in the criminal trial. There is a thread, which affords you the opportunity to reference Baden's civil testimony. You seem to be asserting the behavior of a moderator. I realize that old habits die hard. However, since there seem to be so many complaints of being off-topic, I was merely suggesting that this may not be the proper thread for you to assert his civil testimony. I am only trying to improve the level of posting in this community by attempts to ensure that the posts are accurate and relevant. You may call that nit-picking but I respectfully disagree.

[William Anthony]

So you think Ron was standing and leaning against a tree? Did he stop for a cigarette or just take a break from being killed? If he had stopped struggling why would the killer keep him standing? If he was conscious and standing why would he just stand there and allow himself to be slaughtered? You're not making a lot of sense. Maybe Dr. Baden hit the nail on the head on the Geraldo Rivera show when he said Ron stopped to talk. Riiiight...:D

I think that, if he was unable to yell and the killer or killers realized that he was to weak to continue struggling, he/they may have turned their attention to Nicole and returned to Ronald. Following the part of the post that I placed on the board for August 11th, there was some testimony about bark from a tree, causing the abrasions to Ronald's hands. I did not read it.

[tv]

With all due respect, I started this thread and this was my first post;

For those who would like to discuss issues encompassed in the criminal trial.

As I am certain you are aware, the civil trial happened after the criminal trial, which means it was precluded from being encompassed in the criminal trial. There is a thread, which affords you the opportunity to reference Baden's civil testimony. You seem to be asserting the behavior of a moderator. I realize that old habits die hard. However, since there seem to be so many complaints of being off-topic, I was merely suggesting that this may not be the proper thread for you to assert his civil testimony. I am only trying to improve the level of posting in this community by attempts to ensure that the posts are accurate and relevant. You may call that nit-picking but I respectfully disagree.Please explain this comment.

[William Anthony]

H'm. I'll give you the website. No doubt you have something negative to say about them. www.law.umkc

Simpson trial: The DNA Evidence

A list of the 45 bloodstains introduced at trial, with their DNA evidence.
(Two types of DNA tests were used, RFLP* and PCR**. RFLP tests are more precise, but require much more DNA. PCR tests are used when only small amounts of DNA are present.)
Identification Key: OJS = O.J. Simpson, NBS = Nicole Brown Simpson, RG = Ronald Goldman
LOCATION OF STAIN NO. OF TESTED LOCI
RFLP NO. OF TESTED LOCI
PCR NOT EXCLUDED***
ROCKINGHAM PROPERTY
Rockingham trail (item 6) 0 2 OJS
Rockingham trail (item 7) 0 5 OJS
Rockingham foyer 5 6 OJS
Rockingham master bathroom floor 0 1 OJS
BUNDY CRIME SCENE
Blood pool by Nicole Brown Simpson 0 1 NBS
Blood drop by Nicole Brown Simpson 0 7 OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 48) 0 7 OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 49) 0 6 OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 50) 0 7 OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 52) 5 7 OJS
Shoe impression 0 5 NBS
Blood drop on Goldman boot 5 6 NBS & RG
Brown Simpson's fingernails 0 7 NBS
Back gate (item 115) 0 2 OJS
Back gate (item 116) 0 2 OJS
Back gate (item 117) 0 2 OJS
Rockingham Glove
Inside/ back of wrist 0 1 NBS & RG
Inside/ back of index finger 5 2 NBS & RG
Inside/ side of middle finger 5 2 NBS & RG
Inside/ back of ring finger 8 2 RG
Inside/ back of hand 5 2 NBS & RG
Inside/ by wrist notch 0 2 OJS & RG
Outside/ near wrist notch (item G-11) 0 1 OJS, NBS & RG
Outside/ near wrist notch (item G-12) 0 1 NBS & RG
Stitching/ wrist notch 0 1 OJS, NBS & RG
Inside/ back of cuff 0 1 NBS & RG
Rockingham Socks
Ankle 14 7 NBS
Near ankle (item 42-B1) 0 2 NBS
Near ankle (item 42-B2) 0 2 NBS
Upper sock/ opposite side 0 2 OJS
Upper sock/ same side 9 2 OJS
Upper toe 0 2 OJS
Simpson's Bronco
Driver door interior 0 1 OJS
Instrument panel 0 1 OJS
Driver side carpet 0 1 OJS
Steering wheel 0 6 OJS & NBS
Center console (item 30) 0 2 OJS
Center console (item 31) 0 2 OJS
Driver side wall 0 1 OJS
Driver side carpet 0 1 NBS
Center console (combination of 3 below) 4 * OJS
Center console (item 303) * 2 OJS
Center console (item 304) * 2 OJS
Center console (item 305) * 2 OJS
45 Total blood stains tested

*RFLP= Typing using restriction length polymorphisms.
**PCR= Amplification of specific genes using the process known as plymerase chain reaction.

Well. "The amount of OJS consistent with" I'm sure Martin and William will find an answer to. I'm interested to read it. Let me guess. All these people were idiots or biased or didn't know who Simpson was.

I think most, if not all of this so-called "credible mountain of evidence" has been handled in the assessment. However, if there is something that you would like specifically addressed, I would be glad to attempt that endeavor.

[tv]

I think that, if he was unable to yell and the killer or killers realized that he was to weak to continue struggling, he/they may have turned their attention to Nicole and returned to Ronald. Following the part of the post that I placed on the board for August 11th, there was some testimony about bark from a tree, causing the abrasions to Ronald's hands. I did not read it.
So the killer left Ron standing against the tree, dying and waiting to be finished off, while attention was turned to Nicole. Sure.

[William Anthony]

Please explain this comment.

I thought it was self explanatory. You seem to be stating what the rules are, which by my understanding is the duty of a moderator. I could understand, if you were stating that as a prior ruling or your understanding of a prior ruling. However, you stated that as a fact, when the fact is that this thread addresses the issues encompassed in the criminal trial, not the civil. In the past a former moderator may have allowed such statements of fact. However, we are trying to raise the level of posting, as evidence by your recent admission that you posted something on the wrong thread and I realize that old habits die hard. Does that explain it for you?

[William Anthony]

So the killer left Ron standing against the tree, dying and waiting to be finished off, while attention was turned to Nicole. Sure.

Too weak to run and unable to yell. You assume there was only one killer. One may have held him up while the other finished Nicole. The point is that no one knows, because the prosecution failed to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[tv]

I thought it was self explanatory. You seem to be stating what the rules are, which by my understanding is the duty of a moderator. I could understand, if you were stating that as a prior ruling or your understanding of a prior ruling. However, you stated that as a fact, when the fact is that this thread addresses the issues encompassed in the criminal trial, not the civil. In the past a former moderator may have allowed such statements of fact. However, we are trying to raise the level of posting, as evidence by your recent admission that you posted something on the wrong thread and I realize that old habits die hard. Does that explain it for you?No, it doesn't explain it but I didn't expect a coherent answer anyway. I wasn't posting a rule or prior ruling. It's common sense that something can be mentioned that is relevant. If you're correct then your mere mention of the civil trial in the above post is off-topic.

[William Anthony]

No, it doesn't explain it but I didn't expect a coherent answer anyway. I wasn't posting a rule or prior ruling. It's common sense that something can be mentioned that is relevant. If you're correct then your mere mention of the civil trial in the above post is off-topic.

Please, there is no way that I could avoid mentioning the civil trial testimony, since you attempted to support your position by specifically referencing it and testimony from it on the wrong thread. I thought the answer was more than coherent, as I thought it was clear. What do you think I meant? My point was that you were not posting a prior ruling or your understanding of the ruling by the former moderator. You posted it as a fact. The issues involved in the criminal trial limit discussion of what occurred in the civil trial, which, imho, is a matte of common sense, meaning that civil trial occurrences are irrelevant. You know my position on the derogatory remarks made about the criminal jury and the issues they were presented with during [B]THE CRIMINAL TRIAL[B] to support their finding of not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[tv]

Too weak to run and unable to yell. You assume there was only one killer. One may have held him up while the other finished Nicole. The point is that no one knows, because the prosecution failed to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.Too weak to run and unable to yell but strong enough to stand? Or the non-existant second killer may have held him up? What would be the reason to hold him up?

[tv]

Please, there is no way that I could avoid mentioning the civil trial testimony, since you attempted to support your position by specifically referencing it and testimony from it on the wrong thread. I thought the answer was more than coherent, as I thought it was clear. What do you think I meant? My point was that you were not posting a prior ruling or your understanding of the ruling by the former moderator. You posted it as a fact. The issues involved in the criminal trial limit discussion of what occurred in the civil trial, which, imho, is a matte of common sense, meaning that civil trial occurrences are irrelevant. You know my position on the derogatory remarks made about the criminal jury and the issues they were presented with during [B]THE CRIMINAL TRIAL[B] to support their finding of not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.Sorry, the rules apply to you too. Could you please stop mentioning the civil trial and get back on-topic?

[William Anthony]

Too weak to run and unable to yell but strong enough to stand? Or the non-existant second killer may have held him up? What would be the reason to hold him up?

To keep stabbing him. There was evidence of a second killer, although some do not want to admit it. To punish him. There are several reasons. To hold him up to make certain he was dead, i.e. went limp.

[tv]

To keep stabbing him.Oh, that's right. It's impossible to stab someone unless they're standing. How could I forget that?

[William Anthony]

Sorry, the rules apply to you too. Could you please stop mentioning the civil trial and get back on-topic?

The committee is alive and well. :)

[William Anthony]

Oh, that's right. It's impossible to stab someone unless they're standing. How could I forget that?

It is possible to stab someone who is standing up. Don't forget that. So, do you believe that Ronald fell to the ground?

[tv]

The committee is alive and well. :)Off-topic.

[William Anthony]

Off-topic.

Then please try to stay on topic in the future. Thanks in advance.

[weezer]

william, your petty haranguing of other posters is putting this board in jeopardy.

[tv]

It is possible to stab someone who is standing up. Don't forget that. So, do you believe that Ronald fell to the ground?I have no opinion as to the details of the murder in regards to the order of stabbing or whether the victims were standing, sitting or lying down. I'm only following the various testimony. The small details don't change the identity of the lone murderer -- Orenthal James Simpson.

[William Anthony]

william, your petty haranguing of other posters is putting this board in jeopardy.

You will not be one of them. :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

I have no opinion as to the details of the murder in regards to the order of stabbing or whether the victims were standing, sitting or lying down. I'm only following the various testimony. The small details don't change the identity of the lone murderer -- Orenthal James Simpson.

Have you ever read "Trifles"? It was attention to the small things that allowed the defense to put forth a case of reasonable doubt, imho.

[tv]

Have you ever read "Trifles"? It was attention to the small things that allowed the defense to put forth a case of reasonable doubt, imho.No. It doesn't matter in this case if Ron was standing or sitting. It doesn't exclude OJ Simpson from being the lone murderer.

[William Anthony]

I think that some members here understand my attempts to improve this community, and, as a result I have been continuously attacked, falsely accused etc. etc. I suspect that some here have an agenda to ruin this community, as I have previously stated. I think some righteous indignation was due on my part, because of my respect for this community. In any event, I think that the members can see what was attempted here and is still being attempted by some. I sincerely hope that the members will not stand silently by and allow that agenda to be served.

[William Anthony]

No. It doesn't matter in this case if Ron was standing or sitting. It doesn't exclude OJ Simpson from being the lone murderer.

I would respectfully disagree, because when the evidence is evaluated in its totality one can see that there is a possibility of two or more killers and that Simpson could not be proven to be one of those beyond a reasonable doubt.

[tv]

I think that some members here understand my attempts to improve this community, and, as a result I have been continuously attacked, falsely accused etc. etc. I suspect that some here have an agenda to ruin this community, as I have previously stated. I think some righteous indignation was due on my part, because of my respect for this community. In any event, I think that the members can see what was attempted here and is still being attempted by some. I sincerely hope that the members will not stand silently by and allow that agenda to be served.Either back this up or cease to make this claim. Please name names so the posters you are accusing know they are being accused.

[martin II]

william, your petty haranguing of other posters is putting this board in jeopardy.

No haranguing by william or anyone else.So i dissagree with your claim.

[tv]

I would respectfully disagree, because when the evidence is evaluated in its totality one can see that there is a possibility of two or more killers and that Simpson could not be proven to be one of those beyond a reasonable doubt.There is no evidence of a second killer. Please post the evidence.

[William Anthony]

Either back this up or cease to make this claim. Please name names so the posters you are accusing know they are being accused.

It is not a claim. It is a suspicion. I think it is against the rules to out a poster and make personal attacks. If it is nothing more than a suspicion, then there is no need to name names, imho. Let's see how the posting goes.

[martin II]

Then so be it. I believe he was standing between stab wounds. If you have testimony that says he wasn't standing between the stab wounds then post it. This all makes no difference because Dr. Baden drastically changed his testimony in the civil trial. Maybe he just can't make up his mind.

DR Badens civil trial testinmony is off topic for this thread.As you have said previously don't you understand that.

[William Anthony]

No haranguing by william or anyone else.So i dissagree with your claim.

Thank you and I did not bite that hook.

[tv]

No haranguing by william or anyone else.So i dissagree with your claim.You're not required to agree with it to make it so.

[tv]

DR Badens civil trial testinmony is off topic for this thread.As you have said previously don't you understand that.

Here we go again. martin, we've just spent a lot of time on this. It's time to give it a rest.

[martin II]

There is no evidence of a second killer. Please post the evidence.

That depends on whether one belives the testimony of the prosecution on this issue or not. Even the dr performing the autopsy indicated that two knifes could have been used.imo

[William Anthony]

There is no evidence of a second killer. Please post the evidence.

I have repeatedly and see no need to repost it. However, the unidentified Caucasian, the unidentified Caucasian hair, the time line, the evidence of two knives, the unidentified blood.

[tv]

That depends on whether one belives the testimony of the prosecution on this issue or not. Even the dr performing the autopsy indicated that two knifes could have been used.imoI don't believe two knives were used but even if there were two knives it doesn't mean there were two killers.

[martin II]

You're not required to agree with it to make it so.

Your agrement with the claim does not make the claim true.If you are in agreement.

[William Anthony]

You're not required to agree with it to make it so.

I think the impartial members of this community see full well what's going on. Isn't that the name of a song? :)

[tv]

I have repeatedly and see no need to repost it. However, the unidentified Caucasian, the unidentified Caucasian hair, the time line, the evidence of two knives, the unidentified blood.The unidentified Caucasian was investigated and never proven to exist, the unidentified Caucasian hair was most likely Ron's, no evidence of two knives, the blood under Nicole's fingernail was her own degraded blood.

[William Anthony]

The unidentified Causcasian was investigated and never proven to exist, the unidentified Caucasion hair was most likely Ron's, no evidence of two knives, the blood under Nicole's fingernail was her own degraded blood.

That is the way that those, who are prone not to allow the presumption of innocence or hold the prosecution to their burden see it, imho. Others see rush to judgment and reasonable doubt, imho.

[martin II]

No. It doesn't matter in this case if Ron was standing or sitting. It doesn't exclude OJ Simpson from being the lone murderer.

The truth is, in most cases, in the details. Not general wide sweeping clains or ideas of that happened.

[tv]

The truth is, in most cases, in the details. Not general wide sweeping clains or ideas of that happened.Saying it doesn't matter if Ron was sitting or standing is a general wide, sweeping claim?

[martin II]

I don't believe two knives were used but even if there were two knives it doesn't mean there were two killers.

So are you saying one killer had two knifes? This means that when the killer grabbed Nicoles hair to pull her head back he had a knife in his hand?

Since there was NO KNIFE connected to oj simpson in testimony that he had a knife on 6/12 than this claim canot be proven beyond a reasonmable doubt.

[martin II]

Saying it doesn't matter if Ron was sitting or standing is a general wide, sweeping claim?

VOID of the details of if he was which leads to the truth. The prosecution made such broad sweeping alaims and the defense ripped them apart and showed the jury they were just a bunch of cut and past accusations.Reasonable doubt was the standard and the prosecution failed as Dsrden said between his tears.:cool:

[martin II]

Here we go again. martin, we've just spent a lot of time on this. It's time to give it a rest.

you were ot accoprding to what you think the rules say

[martin II]

Oh, that's right. It's impossible to stab someone unless they're standing. How could I forget that?

I believe the stab wounds were actually TESTING wounds to see if ron was dead.Making sure before they left (mofia style) One killer holding him from behind and another stabbing him. This took more time before they tossed him in that corner where he was found.imo

[socaldiva]

The truth is, in most cases, in the details. Not general wide sweeping clains or ideas of that happened.


So true & the details all point to Simpson as the killer.;)

[tv]

So true & the details all point to Simpson as the killer.;)Nice to see you, diva! I agree all details point to OJ Simpson as the murderer of Ron and Nicole.

[socaldiva]

Nice to see you, diva! I agree all details point to OJ Simpson as the murderer of Ron and Nicole.

Good to see you too! I'm off to the movies :seeya:

[martin II]

The unidentified Caucasian was investigated and never proven to exist, the unidentified Caucasian hair was most likely Ron's, no evidence of two knives, the blood under Nicole's fingernail was her own degraded blood.

tv

look at what you have said

'The unidentified hair was most likely RONS.
The unidentified har was never proven to exist.

So there was a hair and then there was not a hair.

-----------------
The blood from under nicoles fingernails were her own dna. no dna from oj.
So now what about rons fingfernails. Any oj dna there??

[weezer]

on the night orenthal james simpson butchered two human beings: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, he left his hair, blood, fiber, hat, glove and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the murder scene. The victims and orenthal's blood and/or fiber were found in orenthal's vehicle, driveway, foyer, socks.

all of the other nonsense that the OJI's are posting is not credible and/or substantiated.

[weezer]

So true & the details all point to Simpson as the killer.;)

hello diva -- you're missed!

[martin II]

Nice to see you, diva! I agree all details point to OJ Simpson as the murderer of Ron and Nicole.

only if one is interested in one side of this story for whatever reason.
like he is guilty because i think he is. Or he looked guilty because he -----

[martin II]

on the night orenthal james simpson butchered two human beings: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, he left his hair, blood, fiber, hat, glove and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the murder scene. The victims and orenthal's blood and/or fiber were found in orenthal's vehicle, driveway, foyer, socks.

all of the other nonsense that the OJI's are posting is not credible and/or substantiated.

We do understand your opinions.It is just that not everyone agrees that these broad claims are true. Not even the criminal trial jury. Thanks for these smart and fair minded citizens. Black and White.

[William Anthony]

Nice to see you, diva! I agree all details point to OJ Simpson as the murderer of Ron and Nicole.

Only if you consider one side of the evidence, imho.

[martin II]

Saying it doesn't matter if Ron was sitting or standing is a general wide, sweeping claim?

YEP

He was either sitting or standing based on the blood flow patterns from his jugular cut. Not from his theigh.

[William Anthony]

all of the other nonsense that the OJI's are posting is not credible and/or substantiated.

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

The unidentified Caucasian was investigated and never proven to exist, the unidentified Caucasian hair was most likely Ron's, no evidence of two knives, the blood under Nicole's fingernail was her own degraded blood.

The evidence of the blood under Nicole's fingernail was said by the Prosecution's expert not to belong to Simpson, Nicole or Ronald, as you well know. The standard for the hair is not the standard for the criminal trial. Your statement on the unidentified Caucasian is interesting, "investigated and not proven to exist."
I think that your are misplacing the burden of proof. It should be "investigated and proven not to exist."

[weezer]

I'm not sure what the point is in continuing to post this inaccurate and dishonest info.

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure what the point is in continuing to post this inaccurate and dishonest info.

Originally Posted by bobaugust View Post
This is what the report said,
"Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson. However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."

I thought you said bobaugust was honest.

[martin II]

I'm not sure what the point is in continuing to post this inaccurate and dishonest info.

We are discussing different points of view of the trial. I am not sure if any particular post was addresed or meant for you individually or specifically. imo

[tv]

tv

look at what you have said

'The unidentified hair was most likely RONS.
The unidentified har was never proven to exist.

So there was a hair and then there was not a hair.

-----------------
The blood from under nicoles fingernails were her own dna. no dna from oj.
So now what about rons fingfernails. Any oj dna there??

martin, the unidentified Caucasian is a person not a hair.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by bobaugust View Post
This is what the report said,
"Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson. However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."

I thought you said bobaugust was honest.

I guess you forgot you were 'raising the level' on this board or you wouldn't be denigrading another poster.

[William Anthony]

I guess you forgot you were 'raising the level' on this board or you wouldn't be denigrading another poster.

I was not "denigrading" anyone and don't know how. I was not denigrating anyone either. You made the post, claiming the continued posts were inaccurate and dishonest. I was simply questioning your post, since I believe you have previously stated that bobaugust was accurate and honest. I simply posted what his post of Matheson's report said. His post was from the testimony. I did not understand how you could claim that what someone else posted, which is the same as the person you believe to be honest and accurate posted. I see you are reverting to making false accusations. So, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[weezer]

I was not "denigrading" anyone and don't know how. I was not denigrating anyone either. You made the post, claiming the continued posts were inaccurate and dishonest. I was simply questioning your post, since I believe you have previously stated that bobaugust was accurate and honest. I simply posted what his post of Matheson's report said. His post was from the testimony. I did not understand how you could claim that what someone else posted, which is the same as the person you believe to be honest and accurate posted. I see you are reverting to making false accusations. So, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

every credible source has stated that the blood under Nicole's fingernails was her degraded blood. you and the other OJI's are the ones having a problem coming to grips with that.

[martin II]

every credible source has stated that the blood under Nicole's fingernails was her degraded blood. you and the other OJI's are the ones having a problem coming to grips with that.

Your opinion of what is credible may not be acceptable to many other people so your statement cannot be taken as fact. imo

[William Anthony]

every credible source has stated that the blood under Nicole's fingernails was her degraded blood. you and the other OJI's are the ones having a problem coming to grips with that.

The prosecution's expert has said what bobaugust's posts said and he was the one that examined the blood. He said it did not belong to Simpson, Nicole or Ronald and that the only way it could belong to Nicole was if the blood was degraded. On cross he admitted that the source he relied on never said that blood degraded in the manner he testified it did. I hope you are not calling sources credible only because they reinforce your opinion that Simpson is guilty. I choose to credit the testimony of this particular expert witness that was given under oath in the criminal trial.

[martin II]

I guess you forgot you were 'raising the level' on this board or you wouldn't be denigrading another poster.

I think you should cut the personal attacks and negative comments towards another poster. Post about the case not the posters personally. imo

[William Anthony]

I think you should cut the personal attacks and negative comments towards another poster. Post about the case not the posters personally. imo

Thanks again for your efforts in improving this community.

[William Anthony]

martin, the unidentified Caucasian is a person not a hair.

Could the unidentified Caucasian hair have belonged to the unidentified Caucasian?

[tv]

Could the unidentified Caucasian hair have belonged to the unidentified Caucasian?No, the unidentified Caucasian had dark hair and IIRC could have been Hispanic. The hair was brown. There's no proof the unidentified Caucasian ever existed as he was never located.

[William Anthony]

martin, the unidentified Caucasian is a person not a hair.

Could the identified blood type that Matheson testified could not have come from Simpson, Ronald or Nicole, unless it if it was degraded blood, although he admitted the expert upon whom he relied stated that blood did not degrade in the manner he testified, have come from the unidentified Caucasian?

[martin II]

No, the unidentified Caucasian had dark hair and IIRC could have been Hispanic. The hair was brown. There's no proof the unidentified Caucasian ever existed as he was never located.

The fact that the skateborder identified him means he existed. Just not found by old lazy Lang.

[tv]

The fact that the skateborder identified him means he existed. Just not found by old lazy Lang.You can't just take someone's word for that. If that's the case then you'll agree that Jill Shively saw and identified Simpson near the scene of the crime that night.

[martin II]

No, the unidentified Caucasian had dark hair and IIRC could have been Hispanic. The hair was brown. There's no proof the unidentified Caucasian ever existed as he was never located.

Italian was suggested.imo

[William Anthony]

No, the unidentified Caucasian had dark hair and IIRC could have been Hispanic. The hair was brown. There's no proof the unidentified Caucasian ever existed as he was never located.

The unidentified Caucasian hair that was found was not head hair but limb hair, according to this source. Is it possible that this unidentified Caucasian dyed his hair to avoid being recognized?

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

[martin II]

You can't just take someone's word for that. If that's the case then you'll agree that Jill Shively saw and identified Simpson near the scene of the crime that night.

Many witnesses claimed they heard the dog barking at fifferent times and the prosecution took the word of the ones that supported their claims.

M Clarke did not believe Shively story so she dumped her.

[William Anthony]

You can't just take someone's word for that. If that's the case then you'll agree that Jill Shively saw and identified Simpson near the scene of the crime that night.

You can't take the prosecution's word that Simpson took a knife, dressed in a sweat suit, dress socks and dress shoes and committed murder. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the unidentified Caucasian did not exist-not that the investigation could not prove he existed. This misstates the burden of proof, imho. Two inquires of a witness eleven months apart hardly constitutes an investigation, imho.

[martin II]

You can't just take someone's word for that. If that's the case then you'll agree that Jill Shively saw and identified Simpson near the scene of the crime that night.

Many witnesses claimed they heard the dog barking at different times and the prosecution took the word of the ones that supported their claims.

M Clarke did not believe Shively story so she dumped her.

[William Anthony]

Many witnesses claimed they heard the dog barking at fifferent times and the prosecution took the word of the ones that supported their claims.

M Clarke did not believe Shively story so she dumped her.

And that is the bottom line, imho. The same with Martz.

[martin II]

And that is the bottom line, imho. The same with Martz.

And Vanhatter when he lied about that illegal search warrant.imo

[William Anthony]

And Vanhatter when he lied about that illegal search warrant.imo

Let's be fair. The prosecution had to put Vannatter and the detective, who committed perjury by the direct evidencde, MF on the stand. Was the way you spelled Vannatter, "Vanhatter" a Freudian slip on your part? :)

[William Anthony]

I have been contemplating over which thread to place this on. Drew Peterson is facing a civil trial. The issue concerns the concept of double jeopardy, which some have expressed interest over. I posted long ago about my concerns about issue preclusion in the Simpson cases. Drew Peterson is in somewhat of a different position. The jury must have found him guilty for murdering his wife and child. Thus, the issues presented in the wrongful death civil trial would of necessity already have been litigated and decided. I think Peterson's posture is different from Simpson's by the guilty verdict and he would be precluded from arguing he was not liable. The Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. This seems unconstitutional to me. Any thoughts or guidance in this area?

[tv]

The unidentified Caucasian hair that was found was not head hair but limb hair, according to this source. Is it possible that this unidentified Caucasian dyed his hair to avoid being recognized?

http://www.smartfellowspress.com/chain_of_custody.htmHere we go back into the twilight zone.

[tv]

I have been contemplating over which thread to place this on. Drew Peterson is facing a civil trial. The issue concerns the concept of double jeopardy, which some have expressed interest over. I posted long ago about my concerns about issue preclusion in the Simpson cases. Drew Peterson is in somewhat of a different position. The jury must have found him guilty for murdering his wife and child. Thus, the issues presented in the wrongful death civil trial would of necessity already have been litigated and decided. I think Peterson's posture is different from Simpson's by the guilty verdict and he would be precluded from arguing he was not liable. The Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. This seems unconstitutional to me. Any thoughts or guidance in this area?Drew Peterson is off-topic.

[William Anthony]

Drew Peterson is off-topic.

He is not off topic, because of the issue of double jeopardy and issue preclusion, as there was information during the trial that civil suits were forthcoming and there has been some interest and prior discussions on the concepts of issue preclusion and double jeopardy. As you said Peterson is relevant to an issue in the Simpson case, not the civil trial per se but issue preclusion and double jeopardy. The word encompass would include information on issues presented in the criminal trial, imho.

[tv]

He is not off topic, because of the issue of double jeopardy and issue preclusion, as there was information during the trial that civil suits were forthcoming and there has been some interest and prior discussions on the concepts of issue preclusion and double jeopardy. As you said Peterson is relevant to an issue in the Simpson case, not the civil trial per se but issue preclusion and double jeopardy. The word encompass would include information on issues presented in the criminal trial, imho.

When you do not allow me to even mention the civil trial of OJ Simpson in the criminal trial thread then you can't believe it's appropriate to bring up Drew Peterson in this thread.

[William Anthony]

Here we go back into the twilight zone.

What Simpson can put on a sweat suit, dress socks and dress shoes but this unidentified Caucasian cannot dye his hair without going into the twilight zone?
Did we ever leave? :)

[William Anthony]

When you do not allow me to even mention the civil trial of OJ Simpson in the criminal trial thread then you can't believe it's appropriate to bring up Drew Peterson in this thread.

If it's the name that you object to, then let me state it this way. A person, who was convicted of double murder, unlike Simpson, is facing another type of lawsuit, like Simpson, but is in a slightly different posture than Simpson was by having been convicted. Therefore, because it is relevant to the information gleaned during Simpson's criminal trial, I was wondering, if the conviction precluded this unnamed person, unlike Simpson, from offering a defense and, if this unnamed person could not offer a defense was this a violation of his Constitutional right to due process, unlike Simpson.

[tv]

What Simpson can put on a sweat suit, dress socks and dress shoes but this unidentified Caucasian cannot dye his hair without going into the twilight zone?
Did we ever leave? :)I expect to see Rod Serling standing in the corner at any moment.

The reason we can give more weight to Simpson's clothing is because we have testimony about what he was wearing, fibers from the crime scene, photograhs of him in a dark sweat suit, dress socks on the bedroom floor, the the BM footprints and proof that he owned shoes of the same make and style. The hair dye theory is just pure fantasy with no basis in fact.

[William Anthony]

I expect to see Rod Serling standing in the corner at any moment.

The reason we can give more weight to Simpson's clothing is because we have testimony about what he was wearing, fibers from the crime scene, photograhs of him in a dark sweat suit, dress socks on the bedroom floor, the the BM footprints and proof that he owned shoes of the same make and style. The hair dye theory is just pure fantasy with no basis in fact.

There was no testimony of anything Simpson wore at the time of the murders and no evidence of any clothing was introduced that he wore at the time of the murders. In fact no one saw him during that time period as brought out by Clark. The dress shoes, EDTA magical socks, and magical sweat suit (now you see them (pun intended), now you don't) sound more like the twilight zone than someone dying their hair, imho.

[weezer]

I have been contemplating over which thread to place this on. Drew Peterson is facing a civil trial. The issue concerns the concept of double jeopardy, which some have expressed interest over. I posted long ago about my concerns about issue preclusion in the Simpson cases. Drew Peterson is in somewhat of a different position. The jury must have found him guilty for murdering his wife and child. Thus, the issues presented in the wrongful death civil trial would of necessity already have been litigated and decided. I think Peterson's posture is different from Simpson's by the guilty verdict and he would be precluded from arguing he was not liable. The Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. This seems unconstitutional to me. Any thoughts or guidance in this area?

my thought: take your questions on Drew Peterson to that board. this has nothing to do with the criminal trial and I KNOW you want to stay on topic.

[weezer]

There was no testimony of anything Simpson wore at the time of the murders and no evidence of any clothing was introduced that he wore at the time of the murders. In fact no one saw him during that time period as brought out by Clark. The dress shoes, EDTA magical socks, and magical sweat suit (now you see them (pun intended), now you don't) sound more like the twilight zone than someone dying their hair, imho.

I think his co-conspirator(s) got rid of the sweat suit along with his lingerie.

[tv]

There was no testimony of anything Simpson wore at the time of the murders and no evidence of any clothing was introduced that he wore at the time of the murders. In fact no one saw him during that time period as brought out by Clark. The dress shoes, EDTA magical socks, and magical sweat suit (now you see them (pun intended), now you don't) sound more like the twilight zone than someone dying their hair, imho.You mean the hair that was most likely Ron's but you think actually belonged to the magical Caucasian/Italian who magically dyed his hair and you magically know this how?

[William Anthony]

my thought: take your questions on Drew Peterson to that board. this has nothing to do with the criminal trial and I KNOW you want to stay on topic.

I appreciate your thoughts but it is relevant to what transpired and double jeopardy and issue preclusion were issues to some of the posters in this community. We now have the opportunity to make those comparisons. For those of you who do not want to engage, allow me to say that you do not have to.

[William Anthony]

I think his co-conspirator(s) got rid of the sweat suit along with his lingerie.

Was that Rod Sterling, because he would dress someone in a dark colored sweat suit, dress shoes and dress socks and have them not be detected?

[William Anthony]

You mean the hair that was most likely Ron's but you think actually belonged to the magical Caucasian/Italian who magically dyed his hair and you magically know this how?

I don't know this because LE did not investigate. I know that the prosecution lost. I know that the defense argued a rush to judgment. I know that I am black with dark brown hair and in the summer people say the hair on my arm is blond, but it is actually red. I would say the same holds true for some Caucasians. It appears from this photo that the point may be moot as it appears that Ronald Goldman's head hair was dark colored.

http://www.whosdatedwho.com/celebrities/people/dating/ron-goldman.htm

[William Anthony]

I am somewhat confused as I have been accused of hating and only interested injustice when it concerns blacks. I have now posted about an issue that I think is relevant to a double murder trial like Simpson and the person is white and I am concerned that he will not receive justice and people are complaining its off-topic. :shrug:

[tv]

I don't know this because LE did not investigate. I know that the prosecution lost. I know that the defense argued a rush to judgment. I know that I am black with dark brown hair and in the summer people say the hair on my arm is blond, but it is actually red. I would say the same holds true for some Caucasians. It appears from this photo that the point may be moot as it appears that Ronald Goldman's head hair was dark colored.

http://www.whosdatedwho.com/celebrities/people/dating/ron-goldman.htm

You are posting a falsehood, William. LE did investigate but never found any evidence of this mystery person. We've been all through this before.

[William Anthony]

You are posting a falsehood, William. LE did investigate but never found any evidence of this mystery person. We've been all through this before.

The falsehood is LE's, if they said they investigated. Asking a witness twice in eleven months to describe a person is not conducting and investigation, imho. It is just a witness interview, imho. To investigate means to look for signs, trace evidence of the person being there, asking others if they saw this person, imho. I saw no testimony of any LE personnel stating they looked in the bushes for trace evidence or anything else. Lang asked what he looked like and the witness could not make a positive ID, IIRC, so he could not find him. I will ignore the false accusation and uncivil manner of your post but ask you to refrain. Thanks.

[weezer]

You are posting a falsehood, William. LE did investigate but never found any evidence of this mystery person. We've been all through this before.

you're right.

[Kate Sachel]

And Vanhatter when he lied about that illegal search warrant.imo

The search warrant was not deemed illegal and thus it would be nice if you would not refer to it as such.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I have been contemplating over which thread to place this on. Drew Peterson is facing a civil trial. The issue concerns the concept of double jeopardy, which some have expressed interest over. I posted long ago about my concerns about issue preclusion in the Simpson cases. Drew Peterson is in somewhat of a different position. The jury must have found him guilty for murdering his wife and child. Thus, the issues presented in the wrongful death civil trial would of necessity already have been litigated and decided. I think Peterson's posture is different from Simpson's by the guilty verdict and he would be precluded from arguing he was not liable. The Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. This seems unconstitutional to me. Any thoughts or guidance in this area?

Good Morning.

As far as I am aware, they have not discovered the body of Drew Peterson's missing wife and he has not been arrested in that case, though he is considered a prime suspect.

I think you may mean Scott Peterson, the man who was convicted of murdering his wife Laci and unborn son Connor. Laci's family has just filed a wrongful death lawsuit against him.

Kate

[SlowHandSam]

Too weak to run and unable to yell but strong enough to stand? Or the non-existant second killer may have held him up? What would be the reason to hold him up?

hm, how is one strong enough to stand but unable to run or yell? :)

[martin II]

You are posting a falsehood, William. LE did investigate but never found any evidence of this mystery person. We've been all through this before.

tv
i don't consider what Lang did with this witness info can be considered a investigation even by lapd standards. Did lang examine the bushes where this person was seen.Did lang interview the neighbord to see if anyone saw this person.

[martin II]

hm, how is one strong enough to stand but unable to run or yell? :)

i believe it takes more energy to run than to stand.

[SlowHandSam]

I am somewhat confused as I have been accused of hating and only interested injustice when it concerns blacks. I have now posted about an issue that I think is relevant to a double murder trial like Simpson and the person is white and I am concerned that he will not receive justice and people are complaining its off-topic. :shrug:

it's ot because it isn't about Simpson. It's so simple, why have I had to dig thru four freaking pages of posts arguing off topic this, off topic that, and all that "Hahahaha" crap?

Most of us who come here want to actually read (and at times) participate in discussions about OJ SIMPSON. Not listen to the incessant whining and complaining. If you and your bud want to "raise the level" of this community, keep on topic, stop baiting and harassing people. Leaders lead by example.

[martin II]

I don't know this because LE did not investigate. I know that the prosecution lost. I know that the defense argued a rush to judgment. I know that I am black with dark brown hair and in the summer people say the hair on my arm is blond, but it is actually red. I would say the same holds true for some Caucasians. It appears from this photo that the point may be moot as it appears that Ronald Goldman's head hair was dark colored.

http://www.whosdatedwho.com/celebrities/people/dating/ron-goldman.htm

GEES
Rons hair is dark or black in this photo.

[SlowHandSam]

i believe it takes more energy to run than to stand.

I disagree with that as a blanket statement. I think if I were fighting for my life and was unable to run or yell, I doubt I'd stay standing up to allow someone to continue to stab me. I suspect I'd be on the ground attempting to protect myself in some fashion, if I were conscious.

And before you tell me that I don't know what I'd do in that situation, let me tell you that a few years ago I had the crap beat out of me by a stranger and after being hit in the back of the head with a piece of wood, my instinct was NOT to stay standing up (although I couldn't run, or yell for help) but to curl up and protect myself as best I could.

[martin II]

Well spotted Kate.:) I've only just been reading through and you noticed William's continued, perhaps even slanderous mistake against a man who has not even been charged with a crime. Dear, dear. How could William make such an obvious blunder? Makes you wonder just how many other obvious blunders William has made. One..and counting...

Joseph bell

How about you giving the link to the video that you claim shows oj simpsons arms at the recital on 6/12. You made the claim so you have to give the link.

[William Anthony]

Well spotted Kate.:) I've only just been reading through and you noticed William's continued, perhaps even slanderous mistake against a man who has not even been charged with a crime. Dear, dear. How could William make such an obvious blunder? Makes you wonder just how many other obvious blunders William has made. One..and counting...

I think I need to have a drink of fresh water before I respond to this post. Maybe, you do not know the legal definition of slander and, therefore, should not use terms that you are unaccustomed to using. You can count one. I am impressed. However, as this seems to be your tendency to make false accusations, personal attacks, respond in a rude and uncivil fashion, I should say :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: . However, it appears that you are a relatively new poster, or one who has taken a break and decided to change your identity and, as such, I have pardoned some of your past indiscretions. It seems you want to continue in this fashion. The blunders you have made are that you have personally attacked me twice, another poster at least once.
Can you count to three? Correction, after reading Martin's above post. Do you think you can possibly be able to count to four and with that I will now say, goodbye, goodbye, goodbye.

[SlowHandSam]

Joseph bell

How about you giving the link to the video that you claim shows oj simpsons arms at the recital on 6/12. You made the claim so you have to give the link.

he doesn't *have* to do anything Martin, and you know that full well. Bullies aren't nice people.

[William Anthony]

Hi Sam. Just read back a few posts to the great point Kate made. Nothing has been raised about that. Wonder why?:rolleyes:

You need not wonder any more. Wonder why you are wondering? Perhaps a wonder should wonder. Anyone have a glass of fresh water?

[William Anthony]

he doesn't *have* to do anything Martin, and you know that full well. Bullies aren't nice people.

No need to make baiting, snide remarks bordering on personal attacks, imho.

[SlowHandSam]

You need not wonder any more. Wonder why you are wondering? Perhaps a wonder should wonder. Anyone have a glass of fresh water?

and yet you still refuse to admit you made a mistake while you continually point out others' mistakes over and over and over.

Instead of acknowledging you made a mistake, you reply back with a smart remark. Tsk Tsk.

slan·der Audio Help /ˈslændər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[slan-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.

to accuse someone of being a double murderer etc, seems to me to be slander. but that's just me.

[William Anthony]

I'm sorry Martin but you have mistaken me with another poster. I never made the claims you mention.

If you did not make that claim, then you only need to be able to count to three. Pop, pop, fizz, fizz, oh what a relief it is.

[William Anthony]

and yet you still refuse to admit you made a mistake while you continually point out others' mistakes over and over and over.

Instead of acknowledging you made a mistake, you reply back with a smart remark. Tsk Tsk.



to accuse someone of being a double murderer etc, seems to me to be slander. but that's just me.

First, I never accused anyone of being a double murderer. I said Drew Peterson was convicted of double murder. From day one the poster came on the board and has called me and another person out. This poster has stated "your martin". I did not see any of you respond to the manner he posted to me. I do not need you to take up for me but I thought there may be more people interested in raising the level of posting in this community than Martin and me. Silence implies consent. When the community is not willing to take a stand, then I will when it comes to me. I am his your and any other poster's huckleberry, if this is the manner in which they want to discuss things.

If you are only interested in criticizing me and not raising the level of postings in the community, I think that you have shown your prejudice. Slander requires an intentionally false statement in regard to a public figure, more than just negligence or an inadvertent mistake. I offer this for you edification as I specifically asked about the legal meaning.

[Kate Sachel]

Because I am the one who wanted clarification on which Peterson was meant for discussion by William, I will also add that I requested clarification from him in an effort to ensure that we were on the same page if I were to join him in discussion on that particular topic.

I do not personally believe that William meant anything to be slanderous in this instance and I wish to make clear that my original post was not made in any effort to suggest such or to call him out. I simply thought he may have made a mistake and needed clarification on that for discussion purposes.

Kindly,

Kate

[William Anthony]

If I were a member of DREW PETERSON 'S family I'd be taking a good look at your posts.:biggrin:

You do that anyway, imho, but yet you did not catch it, :) I will not speak to the obvious. :)

[martin II]

I disagree with that as a blanket statement. I think if I were fighting for my life and was unable to run or yell, I doubt I'd stay standing up to allow someone to continue to stab me. I suspect I'd be on the ground attempting to protect myself in some fashion, if I were conscious.

And before you tell me that I don't know what I'd do in that situation, let me tell you that a few years ago I had the crap beat out of me by a stranger and after being hit in the back of the head with a piece of wood, my instinct was NOT to stay standing up (although I couldn't run, or yell for help) but to curl up and protect myself as best I could.

I believe that when Rons jugular was cut he immediately started to become weak as his heart was getting less blood to pump. Under these circumstances
and with one killer possibly holding him and another possible stabbing him, he did not have many options or time to figure out what to do other than struggle to get loose.
Previously when we discussed rons position during the attack, you stated that he was standing not sitting. Are you now saying he was sitting not standing? imo

[William Anthony]

Because I am the one who wanted clarification on which Peterson was meant for discussion by William, I will also add that I requested clarification from him in an effort to ensure that we were on the same page if I were to join him in discussion on that particular topic.

I do not personally believe that William meant anything to be slanderous in this instance and I wish to make clear that my original post was not made in any effort to suggest such or to call him out. I simply thought he may have made a mistake and needed clarification on that for discussion purposes.

Kindly,

Kate

I thought that was your intention and yes, there are quite a few Petersons that are in the news. Yes, I made the mistake of saying Drew when it was Scott. I did not think that you were calling me out but I knew that others would relish the opportunity to point to my mistake and falsely accuse me of slander, even though they do not know what it entails. :) I wonder if the know the difference between libel and slander or that they are types of defamation. However, I will allow them the vulgar understanding of the concept.

Yes, because of the similarities of the original charges and the initiation of other cause of actions, which was discussed during the criminal trial, I thought that the concept of double jeopardy, (which some members have discussed) issue preclusion and res judicata (although Scott Peterson may not have exhausted his appellate remedies) might be intelligently discussed, because of the difference in the posture of the two.

Thank you for your kindness and interest in raising the quality of postings in this community.

[martin II]

I'm sorry Martin but you have mistaken me with another poster. I never made the claims you mention.

Joseph bell

You may be correct. I apologize to you for the request.I will go back and look for the correct poster.

[William Anthony]

That's two huge blunders you have made...and counting

What??? Are you saying you still need to be able to count to four? Remember, One-two--three---four. Use your fingers, if that will help-don't count the thumb.

[William Anthony]

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
First, I never accused anyone of being a double murderer. I said Drew Peterson was convicted of double murder. From day one the poster came on the board and has called me and another person out. This poster has stated "your martin". I did not see any of you respond to the manner he posted to me. I do not need you to take up for me but I thought there may be more people interested in raising the level of posting in this community than Martin and me. Silence implies consent. When the community is not willing to take a stand, then I will when it comes to me. I am his your and any other poster's huckleberry, if this is the manner in which they want to discuss things.

If you are only interested in criticizing me and not raising the level of postings in the community, I think that you have shown your prejudice. Slander requires an intentionally false statement in regard to a public figure, more than just negligence or an inadvertent mistake. I offer this for you edification as I specifically asked about the legal meaning.

"Don't you get it? You've got the wrong person? Oh hello!!!" Joseph Bell [QUOTE]

Try to read carefully and with comprehension. The poster said I said something I did not say and I responded to what the poster claimed I said. i.e. I did not accuse anyone of being a double murderer. What I said was that Drew Peterson was convicted of double murder. I now understand why you had to rely on another poster to point out my mistake but I don't understand you reasons for attacking me since you started posting. I think I really need that fresh water.

[weezer]

What??? Are you saying you still need to be able to count to four? Remember, One-two--three---four. Use your fingers, if that will help-don't count the thumb.

yep -- raising the level --

[William Anthony]

yep -- raising the level --

Yes, part of effective communication is being able to relate to your audience in terms they understand.

[William Anthony]

I'm still counting your factual errors. Every time you make a new one I will count it. If I was a member of DREW PETERSON'S family I would be reading your threads with iterest.

It's obvious you know how to write. Why not send them a letter? Maybe, you shouldn't. What is "iterest"?, smile. Reminds me of what Doc said after he had won Ike's money in poker; "Why don't you try something you're good at? I got it. Let's have a spelling contest."

[tv]

tv
i don't consider what Lang did with this witness info can be considered a investigation even by lapd standards. Did lang examine the bushes where this person was seen.Did lang interview the neighbord to see if anyone saw this person.Lange did investigate the report of this man. I don't have the details of the investigation but neither do you. I haven't heard anything about Lange that would suggest he wasn't a good detective. You can only follow a lead as far as it goes.

[tv]

I think I need to have a drink of fresh water before I respond to this post. Maybe, you do not know the legal definition of slander and, therefore, should not use terms that you are unaccustomed to using. You can count one. I am impressed. However, as this seems to be your tendency to make false accusations, personal attacks, respond in a rude and uncivil fashion, I should say :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: . However, it appears that you are a relatively new poster, or one who has taken a break and decided to change your identity and, as such, I have pardoned some of your past indiscretions. It seems you want to continue in this fashion. The blunders you have made are that you have personally attacked me twice, another poster at least once.
Can you count to three? Correction, after reading Martin's above post. Do you think you can possibly be able to count to four and with that I will now say, goodbye, goodbye, goodbye.

William, this is completely inappropriate. You have made a blunder and been called on it. If I had made the same mistake you and another poster would harrass me about it for pages. Joseph Bell did not make a false accusation. Admit your mistake and move on.

[martin II]

Don't you think you are going over the top with these personal post about another poster. You can simply dissagree with what was posted and post what you think should be posted.

[martin II]

Lange did investigate the report of this man. I don't have the details of the investigation but neither do you. I haven't heard anything about Lange that would suggest he wasn't a good detective. You can only follow a lead as far as it goes.

i think lang commented on what he did.something like two short quesitons in 9-12 months.it was posted before.

[William Anthony]

Lange did investigate the report of this man. I don't have the details of the investigation but neither do you. I haven't heard anything about Lange that would suggest he wasn't a good detective. You can only follow a lead as far as it goes.

Lang testified and he did not say he looked for evidence of the unidentified Caucasian, IIRC. He said he went back and questioned the witness about the unidentified Caucasian eleven months later, IIRC.

[tv]

It's obvious you know how to write. Why not send them a letter? Maybe, you shouldn't. What is "iterest"?, smile. Reminds me of what Doc said after he had won Ike's money in poker; "Why don't you try something you're good at? I got it. Let's have a spelling contest."

William, I can see you're angry that you've been called on a mistake by this poster. IMO, you are reaping what you have sown by making an olympic event out of every mistake that others make. It doesn't feel very good, does it?

[William Anthony]

Many of us make spelling errors when we type quicly. [/I]You still haven't answered me.

I don't know how "quicly" you type or how to type in such a manner. I think you need to reread carefully and with comprehension. If you are counting your blunders/mistakes, it seems you made need to include that thumb.

[weezer]

I think everybody needs to take a breath. The posts on this board have turned childish. Other than the few who are here to defend orenthal at all costs, the majority of us are here to talk about the case. I believe one of the ugliest outcomes that the OJI's have accomplished has been the community losing informed and knowledgeable posters who no longer discuss the case here because of what has turned into an endurance of rantings, inaccurate, and inappropriate postings by the OJI's.

[William Anthony]

William, I can see you're angry that you've been called on a mistake by this poster. IMO, you are reaping what you have sown by making an olympic event out of every mistake that others make. It doesn't feel very good, does it?

I am not angry at being called on a mistake and I admit when I make them. I am responding in a manner that this particular poster can comprehend, imho, in a similar fashion as this poster makes toward or mentions me, which have been uncivil, rude personal and uncalled for. As you see the person who pointed out the mistake did so in a manner that was kind, thoughtful, intelligent, diplomatic, respectful, civil, polite and professional and I responded in fashion. I have attempted to raise the level of posting in this community but I stand firm on the issue of respect. As it appears this poster has a personal agenda with me that seemingly must have started long before this poster started posting on these threads. I really need that glass of fresh water.

[William Anthony]

I think everybody needs to take a breath. The posts on this board have turned childish. Other than the few who are here to defend orenthal at all costs, the majority of us are here to talk about the case. I believe one of the ugliest outcomes that the OJI's have accomplished has been the community losing informed and knowledgeable posters who no longer discuss the case here because of what has turned into an endurance of rantings, inaccurate, and inappropriate postings by the OJI's.

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[weezer]

I am not angry at being called on a mistake and I admit when I make them. I am responding in a manner that this particular poster can comprehend, imho, in a similar fashion as this poster makes toward or mentions me, which have been uncivil, rude personal and uncalled for. As you see the person who pointed out the mistake did so in a manner that was kind, thoughtful, intelligent, diplomatic, respectful, civil, polite and professional and I responded in fashion. I have attempted to raise the level of posting in this community but I stand firm on the issue of respect. As it appears this poster has a personal agenda with me that seemingly must have started long before this poster started posting on these threads. I really need that glass of fresh water.

you're making yourself look none too bright with your little innuendo that the poster is freshwater AND you have just violated the rules of this board.

[William Anthony]

you're making yourself look none too bright with your little innuendo that the poster is freshwater AND you have just violated the rules of this board.

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

William, you made a big mistake. You just won't admit it.:biggrin:

Ok, I will admit my big mistake was indulging you.

[William Anthony]

William, this is completely inappropriate. You have made a blunder and been called on it. If I had made the same mistake you and another poster would harrass me about it for pages. Joseph Bell did not make a false accusation. Admit your mistake and move on.

Sorry, that I missed this. Are you saying that you agree with Joseph Bell that Martin II is my Martin or are you agreeing with Joseph Bell that I slandered Drew Peterson?

[William Anthony]

William, you made a big mistake. You just won't admit it.:biggrin:

I asked you to read carefully and with comprehension.

Today, 02:57 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate Sachel View Post
Because I am the one who wanted clarification on which Peterson was meant for discussion by William, I will also add that I requested clarification from him in an effort to ensure that we were on the same page if I were to join him in discussion on that particular topic.

I do not personally believe that William meant anything to be slanderous in this instance and I wish to make clear that my original post was not made in any effort to suggest such or to call him out. I simply thought he may have made a mistake and needed clarification on that for discussion purposes.

Kindly,

Kate

"I thought that was your intention and yes, there are quite a few Petersons that are in the news. Yes, I made the mistake of saying Drew when it was Scott. I did not think that you were calling me out but I knew that others would relish the opportunity to point to my mistake and falsely accuse me of slander, even though they do not know what it entails. I wonder if the know the difference between libel and slander or that they are types of defamation. However, I will allow them the vulgar understanding of the concept.

Yes, because of the similarities of the original charges and the initiation of other cause of actions, which was discussed during the criminal trial, I thought that the concept of double jeopardy, (which some members have discussed) issue preclusion and res judicata (although Scott Peterson may not have exhausted his appellate remedies) might be intelligently discussed, because of the difference in the posture of the two.

Thank you for your kindness and interest in raising the quality of postings in this community.

As you see I did admit to my mistake but yet you and others want to drag it on and say that I insinuated things I did not. I know how to spell Freshwater and no how to say I need a glass of fresh water. yes, I said if you had taken a break and changed your identity, because I could not understand you immediate and undeserved hostility toward me, unless you had been a member previously under a different nic. I never accused you of being anyone. I don't know why others would feel that I had a reason to insinuate you were Freshwater and, frankly, I do not care.

p.s. you spell color like that not colour.

[tv]

Sorry, that I missed this. Are you saying that you agree with Joseph Bell that Martin II is my Martin or are you agreeing with Joseph Bell that I slandered Drew Peterson?I said what I had to say and am moving on.

[William Anthony]

I said what I had to say and am moving on.

The poster has claimed that Martin was mine and that I slandered Drew Peterson, both of which are false. You say the poster didn't falsely accuse me. You made that claim. I have told you the ones that were false. Please, explain your position or be lady enough to apologize?

[William Anthony]

William. You were WRONG!!! I can write, spell, comprehend and accomplish many other tasks. I am not rude or denigrating to other posters or in your case denying the fact that you were WRONG!!!! :biggrin: By the way. Who or what is Freshwater? You keep mentioning it.

I did not mention it another poster did. I mentioned fresh water. If you don't know, don't worry about it. With that said, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[tv]

The poster has claimed that Martin was mine and that I slandered Drew Peterson, both of which are false. You say the poster didn't falsely accuse me. You made that claim. I have told you the ones that were false. Please, explain your position or be lady enough to apologize?William, I'm going to take a little breather from the board this afternoon and hopefully come back later with a renewed enthusiasm for discussing the case. Perhaps it would do you good to do the same. :)

[William Anthony]

William, I'm going to take a little breather from the board this afternoon and hopefully come back later with a renewed enthusiasm for discussing the case. Perhaps it would do you good to do the same. :)

Take as much a breather as you need and I hope when you return you will be able to explain your post, stating Joseph Bell did not falsely accuse me.

[William Anthony]

For those of you who are interested in knowing what slander is as opposed to falsely accusing someone, this link may be informative.

http://www.medialaw.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Public_Resources/Libel_FAQs/Libel_FAQs.htm#What%20is%20Slander?

[weezer]

Take as much a breather as you need and I hope when you return you will be able to explain your post, stating Joseph Bell did not falsely accuse me.

they say the best defense is a good offense -- of course, it might be a tad too late for that here.

[William Anthony]

they say the best defense is a good offense -- of course, it might be a tad too late for that here.

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:, seeya, seeya, seeya, seeya.

[William Anthony]

The defamatory statement must also have been made with fault. The extent of the fault depends primarily on the status of the plaintiff. Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement. In most jurisdictions, private individuals must show only that the defendant was negligent: that he failed to act with due care in the situation.

[William Anthony]

Now that you have been informed as to what slander means, I ask that you refrain from making the false allegations against me. I think that it is now clear that I did not slander anyone and to continue to make this false allegation is a form of harassment, imho. I do not think a request for an apology by those, who have either directly or complicity participated in the false accusation will do any good, so I am not requesting one.

[weezer]

LOL -- this from a poster who called a man -- NOT yet tried -- a double murderer.

[William Anthony]

LOL -- this from a poster who called a man -- NOT yet tried -- a double murderer.

Please post where I said that Drew Peterson was a double murderer. I willingly admit that I posted he was convicted of double murderer. You are again making a false accusation. The best offense is the truth, imho, and one such truth, unpleasant as it is for some, is that Simpson was proven not guilty of murder.

[William Anthony]

I would like to thank one poster, with whom I have disagreed, and made a post about what she/he thought I said but when it was pointed out what I truly said and what slander really is did not engage in the accusations any further. Thank you SlowHandSam.

[martin II]

William. You were WRONG!!! I can write, spell, comprehend and accomplish many other tasks. I am not rude or denigrating to other posters or in your case denying the fact that you were WRONG!!!! :biggrin: By the way. Who or what is Freshwater? You keep mentioning it.

Joseph bell

Instead of posting to the thread title, the case, you decided to make personal attacks on a poster.The results has been several post about your attack. Derailing the thread discussion.
I suggest you confine your post to the thread subject and cut the personal attacks out.imo thanks
martin II

[SlowHandSam]

I would like to thank one poster, with whom I have disagreed, and made a post about what she/he thought I said but when it was pointed out what I truly said and what slander really is did not engage in the accusations any further. Thank you SlowHandSam.

Leave me out of your nonsense, please.

[martin II]

you're making yourself look none too bright with your little innuendo that the poster is freshwater AND you have just violated the rules of this board.

you seem to be attempting to keep the stuff going. Why not get back on topic.

[martin II]

LOL -- this from a poster who called a man -- NOT yet tried -- a double murderer.

Many called oj a murderer before his trial and you have called him that even though he was found not guilty.

[William Anthony]

Leave me out of your nonsense, please.

As you wish but I meant what I posted.

[William Anthony]

In the link I posted from smart fellows, IIRC, the article places great importance on the breaks in the chain of custody. I think these breaks would reinforce the jury's verdict of not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It would also support the allegation that evidence was possibly or probably tampered with.

[William Anthony]

I disagree with that as a blanket statement. I think if I were fighting for my life and was unable to run or yell, I doubt I'd stay standing up to allow someone to continue to stab me. I suspect I'd be on the ground attempting to protect myself in some fashion, if I were conscious.

And before you tell me that I don't know what I'd do in that situation, let me tell you that a few years ago I had the crap beat out of me by a stranger and after being hit in the back of the head with a piece of wood, my instinct was NOT to stay standing up (although I couldn't run, or yell for help) but to curl up and protect myself as best I could.

Sorry I missed this. There is no evidence that Ronald or Nicole was hit with a piece of wood and there is evidence that Ronald could have struggled against his attacker(s). There is no evidence that he curled up and allowed himself to be stabbed repeatedly.

[SlowHandSam]

Sorry I missed this. There is no evidence that Ronald or Nicole was hit with a piece of wood and there is evidence that Ronald could have struggled against his attacker(s). There is no evidence that he curled up and allowed himself to be stabbed repeatedly.

OMG. I never suggested any of the above.

I used it as an example of the fight or flight mentality.

Nice attempt to twist my words.

[tv]

OMG. I never suggested any of the above.

I used it as an example of the fight or flight mentality.

Nice attempt to twist my words.Did you really expect anything less?

[weezer]

In the link I posted from smart fellows, IIRC, the article places great importance on the breaks in the chain of custody. I think these breaks would reinforce the jury's verdict of not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It would also support the allegation that evidence was possibly or probably tampered with.

there has never, ever, ever been any credible evidence that evidence was tampered with. to continue to post this untruth that is substantiated only by the imagination of an OJI is wrong.

[tv]

Sorry I missed this. There is no evidence that Ronald or Nicole was hit with a piece of wood and there is evidence that Ronald could have struggled against his attacker(s). There is no evidence that he curled up and allowed himself to be stabbed repeatedly.Oh, that's right...he leaned against a tree and allowed himself to be stabbed repeatedly. :rolleyes:

[tv]

In the link I posted from smart fellows, IIRC, the article places great importance on the breaks in the chain of custody. I think these breaks would reinforce the jury's verdict of not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It would also support the allegation that evidence was possibly or probably tampered with.Smartfellows Press...the Mark Fuhrman and LE hate site...no agenda there. :D

[William Anthony]

OMG. I never suggested any of the above.

I used it as an example of the fight or flight mentality.

Nice attempt to twist my words.

I will answer your and tv's post in one, if I may. There was no evidence of a flight response but there was evidence of a fight response. I am not twisting your words. What I am doing is pointing to the relevancy of the flight response in connection with the evidence as presented in this case. I sincerely hope that the personal attacks and false allegations against me will stop.

Your prior post indicates that you curled up after being knocked to the ground in an effort to protect yourself. The evidence is that Ronald did not curl up but struggled to protect himself and that he was standing and probably for sometime during the struggle and from the cut on his boot could have struggled when he was on the ground. The evidence supports the fact that his defense mechanism was the fight response and I do not think anyone would fight from the ground, if they were able to stand, thereby, placing himself in a more precarious position as it relates to being stabbed.

[William Anthony]

Oh, that's right...he leaned against a tree and allowed himself to be stabbed repeatedly. :rolleyes:

I do not know how many fights you have been in but I have had my share just because I grew up in the town I grew up in. It was sometimes a common practice and especially if I was fighting more than one for me to place my back against a solid object for protection. I had almost forgotten this but thanks for reminding me. There was evidence about the bark from a tree in regard to the bruising on Ronald's knuckles, IIRC. This is evidence that there was more than one attacker, imho.

[William Anthony]

Smartfellows Press...the Mark Fuhrman and LE hate site...no agenda there. :D

I truly did not know that they were MF haters, as you call them. However, this does not negate the fact that the chain of custody was broken.

[tv]

I do not know how many fights you have been in but I have had my share just because I grew up in the town I grew up in. It was sometimes a common practice and especially if I was fighting more than one for me to place my back against a solid object for protection. I had almost forgotten this but thanks for reminding me. There was evidence about the bark from a tree in regard to the bruising on Ronald's knuckles, IIRC. This is evidence that there was more than one attacker, imho.

I'm not going to rudely dismiss your personal experiences like you did slowhand's. My question is if Ron was leaning against a tree why would he have scrapes on his knuckles and not his back? Anatomically, it makes no sense. I'm adding a disclaimer that I don't believe for one moment he was leaning against a tree. There is no evidence that there was more than one attacker.

[tv]

I truly did not know that they were MF haters, as you call them. However, this does not negate the fact that the chain of custody was broken.No, it wasn't.

[William Anthony]

I'm not going to rudely dismiss your personal experiences like you did slowhand's. My question is if Ron was leaning against a tree why would he have scrapes on his knuckles and not his back? Anatomically, it makes no sense. I'm adding a disclaimer that I don't believe for one moment he was leaning against a tree. There is no evidence that there was more than one attacker.

I did not rudely dismiss SlowHandSam's personal experience. I questioned the import of it as to the evidence presented in this case. IIRC, the evidence was that there were abrasions, IIRC, to the knuckles, but, if I can recall who presented that testimony and in what trial and I sincerely hope it was the criminal trial as I can hear the anticipated off-topic roar :), I will try to locate it and post it. It makes sense if he was pulled away turned and swung but missed his attacker striking the tree of if he was attempting to grab the tree as he was being pulled away. I related my experience to my proclivity when I was fighting or, if you will, struggling with more than one attacker.

[William Anthony]

No, it wasn't.

Please, if you will, as an example, explain the lack of Mazzola's initials on the envelope?

[tv]

I did not rudely dismiss SlowHandSam's personal experience. I questioned the import of it as to the evidence presented in this case. IIRC, the evidence was that there were abrasions, IIRC, to the knuckles, but, if I can recall who presented that testimony and in what trial and I sincerely hope it was the criminal trial as I can hear the anticipated off-topic roar :), I will try to locate it and post it. It makes sense if he was pulled away turned and swung but missed his attacker striking the tree of if he was attempting to grab the tree as he was being pulled away. I related my experience to my proclivity when I was fighting or, if you will, struggling with more than one attacker.I'm not questioning if he had scrapes on his knuckles. I'm questioning how it would happen if he was leaning against a tree. Now you have to change the scenario to include him turning away and swinging or attempting to grab the tree. You're venturing into pure speculation with no basis in fact. :)

[tv]

Please, if you will, as an example, explain the lack of Mazzola's initials on the envelope?

I really don't want to go there with you again. It kind of gives me the willies to think about the circular argument that will ensue.

[William Anthony]

I'm not questioning if he had scrapes on his knuckles. I'm questioning how it would happen if he was leaning against a tree. Now you have to change the scenario to include him turning away and swinging or attempting to grab the tree. You're venturing into pure speculation with no basis in fact. :)

I know that you are not questioning how the scrapes could have gotten there, which is why I asked you if you ever read, "Trifles". You must draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. The evidence is that his hand contacted that tree at some point and the question becomes how, imho. It is not enough, imho, to say it's there and that's it and not look at the inferences to be drawn from it. :)

[William Anthony]

I really don't want to go there with you again. It kind of gives me the willies to think about the circular argument that will ensue.

I get it. You just say the chain was not broken and offer no evidence to support that claim. I think you have been watching too many tvs (yes, I caught your pun) if you think thats how an intelligent discussion happens.

[tv]

I know that you are not questioning how the scrapes could have gotten there, which is why I asked you if you ever read, "Trifles". You must draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. The evidence is that his hand contacted that tree at some point and the question becomes how, imho. It is not enough, imho, to say it's there and that's it and not look at the inferences to be drawn from it. :)My inexpert belief is that he was flailing out as he was being killed and his knuckles hit the tree in that small, enclosed space.

[William Anthony]

My inexpert belief is that he was flailing out as he was being killed and his knuckles hit the tree in that small, enclosed space.

Was the tree in front or in back of him as he was flailing? The reason I ask is because I truly don't know if the scrapes/bruises/abrasions were on the knuckles. I think they said they were, which would mean the back of his hand to me.

[tv]

Was the tree in front or in back of him as he was flailing? The reason I ask is because I truly don't know if the scrapes/bruises/abrasions were on the knuckles. I think they said they were, which would mean the back of his hand to me.I really don't know the answer to that.

[tv]

I get it. You just say the chain was not broken and offer no evidence to support that claim. I think you have been watching too many tvs (yes, I caught your pun) if you think thats how an intelligent discussion happens.You're correct. I'm saying it wasn't broken without giving evidence. I'm just not up to the chain of custody thing and all it entails today...maybe another day. I feel a headache coming on just thinking about it. :) BTW, my pun was unintended but good catch.

[William Anthony]

You're correct. I'm saying it wasn't broken without giving evidence. I'm just not up to the chain of custody thing and all it entails today...maybe another day. I feel a headache coming on just thinking about it. :) BTW, my pun was unintended but good catch.

I hope you will feel better later and be able to explain. In the meantime if I might suggest take a pain pill with a glass of fresh water. :) Thinking sometimes causes headaches, imho. :)

[William Anthony]

My inexpert belief is that he was flailing out as he was being killed and his knuckles hit the tree in that small, enclosed space.

Your belief is somewhat in line with the prosecution's expert, especially the failing portion.

"MR. KELBERG: Is it significant, however, as to sources for those blunt force trauma injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Because if it's just an abrasion, you'll just have a scrape against a rough surface. But if it's an abrasion contusion, it would be an impact of the hand against that surface which has a different connotation as to the mechanism of injury.

MR. KELBERG: And when you say an "Impact," doctor, would that be in your opinion consistent with a hand that is moving with force in a backward direction by Mr. Goldman coming in contact with the rough surface like the tree and backing away from the assailant?"

I must now look to see the location and directionality of the blood drops belonging to Ronald to see if there was any indication that he was backing away as opposed to having his back to the tree, being stabbed and his hand scraping the tree as he went to the ground, or that he was attempting to strike the assailant who held him as the other one stabbed him.

[William Anthony]

Perhaps, out of respect for Ronald and Nicole. We should not be posting, today.

[William Anthony]

Quote fgrump2 I owe you an apology Martin. I thought that OJS said h e ‘bled all over the place’ in his statement to the police. He didn’t say that. He did admit to dripping blood in his house and on the driveway.’ If it’s dripped, it’s what I dripped running around trying to leave’. Not as incriminating as I thought.
I also made a mistake when I wrote that I had tried scratching myself with short fingernails to test Dr. Baden’s theory that Ron’s fingernails were too short to scratch. My test was, I think, on my forearm. The scratches on OJS were on his left hand.
There was at least one video made of OJS before or after the recital before the murders. This is mentioned on page 148 of the book by V. Bugliosi, which is described as after the recital and on page 432 of the book by D. Petrocelli, which is described as being before the recital. During the criminal trial this video (assuming there was just one video, probably after the recital) this video was brought up because it showed OJS in a good mood.
There is another point in Bugliosi’s book that is important. There was evidence that police racial abuse is common, but frame-ups are not.
Mr Bugliosi talked to a black man named Michael Zincun who was chairman of a group called Coalition Against Police Abuse in Los Angeles. This group had documented 35,000 cases since 1976. At the time the book was written, the group was averaging over 2,000 cases per year. Mr Zincun said that the only frame up he knew about was in 1976. This definition of frame up excluded cases in which the police beat up or killed someone, and then planted a weapon or lied about the situation to justify the violence.
The case in 1976 involved framing two black men for killing an LA deputy sheriff. This was wrong, and the men were eventually freed, but I think everyone knows that police overeat to the murder of a lawman. I don’t know if anyone was convicted for this frame-up.
Bugliosi said that on a nationwide basis, frame-ups are quite rare, and usually involves suspected drug dealers being framed. I am aware of the fact that there were some cocaine frame-ups in a small town in Texas a few years ago.
Since framing innocent men was rare in the LA police force, it would seem quite unlikely that MF, or Lange, or Vanneter would start with OJS. After all, OJS was a rich, popular celebrity. People like that can fight back. If MF, or anyone else, had experience framing low income people, and had gotten away with it, they might have tried a rich celebrity. It would be quite strange for any copy to refrain from framing people for almost their whole career, and then frame someone just before retirement; especially a frame-up victim who can fight back. To frame a rich celebrity without practicing or easier marks would be like a boxer challenging for the heavyweight boxing championship without building his skills up on easier matches.
I believe that when we use someone as a scapegoat, we harm this person in question, but also harm the cause of justice. Some years ago a man named Henry Lucas had over 100 murders blamed on him. Some people later on found that Mr. Lucas was innocent of most of these murders and the police were using Henry Lucas as a device to clear the books. The cause of truth is not well served when people or institutions become scapegoats. This is true whether the scapegoat is Henry Lucas, Mark Fuhrman, or the LA Police dept.[QUOTE]


I see that some members desire to post. I think that we might be able to respect the victims and still post. I feel very strongly about some issues, including the ethical duty to uphold oaths.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/ja...lapd-j28.shtml

[martin II]

William. You were WRONG!!! I can write, spell, comprehend and accomplish many other tasks. I am not rude or denigrating to other posters or in your case denying the fact that you were WRONG!!!! :biggrin: By the way. Who or what is Freshwater? You keep mentioning it.

It is still not too late for you to cut the personal stuff and post to the subject of the thread.

[martin II]

I believe it takes more energy to read than to write.

That is about what i would expect your response to be.

[William Anthony]

"The cause of truth is not well served when people or institutions become scapegoats. This is true whether the scapegoat is Henry Lucas, Mark Fuhrman, or the LA Police dept." [QUOTE]

The cause of truth is not well served when LE engages in corrupt activities to make others the scapegoats, imho.

[William Anthony]

That is about what i would expect your response to be.

Either something like the response above or why don't we put and end to this thread, imho. :)

[martin II]

Either something like the response above or why don't we put and end to this thread, imho. :)

After all of 98 post we should just shut this mother down. what wisdom and insight.:no:

[William Anthony]

After all of 98 post we should just shut this mother down. what wisdom and insight.:no:

In fairness to the poster he said he had not read the posts on one thread, when he stated it should be shut down. The poster was just speaking and making a conclusion from a lack of information, if what the poster stated was true, imho.