Issues In The Criminal Trial

[William Anthony]

Martin,

I do not buy for one minute that Chris Darden did not know about MF. However, if it is true, that he only heard rumours, then wasn't he obligated to investigate these rumours?

I don't know if you read MF's book, but in it, he clearly states that he knew all about Chris Darden and that he was still angry at him because Darden got a good friend of his tossed off the force because of racial comments he made to an undercover cop.

IMO, if Chris and Marcia and the other DA's are going to stand and say they knew nothing about Fuhrman, then they must assume the responsibility that if they did not know, it was because they did not want to know.

Didn't a good friend of Clark's go to her very early on and warn her about Fuhrman? Wasn't Clark's response to dismiss her and say that she was sick of people trying to be apart of her case?

I do understand that Darden was in a difficult position, however, that does not excuse his choices of remaining ignorant to the very real and documented flaws of the state's witnesses.

Thank you. This is more evidence that they may have been unprofessionally distracted. They may not have had the time or the desire to take the time to look into the allegations due to some other unprofessional relationship and could have felt scorned when the dream team uncovered the tapes, while they were lolly-gaging.

[William Anthony]

Is there a point you're trying to make by posting to "Bella"? If you have issues on the gender of Joseph Bell, why don't you send a PM or keep it yourself instead of the stupid innuendos you're so fond of.

Or I suppose I could just refer to you as Doc Holliday, Alpha Chi, Truly Speaking, Isontknow, or Pistol Pete. :rolleyes:

Just a typo. Why are you so upset over a one time typo? I will pm those I desire to and not the ones you suggest. I do not see your anger over the comments Bell made about Martin being mine, my bud and so forth. I do not see your ire over the innuendos in those posts. I am very interested in who you think Alpha Chi, Truly Speaking and ISon'tknow are, and, if you think they are me, how did you form that conclusion, besides you have now broken three rules. I sense a lot of bitterness in your post and remember some of what you have posted as your personal history. I am a black man but I am not abusive, nor will I accept abuse. With that said, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :rolleyes:

[limakey]

William,

I do believe that the DA's did not know about the tapes. However, the cops did. I think it was in an interview with Lange and Vanatter or it was in their book that Ron Phillips told Fuhrman he was not to speak to LHM. L&P felt that Fuhrman disobeyed a direct order.

IMO, any type of relationship that Chris and Marcia had pales in comparison to the unprofessional relationships between the LAPD and the CSI agencies. The LAPD and the DA's office. It seemed to that these agencies would rather lose a limb then actually take responsibility for their failures.

[William Anthony]

I am not trying to make you believe IRREFUTABLY, just as the dream team was not trying, nor had the obligation to do, with the jury. I do not know about Martin but please keep your piano lid closed when I am singing, because you play off key, imho. As it applies to the case and the trial, you seem determined to transform the required standard of proof from an apple to a rock. Don't be made at the jury for understanding the concept of reasonable doubt.

Correction-Don't be mad at the jury for understanding the concept of reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

William,

I do believe that the DA's did not know about the tapes. However, the cops did. I think it was in an interview with Lange and Vanatter or it was in their book that Ron Phillips told Fuhrman he was not to speak to LHM. L&P felt that Fuhrman disobeyed a direct order.

IMO, any type of relationship that Chris and Marcia had pales in comparison to the unprofessional relationships between the LAPD and the CSI agencies. The LAPD and the DA's office. It seemed to that these agencies would rather lose a limb then actually take responsibility for their failures.

I agree and I forget the legal jargon for putting your weaknesses on through your witnesses, so I will just say stealing the thunder. This is what I mean as part of their lack of preparation, which may have been the result of some unprofessional relationship, imho.

[William Anthony]

Is there a point you're trying to make by posting to "Bella"? If you have issues on the gender of Joseph Bell, why don't you send a PM or keep it yourself instead of the stupid innuendos you're so fond of.

Or I suppose I could just refer to you as Doc Holliday, Alpha Chi, Truly Speaking, Isontknow, or Pistol Pete. :rolleyes:

I have always given Bell the benefit of being a male and I am not interested in Bell's sexual preference and I do not like him casting aspersions on mine (pun intended).

[Kayleighjo]

Just a typo. Why are you so upset over a one time typo? I will pm those I desire to and not the ones you suggest. I do not see your anger over the comments Bell made about Martin being mine, my bud and so forth. I do not see your ire over the innuendos in those posts. I am very interested in who you think Alpha Chi, Truly Speaking and ISon'tknow are, and, if you think they are me, how did you form that conclusion, besides you have now broken three rules. I sense a lot of bitterness in your post and remember some of what you have posted as your personal history. I am a black man but I am not abusive, nor will I accept abuse. With that said, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :rolleyes:

Just a typo ... riiiight ... interesting how you and martin both made the same one. :rolleyes: It's clear that you've been questioning his gender ever since he called you sweetie. The fact that you think you fool anyone gives me a hearty chuckle.

Yeah, I do have bitterness with people like you. People who claim they want to heal the racial wounds but have their own prejudiced and racial ideas that won't ever allow the wounds to heal. People like you who toss innuendo out left and right but you're called out on it try to say it's something other than what it is.

IP address William, IP address. I know you know what I'm talking about.

And what do you mean you're not abusive? You post no more politely than any others on this board William, no matter how above it you'd like to seem. You've been hostile and crude, poked fun at others and made a list of rude remarks. Or maybe it wasn't you, maybe it was one of the other five members of your family that apparently all like to post on an OJ forum at the same time:rolleyes:

You can :seeya: :seeya: at me all you want, but someone's gotta call out your utter and absolute nonsense.

[William Anthony]

Just a typo ... riiiight ... interesting how you and martin both made the same one. :rolleyes: It's clear that you've been questioning his gender ever since he called you sweetie. The fact that you think you fool anyone gives me a hearty chuckle.

Yeah, I do have bitterness with people like you. People who claim they want to heal the racial wounds but have their own prejudiced and racial ideas that won't ever allow the wounds to heal. People like you who toss innuendo out left and right but you're called out on it try to say it's something other than what it is.

IP address William, IP address. I know you know what I'm talking about.

And what do you mean you're not abusive? You post no more politely than any others on this board William, no matter how above it you'd like to seem. You've been hostile and crude, poked fun at others and made a list of rude remarks. Or maybe it wasn't you, maybe it was one of the other five members of your family that apparently all like to post on an OJ forum at the same time:rolleyes:

You can :seeya: :seeya: at me all you want, but someone's gotta call out your utter and absolute nonsense.

Yes, you are right Mr. Bell started the personal attacks. Yes, you are right I will stand up for myself. Yes. you are right I have acted in the manner you described in the past and yes I am trying to raise the level of posting in this community. What my family members do or do not do is known of your concern, so, please act accordingly.

You may have your opinion of me, just as I have mine of you. You may not believe what I say, just as I may not believe what you say. It seems to me that you have a habit of disparaging other posters family members, when they do not agree with you. I think that you would do well to take 6 months to mind your own business and take the other 6 to leave mine alone.

[William Anthony]

Just a typo ... riiiight ... interesting how you and martin both made the same one. :rolleyes: It's clear that you've been questioning his gender ever since he called you sweetie. The fact that you think you fool anyone gives me a hearty chuckle.

Yeah, I do have bitterness with people like you. People who claim they want to heal the racial wounds but have their own prejudiced and racial ideas that won't ever allow the wounds to heal. People like you who toss innuendo out left and right but you're called out on it try to say it's something other than what it is.

IP address William, IP address. I know you know what I'm talking about.

And what do you mean you're not abusive? You post no more politely than any others on this board William, no matter how above it you'd like to seem. You've been hostile and crude, poked fun at others and made a list of rude remarks. Or maybe it wasn't you, maybe it was one of the other five members of your family that apparently all like to post on an OJ forum at the same time:rolleyes:

You can :seeya: :seeya: at me all you want, but someone's gotta call out your utter and absolute nonsense.

Your insulting posts are always a source of amusement, as to the way you think of some, imho.

[William Anthony]

You are as wrong about everything that you have posted about me, with the exception that I was Doc Holiday and Pistol Pete , as you are about Mr. Bell calling me sweetie. You can not understand or, for some reason, are unwilling or to accept that my protestations were an attempt to improve this community. In any event here is the post and who it was directed to. I think I understand the true agenda behind your recent attacks on me.:)


Quote:
Originally Posted by martin II View Post

After all of 100 post do you know enough about the trial to post anything other than personal attacks on other posters? That is the quesiton for me.



"Sweetie, what personal attack have I posted on you today? Or yesterday?"-Quote Joseph Bell.

We have spent far too much time discussing the bella (pun intended) Mr. Bell, imho.

[Kayleighjo]

Wow, a nerve touched enough to have to respond three whole times! Yikes, it becomes that much more apparent that we've hit on the truth of exactly who and what you are. :eek:

[martin II]

Martin,

I do not buy for one minute that Chris Darden did not know about MF. However, if it is true, that he only heard rumours, then wasn't he obligated to investigate these rumours?

I don't know if you read MF's book, but in it, he clearly states that he knew all about Chris Darden and that he was still angry at him because Darden got a good friend of his tossed off the force because of racial comments he made to an undercover cop.

IMO, if Chris and Marcia and the other DA's are going to stand and say they knew nothing about Fuhrman, then they must assume the responsibility that if they did not know, it was because they did not want to know.

Didn't a good friend of Clark's go to her very early on and warn her about Fuhrman? Wasn't Clark's response to dismiss her and say that she was sick of people trying to be apart of her case?

I do understand that Darden was in a difficult position, however, that does not excuse his choices of remaining ignorant to the very real and documented flaws of the state's witnesses.


limakey
My posting Dardens comments on that show does not for one minute mean that i believe him. It just points to how he used that national tv show to shift the blame for his failures. Any rumor he had heard should have immediately been investigated or at least called furhman in to answer those 'RUMORS' I agree he did not want to know as furhman was already too
deep in their case.imo

[William Anthony]

Wow, a nerve touched enough to have to respond three whole times! Yikes, it becomes that much more apparent that we've hit on the truth of exactly who and what you are. :eek:

You have been exposed and I am doing my best to keep the conversation polite.
Suffice it to say, that your post, stating I became upset when Bell called me sweetie was untruthful and that should alert people as to what you are and how you will change things to suit your agenda.

[limakey]

Martin,

Your observations of Darden and his comments fit perfectly with my belief that both Darden and Clark were able to turn themselves into victims. They were the victims of MF, the Judge, the jury, the defense team, the weather, the Browns, the Goldmans, the FBI and whoever else had anything to do with this case. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Wow, a nerve touched enough to have to respond three whole times! Yikes, it becomes that much more apparent that we've hit on the truth of exactly who and what you are. :eek:

You have been exposed and I am doing my best to keep the conversation polite.
Suffice it to say, that your post, stating I became upset when Bell called me sweetie was untruthful and that should alert people as to what you are and how you will change things to suit your agenda.

[martin II]

Your insulting posts are always a source of amusement, as to the way you think of some, imho.

William

Some do, for some unknown reason seem to believe that their personal attack post means something to other posters.When it only shows anger and hostility towards others that must be self generated because of some personal imbalance or some other unknown reason.Bottom line is it means nothing to others but maby something to them. The community was making progress in the type post posters were makiing even on the subject of race.

Now we have these dumps of nonsense and personal attacks that seems to get in the way of post on the testimony and the trial and has a way of derailing good debate. I will continue to use the ignore facility when i see these nonsense type post.imo
martin II

[Kayleighjo]

You have been exposed and I am doing my best to keep the conversation polite.
Suffice it to say, that your post, stating I became upset when Bell called me sweetie was untruthful and that should alert people as to what you are and how you will change things to suit your agenda.

Oh yes, of course - I've been exposed:eek: Whatever will I do now?

I think everyone here knows what you are and how you change everything to suit yourself in the moment. That said, I've got no worries. ;)

[martin II]

Martin,

Your observations of Darden and his comments fit perfectly with my belief that both Darden and Clark were able to turn themselves into victims. They were the victims of MF, the Judge, the jury, the defense team, the weather, the Browns, the Goldmans, the FBI and whoever else had anything to do with this case. IMO.

Limakey
Thanks for that post as you have caused me to bring to the front what i had
not considered as you have. I have always wondered why Darden at the after verdict press conferance stood in front of everyone and broke down and cried in public as if he was the victim of the verdict.:cool:

[William Anthony]

William

Some do, for some unknown reason seem to believe that their personal attack post means something to other posters.When it only shows anger and hostility towards others that must be self generated because of some personal imbalance or some other unknown reason.Bottom line is it means nothing to others but maby something to them. The community was making progress in the type post posters were makiing even on the subject of race.

Now we have these dumps of nonsense and personal attacks that seems to get in the way of post on the testimony and the trial and has a way of derailing good debate. I will continue to use the ignore facility when i see these nonsense type post.imo
martin II

Martin,

Thank you for a post full of wisdom and sage advice. You are very much correct in the progress this community was making and able to discuss sensitive matters in a polite, intelligent, civil, respectful and even jovial tone.

I think you are correct when you give the community the ability to recognize useless, uncivil, and unintelligible utterances that serve only to attempt to unravel the progress that has been made. I will not ignore those utterances but will give them the response they deserve, which is to say to them :seeya:
:seeya: :seeya: :cool: .

[Kayleighjo]

Martin,

Thank you for a post full of wisdom and sage advice. You are very much correct in the progress this community was making and able to discuss sensitive matters in a polite, intelligent, civil, respectful and even jovial tone.

I think you are correct when you give the community the ability to recognize useless, uncivil, and unintelligible utterances that serve only to attempt to unravel the progress that has been made. I will not ignore those utterances but will give them the response they deserve, which is to say to them :seeya:
:seeya: :seeya: :cool: .

LOL, I'm not surprised that the two most hypocritical people I've seen (Willie and Martin) would be in agreement with each other. :)

[William Anthony]

LOL, I'm not surprised that the two most hypocritical people I've seen (Willie and Martin) would be in agreement with each other. :)

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :cool:

[William Anthony]

This from the cross of the prosecution's third witness.

Q: AND DID YOU TAKE ANY REPORTS FROM ANY OF THOSE OFFICERS?

A: I REQUESTED IF THEY HAD ANY INFORMATION, TO WRITE OUT A REPORT AND GIVE IT TO ME.

Q: AND YOU GOT A REPORT FROM ONE OFFICER; DID YOU NOT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THAT OFFICER'S NAME IS MARK FUHRMAN?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: AND WAS THAT THE ONLY WRITTEN REPORT THAT YOU RECEIVED?

A: YES.

Q: AND MARK FUHRMAN WROTE YOU A REPORT ABOUT AN INCIDENT TO WHICH HE HAD ALLEGEDLY RESPONDED AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE BACK IN 1985; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: HE WROTE A LETTER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, YES.

Q: AND THE LETTER HE WROTE IN 1989 WAS REFERRED BACK TO AN ALLEGED INCIDENT IN 1985; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT THAT WAS THE ONLY LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASE OF JANUARY 1ST, 1989?

A: THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT I RECALL, YES.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO YOUR SEARCH, DID YOU SEARCH ANY RECORDS TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ANY RADIO CALLS TO THAT LOCATION?

A: WHAT THE CITY -- ACTUALLY THE CITY ATTORNEY DID.

Q: I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU NOW, NOT THE CITY ATTORNEY. YOU.

A: OH, MYSELF? NO. ALLS I DID WAS CONTACT THE COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DID NOT CHECK ANY RECORDS IN WEST LOS ANGELES REGARDING POSSIBLE CALLS THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST, 1989?

A: I DID MY NORMAL SEARCH OF THE COMPUTER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU DIDN'T FIND ANY CALLS, RIGHT?

A: NOT ANY -- NONE OF THEM DOCUMENTED.

Q: BY "NONE OF THEM DOCUMENTED", THAT MEANS THEY WEREN'T IN THE COMPUTER, RIGHT?

A: POLICE REPORTS.

Q: THERE WERE NO POLICE REPORTS IN THE COMPUTER, RIGHT?

A: I COULDN'T FIND THEM.

It seems MF had an agenda against Simpson as far bas as 1985.

[Kayleighjo]

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :cool:

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :cool:

[weezer]

Martin,

I do not buy for one minute that Chris Darden did not know about MF. However, if it is true, that he only heard rumours, then wasn't he obligated to investigate these rumours?

I don't know if you read MF's book, but in it, he clearly states that he knew all about Chris Darden and that he was still angry at him because Darden got a good friend of his tossed off the force because of racial comments he made to an undercover cop.

IMO, if Chris and Marcia and the other DA's are going to stand and say they knew nothing about Fuhrman, then they must assume the responsibility that if they did not know, it was because they did not want to know.

Didn't a good friend of Clark's go to her very early on and warn her about Fuhrman? Wasn't Clark's response to dismiss her and say that she was sick of people trying to be apart of her case?

I do understand that Darden was in a difficult position, however, that does not excuse his choices of remaining ignorant to the very real and documented flaws of the state's witnesses.

and wasn't that orenthal's lingerie in the washing machine? Good grief! you have put a bunch of stuff out there that cannot be substantiated or proven.

[martin II]

and wasn't that orenthal's lingerie in the washing machine? Good grief! you have put a bunch of stuff out there that cannot be substantiated or proven.

Your mind seems to be running outside of your skull. imo

[tv]

I believe that preparation always allows a party to put forth their best side, whether or not they win. The prosecution failed miserably, imho, due both to a lack of preparation and to the quality of the evidence presented.I don't think preparation on the part of Johnnie Cochran had anything to do with it. It's not a secret that several of the witnesses were not interviewed by the defense team before taking the stand. Johnnie Cochran could have stood in the courtroom and recited nursery rhymes and won a not guilty verdict...oh, wait a second, that's exactly what he did. :biggrin:

[Kayleighjo]

Your mind seems to be running outside of your skull. imo

The perfect example of a hypocrite ... way to be above all the rudeness martin.

[tv]

Correction-Don't be mad at the jury for understanding the concept of reasonable doubt.The magnificent Johnnie Cochran didn't have a thorough understanding of reasonable doubt so how can you expect the jury to have understood it?

[martin II]

I don't think preparation on the part of Johnnie Cochran had anything to do with it. It's not a secret that several of the witnesses were not interviewed by the defense team before taking the stand. Johnnie Cochran could have stood in the courtroom and recited nursery rhymes and won a not guilty verdict...oh, wait a second, that's exactly what he did. :biggrin:

tv
The dream team was well prepared.They talked about Peratis bs in their opening statement and caused the prosecution to grab a video camera person and rush to Peratis house at night. They were so caught out of pocket that they could not even wait until the next morning.Wonder why they did not know there was missing blood until Cochran told them.

Le gave the prosecution a bunch of maby it went this way or maby it went that way or lets try this witness and see what happens.

Limakey has correctly pointed out that they knew the case had major holes from jump street.They had to try to patch the holes with untruthful witnesses
, smoke and mirrows and crossed fingers and none of it worked.Lets not forget that those standing against that blue wall gave them as mush help as they could but in the end the jury did not get what was required to render any vote but not guilty.

The defense out lawyered those prosecution peons mainly because they were
highly qualified and skilled lawyers and the claims could not be proven.

[tv]

tv
The dream team was well prepared.They talked about Peratis bs in their opening statement and caused the prosecution to grab a video camera person and rush to Peratis house at night. They were so caught out of pocket that they could not even wait until the next morning.Wonder why they did not know there was missing blood until Cochran told them.Le gave the prosecution a bunch of maby it went this way or maby it went that way or lets try this witness and see what happens.

Limakey has correctly pointed out that they knew the case had major holes from jump street.They had to try to patch the holes with untruthful witnesses
, smoke and mirrows and crossed fingers and none of it worked.Lets not forget that those standing against that blue wall gave them as mush help as they could but in the end the jury did not get what was required to render any vote but not guilty.

The defense out lawyered those prosecution peons mainly because they were
highly qualified and skilled lawyers and the claims could not be proven.martin, there was no missing blood. We spent several days and pages of posts on this before. No missing blood.

[martin II]

The magnificent Johnnie Cochran didn't have a thorough understanding of reasonable doubt so how can you expect the jury to have understood it?

In his closing he explained it to the jury and they obviously agreed that reasonable doubt was not in the court room.

[martin II]

martin, there was no missing blood. We spent several days and pages of posts on this before. No missing blood.

We did spend time on it and we came to different conclusions. I and another poster came to the conclusion that there was 1.6 cc of missing blood which could product 24 blood drops according to the conversion chart he posted.imo

[tv]

In his closing he explained it to the jury and they obviously agreed that reasonable doubt was not in the court room.

martin, the magnificent Johnny Cochran told the jury they had to "determine the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson". If he understood the concept better he wouldn't have made that statement. I hope that William will be fair and back me up on this because as a student of the law he has to know that was an incorrect statement for the magnificent Johnny Cochran to make. :)

[martin II]

I don't think preparation on the part of Johnnie Cochran had anything to do with it. It's not a secret that several of the witnesses were not interviewed by the defense team before taking the stand. Johnnie Cochran could have stood in the courtroom and recited nursery rhymes and won a not guilty verdict...oh, wait a second, that's exactly what he did. :biggrin:

The prosecution witnesses that Cochran did the cross on did not require him to do much pre-study on.He was very confortable in that court room having tried many many cases in la court rooms.His skill allowed him a advantage when listen to prosecution witnesses as he could indetify the hole and lies from the defense table with ease. The other skilled drean team lawyers took
care of the others. He was smart enough to focus on the evidence in his closing while M Clarke talked about abuse while maby thinking about Darden.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

martin, the magnificent Johnny Cochran told the jury they had to "determine the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson". If he understood the concept better he wouldn't have made that statement. I hope that William will be fair and back me up on this because as a student of the law he has to know that was an incorrect statement for the magnificent Johnny Cochran to make. :)

I call that what you call furhmans comments A MINOR SLIP in the heat of closing.But his closing was what sealed the deal.

[tv]

I call that what you call furhmans comments A MINOR SLIP in the heat of closing.But his closing was what sealed the deal.
The deal was sealed when the jury sat down in their seats the first day of the trial. The magnificent Johnny Cochran made them believe that it was up to them to get back at LE and that's exactly what they did.

Some of the things he said were unbelievable. He told the jury in his opening statement that Simpson's arthritis was so bad the day of the murders that he couldn't deal a hand of cards a few hours before the murders but then he goes on to say that Simpson was practicing golf swings at his home at the time of the murders. Once again, I believe he could have recited the phone book and the jury would have bought it.

[martin II]

The deal was sealed when the jury sat down in their seats the first day of the trial. The magnificent Johnny Cochran made them believe that it was up to them to get back at LE and that's exactly what they did.

Some of the things he said were unbelievable. He told the jury in his opening statement that Simpson's arthritis was so bad the day of the murders that he couldn't deal a hand of cards a few hours before the murders but then he goes on to say that Simpson was practicing golf swings at his home at the time of the murders. Once again, I believe he could have recited the phone book and the jury would have bought it.

Those comments had absolutely nothing to do with the verdict.Mazzola,fung, furhman,Vanhatter, Martz and that fool the Aris glove guy is what caused the verdict to be what it was. AdditionalLY no knife and no shoes and Allen Parks testimony is what caused reasonable doubt to be absent in the court room. You need to stop blamming those 12 intellegent hard working average citizens for the prosecutions failure. It is not becomming of you.IMO

[martin II]

The deal was sealed when the jury sat down in their seats the first day of the trial. The magnificent Johnny Cochran made them believe that it was up to them to get back at LE and that's exactly what they did.

Some of the things he said were unbelievable. He told the jury in his opening statement that Simpson's arthritis was so bad the day of the murders that he couldn't deal a hand of cards a few hours before the murders but then he goes on to say that Simpson was practicing golf swings at his home at the time of the murders. Once again, I believe he could have recited the phone book and the jury would have bought it.

We both know cochran had no phone book but he did have all of the prosecutions 'EVIDENCE' and the hill of beans that some claim was mountain
which evaporated in front of their eyes.

[William Anthony]

I don't think preparation on the part of Johnnie Cochran had anything to do with it. It's not a secret that several of the witnesses were not interviewed by the defense team before taking the stand. Johnnie Cochran could have stood in the courtroom and recited nursery rhymes and won a not guilty verdict...oh, wait a second, that's exactly what he did. :biggrin:

You do not have to interview some witnesses, if you know the subject matter of their testimony. Some prosecution witnesses did not want to be interviewed by the defense team. The fact that the magnificent one and his team were able to mangle the prosecution's case, without interviews in some instances, is a credit to their brilliance and magnificence, imho.

[William Anthony]

The magnificent Johnnie Cochran didn't have a thorough understanding of reasonable doubt so how can you expect the jury to have understood it?

If I understand your post, you are speaking of the assertion of VB. However, as I pointed out when the magnificent one spoke of innocence he was relating that to the jury instruction and had the jury thinking in terms of innocence by the instruction. What VB did not understand was the magnificent one's magnificence, imho.

[martin II]

You do not have to interview some witnesses, if you know the subject matter of their testimony. Some prosecution witnesses did not want to be interviewed by the defense team. The fact that the magnificent one and his team were able to mangle the prosecution's case, without interviews in some instances, is a credit to their brilliance and magnificence, imho.

It has always been my opinion that Dr Spitz refused to be a 'EXPERT" in the criminal trial was because he did not want to face off against Cochran, Bary
Schack or Peter Neufield. F. LEE "bulldog" BAILY would have had Dr Spits ready for a fist fight on the stand. hahaha

[martin II]

The deal was sealed when the jury sat down in their seats the first day of the trial. The magnificent Johnny Cochran made them believe that it was up to them to get back at LE and that's exactly what they did.

Some of the things he said were unbelievable. He told the jury in his opening statement that Simpson's arthritis was so bad the day of the murders that he couldn't deal a hand of cards a few hours before the murders but then he goes on to say that Simpson was practicing golf swings at his home at the time of the murders. Once again, I believe he could have recited the phone book and the jury would have bought it.


I believe cochran told them it was up to them to put a stop to the prosecution scheme to put a innocent man in jail in a effort to make themselves famous and put another notch on Gil Garcetti's pistol handle.

It seems that you may be reaching for little tiny straws to justify the failure.imo

[martin II]

The magnificent Johnnie Cochran didn't have a thorough understanding of reasonable doubt so how can you expect the jury to have understood it?

That jury of christan church going black women would have convicted oj in a heartbeat if the prosecution had owned and presented believalbe evidence.But the prosecution didn't give them anything.

[tv]

Those comments had absolutely nothing to do with the verdict.Mazzola,fung, furhman,Vanhatter, Martz and that fool the Aris glove guy is what caused the verdict to be what it was. AdditionalLY no knife and no shoes and Allen Parks testimony is what caused reasonable doubt to be absent in the court room. You need to stop blamming those 12 intellegent hard working average citizens for the prosecutions failure. It is not becomming of you.IMO

Your scolding of me won't change my opinion. I'm blaming the jury for falling for the magnificent Johnnie Cochran's web of fantasy. After all, the magnificent one made the statement that he only needed one black person on the jury. Then there is the statement that Alan Dershowitz made that also leads me to believe the jury felt it was righting a wrong. A couple of the jurors felt the gloves fit. So even though the gloves fit, they did acquit. :)

[tv]

If I understand your post, you are speaking of the assertion of VB. However, as I pointed out when the magnificent one spoke of innocence he was relating that to the jury instruction and had the jury thinking in terms of innocence by the instruction. What VB did not understand was the magnificent one's magnificence, imho.

I originally read this in the glorious Vincent Bugliosi's book but researched it further and became more educated about reasonable doubt. He's correct about the magnificent Johnnie Cochran being wrong to make that statement. I'm sorry you didn't feel you could be fair and agree that this was misleading to the jury, but I understand. :)

[tv]

That jury of christan church going black women would have convicted oj in a heartbeat if the prosecution had owned and presented believalbe evidence.But the prosecution didn't give them anything.

The prosecution gave the jury a huge amount of DNA evidence that they admitted they didn't understand and didn't consider in their deliberations.

[tv]

It has always been my opinion that Dr Spitz refused to be a 'EXPERT" in the criminal trial was because he did not want to face off against Cochran, Bary
Schack or Peter Neufield. F. LEE "bulldog" BAILY would have had Dr Spits ready for a fist fight on the stand. hahaha

From everything I've read and heard about Dr. Spitz he's his own man and not afraid of any questions put to him. What are you basing this opinon on?

[tv]

You do not have to interview some witnesses, if you know the subject matter of their testimony. Some prosecution witnesses did not want to be interviewed by the defense team. The fact that the magnificent one and his team were able to mangle the prosecution's case, without interviews in some instances, is a credit to their brilliance and magnificence, imho.

To not interview witnesses displays arrogance, laziness and a lack of preparation. I'd be interested to know how much time a lawyer such as Gerry Spence, for example, spends interviewing witnesses.

[weezer]

That jury of christan church going black women would have convicted oj in a heartbeat if the prosecution had owned and presented believalbe evidence.But the prosecution didn't give them anything.

riiiight!

"Some other facts about the final jury: (1) None regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watch tabloid TV shows, (2) five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member, (3) all were Democrats, (4) five reported that they or another family member had had a negative experience with the police, (5) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete."

to this we can add all of their independent statements about not understanding -- so they didn't consider -- the DNA, saying that the blood could have been one of the childrens or even Mazzola's, the gloves fit, and that the 17 years of abuse didn't have any bearing on the murder, etc., etc.

[William Anthony]

I originally read this in the glorious Vincent Bugliosi's book but researched it further and became more educated about reasonable doubt. He's correct about the magnificent Johnnie Cochran being wrong to make that statement. I'm sorry you didn't feel you could be fair and agree that this was misleading to the jury, but I understand. :)

Here is what the magnificent one said about the instructions, reasonable doubt and innocence.

MR. COCHRAN: I WAS GOING TO GET TO THAT. IF AFTER YOU'VE HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE -- AND YOU KNOW WHAT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS -- YOU WILL THEN BE IN A POSITION TO MAKE A JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER IT APPLIES TO THIS PARTICULAR POINT, WITHOUT ARGUING WHAT IT IS NOW. WE'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO ARGUE IT AT A LATER TIME. THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE AT THIS POINT IS FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS INSTRUCTION WOULD BE AS THE COURT HAS. AND LASTLY, AS MISS CLARK POINTED OUT:

"IF ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH EVIDENCE APPEARS TO YOU TO BE REASONABLE AND THE OTHER INTERPRETATION TO BE UNREASONABLE, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION AND REJECT THE UNREASONABLE." IT SEEMS REASONABLE, DOESN'T IT? THE POINT IS THAT YOU, NO ONE ELSE, WILL BE THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE JUDGES OF THE FACTS AND THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. THAT'S A DETERMINATION THAT YOU MUST MAKE, AND NO ONE CAN TELL YOU WHAT TO MAKE IN THAT REGARD. AND EACH OF YOU IN VOIR DIRE HAS PROMISED TO GIVE US YOUR INDIVIDUAL OPINION IN DOING THAT. AND THE LAST JURY INSTRUCTION --

MR. DOUGLAS: EXHIBIT 217, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: -- IS THE SO-CALLED PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, REASONABLE DOUBT, BURDEN OF PROOF INSTRUCTION. IT'S THE LAST INSTRUCTION I WANT TO LEAVE WITH YOU TODAY.

"A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL ACTION IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVED AND IN A CASE OF REASONABLE DOUBT WHETHER HIS GUILT IS SATISFACTORILY SHOWN, HE IS ENTITLED TO A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY. THIS PRESUMPTION OF COURSE," AS YOU KNOW, "PLACES UPON THE PEOPLE THE BURDEN OF PROVING HIM GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT." AND:

"REASONABLE DOUBT HAS BEEN DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: IT IS NOT A MERE POSSIBLE OR IMAGINARY DOUBT BECAUSE EVERYTHING RELATING TO HUMAN AFFAIRS DEPENDING UPON -- THAT EVERYTHING RELATED TO HUMAN AFFAIRS IS OPEN TO SOME POSSIBLE OR IMAGINARY DOUBT. IT IS THAT STATE OF THE CASE WHERE AFTER THE ENTIRE COMPARISON AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE LEAVES THE MINDS OF THE JURORS IN THAT CONDITION THAT THEY CANNOT SAY THEY FEEL AN ABIDING CONVICTION OF THE TRUTH OF THE CHARGE." NOW, THAT'S WHAT REASONABLE DOUBT IS IN THIS CASE, IN EVERY CASE. AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU AGAIN WERE AWARE OF THAT AS YOU LISTEN TO THIS CASE. THIS IS A MURDER CASE WITH TWO CHARGES, TWO COUNTS. THIS IS NOT A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE. NOW, AS WE CONCLUDE FINALLY, AS I PROMISED YOU TODAY, I BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT -- MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? MAY WE APPROACH?

[William Anthony]

To not interview witnesses displays arrogance, laziness and a lack of preparation. I'd be interested to know how much time a lawyer such as Gerry Spence, for example, spends interviewing witnesses.

I do not agree. Some witnesses' testimony may not be that substantial to the case, because there are certain elements that must be proven to convict and a magnificent defense lawyer would know which witnesses to focus on in regard to those elements and prepare to rebut them, even if it means having some witnesses go without being interviewed. Money and consideration for the client's finances and his ability to pay must also be a consideration for the lawyer.:)

[William Anthony]

The prosecution gave the jury a huge amount of DNA evidence that they admitted they didn't understand and didn't consider in their deliberations.

Whose job was it to make the evidence understandable so they could deliberate it? Maybe, they were lolly-gaging and did not want to take the time to make it understandable.

[tv]

Whose job was it to make the evidence understandable so they could deliberate it? Maybe, they were lolly-gaging and did not want to take the time to make it understandable.

I didn't know much about DNA at the time and I understood the evidence. If they didn't understand it why didn't they ask for clarification?

[tv]

Here is what the magnificent one said about the instructions, reasonable doubt and innocence.

MR. COCHRAN: I WAS GOING TO GET TO THAT. IF AFTER YOU'VE HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE -- AND YOU KNOW WHAT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS -- YOU WILL THEN BE IN A POSITION TO MAKE A JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER IT APPLIES TO THIS PARTICULAR POINT, WITHOUT ARGUING WHAT IT IS NOW. WE'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO ARGUE IT AT A LATER TIME. THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE AT THIS POINT IS FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS INSTRUCTION WOULD BE AS THE COURT HAS. AND LASTLY, AS MISS CLARK POINTED OUT:

"IF ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH EVIDENCE APPEARS TO YOU TO BE REASONABLE AND THE OTHER INTERPRETATION TO BE UNREASONABLE, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION AND REJECT THE UNREASONABLE." IT SEEMS REASONABLE, DOESN'T IT? THE POINT IS THAT YOU, NO ONE ELSE, WILL BE THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE JUDGES OF THE FACTS AND THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. THAT'S A DETERMINATION THAT YOU MUST MAKE, AND NO ONE CAN TELL YOU WHAT TO MAKE IN THAT REGARD. AND EACH OF YOU IN VOIR DIRE HAS PROMISED TO GIVE US YOUR INDIVIDUAL OPINION IN DOING THAT. AND THE LAST JURY INSTRUCTION --

MR. DOUGLAS: EXHIBIT 217, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: -- IS THE SO-CALLED PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, REASONABLE DOUBT, BURDEN OF PROOF INSTRUCTION. IT'S THE LAST INSTRUCTION I WANT TO LEAVE WITH YOU TODAY.

"A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL ACTION IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVED AND IN A CASE OF REASONABLE DOUBT WHETHER HIS GUILT IS SATISFACTORILY SHOWN, HE IS ENTITLED TO A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY. THIS PRESUMPTION OF COURSE," AS YOU KNOW, "PLACES UPON THE PEOPLE THE BURDEN OF PROVING HIM GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT." AND:

"REASONABLE DOUBT HAS BEEN DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: IT IS NOT A MERE POSSIBLE OR IMAGINARY DOUBT BECAUSE EVERYTHING RELATING TO HUMAN AFFAIRS DEPENDING UPON -- THAT EVERYTHING RELATED TO HUMAN AFFAIRS IS OPEN TO SOME POSSIBLE OR IMAGINARY DOUBT. IT IS THAT STATE OF THE CASE WHERE AFTER THE ENTIRE COMPARISON AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE LEAVES THE MINDS OF THE JURORS IN THAT CONDITION THAT THEY CANNOT SAY THEY FEEL AN ABIDING CONVICTION OF THE TRUTH OF THE CHARGE." NOW, THAT'S WHAT REASONABLE DOUBT IS IN THIS CASE, IN EVERY CASE. AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU AGAIN WERE AWARE OF THAT AS YOU LISTEN TO THIS CASE. THIS IS A MURDER CASE WITH TWO CHARGES, TWO COUNTS. THIS IS NOT A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE. NOW, AS WE CONCLUDE FINALLY, AS I PROMISED YOU TODAY, I BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT -- MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? MAY WE APPROACH?

From the magnificent Johnnie Cochran's opening statement on Janurary 25, 1995:

...THAT IS A LITTLE PRESUMPTUOUS, DON'T YOU THINK, BECAUSE THE ANSWER OF O.J. SIMPSON'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED BY YOU IF YOU ARE ABLE TO DO IT.

From what I read an associate of the magnificent Johnnie Cochran supplied him with a chart during closing to help him understand reasonable doubt. Just something I read, mind you. :read:

[limakey]

FBG,

If you read MF's book, then you know what I posted is from his book.

In regards to the friend of Marcia's, I believe her name was Lucianne Coleman and she did testify during the trial. I believe Judge Ito ruled her testimony out because the one officer who documented Fuhrman's behavior wanted nothing to do with going against him and burned his notes.

I also believe she gave interviews as well. In Joe Boscoe's book, he goes into this in great detail.

[limakey]

TV Dinner,

To be fair, the nurse testified in the prelim hearing on how much blood he drew from Mr. Simpson. Mr. Shapiro did not just ask him once or twice if he was sure of the amount he drew, he asked him at least three times. The nurse got a tad upset and was admanent on how much blood he drew. He made it clear that he has been doing this for over 20 years and he knew how much blood he drew.

Again, in all fairness, from the moment the blood left Mr. Simpson and went into that tube, the State was responsible for the accounting of it. They were responsible for keeping accurate records on how much blood was used for each test both sides ran. If the state did not keep accurate records, then you can't blame the defense for using this in their case.

I am pretty sure that I have read most of the books on the Simpson case. In Hank Goldberg's book, he explains it perfectly---he said that the nurse didn't really know how much blood he drew and that was what he was going to focus on.

However, more to the point, how much sense does it make to you that it was the nurse, himself, who realized only after Mr. Cochran's opening statements that he must have made a mistake?

How much sense did it make that the DA's never brought this to the attention of the jury in their own case but months later used a video that apparently was so bad, that even Goldberg was laughing at in court?

Don't forget, the DA's questioned Dr. L for something like 8 days, highlighting all the errors Dr. G made, yet did not do the same for the nurse?

IMO, if much of the crucial blood evidence didn't play hide and seek with the DA's, then I would say the "mistake" excuse might have worked. However, when you have camera shy blood, then that excuse just doesn't explain it, IMO.

[limakey]

TV Dinner,

The jury understood the DNA evidence, however, the DA's made a huge, huge mistake on this evidence as well. There was never a question of who's DNA it was, it was when and how did it get there. Why the DA's insisted on making this arguement is beyond me.

Again, to be fair, the most experienced DNA lawyer in CA made a comment regarding the blood evidence. He said that if the samples contained EDTA, then this case never should have been filed. When some of the samples came back with EDTA, how was he going to explain this?

PS. He also said that if there was no EDTA found in the samples, then the defense would plead their client guilty.

[martin II]

From everything I've read and heard about Dr. Spitz he's his own man and not afraid of any questions put to him. What are you basing this opinon on?

I think the prosecution asked him to be a expert and he declined to participate in the criminal trial.

[martin II]

From the magnificent Johnnie Cochran's opening statement on Janurary 25, 1995:

...THAT IS A LITTLE PRESUMPTUOUS, DON'T YOU THINK, BECAUSE THE ANSWER OF O.J. SIMPSON'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED BY YOU IF YOU ARE ABLE TO DO IT.

From what I read an associate of the magnificent Johnnie Cochran supplied him with a chart during closing to help him understand reasonable doubt. Just something I read, mind you. :read:

Cochran has tried too many cases not to be informed on the law of reasonable doubt.

[martin II]

I didn't know much about DNA at the time and I understood the evidence. If they didn't understand it why didn't they ask for clarification?

TV
the unusual circumstances of the amount of blood Peratis drew and the way vanhatter handeled that blood coupled with what Mazzola testified to on how she handeled blood samples would cause one to have serious confidence on what blood was given for DNA testing.Plus the samples going in wet and comming out wet was also a problem.

[martin II]

From the magnificent Johnnie Cochran's opening statement on Janurary 25, 1995:

...THAT IS A LITTLE PRESUMPTUOUS, DON'T YOU THINK, BECAUSE THE ANSWER OF O.J. SIMPSON'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED BY YOU IF YOU ARE ABLE TO DO IT.

From what I read an associate of the magnificent Johnnie Cochran supplied him with a chart during closing to help him understand reasonable doubt. Just something I read, mind you. :read:

I would think that all assistants prepare guides for lead lawyers presentations.
VB was a prosecutor and wrote his book based on him being a critic of the case and to sell mags for Vanity Fair for his target readers. Picking out cochrans statement about innocence was just nit picking. it is silly to try to put forth a argument that a lawyer of Cochrans experience does not understand reasonable doubt.imo

[martin II]

TV Dinner,

The jury understood the DNA evidence, however, the DA's made a huge, huge mistake on this evidence as well. There was never a question of who's DNA it was, it was when and how did it get there. Why the DA's insisted on making this arguement is beyond me.

Again, to be fair, the most experienced DNA lawyer in CA made a comment regarding the blood evidence. He said that if the samples contained EDTA, then this case never should have been filed. When some of the samples came back with EDTA, how was he going to explain this?

PS. He also said that if there was no EDTA found in the samples, then the defense would plead their client guilty.

One juror specifically stated that the DNA for her was shakey. i assume she had listened to the issues/problems of the blood handeling and could not believe that it did not present serious problems for her.

The DNA labs only tested what was given them and even then the testers personal opinion of results was in play.

[martin II]

Your scolding of me won't change my opinion. I'm blaming the jury for falling for the magnificent Johnnie Cochran's web of fantasy. After all, the magnificent one made the statement that he only needed one black person on the jury. Then there is the statement that Alan Dershowitz made that also leads me to believe the jury felt it was righting a wrong. A couple of the jurors felt the gloves fit. So even though the gloves fit, they did acquit. :)

tv

The glove fitting or not fitting was not the deciding issues in this case.There were many more issues to be resolved other than that glove fitting.Even if the glove in ones opinion did fit, many people wear size xlarge gloves.The prosecution presented the idea that a glove was pulled off of ojs hand but the glove expert testified that his tigh fitting glove were made to fit very skin tight and would not just drop off.
Even the two jurors that commented the glove fit did not use that as the only issue in their verdict.obviously other issues caused them to vote not guilty.
imo
Martin II

[martin II]

I originally read this in the glorious Vincent Bugliosi's book but researched it further and became more educated about reasonable doubt. He's correct about the magnificent Johnnie Cochran being wrong to make that statement. I'm sorry you didn't feel you could be fair and agree that this was misleading to the jury, but I understand. :)

tv
what i am thinking is that each defendant has the presumption of innocence
until the jury, in deliberations find him guilty.So i am not sure Cochran made a mistake in his talk to the jury for at that time the presumption was still present.Right?
Also this should inform those that frequently comment that the defense did not investigate or did not offer proof on certain issues, that the defense did not have to prove anything.

INNOCENCE, PRESUMPTION OF - The indictment or formal charge against any person is not evidence of guilt. Indeed, the person is presumed by the law to be innocent. The law does not require a person to prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. The Government has the burden of proving a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so the person is (so far as the law is concerned) not guilty.



http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i047.htm

[martin II]

From the magnificent Johnnie Cochran's opening statement on Janurary 25, 1995:

...THAT IS A LITTLE PRESUMPTUOUS, DON'T YOU THINK, BECAUSE THE ANSWER OF O.J. SIMPSON'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED BY YOU IF YOU ARE ABLE TO DO IT.

From what I read an associate of the magnificent Johnnie Cochran supplied him with a chart during closing to help him understand reasonable doubt. Just something I read, mind you. :read:

tv
this may be what you refer to as assistant giving Cochran instructions.

This exhibit was put on the screen for the benefit of the jury.

MR. DOUGLAS: EXHIBIT 217, YOUR HONOR.

[martin II]

and wasn't that orenthal's lingerie in the washing machine? Good grief! you have put a bunch of stuff out there that cannot be substantiated or proven.

weezer
you have made this accusation several times previously. Are you suggesting that oj simpson owned or wore ladies lingerie?If not what are you suggesting?

[Kate Sachel]

TV Dinner,

The jury understood the DNA evidence, however, the DA's made a huge, huge mistake on this evidence as well. There was never a question of who's DNA it was, it was when and how did it get there. Why the DA's insisted on making this arguement is beyond me.

Again, to be fair, the most experienced DNA lawyer in CA made a comment regarding the blood evidence. He said that if the samples contained EDTA, then this case never should have been filed. When some of the samples came back with EDTA, how was he going to explain this?

PS. He also said that if there was no EDTA found in the samples, then the defense would plead their client guilty.

It is good to see you back on this forum and I hope that both yourself and your son have been doing well in your absence.

It is an incorrect statement to say that the jury understood the DNA evidence when at least two of them stated that they neither understood it nor considered it.

While I believe that reasonable doubt was cast in other areas which gave the jury an opportunity to aquit, I was and remain quite baffled on how it is that a juror might come to believe that DNA evidence is not necessary to consider.

Kate

[martin II]

TV Dinner,

The jury understood the DNA evidence, however, the DA's made a huge, huge mistake on this evidence as well. There was never a question of who's DNA it was, it was when and how did it get there. Why the DA's insisted on making this arguement is beyond me.

Again, to be fair, the most experienced DNA lawyer in CA made a comment regarding the blood evidence. He said that if the samples contained EDTA, then this case never should have been filed. When some of the samples came back with EDTA, how was he going to explain this?

PS. He also said that if there was no EDTA found in the samples, then the defense would plead their client guilty.

tv
The prosecution claimed there was no EDTA on certain samples and then did not even call the fib 'EXPERT' to support their claim.

The defense called FBI Martz and then impeached him with Dr Reiters sp.
That was strange.If i have this right.

[martin II]

One juror specifically stated that the DNA for her was shakey. i assume she had listened to the issues/problems of the blood handeling and could not believe that it did not present serious problems for her.

The DNA labs only tested what was given them and even then the testers personal opinion of results was in play.

If as suppected the samples that Mazzola initially prepared and added her initials to, were not the same samples that she was confronted with in her cross that did not have her initials, then obviously someone had substituted
the samples that did not have her initials for the original ones.

So what do we do with the DNA test results of the samples presented in court that did not have her initials.

This is a issue that could cause the jury to dismiss certain DNA results.
IMO

[martin II]

Most of the jurors who have spoken publicly about their deliberations said they acquitted Mr. Simpson because they believed he was innocent. But they also criticized elements of the prosecution's case, including the scientific evidence.

As the Simpson trial made clear, the police themselves chipped away at what could have been the bedrock of the prosecution's case by bungling the all-important chain of evidence handling all along the way: placing blood evidence swatches inside plastic, instead of paper containers, where their DNA could degrade; collecting some blood evidence weeks after the crimes had been committed; walking around for hours with a vial of blood evidence instead of delivering it immediately to a laboratory for preservation, packaging and storing, and spilling Mr. Simpson's blood in the very laboratory where, shortly after, other samples would be tested.

Although no other laboratory has been subjected to the scrutiny that the Los Angeles one has, a number of experts believe that other laboratories engage in similarly sloppy practices.

Many experts say the Los Angeles Police Department's apparent mishandling of evidence in the Simpson trial may typify what happens in lower-profile cases nationally, but those defendants are generally too poor to mount a counterattack that scrutinizes the quality of the genetic evidence against them.

"We are seeing a rapid proliferation of this technology," said William Thompson, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine who assisted the defense. "Initially, it was done by a limited number of high-quality labs with Ph.D. scientists. Now it's used by cops in lab coats."

The only assurance that a laboratory, at least, can reliably perform DNA tests is that its practices have been accredited, scientists say. But since only a minority of the nation's laboratories, including police laboratories, are accredited, there is no guarantee that most DNA testing centers have the technical skills and training to make proper use of a crime-fighting technique that could provide ironclad evidence in criminal cases.

"If you have accreditation, then the jury, the judge, the public has some measure, some demonstration to make them feel better about the lab -- that it's not just some wild, unregulated field," said Dr. Paul Ferrara, the immediate past president of the American Society of Crime Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board.

Dr. Ferrara noted, however, that only about one-third of the nation's approximately 60 DNA laboratories have been accredited, and the Los Angeles Police Department's lab is not among them. Just one commercial laboratory -- Cellmark Diagnostics in Germantown, Md. -- is accredited, although about a dozen offer DNA testing services, Dr. Ferrara said.

Dr. Gerald Coyne, a geneticist at the University of Chicago who also is a consultant to defense lawyers, said that if the Los Angeles police had "a decent lab, they could not have mounted an attack on the DNA."

One juror, Anise Aschenbach, a 61-year-old white woman, said last week in a telephone interview broadcast on ABC News that she had first voted to convict Mr. Simpson, but switched because "most of the evidence was DNA evidence and that's what was so shaky."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEEDC1339F932A25753C1A9639582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

[tv]

I would think that all assistants prepare guides for lead lawyers presentations.
VB was a prosecutor and wrote his book based on him being a critic of the case and to sell mags for Vanity Fair for his target readers. Picking out cochrans statement about innocence was just nit picking. it is silly to try to put forth a argument that a lawyer of Cochrans experience does not understand reasonable doubt.imoIf you believe that the magnificent Johnnie Cochran understood reasonable doubt then what is your explanation for what he said to the jurors in his opening statement? Was he merely trying to mislead them into thinking it was up to them to decide if OJ Simpson was guilty or innocent instead of deciding whether or not the prosecution proved their case?

[tv]

I would think that all assistants prepare guides for lead lawyers presentations.
VB was a prosecutor and wrote his book based on him being a critic of the case and to sell mags for Vanity Fair for his target readers. Picking out cochrans statement about innocence was just nit picking. it is silly to try to put forth a argument that a lawyer of Cochrans experience does not understand reasonable doubt.imo

martin, there's nothing wrong with writing articles for Vanity Fair and receiving money for it. It's an honest way to earn a living. It sure beats selling your signature at slasher conventions which you seem to think is okay. You and William are both contemptuous of Mr. Bugliosi but in his book he's very hard on the prosecution and blames them for losing the case. I don't think expecting the magnificent Johnnie Cochran to correctly represent the meaning of reasonable doubt is nitpicking. If you do, that's okay with me. By your reasoning, from now on, we can consider saying the civil jury wasn't charged with finding Simpson liable for murder just nitpicking. :)

[martin II]

In theory, DNA analysis is the most powerful forensic tool ever discovered. Nothing is more individual than a person's genetic code, carried in the DNA of every cell. But it is a technique whose use requires extreme care and impeccable laboratory conditions.

By comparing DNA from blood found at the crime scene, for example, to the DNA from blood taken from Mr. Simpson, scientists were able to say whether the DNA in that blood was his. But in light of the questions raised about the police laboratory, jurors, in turn, were left questioning how that DNA got there.

Prosecutors in the Simpson case presented an abundance of DNA evidence that pointed to Mr. Simpson as the killer of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald L. Goldman. DNA tests indicated that Mr. Simpson's blood was at the crime scene, that Mr. Goldman's blood was in Mr. Simpson's Bronco and that Mrs. Simpson's blood was on his sock.

But Mr. Simpson's lawyers contended that the blood sample collection and analysis were so careless that tampering could not be ruled out and that the DNA test results could not be believed. They were bolstered by a powerful report by a Denver molecular biologist, John Gerdes, who observed the operations of the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory and the results of its DNA in this and other cases.

Dr. Gerdes testified that the lab was the worst he had ever seen -- "a cesspool," in the words of Peter Neufeld, one of Mr. Simpson's lawyers.

Dr. Bradley Popovich, a DNA expert at the Oregon Health Sciences University, who worked for the prosecution, said the defense "looked for the weak link, and it was the Los Angeles Police Department."

The findings of laboratory errors and sloppy handling of forensic samples so concerned Dr. Coyne, the University of Chicago geneticist, that he worked for Mr. Simpson's defense even though he thought the jury would find Mr. Simpson guilty. Dr. Coyne said he does this kind of work to try to force crime laboratories to clean up their acts.

The Simpson trial was extraordinary, legal experts say, because it is almost unheard of for defendants to have the means to seriously question the way in which evidence against them was gathered and analyzed. Professor Jonakait said most defendants, faced with strong DNA evidence, plead guilty.

From the very start, however, the Simpson case was different. When the police searched the crime scene, television news cameras were omnipresent, waiting to catch every police misstep.

And, said Mr. Gianelli, the Case Western professor, the defense experts found serious transgressions. For example, two weeks passed before the police removed a blood sample from a fence. Mr. Simpson's lawyers say the blood had been planted. But, Mr. Gianelli said, even if you say the police "didn't frame O. J., it's pretty bad when you go back two weeks later for the blood, especially with an outdoor crime scene."

Most damaging of all, in the minds of DNA experts, was Dr. Gerdes's report, which cost Mr. Simpson $30,000, according to Mr. Thompson, the Irvine law professor.

Dr. Gerdes testified in August that there was a consistent pattern of contamination in the lab. The police laboratory processed samples of Mr. Simpson's blood, taken for purposes of comparison, at the same time as it processed blood from the crime scene, raising the possibility that Mr. Simpson's DNA might have contaminated the forensic samples, Dr. Gerdes said.

[martin II]

martin, there's nothing wrong with writing articles for Vanity Fair and receiving money for it. It's an honest way to earn a living. It sure beats selling your signature at slasher conventions which you seem to think is okay. You and William are both contemptuous of Mr. Bugliosi but in his book he's very hard on the prosecution and blames them for losing the case. I don't think expecting the magnificent Johnnie Cochran to correctly represent the meaning of reasonable doubt is nitpicking. If you do, that's okay with me. By your reasoning, from now on, we can consider saying the civil jury wasn't charged with finding Simpson liable for murder just nitpicking. :)

TV

Cochrans assistant put the definition of reasonable doubt up on a court screen so the jury coud see the definition in print. He righfully used the word
innocence as the cjs dictates that oj was to be presumed innocent until the jury gave a guilty verdict. So i am not sure it was wrong for him to use that word.

VB seem to be hard on everyone when he is not the center of attention
or not asked for his legal opinion. He did a hatched job on both sides so he could give his target audience what they wanted to hear.

Some legal TH have even made fun of his writings and tv rants.

[martin II]

martin, there's nothing wrong with writing articles for Vanity Fair and receiving money for it. It's an honest way to earn a living. It sure beats selling your signature at slasher conventions which you seem to think is okay. You and William are both contemptuous of Mr. Bugliosi but in his book he's very hard on the prosecution and blames them for losing the case. I don't think expecting the magnificent Johnnie Cochran to correctly represent the meaning of reasonable doubt is nitpicking. If you do, that's okay with me. By your reasoning, from now on, we can consider saying the civil jury wasn't charged with finding Simpson liable for murder just nitpicking. :)

tv
ok
Was oj presummed to be innocent up until the jury gave a guilty verdict?
If so then Cochran was not wrong to use that word regardless of what VB thinks.
vb has a right to work for VF or any other publication.It is just not everyone hold his work in such high esteem as you seem to.

[Kate Sachel]

Most of the jurors who have spoken publicly about their deliberations said they acquitted Mr. Simpson because they believed he was innocent. But they also criticized elements of the prosecution's case, including the scientific evidence.

As the Simpson trial made clear, the police themselves chipped away at what could have been the bedrock of the prosecution's case by bungling the all-important chain of evidence handling all along the way: placing blood evidence swatches inside plastic, instead of paper containers, where their DNA could degrade; collecting some blood evidence weeks after the crimes had been committed; walking around for hours with a vial of blood evidence instead of delivering it immediately to a laboratory for preservation, packaging and storing, and spilling Mr. Simpson's blood in the very laboratory where, shortly after, other samples would be tested.

Although no other laboratory has been subjected to the scrutiny that the Los Angeles one has, a number of experts believe that other laboratories engage in similarly sloppy practices.

Many experts say the Los Angeles Police Department's apparent mishandling of evidence in the Simpson trial may typify what happens in lower-profile cases nationally, but those defendants are generally too poor to mount a counterattack that scrutinizes the quality of the genetic evidence against them.

"We are seeing a rapid proliferation of this technology," said William Thompson, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine who assisted the defense. "Initially, it was done by a limited number of high-quality labs with Ph.D. scientists. Now it's used by cops in lab coats."

The only assurance that a laboratory, at least, can reliably perform DNA tests is that its practices have been accredited, scientists say. But since only a minority of the nation's laboratories, including police laboratories, are accredited, there is no guarantee that most DNA testing centers have the technical skills and training to make proper use of a crime-fighting technique that could provide ironclad evidence in criminal cases.

"If you have accreditation, then the jury, the judge, the public has some measure, some demonstration to make them feel better about the lab -- that it's not just some wild, unregulated field," said Dr. Paul Ferrara, the immediate past president of the American Society of Crime Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board.

Dr. Ferrara noted, however, that only about one-third of the nation's approximately 60 DNA laboratories have been accredited, and the Los Angeles Police Department's lab is not among them. Just one commercial laboratory -- Cellmark Diagnostics in Germantown, Md. -- is accredited, although about a dozen offer DNA testing services, Dr. Ferrara said.

Dr. Gerald Coyne, a geneticist at the University of Chicago who also is a consultant to defense lawyers, said that if the Los Angeles police had "a decent lab, they could not have mounted an attack on the DNA."

One juror, Anise Aschenbach, a 61-year-old white woman, said last week in a telephone interview broadcast on ABC News that she had first voted to convict Mr. Simpson, but switched because "most of the evidence was DNA evidence and that's what was so shaky."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEEDC1339F932A25753C1A9639582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

It's a decent link that you have provided but it does not remove the fact that a juror who states that she did not understand DNA and did not consider DNA has no grounds on which to determine whether the lab work was sloppy or suspect.

We have spent so much time deliberating EDTA, but all that leads back to is that if you have a juror who doesn't understand or care about DNA then EDTA being present in blood or not being present in blood does not matter to that juror either and thus could not be used as a means of reasonable doubt in that area.

Kate

Kate

[SlowHandSam]

That jury of christan church going black women would have convicted oj in a heartbeat if the prosecution had owned and presented believalbe evidence.But the prosecution didn't give them anything.

what makes you so certain that this would be the case?

[limakey]

If I am remembering correctly, didn't the jurors who gave interviews after the trial say that Barry Scheck was the most impressive lawyer from both sides? Didn't they also say that it was his closing arguements that carried the most weight with them in the jury room?

JC's closing was based on common sense and what the jurors' responsibility was. He very clearly highlighted and rightfully so pointed out if makes no sense, if it doesn't fit, you must aquit.

Barry Scheck handled the actual physical evidence. He highlighted and continue to drive home that the evidence could not be trusted and why it couldn't be trusted. Didn't the defense have a witness to testify to why he believed the blood on the socks was planted? And the only alternative that the DA's gave was that Nicole must have reached up and grabbed Simpson by the ankle?

Wasn't the location of the blood on the socks also an issue? One that the DA's never even attempted to explain away?

JC was a brilliant lawyer, however, he was not the only lawyer on the defense team.

[limakey]

Kate,

Thank you for the welcome back and both of us are doing very well. I hope all is well in your life as well!

I don't remember any juror coming out and saying that they didn't understand the DNA evidence nor that they didn't consider it. Which does not mean that it was not said. I do remember that a juror did say that finding blood one's own blood on one's own property is not or should not be considered damning evidence of guilt.

I also remember that a couple of the jurors did say that there was a couple of blood drops where the alies (sp?) were so faint, they could not determine who's blood it was. That the DA's kept on saying, "you see it, don't you?!" and they couldn't tell. I think it was the same juror who said that perhaps if they the same test run on Simpson's children, they may have been able to determine who's blood it was.

IMO, I still believe that many of the jurors never questioned who's blood it was, but when and how did it get there. The defense never argued that it was not Simpson's or the victims' blood. And to be honest, while I think the police work in this case is rather suspect, I seriously doubt that they would have planted the wrong person's blood. At least that is my interpetation of it.

However, I do believe and understand why any juror would dismiss the DNA evidence because of the circumstances surrounding the collection of it. IMO, the fact that the some of the blood evidence was allowed to "cook" inside in the CSI truck, why some blood contained EDTA and some didn't, why some had more DNA then others, really, IMO cancelled out the DNA evidence.

From my understanding of DNA, the only thing you can really prove is who's blood it is or who's blood it isn't. I believe any other conclusions reached from DNA is a matter of opinon, as in how old the blood is, how and when it got there.

Did the jurors explain why they didn't consider it or why they didn't understand it?

[martin II]

martin, there's nothing wrong with writing articles for Vanity Fair and receiving money for it. It's an honest way to earn a living. It sure beats selling your signature at slasher conventions which you seem to think is okay. You and William are both contemptuous of Mr. Bugliosi but in his book he's very hard on the prosecution and blames them for losing the case. I don't think expecting the magnificent Johnnie Cochran to correctly represent the meaning of reasonable doubt is nitpicking. If you do, that's okay with me. By your reasoning, from now on, we can consider saying the civil jury wasn't charged with finding Simpson liable for murder just nitpicking. :)

TV
Have you ever been to a 'SLASHER" trade show? they sell tee shirts, gloves and all kinds of wearing apparel and other stuff.It is no different than a sex toy show or one of those 'BIKER' shows.

I have no problem with people selling goods as long as there is a market for the stuff.

[SlowHandSam]

TV
Have you ever been to a 'SLASHER" trade show? they sell tee shirts, gloves and all kinds of wearing apparel and other stuff.It is no different than a sex toy show or one of those 'BIKER' shows.

I have no problem with people selling goods as long as there is a market for the stuff.

You don't find it ironic (at best) or in poor taste that a man accused of butchering two people with a knife ... not just two people but the mother of his children and her friend ... attends and exploits his supposed celebrity at a SLASHER convention?

I think you missed the point about him attending the slasher convention. Had he gone to an adult novelty convention or biker rally - that's one thing. But that he went and exploited his supposed celebrity at a convention that glorifies butchering people doesn't sit well.

[martin II]

what makes you so certain that this would be the case?

Thats easy to answer

* The la da's office has a conviction rate of about 98%
* The juries in those cases were chosen from the same commuinity as ojs
jury.
* Black women jurors on cases involving crime in their communities DO vote
to convict at a high rate regardless of whether the defendant is black or
white.
* The high muber of blacks in jail in la county supports my belief.
imo

[limakey]

TV,

I do not believe that any witness from either side can be forced into an interview with the other side. However, one interesting note on this subject. Remember Natalie Singer, she testified about the comments that MF made? Chris Darden asked her why she refused to talk to him during the break. I believe her reply was something like, "you didn't want to talk to me before, so why now?"

I think it is also fair to say that Robert Shapiro shot himself in the foot when he taped an interview with Allen Park. As soon as Park realized what had happened, he refused any more requests from the defense to be interviewed.

Also, several the points that you listed about the jurors were more to the advantage of the DA's rather then the defense. I don't know what being a Democrat has to do with anything--really!

Getting back to the witnesses---I think it is also safe to assume that both sides weigh the pros and cons of interviewing any witness. Unless I am mistaken, if a witness gives an interview, the product of these interviews have to be turned over to the other side. I think it is also fair to assume that for some witnesses, the other side would rather confront them on cross.

Again, just MO.

[SlowHandSam]

Thats easy to answer

* The la da's office has a conviction rate of about 98%
* The juries in those cases were chosen from the same commuinity as ojs
jury.
* Black women jurors on cases involving crime in their communities DO vote
to convict at a high rate regardless of whether the defendant is black or
white.
* The high muber of blacks in jail in la county supports my belief.
imo

your comment was based on these "Christian women" ... nothing you state here talks about their belief and how it relates to the verdict. And since fbgweezer already shared the stats on the jurors ..... yeah.

[martin II]

You don't find it ironic (at best) or in poor taste that a man accused of butchering two people with a knife ... not just two people but the mother of his children and her friend ... attends and exploits his supposed celebrity at a SLASHER convention?

I think you missed the point about him attending the slasher convention. Had he gone to an adult novelty convention or biker rally - that's one thing. But that he went and exploited his supposed celebrity at a convention that glorifies butchering people doesn't sit well.

IT may be that we have different opinions of "slasher trade shows"

It is my opinion that these shows sell all knids of Horrow movies such as
'jason" "Friday 13th" etc that has been shown on many network tv shows
and has a high following in the American public.They also sell various clothing and other items. Oj was invited to see his tees and footbnall jerseys and he was not the only one selling those items.
I think it was reported that he sold his goods for about 3 hours at about $200.00 per shirt and made about $24,000 for the three hours.
I don't think he was concerned with what you or others May have thought
about this mini business venture as he was there to sell shirts not knifes to suport himself and his family. imo

[martin II]

your comment was based on these "Christian women" ... nothing you state here talks about their belief and how it relates to the verdict. And since fbgweezer already shared the stats on the jurors ..... yeah.

looking at the background of these black jury women or all members i believe they also were church going christians imo

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

In reference to FBG's points and "facts":

1. 911 phone calls - 1985, Mr. Simpson beat up a car---totally not cool, but he did not lay a hand on Mrs. Simpson.

2. 1989 incident - a call out went into effect --- any police officer who responded or had any knowlege of domestic calls concerning the Simpsons, only one response, from MF. What makes this interesting is why MF remembered the details of the incident so clearly.

3. 1992 or 1993 incident - Mr. Simpson ranted and raved, yet never laid a hand on her. The police went back the next day, taped a conversation he had with Nicole (Nicole did not know she was being taped) and Nicole said there was only one time that Simpson hit her.

4. I believe the officer who responded the 911 call in 1989 made a comment about a comment Simpson made, something like they have been called 8 times in the past---yet there is no documentation or police reports to confirm this.

5. While at the time, if these calls did happen, I can understand how they may not have been reported, however, once Mrs. Simpson was murder, none of these officers have an excuse for not coming forward.

6. The DA's never put on a domestic violence expert to explain that perhaps Nicole may have lying about it being a one time incident.

[martin II]

the criminal jury consider everything the prosecution presented to them including EDTA and DNA. they also evaluated prosecution witness, lies and mistakes and most of all the defense cross of prosecution witnesses.
After considering everything they voted not guilty.
So what 2-3 jurors wrote in their book about specific issues of the trial they still said they made the correct decision of not guilty considering everything that was discussed.

DNA was not the determining issue in that trial. There were many other considerations.How the blood samples were collected and handeled and given for DNA testing got to be where they were 'FOUND' was one major concern another was how the samples were handeled by lapd lab. Mazzola for instance.imo

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

Thank you for the welcome back and both of us are doing very well. I hope all is well in your life as well!

I don't remember any juror coming out and saying that they didn't understand the DNA evidence nor that they didn't consider it. Which does not mean that it was not said. I do remember that a juror did say that finding blood one's own blood on one's own property is not or should not be considered damning evidence of guilt.

I also remember that a couple of the jurors did say that there was a couple of blood drops where the alies (sp?) were so faint, they could not determine who's blood it was. That the DA's kept on saying, "you see it, don't you?!" and they couldn't tell. I think it was the same juror who said that perhaps if they the same test run on Simpson's children, they may have been able to determine who's blood it was.

IMO, I still believe that many of the jurors never questioned who's blood it was, but when and how did it get there. The defense never argued that it was not Simpson's or the victims' blood. And to be honest, while I think the police work in this case is rather suspect, I seriously doubt that they would have planted the wrong person's blood. At least that is my interpetation of it.

However, I do believe and understand why any juror would dismiss the DNA evidence because of the circumstances surrounding the collection of it. IMO, the fact that the some of the blood evidence was allowed to "cook" inside in the CSI truck, why some blood contained EDTA and some didn't, why some had more DNA then others, really, IMO cancelled out the DNA evidence.

From my understanding of DNA, the only thing you can really prove is who's blood it is or who's blood it isn't. I believe any other conclusions reached from DNA is a matter of opinon, as in how old the blood is, how and when it got there.

Did the jurors explain why they didn't consider it or why they didn't understand it?

I posted several links regarding the jurors who made the statements and the content of those statements when you and I had this discussion previously.

It is one thing to dismiss DNA evidence when you find reason to believe that it has been tainted or corrupted. It is another to say that you didn't understand it and therefore did not consider it.

I'm not certain how common it is to have that many drops of one's own blood at one's home that are visible to the naked eye. Certainly I have bled at my home before and cleaned it up, and there may even be the possibility of a blood stain on a rug though still more than likely not visible to my naked eye.

I'm definitely not certain how common it is for one's own blood to be at the home of their murdered ex-wife on the night that said ex-wife was murdered and around and on the body of said ex-wife.

And yes, it can be determined how old blood is within a particular range of time.

And thank you, I also am doing well.

Kate

[limakey]

Continued.....

Mr. Simpson's "strange" reaction to being told about Nicole's death:

1. I find nothing strange about it--however, IMO, the most important comment that was made by Simpson has been competely overlooked---he asked why his children were at the police station--again, IMO, confirming that he had no idea where Nicole was killed.

2. The Bronco chase - none of us know why the DA's never used this in their case. However, IMO, there had to several reasons why it wasn't and the DA's knew better then to open this door.

3. The hair evidence, the Defense present a witness regarding Mr. Simpson's hair--I think it had something to do with dandruff and the color. There were other other hats inside the condo as well as found in Mr. Simpson's home, yet none of these other hats were taken to see if they too had hair in the them to use as a comparison.

4. The gloves--there are two measurements to be considered. One the length of the gloves but also the width of the glove. I do believe the width size was ever revealed.

5. Blood in the Bronco --- blood was said to have been seen in a location where it could not have been seen at the time. Blood was not seen by at least two witnesses, one witness looking for it.

6. Another blood sample was taken from the Bronco and it was determined to be, I think of Hispanic origin.

7. Fiber evidence, there was never any link to Mr. Simpson regarding a sweat suit. The fibers that were found on Mr. Goldman's shirt is compelling evidence, however, the fact that none of these fibers were found in any of the cars of Simpson's nor were any found in his home.

8. For the sake of arguement, lets say that Mr. Simpson is telling the truth about the cuts on his hand and bleeding at his home that night---does that mean he would not have committed the murders? In other words, any cuts that Simpson may have gotten on his hands that day had to have happened at Bundy?

9. IMO, facts, like everything else has two sides to it. In order to be fair, I think you have consider both sides.

[Kate Sachel]

the criminal jury consider everything the prosecution presented to them including EDTA and DNA. they also evaluated prosecution witness, lies and mistakes and most of all the defense cross of prosecution witnesses.
After considering everything they voted not guilty.
So what 2-3 jurors wrote in their book about specific issues of the trial they still said they made the correct decision of not guilty considering everything that was discussed.

DNA was not the determining issue in that trial. There were many other considerations.How the blood samples were collected and handeled and given for DNA testing got to be where they were 'FOUND' was one major concern another was how the samples were handeled by lapd lab. Mazzola for instance.imo

I'm sorry, but it's assanine to make the statement that the jurors considered everything including DNA and EDTA when there are jurors who outright said that they did not consider DNA evidence. You even make note of such by stating "so what 2-3 jurors wrote in their book ...".

How do you even believe that you are allowed to rob their personal thoughts that they spoke of in public and put in black and white in a book and turn it into what you personally believe they considered? That is just lousy and it insults those jurors.

Kate

[limakey]

Kate,

It has been a long time and I truly don't remember your links. However, you are straight up and I can understand your feelings about the comments made by the juror.

And to be honest, after listening to the DNA testimony in the trial, if given the choice, I would rather stick a dull pencil in my eye rather the to listen to it again!

I am glad all is well.

[martin II]

Martz testimony on EDTA and Dr Reiders sp challange to his testimony told the jury that Martz position could not be believed.Period.
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

It has been a long time and I truly don't remember your links. However, you are straight up and I can understand your feelings about the comments made by the juror.

And to be honest, after listening to the DNA testimony in the trial, if given the choice, I would rather stick a dull pencil in my eye rather the to listen to it again!

I am glad all is well.

I don't doubt that you do not recall the links, it has been quite a long time since we have discussed this case with each other; I only wanted to point out that the links had been supplied previously and if need be I can certainly supply them again.

No doubt that the DNA evidence in the trial was drawn on and boring, but that doesn't relieve a juror of their oath. It is one thing for us not to want to hear it and consider it, and another for a juror to be of the same thought.

I'm glad you are doing well also. When you have a moment, send me a message and let me know how that son of yours is doing.

Kate

[limakey]

Kate,

I think it is fair to say that in most cases, there are comments made by jurors that can often raise questions. However, even if one juror did dismiss the DNA evidence, that does mean all of them did.

I also find interesting that very powerful and thoughtful comments made by jurors often go ignored. In the Simpson case, one juror made a very powerful comment about the blood on the socks. She felt that there was no excuse for the blood not be seen on those socks. She felt that these were professionals who knew what equipment had to be used to find this evidence and the fact they didn't use it, was simply unacceptable.

[martin II]

DNA evidence was not the only issue the jury considered. Therefore it was not the turning issue in the trial.There was enough testimony presented to describe the lapd lab as a cesspool and then there was mazzola. So the jury had good reason to not believe or dissmiss the dna based on Barry Schacks
argument to them.imo

[weezer]

weezer
you have made this accusation several times previously. Are you suggesting that oj simpson owned or wore ladies lingerie?If not what are you suggesting?

I am drawing a reasonable conclusion -- the lingerie was not there when the maid left on Friday. everyone agreed that the laundry basket was arnelle's -- I don't know if she identified any of the lingerie but she said the sweatsuit was not hers. arnelle stated that she had not done any wash that weekend. orenthal was the only person with access to his locked/alarmed home. the sweatsuit was dark in color and there was women's lingerie in the washing machine with it. hence -- the sweatsuit and lingerie belonged to orenthal. And, since kato saw him wear a dark sweatsuit the night of the murders, orenthal must have had the lingerie on under the sweatsuit when he butched two human beings: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

I think it is fair to say that in most cases, there are comments made by jurors that can often raise questions. However, even if one juror did dismiss the DNA evidence, that does mean all of them did.

I also find interesting that very powerful and thoughtful comments made by jurors often go ignored. In the Simpson case, one juror made a very powerful comment about the blood on the socks. She felt that there was no excuse for the blood not be seen on those socks. She felt that these were professionals who knew what equipment had to be used to find this evidence and the fact they didn't use it, was simply unacceptable.

I don't disagree with your assesment, I would only caution that when such comments are made by jurors that raise questions, those questions should not be easily dismissed. Rather, they should invoke thought probing analysis of how our system works and how to be better able to recognize potentially biased jurors.

I personally felt connected to several powerful and thoughtful comments made by one juror in particular and do not ignore those things. Nor does this take away from the fact that I do believe there was reasonable doubt raised in some areas based on lack of decent preparation at the hands of the prosecution. I do not disgaree with the verdict they returned, but even that does not negate certain suspicions.

Kate

[martin II]

Kate,

I think it is fair to say that in most cases, there are comments made by jurors that can often raise questions. However, even if one juror did dismiss the DNA evidence, that does mean all of them did.

I also find interesting that very powerful and thoughtful comments made by jurors often go ignored. In the Simpson case, one juror made a very powerful comment about the blood on the socks. She felt that there was no excuse for the blood not be seen on those socks. She felt that these were professionals who knew what equipment had to be used to find this evidence and the fact they didn't use it, was simply unacceptable.

The socks were examined i think three trimes by the lapd lab and no blood was found. When the prosecution though they needed additional
"EVIDENCE" to save the case, they examined the sock again and what do you know, they finally found blood where it should not have been on the socks.

imo
martin II

[limakey]

Martin and Kate,

IMO, I believe the jurors spent the majority of their time deliberating on what I call "neutral" evidence, as in the time line. I will always believe that the timeline played a major role in the verdict.

[limakey]

Kate,

In theory, I agree with you recognizing biased jurors. However, isn't fair to say that both the DA's and the defense want biased jurors? Aren't both sides involved with creating jury questionaires as well as picking the jury?

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

In theory, I agree with you recognizing biased jurors. However, isn't fair to say that both the DA's and the defense want biased jurors? Aren't both sides involved with creating jury questionaires as well as picking the jury?

It's not only fair to say, it's factual and I take issue with it. I don't believe that should be any part of our jury system.

Kate

[limakey]

Martin,

I have always believe the socks were the most important piece of evidence in this case. The fact that these were treated like an after thought, IMO, supports your feelings about them.

The reason why I believe they were the most important piece of evidence is because they were found inside Simpson's home and in his bedroom.

I also find Dennis Fung's comments regarding the socks to be in total contradiction of reason when it comes the alleged sweat suit in the washing machine.

If I remember correctly, he was never asked if he could determine if it was a man's or a woman's sweat suit. He was never asked if it was a child's or an adults.

He did not collect them because he could see no blood on them but collected the socks, even after he saw no blood on them. It makes no sense, IMO.

[limakey]

Kate,

Do you happen to know the history of jury selection? What I mean is, have potential jurors always been asked a series a questions by both sides?

What I think would be interesting would be a two jury system. One chosen by the DA's and the Defense one one with just 12 random people picked off the street an hour or two before the trial started. I would be very interesting to see if different verdicts were given, IMO.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

Do you happen to know the history of jury selection? What I mean is, have potential jurors always been asked a series a questions by both sides?

What I think would be interesting would be a two jury system. One chosen by the DA's and the Defense one one with just 12 random people picked off the street an hour or two before the trial started. I would be very interesting to see if different verdicts were given, IMO.

The application of scientific jury selection began sometime in the 1970's, I believe maybe 1971 or 1972.

Kate

[martin II]

Martin and Kate,

IMO, I believe the jurors spent the majority of their time deliberating on what I call "neutral" evidence, as in the time line. I will always believe that the timeline played a major role in the verdict.

J Cochran in post trial interviews and speeches said the time line did not fit
and this is why oj was found not guilty.
If true then all of the other DNA and prosecution witnesses meant nothing.It also means that evidence could/must have been planted and blood manipulated in the lab.imo

[martin II]

I am drawing a reasonable conclusion -- the lingerie was not there when the maid left on Friday. everyone agreed that the laundry basket was arnelle's -- I don't know if she identified any of the lingerie but she said the sweatsuit was not hers. arnelle stated that she had not done any wash that weekend. orenthal was the only person with access to his locked/alarmed home. the sweatsuit was dark in color and there was women's lingerie in the washing machine with it. hence -- the sweatsuit and lingerie belonged to orenthal. And, since kato saw him wear a dark sweatsuit the night of the murders, orenthal must have had the lingerie on under the sweatsuit when he butched two human beings: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

wEEZER
I would expect no other inuendo or suggestion other than what you have given.It does show the level of hate you have allowed to enter your heart and how you are able to concoct the most extreme opinions in this case.
But thanks for your opinion and your answer.
imo

[martin II]

Possible Islamic roots
Another possible precurssor to the English jury trial was the Lafif in the Maliki school of classical Islamic law and jurisprudence, which was developed between the 8th and 11th centuries in the medieval Islamic world and shares a number of similarities with the later jury trials in English common law. Like the English jury, the Islamic Lafif was a body of twelve members drawn from the neighborhood and sworn to tell the truth, who were bound to give a unanimous verdict, about matters "which they had personally seen or heard, binding on the judge, to settle the truth concerning facts in a case, between ordinary people, and obtained as of right by the plaintiff." The only characteristic of the English jury which the Islamic Lafif lacked was the "judicial writ directing the jury to be summoned and directing the bailiff to hear its recognition." According to John Makdisi, "no other institution in any legal institution studied to date shares all of these characteristics with the English jury." It is possible that the concept of the Lafif may have been introduced to England by the Normans after their conquest of England and the Emirate of Sicily, and then evolved into the modern English jury.[3]

[martin II]

riiiight!

"Some other facts about the final jury: (1) None regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watch tabloid TV shows, (2) five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member, (3) all were Democrats, (4) five reported that they or another family member had had a negative experience with the police, (5) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete."

to this we can add all of their independent statements about not understanding -- so they didn't consider -- the DNA, saying that the blood could have been one of the childrens or even Mazzola's, the gloves fit, and that the 17 years of abuse didn't have any bearing on the murder, etc., etc.


DEMOCRATE!!!!

Exactly what does being a Democrat have to do with the OJ trial??

[weezer]

FBG,

If you read MF's book, then you know what I posted is from his book.

In regards to the friend of Marcia's, I believe her name was Lucianne Coleman and she did testify during the trial. I believe Judge Ito ruled her testimony out because the one officer who documented Fuhrman's behavior wanted nothing to do with going against him and burned his notes.

I also believe she gave interviews as well. In Joe Boscoe's book, he goes into this in great detail.

limakey, I can find no reference to Lucianne Coleman so I don't know who or what you are referring to.

Joe Bosco? LOL

[tv]

TV
Have you ever been to a 'SLASHER" trade show? they sell tee shirts, gloves and all kinds of wearing apparel and other stuff.It is no different than a sex toy show or one of those 'BIKER' shows.

I have no problem with people selling goods as long as there is a market for the stuff.

I have to admit I've never been to a slasher, biker or sex toy show. I do think it's in poor taste for a man to appear at a slasher convention who's ex-wife and mother of his children who was slashed to death.

I'm glad you think it's okay for people to sell goods as long as there is a market for it. I would say that's why Vincent Bugliosi was paid for writing for Vanity Fair.

[limakey]

FBG,

I hope this link works: http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1995/09/02/1995-09-02_fuhrman_coverup_charged__tea.html

I don't think Vincent B. wrote for Vanity Fair, I think Dominick Dunne. However, even if that is wrong, I have no issues with anyone writing a book on an infamous case.

However, both Hank Goldberg and Darden made comments about V.B's book and what he would have done if he was the DA in the case. In Goldberg's book, said that V.B. refuse to by the trial transcripts because they were too expensive. Darden made the comment that V.B. wanted to argue that OJ was not really black.

[limakey]

TV Dinner,

I do have some issues with some of the things Simpson has done since the trial ended. However, Mr. Simpson had two minor children to support. While I disagree with some of things he has said, however, I have to be honest that if I was in a similar situation and I was offered a lot of money to go to a slasher convention, I probably would have accepted the invite.

[limakey]

FGB:

Your comment: (5) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete." I understand the meaning behind this question. I do not believe that the rich and famous are not exempt from committing crimes.

On the same token, being rich and famous doesn't mean they are exempt from being victims of racism or police misconduct. IMO.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

On the same token, being rich and famous doesn't mean they are exempt from being victims of racism or police misconduct. IMO.

Simpson was never the victim of racism or police misconduct. Even he didn't claim that. IIRC, he said they treated him well, even during the Bronco pursuit.

[martin II]

FGB:

Your comment: (5) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete." I understand the meaning behind this question. I do not believe that the rich and famous are not exempt from committing crimes.

On the same token, being rich and famous doesn't mean they are exempt from being victims of racism or police misconduct. IMO.

I have thought that the jurors meaning behind that statement was that in her opinion, OJ was a rich famous person with a very good life and that she may have thought he was too smart to commit murder of a ex where the relationship had basically played itself out and both had made major moves to move on with others.

[martin II]

I have to admit I've never been to a slasher, biker or sex toy show. I do think it's in poor taste for a man to appear at a slasher convention who's ex-wife and mother of his children who was slashed to death.

I'm glad you think it's okay for people to sell goods as long as there is a market for it. I would say that's why Vincent Bugliosi was paid for writing for Vanity Fair.

Oj was at the trade show to sell jerseys, signatures and tee shirts. He had no reason to evaluate what others were selling or what the sponsers called the show.

[martin II]

FBG,

I hope this link works: http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1995/09/02/1995-09-02_fuhrman_coverup_charged__tea.html

I don't think Vincent B. wrote for Vanity Fair, I think Dominick Dunne. However, even if that is wrong, I have no issues with anyone writing a book on an infamous case.

However, both Hank Goldberg and Darden made comments about V.B's book and what he would have done if he was the DA in the case. In Goldberg's book, said that V.B. refuse to by the trial transcripts because they were too expensive. Darden made the comment that V.B. wanted to argue that OJ was not really black.


Limakey
Thanks for that link. It explains a lot.
Martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
her opinion, OJ was a rich famous person with a very good life and that she may have thought he was too smart to commit murder

Nah, no one has ever considered Simpson "too smart" :biggrin:

[SlowHandSam]

DEMOCRATE!!!!

Exactly what does being a Democrat have to do with the OJ trial??

IMO, it's because Democrats are considered, generally speaking, to be more liberal than Republicans when it comes to crimes and punishment (along with many other things).

[SlowHandSam]

Hi. Sorry I've had to edit. He beat her - not hit her - look at the photos -one time, 20 times, 5 times a day. The point is? For a man to use his fist against any woman is wrong - but she was his wife and the mother of his children. He ranted and raved. At least he's consistent.

Good point about the domestic violence expert. I assume you mean the prosecution stuffing up (go figure).

Why is it so interesting that Fuhrman remembered the Simpson call? He was a famous football player. If it had been some other famous sports player or film actor then perhaps Fuhrman would have remembered that also.

Exactly!!! People are so caught up in keeping up with famous people that it doesn't seem odd to me, at all, that MF would remember this. It's not like he remembered oj being pulled over for failing to stop at a red light or something ... beating your wife is something, I would suspect, would leave a lasting memory with someone. I'm just sayin'.

[William Anthony]

From the magnificent Johnnie Cochran's opening statement on Janurary 25, 1995:

...THAT IS A LITTLE PRESUMPTUOUS, DON'T YOU THINK, BECAUSE THE ANSWER OF O.J. SIMPSON'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED BY YOU IF YOU ARE ABLE TO DO IT.

From what I read an associate of the magnificent Johnnie Cochran supplied him with a chart during closing to help him understand reasonable doubt. Just something I read, mind you. :read:

A chart is for the jury to understand. Yes, because the jury instruction said guilt or innocence, the magnificent one was able to say innocence in his opening and have the jury think in those terms. VB was a prosecutor and one poster said the magnificent one was. I think the magnificent one understood it perfectly and so did the jury.

[William Anthony]

I didn't know much about DNA at the time and I understood the evidence. If they didn't understand it why didn't they ask for clarification?

What??? They listened to the evidence and it was not presented in a manner that they understood. Tell me what you understood, not now understand, about DNA, which you learned during the trial. I learned that, like any other science, the results must be interpreted.

[William Anthony]

It is good to see you back on this forum and I hope that both yourself and your son have been doing well in your absence.

It is an incorrect statement to say that the jury understood the DNA evidence when at least two of them stated that they neither understood it nor considered it.

While I believe that reasonable doubt was cast in other areas which gave the jury an opportunity to aquit, I was and remain quite baffled on how it is that a juror might come to believe that DNA evidence is not necessary to consider.

Kate

I am sure you know that the trier of fact assigns what weight, if any, to give the evidence.

[William Anthony]

It's a decent link that you have provided but it does not remove the fact that a juror who states that she did not understand DNA and did not consider DNA has no grounds on which to determine whether the lab work was sloppy or suspect.

We have spent so much time deliberating EDTA, but all that leads back to is that if you have a juror who doesn't understand or care about DNA then EDTA being present in blood or not being present in blood does not matter to that juror either and thus could not be used as a means of reasonable doubt in that area.

Kate

Kate

By that juror.

[William Anthony]

It's not only fair to say, it's factual and I take issue with it. I don't believe that should be any part of our jury system.

Kate

Then how is an impartial jury to be chosen?

[William Anthony]

Keeping up with a celebrity is a lot different than writing a letter to the DA about an incident that happened 4 years prior. I think we must look at MF's hatred of interracial couples, as supported by the evidence, and racism, as conceded by the prosecution to obtain a thorough understanding of MF's motivation.

[martin II]

Exactly!!! People are so caught up in keeping up with famous people that it doesn't seem odd to me, at all, that MF would remember this. It's not like he remembered oj being pulled over for failing to stop at a red light or something ... beating your wife is something, I would suspect, would leave a lasting memory with someone. I'm just sayin'.

maby what caused him to remember was Nicoles "boob job" comment and the
acusation of the Nazi marking on that locker.
The abuse was 1998 incident.

[William Anthony]

maby what caused him to remember was Nicoles "boob job" comment and the
acusation of the Nazi marking on that locker.
The abuse was 1998 incident.

Martin,

I think you need a correction in your last sentence.

[martin II]

Keeping up with a celebrity is a lot different than writing a letter to the DA about an incident that happened 4 years prior. I think we must look at MF's hatred of interracial couples, as supported by the evidence, and racism, as conceded by the prosecution to obtain a thorough understanding of MF's motivation.

I agree with your post.

There were several instances of witnesses testifying to his racial hatred of interacial couples and of blacks.Four or more cases of abuse of citizens,tape of him explaining in detail of how he did his work as a lapd officer saying blacks should be burned to death and the prosecution saying in court that he was a racist and should have never been a cop and we have some posters that seem to ignore all of this in their support of Furhman as a stand up good cop.imo:shrug:

[martin II]

Martin,

I think you need a correction in your last sentence.

1989
correct?

[William Anthony]

I agree with your post.

There were several instances of witnesses testifying to his racial hatred of interacial couples and of blacks.Four or more cases of abuse of citizens,tape of him explaining in detail of how he did his work as a lapd officer saying blacks should be burned to death and the prosecution saying in court that he was a racist and should have never been a cop and we have some posters that seem to ignore all of this in their support of Furhman as a stand up good cop.imo:shrug:

Some posters dismiss his perjury as irrelevant, while others say that there is no credible evidence that he planted evidence in this case, which implies that he had planted evidence in other cases and that they are the sole judge as to what is credible. Some go as far to say that there is no proof that he planted evidence in this case, as if that was something the defense had to prove. They seem not to want to admit that the evidence is that there were was only one MF, and want to Say that the MF on the stand was not the MF a few years before.

[martin II]

By that juror.

Martz faulty testimony, Mazzola lies and the confusion Fung
created was much easier to understand than DNA results given on suspect evidence collection. imo

[martin II]

All samples received by DNA testing labs were collected and processed
be the lapd lab described below.

But Mr. Simpson's lawyers contended that the blood sample collection and analysis were so careless that tampering could not be ruled out and that the DNA test results could not be believed. They were bolstered by a powerful report by a Denver molecular biologist, John Gerdes, who observed the operations of the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory and the results of its DNA in this and other cases.

Dr. Gerdes testified that the lab was the worst he had ever seen -- "a cesspool," in the words of Peter Neufeld, one of Mr. Simpson's lawyers.

Dr. Bradley Popovich, a DNA expert at the Oregon Health Sciences University, who worked for the prosecution, said the defense "looked for the weak link, and it was the Los Angeles Police Department."

The findings of laboratory errors and sloppy handling of forensic samples so concerned Dr. Coyne, the University of Chicago geneticist, that he worked for Mr. Simpson's defense even though he thought the jury would find Mr. Simpson guilty. Dr. Coyne said he does this kind of work to try to force crime laboratories to clean up their acts.

[Kate Sachel]

Then how is an impartial jury to be chosen?

Do you really think that an impartial jury is chosen by scientific jury selection? All it does is sterotype, and gives an attorney an opportunity to interject their own prejudices and racism by carefully designing questions made with the intent of ridding of a particular juror.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I am sure you know that the trier of fact assigns what weight, if any, to give the evidence.

And I am undoubtedly sure that you know that a juror's responsibility is to consider all evidence and then determine what weight to assign it.

Kate

[William Anthony]

'To be able to acknowledge when you are wrong". Great stuff. Then why do you have to keep reminding Martin about his frequent mistakes. Why doesn't Martin acknowledge when he is wrong?

He did. You may be in need of more rest.

[William Anthony]

Do you really think that an impartial jury is chosen by scientific jury selection? All it does is sterotype, and gives an attorney an opportunity to interject their own prejudices and racism by carefully designing questions made with the intent of ridding of a particular juror.

Kate

I am asking for an alternative method, one that could be better.

[William Anthony]

And I am undoubtedly sure that you know that a juror's responsibility is to consider all evidence and then determine what weight to assign it.

Kate

The Jury's responsibility is to form no conclusion until they have listened to all the evidence, and assigned credibility and weight to the evidence. The jury is under no obligation to consider, during deliberations, any evidence they have listened to and decided it was confusing as presented. They had the right to assign paramount, little or no significance to the DNA evidence. If they did not assign any weight to the DNA evidence, it would have been a waste of time, imho, to consider evidence they considered weightless.

[SlowHandSam]

The Jury's responsibility is to form no conclusion until they have listened to all the evidence, and assigned credibility and weight to the evidence. The jury is under no obligation to consider, during deliberations, any evidence they have listened to and decided it was confusing as presented. They had the right to assign paramount, little or no significance to the DNA evidence. If they did not assign any weight to the DNA evidence, it would have been a waste of time, imho, to consider evidence they considered weightless.

So if they don't understand it, as some stated, they just ignore it, iyo? The prosecution can't always be expected to convey evidence to a pool of jury members that are incapable of understanding scientific data. You can only "dumb down" some evidence so much, imo.

[martin II]

So if they don't understand it, as some stated, they just ignore it, iyo? The prosecution can't always be expected to convey evidence to a pool of jury members that are incapable of understanding scientific data. You can only "dumb down" some evidence so much, imo.

If the jury of 12 had been made up of altzheimers suffers,The prosecution still had the responsibility to present the evidence in a manner that could be understood by them. imo

[martin II]

The Jury's responsibility is to form no conclusion until they have listened to all the evidence, and assigned credibility and weight to the evidence. The jury is under no obligation to consider, during deliberations, any evidence they have listened to and decided it was confusing as presented. They had the right to assign paramount, little or no significance to the DNA evidence. If they did not assign any weight to the DNA evidence, it would have been a waste of time, imho, to consider evidence they considered weightless.

William
I believe the point you made above should be of great importance for those looking for the truth. If each juror found fault or unbelieveble testimony from prosecution DNA witnesses and accepted Barry Shacks explanation to them,
there was no reason to spend a month in deliberations to go over the dna testimony the prosecution caused them to listen to.If they had reviewed all the evidence as some believe they should have, the deliberations would have 6 months or more.imo

[martin II]

So if they don't understand it, as some stated, they just ignore it, iyo? The prosecution can't always be expected to convey evidence to a pool of jury members that are incapable of understanding scientific data. You can only "dumb down" some evidence so much, imo.

When you say THEM can i assume you mean the ONE juror that made the comment months after voting not guilty.

[Kate Sachel]

William
I believe the point you made above should be of great importance for those looking for the truth. If each juror found fault or unbelieveble testimony from prosecution DNA witnesses and accepted Barry Shacks explanation to them,
there was no reason to spend a month in deliberations to go over the dna testimony the prosecution caused them to listen to.If they had reviewed all the evidence as some believe they should have, the deliberations would have 6 months or more.imo

Let us be clear martin, since it is quite obvious that you read my posts though I suspect I know the reason behind why you don't directly respond to them, that considering and reviewing the evidence are two different things.

When a juror states that they did not consider evidence, which they are in fact required to do before determining what they give weight to, and that blood evidence was something they did not care about, I believe it rightfully raises a flag for people.

It is my belief that had the jury voted guilty and a juror had stated that evidence regarding evidence tampering was not important to them so they simply didn't consider it, you would be outraged.

Kate

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .and that she may have thought. . ."

helllooooo -- the article said NINE (9) of the jurors --

[weezer]

wEEZER
I would expect no other inuendo or suggestion other than what you have given.It does show the level of hate you have allowed to enter your heart and how you are able to concoct the most extreme opinions in this case.
But thanks for your opinion and your answer.
imo

well if it wasn't orenthal's, who do you believe it belonged to?

[weezer]

Keeping up with a celebrity is a lot different than writing a letter to the DA about an incident that happened 4 years prior. I think we must look at MF's hatred of interracial couples, as supported by the evidence, and racism, as conceded by the prosecution to obtain a thorough understanding of MF's motivation.

which has never made sense to me -- if Fuhrman was such a racist and so anti-interracial couples, why wouldn't he have made sure the incident hit the papers then? he could have made big bucks. but, according to the NG's, he waited for years and then framed orenthal? geez. how far does this have to stretch before it busts? LOL

[weezer]

*Snipped* ". . .Four or more cases of abuse of citizens. . ."

:no: :no: if you believed what you say to be the truth, you wouldn't have to lie about it. imo

[tv]

Oj was at the trade show to sell jerseys, signatures and tee shirts. He had no reason to evaluate what others were selling or what the sponsers called the show.Good heavens, martin. Is there anything about OJ Simpson that you don't make an excuse about? He was signing autographs at a convention where people being killed by being slashed to death is glorified. That is an insult to his children, the Brown and Goldman families and undignified to himself. I don't think it's likely that he or his children would starve if he passed on venues such as that.

[tv]

FBG,

I hope this link works: http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1995/09/02/1995-09-02_fuhrman_coverup_charged__tea.html

I don't think Vincent B. wrote for Vanity Fair, I think Dominick Dunne. However, even if that is wrong, I have no issues with anyone writing a book on an infamous case.

However, both Hank Goldberg and Darden made comments about V.B's book and what he would have done if he was the DA in the case. In Goldberg's book, said that V.B. refuse to by the trial transcripts because they were too expensive. Darden made the comment that V.B. wanted to argue that OJ was not really black.

limakey, thanks for letting me know he didn't write for Vanity Fair. I knew that Dominick Dunne did and I just ASSUMED that martin was correct that Mr. Bugliosi did also. VB did not say that OJ Simpson wasn't really black. He was making the point that he had become a part of the white community in any possible way that he could. I don't defend everything that VB says or does. I thought his book on the trial was excellent. I disagree with his politics, religious views and other things. There are some people on this forum that refuse to admit that the magnificent Johnnie Cochran or OJ Simpson possess any flaws at all. It's just not realistic.

[Kate Sachel]

limakey, thanks for letting me know he didn't write for Vanity Fair. I knew that Dominick Dunne did and I just ASSUMED that martin was correct that Mr. Bugliosi did also. VB did not say that OJ Simpson wasn't really black. He was making the point that he had become a part of the white community in any possible way that he could. I don't defend everything that VB says or does. I thought his book on the trial was excellent. I disagree with his politics, religious views and other things. There are some people on this forum that refuse to admit that the magnificent Johnnie Cochran or OJ Simpson possess any flaws at all. It's just not realistic.

Very nicely said.

Kate

[tv]

Thanks, Kate, and it's very nice to see you. :)

[Kate Sachel]

Thanks, Kate, and it's very nice to see you. :)

Thank you. I've been following your posts. Very intelligent, very logical, and very willing to correct mistakes while standing firm in your core beliefs.

Very much to be admired.

Kate

[martin II]

Good heavens, martin. Is there anything about OJ Simpson that you don't make an excuse about? He was signing autographs at a convention where people being killed by being slashed to death is glorified. That is an insult to his children, the Brown and Goldman families and undignified to himself. I don't think it's likely that he or his children would starve if he passed on venues such as that.

do you find the same indination when Friday 13 movies or any of the many many movies are shown on nbc.fox,abc etc or at your locak neighborhood theather.

'slasher" 'Horrow Movie" trade shows are only popular because a large sedgement of the American public enjoy these type horrow movies.WTH is wrong with horrow movies. is it only because oj sold tee shirts there that Horrow movies are now wrong. What is wrong with people selling movies.Tatoos, Retro biker clothes etc.Tee shirts and handcuffs.hahaha
Much too much is made because the marketing title. oj was not the only sports person selling goods.

[martin II]

limakey, thanks for letting me know he didn't write for Vanity Fair. I knew that Dominick Dunne did and I just ASSUMED that martin was correct that Mr. Bugliosi did also. VB did not say that OJ Simpson wasn't really black. He was making the point that he had become a part of the white community in any possible way that he could. I don't defend everything that VB says or does. I thought his book on the trial was excellent. I disagree with his politics, religious views and other things. There are some people on this forum that refuse to admit that the magnificent Johnnie Cochran or OJ Simpson possess any flaws at all. It's just not realistic.

TV
was VB making a point that oj as a black man should not have purchased a nice house in a white community like Brentwood.That he should not have accepted contracts from a white company Hertz to represent them or NBC a white media company to do color sidelins comentary or that he should have never married a blond blue eyed woman. Exactly what do you believe he meant by that statement.

[William Anthony]

So if they don't understand it, as some stated, they just ignore it, iyo? The prosecution can't always be expected to convey evidence to a pool of jury members that are incapable of understanding scientific data. You can only "dumb down" some evidence so much, imo.

I realize that you may not have understood and I am not singling you out. Many did not understand what the dream team was able to do long before the DNA evidence was introduced. It was a magnificent strategy, imho, which caused the prosecution to fail. It had nothing to do with dumb down, imho. It had to do with proving your case and persuading the jury to accept your (the prosecution's) view of the evidence.

[William Anthony]

Let us be clear martin, since it is quite obvious that you read my posts though I suspect I know the reason behind why you don't directly respond to them, that considering and reviewing the evidence are two different things.

When a juror states that they did not consider evidence, which they are in fact required to do before determining what they give weight to, and that blood evidence was something they did not care about, I believe it rightfully raises a flag for people.

It is my belief that had the jury voted guilty and a juror had stated that evidence regarding evidence tampering was not important to them so they simply didn't consider it, you would be outraged.

Kate

The jury is only required to hear/listen to the all the evidence and form no conclusions until all the evidence is presented. At the close of the trial, and, after they have received the jury instructions, they then begin the process of deliberations (consideration of the credibility and weight to be given the evidence). It would be useless and a waste of time, energy and financial resources for the jury to consider evidence that they believed was weightless or lacking in credibility.

As far as the evidence of planting goes, the jury heard the evidence and the arguments pro and con as it relates to planting. It was their determination to give weight and credibility to the evidence. If they chose not to consider the evidence of planting, that would have been their decision, which I would not have been outraged about and would have respected their choice, even though I may not personally agree with the choice, not to consider it. I would not be making negative comments about their decision or them, (which is not to say that you have) only that I disagree with that choice.

[tv]

Thank you. I've been following your posts. Very intelligent, very logical, and very willing to correct mistakes while standing firm in your core beliefs.

Very much to be admired.

Kate

Thank you for your kind words. I follow your posts also and when you post it's always a bright spot on this board.

[William Anthony]

which has never made sense to me -- if Fuhrman was such a racist and so anti-interracial couples, why wouldn't he have made sure the incident hit the papers then? he could have made big bucks. but, according to the NG's, he waited for years and then framed orenthal? geez. how far does this have to stretch before it busts? LOL

The media usually have reporters that cover the courtrooms. If the incident was not reported, perhaps the media did not find the story newsworthy. Perhaps, MF did try to leak and/or sell the story and the media rejected it. Yes, I think this double murder presented the perfect opportunity for the racist, as conceded by the prosecution, interracial hating, as supported by the evidence, evidence planting, as supported by direct evidence, perjurer, as supported by direct evidence, detective to involve Simpson in two brutal murders.

[tv]

TV
was VB making a point that oj as a black man should not have purchased a nice house in a white community like Brentwood.That he should not have accepted contracts from a white company Hertz to represent them or NBC a white media company to do color sidelins comentary or that he should have never married a blond blue eyed woman. Exactly what do you believe he meant by that statement.

My suggestion is to read his book and interpret his meaning for yourself.

[William Anthony]

limakey, thanks for letting me know he didn't write for Vanity Fair. I knew that Dominick Dunne did and I just ASSUMED that martin was correct that Mr. Bugliosi did also. VB did not say that OJ Simpson wasn't really black. He was making the point that he had become a part of the white community in any possible way that he could. I don't defend everything that VB says or does. I thought his book on the trial was excellent. I disagree with his politics, religious views and other things. There are some people on this forum that refuse to admit that the magnificent Johnnie Cochran or OJ Simpson possess any flaws at all. It's just not realistic.

I believe that all humans possess flaws. However, what can be disputed is whether they possess all the flaws attributed to them by others. I admit that the evidence supports that the magnificent one was a womanizer and that Simpson committed spousal abuse.

[tv]

do you find the same indination when Friday 13 movies or any of the many many movies are shown on nbc.fox,abc etc or at your locak neighborhood theather.

'slasher" 'Horrow Movie" trade shows are only popular because a large sedgement of the American public enjoy these type horrow movies.WTH is wrong with horrow movies. is it only because oj sold tee shirts there that Horrow movies are now wrong. What is wrong with people selling movies.Tatoos, Retro biker clothes etc.Tee shirts and handcuffs.hahaha
Much too much is made because the marketing title. oj was not the only sports person selling goods.

I'll bet he was the only one signing autogjraphs whose ex-wife had been slashed to death. That's the point whether you will acknowledge it or not.

[William Anthony]

TV
was VB making a point that oj as a black man should not have purchased a nice house in a white community like Brentwood.That he should not have accepted contracts from a white company Hertz to represent them or NBC a white media company to do color sidelins comentary or that he should have never married a blond blue eyed woman. Exactly what do you believe he meant by that statement.

Martin,

You know that Simpson was tan, :), except on the cover of that magazine.:)

[tv]

I believe that all humans possess flaws. However, what can be disputed is whether they possess all the flaws attributed to them by others. I admit that the evidence supports that the magnificent one was a womanizer and that Simpson committed spousal abuse.
Thank you, William. :)

[William Anthony]

Thank you, William. :)

No thanks necessary. The magnificent one's magnificence had to do with his prowess in the courtroom, imho, not elsewhere. :)

[martin II]

I'll bet he was the only one signing autogjraphs whose ex-wife had been slashed to death. That's the point whether you will acknowledge it or not.

He said he did not kill anyone so why should he be concerned about what some think about how he makes pocket change from people that are willing to pay good money for his autographs on a football jersey. It seems that not everyone hates oj.
:cool:

[martin II]

Martin,

You know that Simpson was tan, :), except on the cover of that magazine.:)

I assume that the magazine making oj appear many shades darker than he actually was, was a effort to inform the public that he was actually a dark skin black person which indicated to some that he was a black criminal more sinister and not like most white men and therefore could be considered guilty of murder. The idea imo was to make him look like a n.

[martin II]

I believe a dead man could have extracted a guilty conviction against Charles Manson. so vb did not show much legal skills in doing so.With a 98% conviction rate in la against defendants, almost anyone could be a successful prosecutor there except M CLARKE and C DARDEN. VB has lives off of that convicton for what, 30 years or more.

[William Anthony]

I assume that the magazine making oj appear many shades darker than he actually was, was a effort to inform the public that he was actually a dark skin black person which indicated to some that he was a black criminal more sinister and not like most white men and therefore could be considered guilty of murder. The idea imo was to make him look like a n.

I think it goes back as far as white cowboy hats and black ones, angel food cake and devil food cake.

[William Anthony]

I believe a dead man could have extracted a guilty conviction against Charles Manson. so vb did not show much legal skills in doing so.With a 98% conviction rate in la against defendants, almost anyone could be a successful prosecutor there except M CLARKE and C DARDEN. VB has lives off of that convicton for what, 30 years or more.

Didn't Charlie convict himself?

[martin II]

I think it goes back as far as white cowboy hats and black ones, angel food cake and devil food cake.

And black Fiday and white beginning. vilians dressed in black clothing and white saviors dressed in white ridding in on a white horse.or mighty joe young
a black gorilla holding a tiny blond dressed in white sleeping clothes.

[martin II]

Didn't Charlie convict himself?

Yes charlie and all of his "assistants" .so no great lawyering there.One could say Charlie was working with vb to get everyon put in jail.

[William Anthony]

And black Fiday and white beginning. vilians dressed in black clothing and white saviors dressed in white ridding in on a white horse.or mighty joe young
a black gorilla holding a tiny blond dressed in white sleeping clothes.

During FDR's administration, there was Black Monday and don't forget the little white lie (I think that is what some think about MF's perjury).

[William Anthony]

Yes charlie and all of his "assistants" .so no great lawyering there.One could say Charlie was working with vb to get everyon put in jail.

I thought Charlie and his assistants prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.:)

[William Anthony]

This from the cross of the prosecution's fourth witness.

"Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: MR. SHIPP, YOU WERE EMPLOYED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR ABOUT 15 YEARS?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND ONE OF THE DUTIES OF A LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER IS TO TESTIFY IN COURTS, TRUE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: IN FACT, BEFORE YOU WERE ABLE TO BEGIN WORKING AS A PATROL OFFICER, YOU HAD TO GO THROUGH THE POLICE ACADEMY?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND THERE WERE CLASSES AND TRAINING SESSIONS EDUCATING THE RECRUITS ABOUT HOW TO TESTIFY IN COURT?

A: THIS IS TRUE. "

I think this shows that all LE were familiar with how to testify, including MF.

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .I admit that the evidence supports that the magnificent one was a womanizer. . ."

don't forget your hero also liked to slap women around -- or at least the ones he lived with.

[weezer]

I assume that the magazine making oj appear many shades darker than he actually was, was a effort to inform the public that he was actually a dark skin black person which indicated to some that he was a black criminal more sinister and not like most white men and therefore could be considered guilty of murder. The idea imo was to make him look like a n.

thud -- I didn't see that coming! Are you telling me that orenthal is black? :eek:

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .so why should he be concerned about what some think about how he makes pocket change. . ."

I hear the IRS is VERY interested in the 'pocket change' he's made over the years. :eek:

[tv]

He said he did not kill anyone so why should he be concerned about what some think about how he makes pocket change from people that are willing to pay good money for his autographs on a football jersey. It seems that not everyone hates oj.
:cool:

martin, if you don't see anything wrong with going to a gore convention when the mother of your children has been slashed to death then you and I have different ideas of what is decent behavior. Different strokes for different folks I guess. :shrug:

[tv]

martin and William, you are OFF-TOPIC with the discussion of the Manson trial.

[martin II]

martin and William, you are OFF-TOPIC with the discussion of the Manson trial.

the subject is vb your hero that took credit when manson convicted himself.imo

[martin II]

martin, if you don't see anything wrong with going to a gore convention when the mother of your children has been slashed to death then you and I have different ideas of what is decent behavior. Different strokes for different folks I guess. :shrug:

i try not to press my moral values on others.

[limakey]

J. Bell,

I made sure that when I posted about Fuhrman's interesting comment that I left out the actual comment and you automatically knew what I was talking about. He remember this case so clearly because of Mr. Simpson being celebrity---which directly supports my comments on why no other police officer responded to the call out. Why none of these other officers didn't come forward after Nicole was murdered.

I met Mr. Simpson over 40 years ago, I can still remember the comments he made to me and my family.

That was the point that I was trying to make.

[limakey]

Martin and William,

While I agree that MF is a racist to his very core, I do believe it is a mistake to assume that this race challenged person may have planted the glove because of his racism.

IMO, I believe that the glove was planted. However, in reading MF's book, I do believe that if he did plant the glove, it was done more because he was convinced that Simpson was guilty and that Nicole obviously paid no attention to the warning her gave her in 1985.

If you take Fuhrman's race challenged views out of this case, don't you think the defense would have a powerful arguement with Fuhrman responding to the 1985 incident and writing a report about it 5 years later on it, was pretty much convinced that Simpson probably did this?

[limakey]

TV Dinner,

Chris Darden made that comment about VB wanting the DA's to say that Simpson wasn't black---that he turned his back on his community and therefore the jury should have held this against him. I believe VB made the statement that he would have called Jim Brown and other famous black people to say that Simpson totally rejected his blackness because he lived his life as a white man.

VB also made the comment that OJ couldn't find his way to the 'hood even if someone drew him a map. What does any of this have to do the trial? And does his statement only apply to black people? How many white people who become rich and famous move out their "hoods"?

Also, to be fair, Mr. Simpson was the first black man who transender color in the eyes of the very white corporate world. Mr. Simpson opened up this door and several former athletes have been able to walk through it. Mr. Simpson also played a major role in getting a pension plan for players as well as setting up programs to help former pro athletes make a smooth tranistion into the "civilian" world. He personally saw several major sports stars lose everything they had after they retired from the sport. He was not going to make that mistake and he helped make sure that others didn't make it as well. He was also instrumental in setting up programs where if a player gets injured and can no longer play game, they receive compensation for the rest of their lives.

There is no evidence that Mr. Simpson ever forgot his hertitage, there is no evidence to support that the only reason he married Nicole was because it would help to further his career. However, there is evidence that Nicole's father had a problem with OJ being black and Mr. Simpson's mother as well as a few other family members had a problem with Nicole being white. There is no evidence to support that OJ only married Nicole because she was white and there is no evidence that Nicole only married a black man because he was a rich and famous black man.

Last point or should I say question. If you are white and one day you are driving around and you see your "dream house" for sale. It is the house that you always pictured in your mind and now you found it and it was for sale and you had the money to buy it and you bought it right then and there. You are so happy about having your dream house and you invite all your neighbors to your house warming and evey one of your neighbors black, does that mean you want to be black?

[limakey]

J. Bell,

I believe MF truly believed Mr. Simpson was guilty. I believe Mr. Simpson to be innocent. However, I can understand the concept that many people believe Simpson was guilty but the jury verdict was correct.

[William Anthony]

Martin and William,

While I agree that MF is a racist to his very core, I do believe it is a mistake to assume that this race challenged person may have planted the glove because of his racism.

IMO, I believe that the glove was planted. However, in reading MF's book, I do believe that if he did plant the glove, it was done more because he was convinced that Simpson was guilty and that Nicole obviously paid no attention to the warning her gave her in 1985.

If you take Fuhrman's race challenged views out of this case, don't you think the defense would have a powerful arguement with Fuhrman responding to the 1985 incident and writing a report about it 5 years later on it, was pretty much convinced that Simpson probably did this?

How can you take race out of the trial? It is what it is. MF denied, under oath using the N word. The idea that Nicole paid no attention to his warning ties into his hatred of interracial couples, imho.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=limakey;9105469]TV Dinner,

Chris Darden made that comment about VB wanting the DA's to say that Simpson wasn't black---that he turned his back on his community and therefore the jury should have held this against him. I believe VB made the statement that he would have called Jim Brown and other famous black people to say that Simpson totally rejected his blackness because he lived his life as a white man.

VB also made the comment that OJ couldn't find his way to the 'hood even if someone drew him a map. What does any of this have to do the trial? And does his statement only apply to black people? How many white people who become rich and famous move out their "hoods"?

Editing again. Sorry. Agree absolutely with your 2nd paragraph. Last sentence of your 1st appears to contradict the rest of your post. The Simpson case was and continues to be all about double murder and race. If Nicole and Ron had been African Americans it would still have been newsworthy but not at this level. If OJ had been white it would still have been newsworthy but not at this level. The 'racial card' is still being played. It was from the get go and continues to be. Your post I'm replying to is about it. I agree with you that there is no evidence Simpson married Nicole because she was white or that she married him because he was rich and famous. And I appreciate your fairness in stating that there was tension from both families because both were marrying people of different race.

You are also quite correct when you say that many people believe Simpson to be guilty. They do. I also point out that the jury had to deal with a 2nd rate prosecution and a judge who should have known better.

No Black man can live as a White man in America, unless he is so light as to pass for White, imho. What do you call a educated Black man in America?

A judge that should have known better than what?

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9105487]

William, race issues. I don't know. What do you call an educated black man in America? Democratic nominee for the 2008 Presidential election? Ito? Dancing Ito's made more sense.

That democratic nominee has faced the race issue and attempted to be held accountable for the words that come out of the mouths of others. It was even suggested that this Black man could be assassinated by his democratic opponent. I have said that America's future may be improved by the younger generation, a lot of whom are of mixed lineage (I know that MF must be slithering in anger). Can you, without coining a phrase, tell me what you think Ito should have known better about.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9105491]

Come On William. You've just had a high school debate point scored against you. It was even suggested that this Black man could be assassinated by his democratic opponent. William what has this to do with Simpson? I would have thought you'd be proud to have an African American running for the White House. You surely aren't suggesting that Hillary Clinton would attempt to have her opponent assasinated?:eek:

If we are going to the level of high school, the word is spelled assassinated. With that said, those were Hilary's words, and she gave the example. Obama is not the first Black that ran for the White House. He is, however, to the best of my knowledge, the first with a White mother and a Black father. Therefore, I think that all who support him would be proud, Black and White. I guess it could be said that he is neither Black nor White. What do you think? The truth is that he is considered Black because of the color of his skin. Other than in polite conversation, what do you call an educated Black man in America. Dare we say, Mr. President?

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9105496]

Ah William. Before I reply the word is spelt assassinated. As I posted.:no:

This is your post in which you quoted mine using assassinated.

Come On William. You've just had a high school debate point scored against you. It was even suggested that this Black man could be assassinated by his democratic opponent.(my spelling)

" William what has this to do with Simpson? I would have thought you'd be proud to have an African American running for the White House. You surely aren't suggesting that Hillary Clinton would attempt to have her opponent assasinated?" (your spelling). You will see that you spelled it assasinated, which I believe is a high school error. Thanks.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9105496]

Ah William. Before I reply the word is spelt assassinated. As I posted.:no:

Ah Mr. Bell, you may be Australian, as indicated by your use of the word spelt and your posts indicating it is night time for you. If I am correct, this may help to understand some of the problems in communication.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9105500]

William I was just about to post heaps of other stuff but it must be very early morning for you and it's getting late for me. Check my spelling as in defence. For my interest how did you twig I'm an Aussie?

Yep.

[martin II]

TV Dinner,

Chris Darden made that comment about VB wanting the DA's to say that Simpson wasn't black---that he turned his back on his community and therefore the jury should have held this against him. I believe VB made the statement that he would have called Jim Brown and other famous black people to say that Simpson totally rejected his blackness because he lived his life as a white man.

VB also made the comment that OJ couldn't find his way to the 'hood even if someone drew him a map. What does any of this have to do the trial? And does his statement only apply to black people? How many white people who become rich and famous move out their "hoods"?

Also, to be fair, Mr. Simpson was the first black man who transender color in the eyes of the very white corporate world. Mr. Simpson opened up this door and several former athletes have been able to walk through it. Mr. Simpson also played a major role in getting a pension plan for players as well as setting up programs to help former pro athletes make a smooth tranistion into the "civilian" world. He personally saw several major sports stars lose everything they had after they retired from the sport. He was not going to make that mistake and he helped make sure that others didn't make it as well. He was also instrumental in setting up programs where if a player gets injured and can no longer play game, they receive compensation for the rest of their lives.

There is no evidence that Mr. Simpson ever forgot his hertitage, there is no evidence to support that the only reason he married Nicole was because it would help to further his career. However, there is evidence that Nicole's father had a problem with OJ being black and Mr. Simpson's mother as well as a few other family members had a problem with Nicole being white. There is no evidence to support that OJ only married Nicole because she was white and there is no evidence that Nicole only married a black man because he was a rich and famous black man.

Last point or should I say question. If you are white and one day you are driving around and you see your "dream house" for sale. It is the house that you always pictured in your mind and now you found it and it was for sale and you had the money to buy it and you bought it right then and there. You are so happy about having your dream house and you invite all your neighbors to your house warming and evey one of your neighbors black, does that mean you want to be black?

Limakey
Very good last quesiton. some say oj, by buying a house in Brentwood meant he wanted to be white.That is like saying he had no right to buy a house in a white community.
VB injecting this argument into his writtings shows how he was willing to interject a false race issue into the trial to try to ring up some anger with the jury for oj buying a house in that community.Which is why i have never respected his comments.
It seems vb is saying oj because he was blacks hould have never moved from the ghetto and that his place was not in a white community.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9105500]

William I was just about to post heaps of other stuff but it must be very early morning for you and it's getting late for me. Check my spelling as in defence. For my interest how did you twig I'm an Aussie?

Bell

I received a e-mail from a Aussie pal in NZ last week and he did use that word Spelt in his comments.
I am American Are you Aussie?

[martin II]

What a load of rubbish!

VB rubbish.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9105503]

Means didldy squat. Yep for my spelling or yep for the time difference? It's 10.14pm Friday June 27.

Yep.

[tv]

VB rubbish.

martin, I'm sorry I ever mentioned Mr. Bugliosi on this board. You have completely misunderstood what he was trying to say in his book because you haven't read it. There is a very good section where he includes an article he wrote on police brutality in 1992 after the Rodney King verdict. I think you would agree with many things that he includes in the article. However, you've done nothing but make fun of and show contempt for Mr. Bugliosi so I won't be mentioning him or any of his observations on the trial in the future. I'm sorry I used him for a source because I certainly have received nothing but ridicule from you and from William...you guys can give it a rest now.

[martin II]

Martin. I am an Australian. Born bred and proud to be. However Simpson is a topic I will continue to discuss. I don't drink VB. If that's the only idea you have of us then maybe we need to discuss Simpson way more. Because I don't think you appreciate what happens in the US affects us all. I happened to be in LA when all the madness about his trial began. I walked past where he would be tried and there were these huge bleachers and TV and satellite dishes. That spiked my interest in him. I knew nothing about him before that.

twig gave you away.

Maby you should have stayed for the trial to be more informed.
The Oj trial effected Austrilians how.How did that HUGH Aussie black population respond to the verdict.:cool:

[martin II]

martin, I'm sorry I ever mentioned Mr. Bugliosi on this board. You have completely misunderstood what he was trying to say in his book because you haven't read it. There is a very good section where he includes an article he wrote on police brutality in 1992 after the Rodney King verdict. I think you would agree with many things that he includes in the article. However, you've done nothing but make fun of and show contempt for Mr. Bugliosi so I won't be mentioning him or any of his observations on the trial in the future. I'm sorry I used him for a source because I certainly have received nothing but ridicule from you and from William...you guys can give it a rest now.

How did you receive VB comments about OJ not being black? Or trying not to be black.

[tv]

i try not to press my moral values on others.

You better watch out -- your nose may start growing. :D

[tv]

How did you receive VB comments about OJ not being black? Or trying not to be black.

I will repeat just in case you didn't catch it in my other post to you: I'm no longer discussing Vincent Bugliosi. If you want to know what he said and what he meant read the book for yourself but don't make any comments to me about it.

[martin II]

You better watch out -- your nose may start growing. :D

Thats really funny and one of the reasons i post to you.
I always try to hold it in.hahahaha

[martin II]

I will repeat just in case you didn't catch it in my other post to you: I'm no longer discussing Vincent Bugliosi. If you want to know what he said and what he meant read the book for yourself but don't make any comments to me about it.

ok
i will not post about vb to you.

[tv]

Thats really funny and one of the reasons i post to you.
I always try to hold it in.hahahaha

Oh, don't hold it in. Laughter is good for the soul. You really wouldn't believe how much laughing I do when reading this board. I also roll my eyes alot and even slap the top of the computer desk sometimes. All in a day on the OJ forum...

[Kate Sachel]

twig gave you away.

Maby you should have stayed for the trial to be more informed.
The Oj trial effected Austrilians how.How did that HUGH Aussie black population respond to the verdict.:cool:

I think that there are certain points in any type of case such as this that can affect people of different areas. I don't think the population of blacks in Australia has to determine whether or not it affected people there.

Kate

[martin II]

Oh, don't hold it in. Laughter is good for the soul. You really wouldn't believe how much laughing I do when reading this board. I also roll my eyes alot and even slap the top of the computer desk sometimes. All in a day on the OJ forum...

TV
I try to hold it in so i will not look like a Bush.
Or Mazzola, fung, vanhatter, Martz and a few others that the prosecution brought us.imo

[tv]

TV
I try to hold it in so i will not look like a Bush.
Or Mazzola, fung, vanhatter, Martz and a few others that the prosecution brought us.imo

:punch:

[limakey]

William,

My point was that racism was not the only motivate for any police misconduct.

I'll ask the same question, lets say another detective found that glove behind the wall and this officer has a pristine racial record, what questions would not have been asked about it? How were the DA's going to explain the lack of trace evidence? How were they going to explain and prove that the thumps Kato heard had anything to do with the murders?

While I think MF is a vile person, it does not mean that his only motive was racial hatered.

Also, there is no way anyone will ever convince me that the lead detectives in this case did not suspect OJ Simpson from the moment they were told of the murders and who the victim was.

IMO, the DA's used Mark Fuhrman's racism as their number one scapegoat.

Also, I do find it odd that Marcia Clark refused to let Fuhrman or Roberts testify about the socks in the bedroom.

I meant no offense to any African-American on this board. I truly believe that it was the DA's who played the race card in the trial. Also, I truly hate that term "race card", however, it is what it is.

[socaldiva]

I believe a dead man could have extracted a guilty conviction against Charles Manson. so vb did not show much legal skills in doing so.With a 98% conviction rate in la against defendants, almost anyone could be a successful prosecutor there except M CLARKE and C DARDEN. VB has lives off of that convicton for what, 30 years or more.

Once again you've proved your beliefs are not supported by facts & reality.
I suppose you also think that all L.A. Prosecutors have a 98% conviction rate. :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

William,

My point was that racism was not the only motivate for any police misconduct.

I'll ask the same question, lets say another detective found that glove behind the wall and this officer has a pristine racial record, what questions would not have been asked about it? How were the DA's going to explain the lack of trace evidence? How were they going to explain and prove that the thumps Kato heard had anything to do with the murders?

While I think MF is a vile person, it does not mean that his only motive was racial hatered.

Also, there is no way anyone will ever convince me that the lead detectives in this case did not suspect OJ Simpson from the moment they were told of the murders and who the victim was.

IMO, the DA's used Mark Fuhrman's racism as their number one scapegoat.

Also, I do find it odd that Marcia Clark refused to let Fuhrman or Roberts testify about the socks in the bedroom.

I meant no offense to any African-American on this board. I truly believe that it was the DA's who played the race card in the trial. Also, I truly hate that term "race card", however, it is what it is.

I only meant that MF's racism could not be ruled out as it applies to his motivation. We cannot take evidence from a case and ask what ifs, imho. I did not take offense at anything you have posted.

[martin II]

William,

My point was that racism was not the only motivate for any police misconduct.

I'll ask the same question, lets say another detective found that glove behind the wall and this officer has a pristine racial record, what questions would not have been asked about it? How were the DA's going to explain the lack of trace evidence? How were they going to explain and prove that the thumps Kato heard had anything to do with the murders?

While I think MF is a vile person, it does not mean that his only motive was racial hatered.

Also, there is no way anyone will ever convince me that the lead detectives in this case did not suspect OJ Simpson from the moment they were told of the murders and who the victim was.

IMO, the DA's used Mark Fuhrman's racism as their number one scapegoat.

Also, I do find it odd that Marcia Clark refused to let Fuhrman or Roberts testify about the socks in the bedroom.

I meant no offense to any African-American on this board. I truly believe that it was the DA's who played the race card in the trial. Also, I truly hate that term "race card", however, it is what it is.


Limakey
I believe ALL of your post have added much value to this thread and i take no offense to anything your have posted.

[martin II]

Hi. Are you saying that you think Simpson was guilty, or Fuhrman thought Simpson was guilty or Simpson's defence thought Simpson was guilty?:confused:

I see you are STILL having serious comprehension problem with plain english words.

[William Anthony]

This from the redirect of the prosecution's fifth witness.


"REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: INVESTIGATOR STEVENS, YOU DESCRIBED THE THREE LETTERS THAT WE DISPLAYED AS AN APOLOGY?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THERE ANYTHING IN THOSE LETTERS THAT MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT A MUTUAL WRESTLING MATCH?

MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. THE LETTERS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. THE JURORS HAVE SEEN THE LETTERS. IMPROPER REDIRECT.

THE COURT: CORRECT. ALL THE INVESTIGATOR DID WAS SEIZE THE LETTERS. HE IS NOT THE INTERPRETER.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: COULDN'T THE LETTERS BE CHARACTERIZED MORE AS A CONFESSION AS OPPOSED TO AN APOLOGY?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE AND COUNSEL KNOWS IT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. COUNSEL, THE LETTERS HAVE BEEN EXHIBITED IN THEIR ENTIRETY TO THE JURY. THEY CAN CHARACTERIZE IT AS THEY WISH.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE COUNSEL'S REMARK. "

The magnificent one got the witness to admit the letter (from Simpson in the safe deposit box) was an apology. Is it any wonder the prosecution lost, by this excerpt?

[martin II]

I only meant that MF's racism could not be ruled out as it applies to his motivation. We cannot take evidence from a case and ask what ifs, imho. I did not take offense at anything you have posted.

I think that furhman being who he was, would automatically shift into his racist gear when he realized the victim was Nicole and then into his manipulating of evidence gears (his regular actrivity) to make sure oj was the defendant. This is evident by his reason/desire to be eager to go to ojs house and then to jump the oj wall to get into the property and do his own investigation by himself as early as possible.

[William Anthony]

I think that furhman being who he was, would automatically shift into his racist gear when he realized the victim was Nicole and then into his manipulating of evidence gears (his regular actrivity) to make sure oj was the defendant. This is evident by his reason/desire to be eager to go to ojs house and then to jump the oj wall to get into the property and do his own investigation by himself as early as possible.

I did not intend to rule out MF's quest for fame and fortune. Although most of America has excused his conduct, bought his books and allowed him to be on tv, I think he will always be, imho, more infamous than famous. I am not sure that the last witness was LE. He was an investigator.

[William Anthony]

It seems thus far that the officers, who were trained to testify in court, were not trained to testify against the likes of the dream team, imho.

[William Anthony]

martin, I'm sorry I ever mentioned Mr. Bugliosi on this board. You have completely misunderstood what he was trying to say in his book because you haven't read it. There is a very good section where he includes an article he wrote on police brutality in 1992 after the Rodney King verdict. I think you would agree with many things that he includes in the article. However, you've done nothing but make fun of and show contempt for Mr. Bugliosi so I won't be mentioning him or any of his observations on the trial in the future. I'm sorry I used him for a source because I certainly have received nothing but ridicule from you and from William...you guys can give it a rest now.

No ridicule from me. I have withstood all the comments on who posters believe my hero to be. Our comments pale in comparison. :)

[William Anthony]

I think that there are certain points in any type of case such as this that can affect people of different areas. I don't think the population of blacks in Australia has to determine whether or not it affected people there.

Kate

I really have not studied Blacks in Australia. Do they suffer the same type of disparate treatment by LE?

[weezer]

I really have not studied Blacks in Australia. Do they suffer the same type of disparate treatment by LE?

om my -- now the whole world is about you! LOL

[William Anthony]

om my -- now the whole world is about you! LOL

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :cool:

[martin II]

I really have not studied Blacks in Australia. Do they suffer the same type of disparate treatment by LE?

ABORIGINAL The origional people before the invaders are 1 maby 2%
of the population.

[William Anthony]

ABORIGINAL The origional people before the invaders are 1 maby 2%
of the population.

Very interesting.

[William Anthony]

Cross of the sixth prosecution witness, the 911 operator who took the October call.

"Q: AND YOU WERE ABLE TO ASCERTAIN DURING THE COURSE OF THAT TAPE THAT AT SOME POINT WHEN SHE FIRST STARTED TO TALK TO YOU THAT SHE WAS IN SOME PARTICULAR -- A BEDROOM, SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: DID YOU ASCERTAIN AT SOME POINT SHE LEFT THAT ROOM AND CAME DOWNSTAIRS TO THE KITCHEN PER HER CONVERSATION?

A: YES. MAYBE AT THE END WHEN I ASKED HER WHERE WAS SHE.

Q: AND YOU WERE ABLE TO DETERMINE, WERE YOU NOT, THAT DURING THIS ENTIRE TAPE AND DURING THE ENTIRE EPISODE, SHE WAS NEVER STRUCK BY THE GENTLEMAN WHO WAS IN THE BACKGROUND; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT AT OR ABOUT THE TIME OR SHORTLY AFTER THE TIME THAT SHE CAME DOWNSTAIRS, WERE YOU AWARE THAT THE POLICE ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THERE WAS ONE POINT DURING THE TAPE THAT SHE INDICATED THAT SHE WANTED TO GET OFF THE LINE, THAT SHE FELT SHE WANTED TO HANG UP THE PHONE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL OF THE POLICE?

A: YES.

Q: AND DURING THE COURSE OF THE TAPE, THE ONSET OF THE TAPE, YOU COULD HEAR A PERSON IN THE BACKGROUND, AND SHE TOLD YOU THAT PERSON WAS TALKING TO HER ROOMMATE OR MALE WHO LIVED IN THE BACK HOUSE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: SO AS YOU SAT THERE LISTENING, YOU BASICALLY HEARD THE SAME THINGS WE HEARD AND JUST CARRIED ON THIS CONVERSATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AT THE TIME THAT THE CONVERSATION ENDED, AT THAT TIME, YOU FELT OR YOU HAD INFORMATION THAT THE POLICE HAD ARRIVED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU FELT THE SITUATION WAS IN HAND"

[tv]

No ridicule from me. I have withstood all the comments on who posters believe my hero to be. Our comments pale in comparison. :)

Yes, you have ridiculed many times. Every comment made by posters that think OJ Simpson is guilty is met with remarks that Simpson's race is the answer to everything...such as we say he's guilty because he's black, we say he's guilty because whites can't stand to see blacks succeed, we say he's guilty because Ron and Nicole are white, we say he's guilty because even though LE framed him because he's black we think it's okay. You are always using the black experience to bash us over the heads. You need to realize that we don't give a rat's behind what color he is. When are you going to acknowledge that the people that think he's guilty think this because the evidence points to one person -- Orenthal James Simpson? Now you two have ventured off into how many black people live in Australia. For the love of heaven, give it a rest.

[martin II]

Yes, you have ridiculed many times. Every comment made by posters that think OJ Simpson is guilty is met with remarks that Simpson's race is the answer to everything...such as we say he's guilty because he's black, we say he's guilty because whites can't stand to see blacks succeed, we say he's guilty because Ron and Nicole are white, we say he's guilty because even though LE framed him because he's black we think it's okay. You are always using the black experience to bash us over the heads. You need to realize that we don't give a rat's behind what color he is. When are you going to acknowledge that the people that think he's guilty think this because the evidence points to one person -- Orenthal James Simpson? Now you two have ventured off into how many black people live in Australia. For the love of heaven, give it a rest.

tv
in this instance a poster posted some remarks by XX the screamer about ojs color.The Aussie fellow spoke about oj and i asked him if he was Aussie.that is how we got to AUSTRALIA.

i believe that evidence you believe in points to the fact that it was faulty and not believable by many.

[martin II]

Cross of the sixth prosecution witness, the 911 operator who took the October call.

"Q: AND YOU WERE ABLE TO ASCERTAIN DURING THE COURSE OF THAT TAPE THAT AT SOME POINT WHEN SHE FIRST STARTED TO TALK TO YOU THAT SHE WAS IN SOME PARTICULAR -- A BEDROOM, SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: DID YOU ASCERTAIN AT SOME POINT SHE LEFT THAT ROOM AND CAME DOWNSTAIRS TO THE KITCHEN PER HER CONVERSATION?

A: YES. MAYBE AT THE END WHEN I ASKED HER WHERE WAS SHE.

Q: AND YOU WERE ABLE TO DETERMINE, WERE YOU NOT, THAT DURING THIS ENTIRE TAPE AND DURING THE ENTIRE EPISODE, SHE WAS NEVER STRUCK BY THE GENTLEMAN WHO WAS IN THE BACKGROUND; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT AT OR ABOUT THE TIME OR SHORTLY AFTER THE TIME THAT SHE CAME DOWNSTAIRS, WERE YOU AWARE THAT THE POLICE ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THERE WAS ONE POINT DURING THE TAPE THAT SHE INDICATED THAT SHE WANTED TO GET OFF THE LINE, THAT SHE FELT SHE WANTED TO HANG UP THE PHONE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL OF THE POLICE?

A: YES.

Q: AND DURING THE COURSE OF THE TAPE, THE ONSET OF THE TAPE, YOU COULD HEAR A PERSON IN THE BACKGROUND, AND SHE TOLD YOU THAT PERSON WAS TALKING TO HER ROOMMATE OR MALE WHO LIVED IN THE BACK HOUSE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: SO AS YOU SAT THERE LISTENING, YOU BASICALLY HEARD THE SAME THINGS WE HEARD AND JUST CARRIED ON THIS CONVERSATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AT THE TIME THAT THE CONVERSATION ENDED, AT THAT TIME, YOU FELT OR YOU HAD INFORMATION THAT THE POLICE HAD ARRIVED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU FELT THE SITUATION WAS IN HAND"


I think this was GG.
OJ did not lay one finger on nicole.He had good reason to be angry that day.

[tv]

tv
in this instance a poster posted some remarks by XX the screamer about ojs color.The Aussie fellow spoke about oj and i asked him if he was Aussie.that is hiw we got to AUSTRALIA.

i believe that evidence you believe in points to the fact that it was faulty and not believable by many.

It doesn't matter to me how you got there. It was turning into a 'blacks are even mistreated in Australia' thing. I'd like to come to this board just one time and discuss the facts of the case instead of OJ Simpson being framed and evidence being planted because he's black. I realize it ain't ever going to happen but it would be nice.

[tv]

tv
in this instance a poster posted some remarks by XX the screamer about ojs color.The Aussie fellow spoke about oj and i asked him if he was Aussie.that is how we got to AUSTRALIA.

i believe that evidence you believe in points to the fact that it was faulty and not believable by many.I've asked nicely for you to not discuss Vincent Bugliosi with me. I will now add to please not discuss him with me in any form -- even using XX.

[martin II]

It doesn't matter to me how you got there. It was turning into a 'blacks are even mistreated in Australia' thing. I'd like to come to this board just one time and discuss the facts of the case instead of OJ Simpson being framed and evidence being planted because he's black. I realize it ain't ever going to happen but it would be nice.

The trial was about race as it was about murder. so don't blame me for that.
The media and the da had something to do with that. oj black nicole white in America.One poster in particular interjecte race when she post that the jury was ignorant and biased and voted not guilty to let a black man go free.When
people talk about a black panther salute they are talking about race. SO----

85% of whites thought oj was guiltry BEFORE the trial.

[tv]

The trial was about race as it was about murder. so don't blame me for that.
The media and the da had something to do with that. oj black nicole white in America.One poster in particular interjecte race when she post that the jury was ignorant and biased and voted not guilty to let a black man go free.When
people talk about a black panther salute they are talking about race. SO----
Here we go again...:rolleyes: I'm not up to this tonight. Have a lovely evening, martin.

[William Anthony]

Yes, you have ridiculed many times. Every comment made by posters that think OJ Simpson is guilty is met with remarks that Simpson's race is the answer to everything...such as we say he's guilty because he's black, we say he's guilty because whites can't stand to see blacks succeed, we say he's guilty because Ron and Nicole are white, we say he's guilty because even though LE framed him because he's black we think it's okay. You are always using the black experience to bash us over the heads. You need to realize that we don't give a rat's behind what color he is. When are you going to acknowledge that the people that think he's guilty think this because the evidence points to one person -- Orenthal James Simpson? Now you two have ventured off into how many black people live in Australia. For the love of heaven, give it a rest.

I have never claimed that Simpson's race is the answer to everything, In fact, I have posted on cross contamination, contamination, sloppy evidence handling and collecting, improper storage techniques, improper results, slanted testimony and missing blood, aside from the evidence of planting. It was you and others who claimed the defense played the race card and the jury was biased among other not so nice things in order to support your conviction of guilt. I admitted to not studying the Australian Blacks and, because a poster stated that the trial effected them, I wondered if they had experience disparate treatment at the hands of LE. Martin posted on the small percentage of Aboriginal population, which I found interesting. I did not create the issues in the trial and, in light of the claim that the jury was biased and that the defense played the race card, and that the defense improperly put LE on trial, I think that inevitably the subject of race and how the different races perceive treatment from LE and the underlying causes thereof, necessitates some discussion. Why would you consider it bashing? I have a message of change and equal inclusion. :)

[martin II]

It doesn't matter to me how you got there. It was turning into a 'blacks are even mistreated in Australia' thing. I'd like to come to this board just one time and discuss the facts of the case instead of OJ Simpson being framed and evidence being planted because he's black. I realize it ain't ever going to happen but it would be nice.

One theory of the case is that oj was framed by le planting of evedence.Those issues will be discussed as long as the case is discussed and as long as MAZZLOA and FUNG, vanhatter and other testimony is listed.OJ is black.

Have a nice rest.

[William Anthony]

One theory of the case is that oj was framed by le planting of evedence.Those issues will be discussed as long as the case is discussed and as long as MAZZLOA and FUNG, vanhatter and other testimony is listed.OJ is black.

Have a nice rest.

I really do not understand, when a conversation is in response to a part of a poster's post and they do like the progression of the discussion, they ask you to drop the subject. I think that a poster should be able to defend their posts or say that they do not agree with part of what they posted. I will admit that the poster, who asked you to drop the discussion, did so in a much politer way than the poster, who ordered me to get back on topic, after he took it off topic.

Can you understand me saying that an Irish man that married a Black woman and lived in a Black neighborhood, was not Irish? I could understand VB saying Simpson was not White.

[William Anthony]

I think this was GG.
OJ did not lay one finger on nicole.He had good reason to be angry that day.

Yes. It seems that this would negate the claim that he was not able to control his wage. In anticipation of the discussion that Simpson was aware Nicole had called the police and acted in secret on the night of June 12th, I would ask what made that night so different from any other. The prosecution has never, imho, presented a reason why that particular night was different. I think that, when the prosecution decided to enter evidence of domestic abuse, they had to explain why he chose and what prompted his to choose this particular night to commit murder. Imho, that was another of the prosecution's failures.

[martin II]

Yes. It seems that this would negate the claim that he was not able to control his wage. In anticipation of the discussion that Simpson was aware Nicole had called the police and acted in secret on the night of June 12th, I would ask what made that night so different from any other. The prosecution has never, imho, presented a reason why that particular night was different. I think that, when the prosecution decided to enter evidence of domestic abuse, they had to explain why he chose and what prompted his to choose this particular night to commit murder. Imho, that was another of the prosecution's failures.

If he did not harm her the night he saw her with KZ on that couch then he would never harm her.imo

[martin II]

I really do not understand, when a conversation is in response to a part of a poster's post and they do like the progression of the discussion, they ask you to drop the subject. I think that a poster should be able to defend their posts or say that they do not agree with part of what they posted. I will admit that the poster, who asked you to drop the discussion, did so in a much politer way than the poster, who ordered me to get back on topic, after he took it off topic.

Can you understand me saying that an Irish man that married a Black woman and lived in a Black neighborhood, was not Irish? I could understand VB saying Simpson was not White.

I know everyone stays who they are. i also believe vbs comment about ojs race indicated a underlinnig racial attitude against oj by him and this is why i give his writtings little value. He is the only true prosecutor and defense lawyer as far as he is concerned.:flamemad:

[William Anthony]

I know everyone stays who they are. i also believe vbs comment about ojs race indicated a underlinnig racial attitude against oj by him and this is why i give his writtings little value. He is the only true prosecutor and defense lawyer as far as he is concerned.:flamemad:

This is what I do not understand, if it was not a racial comment. How can I tell an Irish man how to be Irish? Should I tell him, because he married a Black woman, that he is not Irish? Should I tell him that, because he chose to live in a Black neighborhood, he is not Irish? I can tell him that, because he married a Black woman and lives in a Black neighborhood, does not make him Black.This is what VB was saying about Simpson, imho, which was that he was not White. It seems to me that VB had a problem with whom Simpson married and where Simpson lived.

[martin II]

This is what I do not understand, if it was not a racial comment. How can I tell an Irish man how to be Irish? Should I tell him, because he married a Black woman, that he is not Irish? Should I tell him that, because he chose to live in a Black neighborhood, he is not Irish? I can tell him that, because he married a Black woman and lives in a Black neighborhood, does not make him Black.This is what VB was saying about Simpson, imho, which was that he was not White. It seems to me that VB had a problem with whom Simpson married and where Simpson lived.

VB in his statement about ojs race was prepared to out himself. He had a problem with the black guy marring the blue eyed white blond living in that big house on the corner lot. He didn't believe oj belonged there.
Everything he wrote after that was tainted by his race comments.

For some reason he thought he was the prosecutor in the case, maby he is a little senile, and so as not give the defense credit, he just jumped all over the prosecution as if he would have produced the opposite results against the dream team.

He has lived on the fact that Charles Manson convicted himself for BV and it seems he intends to ride that horse until he drops.

some that support him are able to ignore his racist comments just as they do with The Furhman. :cool:

[William Anthony]

VB in his statement about ojs race was prepared to out himself. He had a problem with the black guy marring the blue eyed white blond living in that big house on the corner lot. He didn't believe oj belonged there.
Everything he wrote after that was tainted by his race comments.

For some reason he thought he was the prosecutor in the case, maby he is a little senile, and so as not give the defense credit, he just jumped all over the prosecution as if he would have produced the opposite results against the dream team.

He has lived on the fact that Charles Manson convicted himself for BV and it seems he intends to ride that horse until he drops.

some that support him are able to ignore his racist comments just as they do with The Furhman. :cool:

Exactly, some want to post comments that are all about race without stating the word race. Then when posters tend to respond mentioning why some Blacks may feel as they do about the issues in the case, some of the same posters want to say that those posters have a victim mentality and do not want to discuss race. It seems to me that those poster who post racial comments but do not want to discuss their posts, are the one that have a victim mentality as it relates to the progress America has made in race relations. Those that do post on the progress seem to think that America has done enough. As long as one citizen does not have the rights or privileges of another, then, imho, America has not done enough. Those posters act as if it is a sin to consider whether Simpson's race or any other reasons caused LE to act in a manner untoward. It would be a sin, imho, if the trier of fact did not consider that evidence and those reasons.

[martin II]

Exactly, some want to post comments that are all about race without stating the word race. Then when posters tend to respond mentioning why some Blacks may feel as they do about the issues in the case, some of the same posters want to say that those posters have a victim mentality and do not want to discuss race. It seems to me that those poster who post racial comments but do not want to discuss their posts, are the one that have a victim mentality as it relates to the progress America has made in race relations. Those that do post on the progress seem to think that America has done enough. As long as one citizen does not have the rights or privileges of another, then, imho, America has not done enough. Those posters act as if it is a sin to consider whether Simpson's race or any other reasons caused LE to act in a manner untoward. It would be a sin, imho, if the trier of fact did not consider that evidence and those reasons.


Some prosecution witnesses just out right lied in their testimony and others testified to many "mistakes" (as some call them) in their efforts in the case.

Then there were those that testified in a way to cause most not to believe their words. Eventhough this testimony was directly to the jury, some take the position that seems to say the jury should have given the prosecution the benefit of the doubt and not given weight to these issues as if this testimony did not take place. It is as if they are saying lets just forget that testimony because oj did it.:cool:

[William Anthony]

Some prosecution witnesses just out right lied in their testimony and others testified to many "mistakes" (as some call them) in their efforts in the case.

Then there were those that testified in a way to cause most not to believe their words. Eventhough this testimony was directly to the jury, some take the position that seems to say the jury should have given the prosecution the benefit of the doubt and not given weight to these issues as if this testimony did not take place. It is as if they are saying lets just forget that testimony because oj did it.:cool:

This post calls into question the import of beyond a reasonable doubt. Scholars debate what beyond a reasonable doubt means, more specifically reasonable doubt. As it applies to the prosecution they are not entitled to reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

The seventh prosecution witness.

"RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE WITH NO CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED REGARDING THIS INCIDENT, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S INCORRECT.

Q: THERE WERE CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE FILED. I COMPLETED A CRIME REPORT REGARDING TRESPASSING.

Q: YOU NEVER WENT TO COURT ON THIS CASE?

A: THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: YOU NEVER HAD TO TESTIFY?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AS FAR AS YOU KNOW MR. SIMPSON NEVER WENT TO COURT ON THIS CASE?

A: AS FAR AS I KNOW.

Q: WITH REGARD TO THAT, THIS TIME YOU SPENT THERE, MR. SIMPSON HAD LEFT THE SCENE BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY LEFT, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU AND YOUR PARTNER STAYED THERE FOR A PERIOD AFTER THAT; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT ESCALATION. AFTER YOU LEFT, MAYBE AROUND 11:30 THAT EVENING, YOU RECEIVED NO FURTHER CALLS OR DID NOT HAVE TO RESPOND TO THE GRETNA GREEN RESIDENCE THAT EVENING; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT. "

One whale of a domestic abuse case, thus far.:)

[William Anthony]

There are many people from Somalia who have come to where I live. You know, Somalia. Africa. Where they chase people down the roads with hatchets. Black Africa. You've heard of that place?

I deal with one little girl and her brother every day. She has a large depression on her forehead. That's where her mother hit her with a hammer. Her 'mother' and I use the term loosely is now in gaol. Her 'uncle' who lives in the US wants to take them to the US so she can be his 'special friend'. She is playing up like crazy. Can you blame her? Her WHITE foster mother who loves her and she loves her foster mother is trying her hardest to keep them together.

What is your point? Have you heard of the Black man in Texas, America, who was dragged to death by Whites in a truck? Have you heard of the White American woman, who killed her children and attempted to blame it on a Black American? While your story and the ones I posted are interesting and horrific, they have nothing to do with, imho, the discussion we were engaged in, which is your claim that Australian Blacks were effected by the Simpson trial and my question as to the Australian Blacks' experiences with LE.

[William Anthony]

I did a cursory search for the treatment of Blacks in Australia and came up with this link.

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/racism

Mr. Bell, are you able to shed some light on the White Australian policy and Terra nullis? I found this link.

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

I also found this link.

http://www.visitvictoria.com/displayobject.cfm/objectid.0003A614-D962-1A88-8B4680C476A9047C/

Another interesting link.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1990/41.html

Thanks for your assistance, Mr. Bell. I understand the similarities in the treatment of Blacks in America and Australia and can now understand how the Simpson trial effected them.

[martin II]

There are many people from Somalia who have come to where I live. You know, Somalia. Africa. Where they chase people down the roads with hatchets. Black Africa. You've heard of that place?

I deal with one little girl and her brother every day. She has a large depression on her forehead. That's where her mother hit her with a hammer. Her 'mother' and I use the term loosely is now in gaol. Her 'uncle' who lives in the US wants to take them to the US so she can be his 'special friend'. She is playing up like crazy. Can you blame her? Her WHITE foster mother who loves her and she loves her foster mother is trying her hardest to keep them together.

Selecting the example you did to identify Somalia says a lot about how you see those people.

I know Somalia very well. It is a country previously invaded and taken over by the French by force who has sytematically robbed the country of its natural resources and put in place French private business that has today destabalized the country and caused some citizens to flee. Australia has a good policy of accepting the people you speak of and those from Asia, india and other surrounding problem countries.Somali still accounts for a large portion of the coffee the word drinks as well as the diamonds worn by much of the world and a hoast of agriculture products to europe.

Their situation is simular to how the British and others invaded Australia and did what they did to the Aboriginal pople there.imo
But at 1-2% i doubt they have much power as a people in Australia.

[William Anthony]

This from the prosecution's eighth witness, IIRC. She added a lot.:)

"Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU REFERRED TO AN INCIDENT WHERE THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT A GENTLEMAN BEING OVER AT NICOLE'S HOUSE AND O.J. HAD SOME DEGREE OF BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AND DISCUSSED IT WITH YOU; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT GENTLEMAN'S NAME KEITH?

A: YES.

Q: AND NICOLE HAD TOLD YOU THAT NOTHING HAPPENED BETWEEN HERSELF AND KEITH?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, THAT --

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: -- OF ANY SEXUAL CASES NATURE?

MS. CLARK: THAT MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION?

THE COURT: YES.

THE WITNESS: NICOLE TOLD ME THAT HE SLEPT IN THE SPARE BEDROOM. WE DID NOT DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE OR HAD BEEN OR WERE BECOMING LOVERS.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND O.J. SAID THAT HE WAS UPSET BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS SOME SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF CHILDREN, INCLUDING YOUR SON?

A: NO. I DON'T THINK HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS IN THE PROXIMITY OF THE CHILDREN. I THINK HE WAS CONCERNED OF WHETHER IT WAS HIS WIFE.

Q: ON OCCASION WOULD YOU KNOW O.J. TO BRING FLOWERS BY TO NICOLE?

A: I HAVE -- I DID SEE THE FLOWERS THAT HE LEFT FOR HER AND THAT HE HAD DELIVERED TO HER.

Q: AND ON THE PARTICULAR OCCASION THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN APRIL, BEFORE YOU REALIZED IT WAS O.J. SIMPSON AND YOUR SUSPICIONS WERE AROUSED, WAS THERE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE WAY HE WAS WALKING UP TO HER HOUSE?

A: UNUSUAL?

Q: YEAH.

A: PROBABLY THE ONLY THING UNUSUAL ABOUT IT WAS THAT IT WAS 11:30 AT NIGHT.

Q: AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER NICOLE WAS HOME OR NOT, DO YOU?

A: I ASSUMED NICOLE WAS HOME.

Q: AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE HAD BEEN INVITED TO COME OVER OR NOT, DO YOU?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: HE WASN'T DRESSED IN ANY UNUSUAL WAY, WAS HE?

A: NO, NO.

Q: HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY HATS ON OR ANY DISGUISES ON?

A: NO.

Q: AND AS FAR AS PARKING THE CAR -- LET ME MARK TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, IF I MIGHT, FOR IDENTIFICATION, PLEASE, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: MAY WE APPROACH FOR A MOMENT WITHOUT THE REPORTER?

THE COURT: SURE. WITHOUT THE REPORTER.

MR. DARDEN: YES.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, DO YOU HAVE EXHIBIT NUMBERS PREPARED FOR THOSE PHOTOS?

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I APOLOGIZE. THESE ARE MR. DARDEN'S PHOTOGRAPHS. I DIDN'T WANT TO MARK THEM WITH MY NUMBERS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: WHICH NUMBER?

MS. CLARK: 23. WE ARE UP TO 23.

THE COURT: WHAT NUMBER ARE WE ON NEXT FOR THE PEOPLE?

MR. DARDEN: I HAVE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS HERE, YOUR HONOR. MAY THEY BE MARKED PEOPLE'S --

THE COURT: 23 AND 24.

MR. DARDEN: 23 AND 24.

THE COURT: SO MARKED.

(PEO'S 23&24 FOR ID = PHOTOS OF 325 S. GRETNA GREEN)

MR. DARDEN: EACH OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS APPEAR TO DEPICT MISS BOE'S HOME AND NICOLE BROWN'S HOME AT 325 SOUTH GRETNA GREEN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NOTED. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MAY I SHOW THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TO THE WITNESS, PLEASE?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

Q: MISS BOE, CAN YOU IDENTIFY THESE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS FOR THE JURY, PLEASE?

A: YES, I CAN. THIS IS MY HOUSE HERE, (INDICATING), WHICH IS ON THE CORNER OF GRETNA GREEN AND SHETLAND LANE. HERE IS NICOLE'S HOUSE, HER DRIVEWAY, AND HERE IS THE LITTLE STONE WALL. MY KITCHEN DOOR IS IN THE BACK THERE. THE BOYS WOULD BE BACK AND FORTH ACROSS THE WALL.

Q: THIS PHOTOGRAPH IS IDENTIFIED -- I DON'T HAVE MY GLASSES ON. WHAT IS THE NUMBER, PLEASE?

A: P-24.

Q: AND THE SECOND PHOTOGRAPH?

A: THIS IS NICOLE'S HOUSE WITH THE GARAGE DOOR CLOSED.

Q: AND WOULD YOU IDENTIFY THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

A: P-23.

Q: NOW, P-23 IS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF NICOLE'S HOUSE?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: SHOWS CARS RIGHT IN FRONT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, THERE ARE LARGE TREES THERE, ARE THERE NOT?

A: YES, THERE ARE.

Q: AND ARE THOSE THE TYPE OF TREES THAT TEND TO DROP A LOT OF BERRIES AND OTHER TYPES OF RESIDUE?

A: WELL, THOSE ARE BOTTLE BRUSH TREES AND THEY HAVE BIG RED BLOSSOMS LIKE BRUSHES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW THAT THERE MAY BE SOME PEOPLE WHO PREFER NOT TO PARK NICE CARS UNDER TREES THAT HAVE A PROPENSITY TO SHED?

A: NO. THOSE ARE JACARANDA TREES.

Q: WELL, WE ARE GETTING A GREAT LESSON IN TREES HERE TODAY.

A: THE JACARANDA TREES ARE ACTUALLY IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE.

Q: WELL, IF SOMEBODY DIDN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TREES AND SOMEBODY TOOK GREAT CARE IN THEIR CAR, DO YOU THINK THEY MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ANXIETY ABOUT PARKING THERE?

A: I THINK THEY MIGHT HAVE ANXIETY ABOUT PARKING ON THAT STREET BECAUSE GRETNA GREEN WAY IS A THROUGH STREET AND YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO PARK YOUR CAR ON A THROUGH STREET. "

[William Anthony]

Selecting the example you did to identify Somalia says a lot about how you see those people.

I know Somalia very well. It is a country previously invaded and taken over by the French by force who has sytematically robbed the country of its natural resources and put in place French private business that has today destabalized the country and caused some citizens to flee. Australia has a good policy of accepting the people you speak of and those from Asia, india and other surrounding problem countries.Somali still accounts for a large portion of the coffee the word drinks as well as the diamonds worn by much of the world and a hoast of agriculture products to europe.

Their situation is simular to how the British and others invaded Australia and did what they did to the Aboriginal pople there.imo
But at 1-2% i doubt they have much power as a people in Australia.

Martin,

This is a very informative post and speaks beautifully, as if the Goddess, Athena was arrayed in her wonderful, as Mr. Bell says, colours.

[martin II]

Belle

Considering the info on Austrelia that we now have, can you explain how the oj criminal trial verdict effected Australian blacks or anyone else in australia. Either the refugees or the Aboriginal people?
martin II

[weezer]

Cross of the sixth prosecution witness, the 911 operator who took the October call.

"Q: AND YOU WERE ABLE TO ASCERTAIN DURING THE COURSE OF THAT TAPE THAT AT SOME POINT WHEN SHE FIRST STARTED TO TALK TO YOU THAT SHE WAS IN SOME PARTICULAR -- A BEDROOM, SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: DID YOU ASCERTAIN AT SOME POINT SHE LEFT THAT ROOM AND CAME DOWNSTAIRS TO THE KITCHEN PER HER CONVERSATION?

A: YES. MAYBE AT THE END WHEN I ASKED HER WHERE WAS SHE.

Q: AND YOU WERE ABLE TO DETERMINE, WERE YOU NOT, THAT DURING THIS ENTIRE TAPE AND DURING THE ENTIRE EPISODE, SHE WAS NEVER STRUCK BY THE GENTLEMAN WHO WAS IN THE BACKGROUND; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT AT OR ABOUT THE TIME OR SHORTLY AFTER THE TIME THAT SHE CAME DOWNSTAIRS, WERE YOU AWARE THAT THE POLICE ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION?

A: YES.

"NICOLE: Then he came and he practically knocked my upstairs door down but he pounded it and he screamed and hollered and I tried to get him out of the bedroom because the kids are sleeping in there."

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THERE WAS ONE POINT DURING THE TAPE THAT SHE INDICATED THAT SHE WANTED TO GET OFF THE LINE, THAT SHE FELT SHE WANTED TO HANG UP THE PHONE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

"DISPATCHER: OK, just stay on the line...
NICOLE: I don't want to stay on the line. He's going to beat the (expletive) out of me."

Q: AND THAT WAS PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL OF THE POLICE?

A: YES.

Q: AND DURING THE COURSE OF THE TAPE, THE ONSET OF THE TAPE, YOU COULD HEAR A PERSON IN THE BACKGROUND, AND SHE TOLD YOU THAT PERSON WAS TALKING TO HER ROOMMATE OR MALE WHO LIVED IN THE BACK HOUSE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

"NICOLE: He's in the back yard.
DISPATCHER: He's in the back yard?
NICOLE: Screaming at my roommate about me and at me.
"

"DISPATCHER: Are you locked in a room or something?
NICOLE: No. He can come right in. I'm not going where the kids are because the kids ...
DISPATCHER: Do you think he's going to hit you?
NICOLE: I don't know."

Q: SO AS YOU SAT THERE LISTENING, YOU BASICALLY HEARD THE SAME THINGS WE HEARD AND JUST CARRIED ON THIS CONVERSATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AT THE TIME THAT THE CONVERSATION ENDED, AT THAT TIME, YOU FELT OR YOU HAD INFORMATION THAT THE POLICE HAD ARRIVED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU FELT THE SITUATION WAS IN HAND"

"DISPATCHER: You want, you feel safe hanging up?
NICOLE: Well, you're right
DISPATCHER: You want to wait til the police get there?
NICOLE: Yeah."

and I think the most chilling of all:

"DISPATCHER: Just a moment. Does he have any weapons?
NICOLE: I don't know. He went home and he came back. The kids are up there sleeping and I don't want anything to happen."