Issues In The Criminal Trial

[SlowHandSam]

My father was born in Virginia. I have lived and worked there. I have relatives that live there. I still have not met a Black Virginian that refers to anyone adult as a boy.

well, seeing how tvdinner, fbgweezer and I are not black Virginians ... I guess it's a moot point.

:shrug:

[William Anthony]

well, seeing how tvdinner, fbgweezer and I are not black Virginians ... I guess it's a moot point.

:shrug:

Let me respond to posts ##3658 and 3569 in one response? I have never met any Black person in any Southern state that I have lived or spent time in that has referred to any adult person as a boy. I think this is because they are sensitive to the history of the use of the word boy as it related to slavery. In case you are unaware, adult slaves were referred to by plantation owners as their or another owner's boy. The fact that you and those you mentioned are not Black Virginians is not a moot point, imho. I consider all of the aforementioned to be educated adults with some knowledge of the history of slavery. I presume that all of the aforementioned individuals have resigned themselves to the fact that Martin and I are Black. I think that sensitivity or insensitivity to a particular race's feelings is never a moot issue.

[tv]

Let me respond to posts ##3658 and 3568 in one response? I have never met any Black person in any Southern state that I have lived or spent time in that has referred to any adult person as a boy. I think this is because they are sensitive to the history of the use of the word boy as it related to slavery. In case you are unaware, adult slaves were referred to by plantation owners as their or another owner's boy. The fact that you and your those you mentioned are not Black Virginians is not a moot point, imho. I consider all of the aforementioned to be educated adults with some knowledge of the history of slavery. I presume that all of the aforementioned individuals have resigned themselves to the fact that Martin and I are Black. I think that sensitivity or insensitivity to a particular race's feelings is never a moot issue.

For heaven's sake, you've never been owned by anyone nor has anyone in your family for hundreds of years. When I refer to you and martin as boys I'm speaking to you as I would anyone else, black or white. Does the victim role ever end for you guys?

[William Anthony]

For heaven's sake, you've never been owned by anyone nor has anyone in your family for hundreds of years. When I refer to you and martin as boys I'm speaking to you as I would anyone else, black or white. Does the victim role ever end for you guys?

Because you think that I have never been owned or has anyone in my family for hundreds of years, I should allow you or someone else to regress to the period when my ancestors were owned, negating all the progress that Black Americans made through sacrificing their lives and bodies, correct? How would you feel, if a Jewish person was called a Hyme (sp), even though they or none of their family members were victims of the Holocaust? When you refer to me, please use William as you have previously done. I am over 21 years of age.

[tv]

Because you think that I have never been owned or has anyone in my family for hundreds of years, I should allow you or someone else to regress to the period when my ancestors were owned, negating all the progress that Black Americans made through sacrificing their lives and bodies, correct? How would you feel, if a Jewish person was called a Hyme (sp), even though they or none of their family members were victims of the Holocaust? When you refer to me, please use William as you have previously done. I am over 21 years of age.As you wish, William and you're right..it was crude of Jesse Jackson to say Hymietown but I think Jews got over it and moved on. If you don't see the difference in referring to all races with the same word and calling only one group of people a racial eptihet...well, I'm just at a loss to understand your mindset. I really hope you, William Anthony, and martin II find an outlet for your victim mentality. This isn't it.

[martin II]

For heaven's sake, you've never been owned by anyone nor has anyone in your family for hundreds of years. When I refer to you and martin as boys I'm speaking to you as I would anyone else, black or white. Does the victim role ever end for you guys?

Regardless of how you refer to others DON'T REFER TO ME AS A "BOY".
Thanks
MARTIN II

[William Anthony]

As you wish, William and you're right..it was crude of Jesse Jackson to say Hymietown but I think Jews got over it and moved on. If you don't see the difference in referring to all races with the same word and calling only one group of people a racial eptihet...well, I'm just at a loss to understand your mindset. I really hope you, William Anthony, and martin II find an outlet for your victim mentality. This isn't it.

As I recall there was quite an uproar over the Reverend Jackson's use of the epithet. I do not think that Jews held him in the same respect, thereafter. You probably never will understand my or Martin's mindset, because your ancestors were not the victims of chattel slavery. It is not a victim mentality for the last time. It is a need to be respected just as the Jews were. I do not understand the mindset of you and others, who cannot respect and continue to call us boys, after you have been informed of our protestations as to the insensitivity of the word's use, unless it is to inflame and bait. I have appreciated it when you have called me William and am respectfully happy if you continue to so do. Comments like putting on my big boy pants and being called a boy are not appropriate, imho, since you are aware of how I wished to be addressed.

[tv]

Regardless of how you refer to others DON'T REFER TO ME AS A "BOY".
Thanks
MARTIN IIYou're a little late to the party, MARTIN II. Your outrage should have been a few posts back.

[martin II]

You're a little late to the party, MARTIN II. Your outrage should have been a few posts back.

I can only respond when i am at the computer.

I believe i am correct when i say i have never read a post of yours where you refered to Willaim or my self as 'BOY" until it was used by another poster here a few post back.Strange at best.imo:cool:
Martin II

[tv]

I can only respond when i am at the computer.

I believe i am correct when i say i have never read a post of yours where you refered to Willaim or my self as 'BOY" until it was used by another poster here a few post back.Strange at best.imo:cool:
Martin IIJust because I may have never used it here doesn't mean it's not something I use at other times. I will refer to you as MARTIN II with no problem. Makes no difference to me. :shrug:

[tv]

There was just an old "I Love Lucy" show on and Ethel and Lucy referred to Ricky and Fred as "the boys" several times during the show. To think Lucy, of all people, would be so insensitive is shocking. :eek:

[William Anthony]

There was just an old "I Love Lucy" show on and Ethel and Lucy referred to Ricky and Fred as "the boys" several times during the show. To think Lucy, of all people, would be so insensitive is shocking. :eek:

I don't think Ricky or Fred were Black. What is shocking, imho, is your mocking of a respectful request to show sensitivity to what I find offensive.

[William Anthony]

Just because I may have never used it here doesn't mean it's not something I use at other times. I will refer to you as MARTIN II with no problem. Makes no difference to me. :shrug:

If I might suggest, you should ask a Black man, if he would find it offensive if you referred to him as boy before so doing. Trial and error may have dangerous results as the person may not be as pleasant or distant as Martin and I.

[tv]

I don't think Ricky or Fred were Black. What is shocking, imho, is your mocking of a respectful request to show sensitivity to what I find offensive. William Anthony, I asked you numrous times to respect my feelings about continued discussions about Vincent Bugliosi and you and MARTIN II continued to ridicule, mock and make snide comments to me about it. Besides, Ricky was Cuban.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, I asked you numrous times to respect my feelings about continued discussions about Vincent Bugliosi and you and MARTIN II continued to ridicule, mock and make snide comments to me about it. Besides, Ricky was Cuban.

Cuban being Hispanic or just Cuban, or Black? We were commenting on what you said VB's remark was and your apparent unwillingness to defend your post. There was nothing offensive, ridiculing, mocking or snide about my comments. I seriously wanted answers to the questions I posed and tried to explain why I felt the way I did about his comments. I seriously wanted you to explain why you felt differently about his comment. Perhaps, your view would have been something I could consider and change my view. However, you stated that you did not want to discuss the post, after making it. The obvious question is, if you did not want to discuss it why post it, imho.

[tv]

If I might suggest, you should ask a Black man, if he would find it offensive if you referred to him as boy before so doing. Trial and error may have dangerous results as the person may not be as pleasant or distant as Martin and I.William Anthony and MARTIN II pleasant? Okay, whatever.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony and MARTIN II pleasant? Okay, whatever.

Correction-the person may not be as pleasant or distant as Martin and I.:) Surely, you are not suggesting that Martin and I are the most unpleasant people in the world. Smile.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, I asked you numrous times to respect my feelings about continued discussions about Vincent Bugliosi and you and MARTIN II continued to ridicule, mock and make snide comments to me about it. Besides, Ricky was Cuban.

IIRC, you may not have been the poster to post his comment but you did uphold it.

[martin II]

Just because I may have never used it here doesn't mean it's not something I use at other times. I will refer to you as MARTIN II with no problem. Makes no difference to me. :shrug:

Is it that you may have been playing FOLLOW THE LEADER. Or acting as a little puppet when you used that work for the first time here?

[William Anthony]

There was just an old "I Love Lucy" show on and Ethel and Lucy referred to Ricky and Fred as "the boys" several times during the show. To think Lucy, of all people, would be so insensitive is shocking. :eek:

At what point do you think I should agree with you? :) The whatever point?, smile.

[William Anthony]

Direct of the Prosecution's ninth witness.

A: WELL, IT WAS AN EVENING APPROXIMATELY 10:30 OR ELEVEN O'CLOCK AT NIGHT, AND IT IS A VERY -- IT IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, VERY QUIET, AND SOMETIMES BEFORE RETIRING I LOOK -- JUST GO CHECK THE LOCKS AND LOOK AROUND DOWNSTAIRS AND MAKE SURE THE LIGHTS ARE OFF AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND I HAPPENED TO LOOK OUTSIDE AND I SAW A MAN OUTSIDE ON THE SIDEWALK.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT MAN DOING?

A: UMM, HE WAS STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK LOOKING AT WHAT APPARENTLY WAS THE RESIDENCE NEXT DOOR, DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OF US.

Q: AND WHAT TIME OF THE NIGHT WAS THIS?

A: I WOULD SAY IT WAS APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN 10:30 AND ELEVEN O'CLOCK THAT NIGHT.

Q: SO THE MAN WAS STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK?

A: YES. INITIALLY WHEN I SPOTTED HIM HE WAS STANDING ABOUT FIVE YARDS SOUTH OF THE DRIVEWAY AND RELATIVELY STATIONARY LOOKING AT THE HOUSE AND THEN SINCE I SAW HIM I WAS CURIOUS AND I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE HIM, SO I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, WHAT IS A MAN OF THIS DESCRIPTION DOING OUTSIDE AT THAT TIME, SO --

I wonder when race became a part of the trial.

[martin II]

Is it that you may have been playing FOLLOW THE LEADER. Or acting as a little puppet when you used that work for the first time here?

correction: used that word for the first time here?

[martin II]

Direct of the Prosecution's ninth witness.

A: WELL, IT WAS AN EVENING APPROXIMATELY 10:30 OR ELEVEN O'CLOCK AT NIGHT, AND IT IS A VERY -- IT IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, VERY QUIET, AND SOMETIMES BEFORE RETIRING I LOOK -- JUST GO CHECK THE LOCKS AND LOOK AROUND DOWNSTAIRS AND MAKE SURE THE LIGHTS ARE OFF AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND I HAPPENED TO LOOK OUTSIDE AND I SAW A MAN OUTSIDE ON THE SIDEWALK.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT MAN DOING?

A: UMM, HE WAS STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK LOOKING AT WHAT APPARENTLY WAS THE RESIDENCE NEXT DOOR, DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OF US.

Q: AND WHAT TIME OF THE NIGHT WAS THIS?

A: I WOULD SAY IT WAS APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN 10:30 AND ELEVEN O'CLOCK THAT NIGHT.

Q: SO THE MAN WAS STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK?

A: YES. INITIALLY WHEN I SPOTTED HIM HE WAS STANDING ABOUT FIVE YARDS SOUTH OF THE DRIVEWAY AND RELATIVELY STATIONARY LOOKING AT THE HOUSE AND THEN SINCE I SAW HIM I WAS CURIOUS AND I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE HIM, SO I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, WHAT IS A MAN OF THIS DESCRIPTION DOING OUTSIDE AT THAT TIME, SO --

I wonder when race became a part of the trial.

At the point of that testinmony.
People must not have been allowed to be out side at 10:30 in that neighborhood especially "one of that description"

[William Anthony]

At the point of that testinmony.
People must not have been allowed to be out side at 10:30 in that neighborhood especially "one of that description"

Martin,

As much as it pains me to say this, maybe, VB was right and Simpson did not know he was Black, :). Before anyone beats that victim mentality drum, let me say that this post was just made in a joking manner to lighten the mood.

Seriously, I wonder how that testimony would have played to both juries.

[William Anthony]

At the point of that testinmony.
People must not have been allowed to be out side at 10:30 in that neighborhood especially "one of that description"

How dare the magnificent one allegedly play the race card, when, as some claim, race was not an issue, or never should have been in the trial. You think this particular witness was the only one to notice people fitting that description in those particular neighborhoods at that time of the night?

[William Anthony]

Hmm, seems oj's arrogance is in full force ... as expected.

Can you only imagine that your legacy is to be sought after for advice on how to beat a murder charge? Mmm mmm mmm.

I would not dignify your post with a link from where you got the information but I did copy this.

"Subscribe to SSNN and get hilarious (and free!) sports satire delivered every day."

"I'm your huckleberry." "Tombstone", Doc Holiday

[limakey]

TV,

Can I ask you a honest question? Should it have mattered that Simpson had a naked picture of Paula hanging up in his home? Isn't it fair to say that both sides do their best to "spin" every detail of the case? For instance, and I know there will be posters who disagree with this but I think one of the cruelist and brutal forms of domestic violence is cheating.

We have known that Mr. Simpson has been and still is to this day a womanizer. However, why did it take the murder of Nicole and Ron for Simpson to be demonized by this? Why does cheating only count when the ex or current spouse is murdered or when you are the President of the United States?

I believe had Simpson been a better husband, OJ and Nicole would still be together and she would be a live today. Both sides will do whatever they have to, to gain the advantage they can.

I do not believe that hanging up a nude photo such as the one of Paula is ever truly a good idea. However, that is my opinion. (I also think people who take videos of themselves having sex is the most derranged thing I have ever of and I can't feel sorry for these people when they end up in the public domain!) But again, that is just me!

[William Anthony]

TV,

Can I ask you a honest question? Should it have mattered that Simpson had a naked picture of Paula hanging up in his home? Snipped, because this is the primary issue and says it all, although I agree with all of the post.

It has long been established that a man's home is his castle and what goes in the bedroom between two consenting adults, so long as no laws are broken, is an intimate right of privacy. The idea that these basic principles have not been accepted by some citizens should not detrimentally affect the accused rights to a fair trail on immaterial and irrelevant points that are more prejudicial than probative. The jury was not there allegedly to determine,who or what Simpson had pictures of in his bedroom or any other place in his home. It was theoretically there to evaluate the possibility of the prosecution's theory of what happened that night. It was keen of the magnificent one to recognize that the jury would likely be sidetracked on irrelevant issues, such as the trophy room. It was this type of recognition that allowed the magnificent one to give his client the best defense possible, imho.

[martin II]

Without having seen the picture of Paula how can anyone say it was in bad taste.I have seen many pictures of women with no clothes on that was done is great taste.Why is it that some assume that the picture was vulgar or in bad taste. There was no testimony that Paula's private parts were shown.
I doubt Paula would have taken and allowed a Bad picture of her to be on display and available for anyone to see including the children.

To label the picture negatively without ever having seen it shows bias.

The jury did get to see the layout of the property and especially Alen Parks vantage point from the Ashford gate.Since his testimony was discussed in detail during deliberations just prior to the verdict, i believe the jury visit focused more on trial issues such as Park and the south walkway than the interior of ojs house. imo

[tv]

Willliam Anthony, MARTIN II and limakey, the point is not that Simpson had a picture of his girlfriend in the nude in his bedroom -- the point is why did the defense team replace it with a picture of his mother and replace other pictures in the house before the jury visited? I personally don't care if he had pictures of nude women taped to his fridge but if it's not big deal why were certain pictures removed?

[SlowHandSam]

Willliam Anthony, MARTIN II and limakey, the point is not that Simpson had a picture of his girlfriend in the nude in his bedroom -- the point is why did the defense team replace it with a picture of his mother and replace other pictures in the house before the jury visited? I personally don't care if he had pictures of nude women taped to his fridge but if it's not big deal why were certain pictures removed?

ding ding ding, you get a treat!

Opinions about the human body vary so greatly that it's a subjective topic as to what is offensive to some and not to others.

The point that the boys are failing to understand is that it wasn't just that there was a nude photo on his bedside table but that (1) his defense switched it out (wonder what else they removed from the house??) and (2) oj went ballistic about a CLOTHED photo of Nicole's friend in her home ...

[William Anthony]

Willliam Anthony, MARTIN II and limakey, the point is not that Simpson had a picture of his girlfriend in the nude in his bedroom -- the point is why did the defense team replace it with a picture of his mother and replace other pictures in the house before the jury visited? I personally don't care if he had pictures of nude women taped to his fridge but if it's not big deal why were certain pictures removed?

Because it has long been established that a man's home is his castle and what goes in the bedroom between two consenting adults, so long as no laws are broken, is an intimate right of privacy. The idea that these basic principles have not been accepted by some citizens should not detrimentally affect the accused rights to a fair trail on immaterial and irrelevant points that are more prejudicial than probative. The jury was not there allegedly to determine,who or what Simpson had pictures of in his bedroom or any other place in his home. It was theoretically there to evaluate the possibility of the prosecution's theory of what happened that night. It was keen of the magnificent one to recognize that the jury would likely be sidetracked on irrelevant issues, such as the trophy room. It was this type of recognition that allowed the magnificent one to give his client the best defense possible, imho.

[tv]

Without having seen the picture of Paula how can anyone say it was in bad taste.I have seen many pictures of women with no clothes on that was done is great taste.Why is it that some assume that the picture was vulgar or in bad taste. There was no testimony that Paula's private parts were shown.
I doubt Paula would have taken and allowed a Bad picture of her to be on display and available for anyone to see including the children.

To label the picture negatively without ever having seen it shows bias.

The jury did get to see the layout of the property and especially Alen Parks vantage point from the Ashford gate.Since his testimony was discussed in detail during deliberations just prior to the verdict, i believe the jury visit focused more on trial issues such as Park and the south walkway than the interior of ojs house. imo

You're the only one that's gone on and on about whether or not the picture was in good taste. Who cares? I couldn't care less if she's in a pornographic poses or looks as innocent as the Virgin Mary. I DON'T CARE. What I do care about is why it was removed.

What kind of bias am I showing? Bias against nudity? Bias against women? Bias against models? Exactly what, MARTIN II?

[martin II]

Willliam Anthony, MARTIN II and limakey, the point is not that Simpson had a picture of his girlfriend in the nude in his bedroom -- the point is why did the defense team replace it with a picture of his mother and replace other pictures in the house before the jury visited? I personally don't care if he had pictures of nude women taped to his fridge but if it's not big deal why were certain pictures removed?

tv
limakey answered that question in her post.

[tv]

tv
limakey answered that question in her post.You're not going to tell me what I'm biased against? Please, I can't wait to hear it.

[William Anthony]

ding ding ding, you get a treat!

Opinions about the human body vary so greatly that it's a subjective topic as to what is offensive to some and not to others.

The point that the boys are failing to understand is that it wasn't just that there was a nude photo on his bedside table but that (1) his defense switched it out (wonder what else they removed from the house??) and (2) oj went ballistic about a CLOTHED photo of Nicole's friend in her home ...

Unfortunately, you do not get a prize. If you will please be so kind as to address me in the future as William, as I respectfully requested, and stop the insensitive, thoughtless and offensive name calling, it would be greatly appreciated.

Because it has long been established that a man's home is his castle and what goes in the bedroom between two consenting adults, so long as no laws are broken, is an intimate right of privacy. The idea that these basic principles have not been accepted by some citizens should not detrimentally affect the accused rights to a fair trail on immaterial and irrelevant points that are more prejudicial than probative. The jury was not there allegedly to determine,who or what Simpson had pictures of in his bedroom or any other place in his home. It was theoretically there to evaluate the possibility of the prosecution's theory of what happened that night. It was keen of the magnificent one to recognize that the jury would likely be sidetracked on irrelevant issues, such as the trophy room. It was this type of recognition that allowed the magnificent one to give his client the best defense possible, imho.

[William Anthony]

You're not going to tell me what I'm biased against? Please, I can't wait to hear it.

Simpson, the criminal jury and the magnificent one, and southerners, who do not use the word, boy, when speaking to adults.

[SlowHandSam]

Unfortunately, you do not get a prize. If you will please be so kind as to address me in the future as William, as I respectfully requested, and stop the insensitive, thoughtless and offensive name calling, it would be greatly appreciated.

Because it has long been established that a man's home is his castle and what goes in the bedroom between two consenting adults, so long as no laws are broken, is an intimate right of privacy. The idea that these basic principles have not been accepted by some citizens should not detrimentally affect the accused rights to a fair trail on immaterial and irrelevant points that are more prejudicial than probative. The jury was not there allegedly to determine,who or what Simpson had pictures of in his bedroom or any other place in his home. It was theoretically there to evaluate the possibility of the prosecution's theory of what happened that night. It was keen of the magnificent one to recognize that the jury would likely be sidetracked on irrelevant issues, such as the trophy room. It was this type of recognition that allowed the magnificent one to give his client the best defense possible, imho.

"You earn respect, not given it without due reason." --SlowHandSam's Dad.

Ponder that a bit.

That was a great cut and copy from somewhere - but it still doesn't negate the point that the defense team ALTERED the residence to attempt and paint oj in a better light. If there is nothing wrong his Paula being nude in a photo, iyo, ito, ieo, then why remove it? No, it was not to keep the jury on task and not distracted. It was to pretend that oj was something he isn't.

[tv]

Simpson, the criminal jury and the magnificent one, and southerners, who do not use the word, boy, when speaking to adults.I asked MARTIN II.

[William Anthony]

"You earn respect, not given it without due reason." --SlowHandSam's Dad.

Ponder that a bit.

That was a great cut and copy from somewhere - but it still doesn't negate the point that the defense team ALTERED the residence to attempt and paint oj in a better light. If there is nothing wrong his Paula being nude in a photo, iyo, ito, ieo, then why remove it? No, it was not to keep the jury on task and not distracted. It was to pretend that oj was something he isn't.

With all due respect to your father, he seems to puppet a saying that has been too long accepted without question. I feel that everyone is born with the unalienable right to be respected and it is up to them to retain that right by following the golden rule. If you desire to lose the respect I have for you by not following my respectful request, then so be it.

I have never disagreed that the jury may have considered evidence that was irrelevant and immaterial to the murder trial, if they had not been prevented from seeing the nude picture. Simpson's likes or dislikes were not on trial. If the magnificent one's attempt to have the jury precluded from considering evidence that was more prejudicial than probative and was immaterial and irrelevant and, consequently, Simpson was seen in a better light, then that only adds to the respect I have for the magnificent one.

[William Anthony]

I asked MARTIN II.

I think in this instance Martin might agree, and have something he wants to add.:)

[SlowHandSam]

Whoa, I see marionette strings.

[William Anthony]

Whoa, I see marionette strings.

You mean like these strings?

Originally Posted by SlowHandSam View Post
The "we" refers to me and all those that I know who are Southern.

Just because you may have "stayed" here, doesn't make you one of us. You may not understand our vernacular, but just because you are unable to understand, doesn't mean that everything we say is racist.

So, I'll join weezer and ask that you boys take the victim talk elsewhere.

I'd like to go back to reading about oj.

[martin II]

You're the only one that's gone on and on about whether or not the picture was in good taste. Who cares? I couldn't care less if she's in a pornographic poses or looks as innocent as the Virgin Mary. I DON'T CARE. What I do care about is why it was removed.

What kind of bias am I showing? Bias against nudity? Bias against women? Bias against models? Exactly what, MARTIN II?

tv
I think making a issue of Cochran moving a picture is reaching for straws and maby seeking any reason to be critical of him as ojs defense lawyer. As has been stated, each side did what they could to get a advantage as that is their charge for their side. To complain when the defense does this imo shows bias against the defense. If Cochran or his people thought certain items in the house would give the jury some kind of negative thought about his client,he had a responsbility to correct the situation and he did.

I am sure the maid cleaned the whole house for the jury visit. It is called putting your best foot forward.

Through court testimony the jury saw that oj had white friends and i have seen no comments that this mattered to the jury.

[tv]

You mean like these strings?Agreeing with a post is different than answering for someone else. I'm still waiting for MARTIN II's answer.

[SlowHandSam]

Q: DID YOU CONTINUE TO WATCH THE MAN?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE THE MAN DO?

A: I SAW HIM OBSERVE THE RESIDENCE NEXT DOOR AND THEN WALK AROUND THE CORNER, WHICH WOULD BE SOUTHERLY AND THEN WESTERLY ON SHETLAND, AND THEN GO BACK AROUND AGAIN AND LOOK AGAIN AT THAT RESIDENCE, AND I WAS A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED BECAUSE --

<snip>

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: FIVE YARDS, OKAY, AND THEN HE WALKED BACK AROUND THE CORNER?

A: YES. THEN HE WALKED IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION AND THEN BACK AROUND THE CORNER -- OUR HOUSE IS ON A CORNER LIKE THIS, (INDICATING). HE THEN WENT SOUTHERLY AND THEN WESTERLY AND THEN BACK AROUND AGAIN.

Q: OKAY. DID HE WALK BACK TO THE SAME SPOT HE WAS IN WHEN YOU SAW HIM INITIALLY?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SEE THIS MAN WALK WITHIN FIVE YARDS OF NICOLE BROWN'S DRIVEWAY AND THEN WALK BACK --

A: JUST THOSE TWO INCIDENTS.

<snip>

Q: WHY DID YOU CALL 911?

A: BECAUSE I FELT THAT THE GENTLEMAN IN QUESTION COULD BE A POSSIBLE BURGLAR OR INTRUDER TO MY RESIDENCE OR TO ONE OF THE RESIDENCES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

Q: OKAY. AFTER YOU CALLED 911 DID YOU CONTINUE TO WATCH THE MAN?

A: YES, I DID, AND WHEN I CALLED 911 I TOLD HIM --

<snip>

... and since the previous poster failed to include date with this :: LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1995 9:50 A.M.


Clearly he was concerned that it could be a burglar. OJ was acting suspiciously walking back and forth and staring at the home. And since the witness didn't specifically say something like "what is a big black man doing outside at that time" ... how are you to know it was race related? He said once he realized it was OJ he was embarrassed and told the police as much.

It could, simply, have been "what is a big man, dressed as such doing outside pacing back and forth at this hour in front of my single neighbor's home?".

[William Anthony]

Agreeing with a post is different than answering for someone else. I'm still waiting for MARTIN II's answer.

I think your numerous posts show, which side and what issues you favor. I think that the rules allow anyone to answer another poster's post, if they feel so inclined. I did not answer for Martin. I answered for myself and mentioned that I thought he would agree and possibly add something. I reiterate, I think your numerous posts show, which side and what issues you favor.:)

[tv]

With all due respect to your father, he seems to puppet a saying that has been too long accepted without question. I feel that everyone is born with the unalienable right to be respected and it is up to them to retain that right by following the golden rule. If you desire to lose the respect I have for you by not following my respectful request, then so be it.

I have never disagreed that the jury may have considered evidence that was irrelevant and immaterial to the murder trial, if they had not been prevented from seeing the nude picture. Simpson's likes or dislikes were not on trial. If the magnificent one's attempt to have the jury precluded from considering evidence that was more prejudicial than probative and was immaterial and irrelevant and, consequently, Simpson was seen in a better light, then that only adds to the respect I have for the magnificent one.

It may have been prejudicial to the jury but you hold me to a different standard than those "black Christian church-going" female jurors because I don't think it appropriate when he had small children in the house?

[tv]

tv
I think making a issue of Cochran moving a picture is reaching for straws and maby seeking any reason to be critical of him as ojs defense lawyer. As has been stated, each side did what they could to get a advantage as that is their charge for their side. To complain when the defense does this imo shows bias against the defense. If Cochran or his people thought certain items in the house would give the jury some kind of negative thought about his client,he had a responsbility to correct the situation and he did.

I am sure the maid cleaned the whole house for the jury visit. It is called putting your best foot forward.

Through court testimony the jury saw that oj had white friends and i have seen no comments that this mattered to the jury.

Why is it okay for the jurors to have a negative thought about the picture but not me? Would that make them biased against Simpson, Johnnie Cochran and any Southerner that don't use the word boy when speaking to adults?

[William Anthony]

Clearly he was concerned that it could be a burglar. OJ was acting suspiciously walking back and forth and staring at the home. And since the witness didn't specifically say something like "what is a big black man doing outside at that time" ... how are you to know it was race related? He said once he realized it was OJ he was embarrassed and told the police as much.

It could, simply, have been "what is a big man, dressed as such doing outside pacing back and forth at this hour in front of my single neighbor's home?".

I get it big men are not allowed in that neighborhood after say 10:00 pm and especially not walking by the home of single neighbors. It had nothing to do with the fact that the single neighbor was a White woman or that the description was probably a big Black man. Are you saying that all burglars are big men? Are you saying that all burglars commit burglary at night? Are you saying that all burglars commit burglary on single White women? Beware all big men that walk by a single White woman's home in Brentwood at night time!

[William Anthony]

It may have been prejudicial to the jury but you hold me to a different standard than those "black Christian church-going" female jurors because I don't think it appropriate when he had small children in the house?

See how easy it is to get confused, when addressing a poster:) . I have never mention those black Christian Church-going female jurors. I have never comment on whether or not the picture was appropriate. I have comment on the fact that Simpson had the legal right to have the picture, and, as you judge him by appropriateness, so might have the jury, which was my point, when it was not an issue in the trial.

[tv]

See how easy it is to get confused, when addressing a poster:) . I have never mention those black Christian Church-going female jurors. I have never comment on whether or not the picture was appropriate. I have comment on the fact that Simpson had the legal right to have the picture, and, as you judge him by appropriateness, so might have the jury, which was my point, when it was not an issue in the trial.I haven't gotten your comments confused but since you two seem to be of the same mind I thought it wouldn't matter. When I asked why making a comment on the picture made me biased you had a list of my biases. Maybe MARTIN II has something he'd like to add.

[William Anthony]

Agreeing with a post is different than answering for someone else. I'm still waiting for MARTIN II's answer.

How could I have overlooked this.:)


Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowHandSam View Post
Whoa, I see marionette strings.

You mean like these strings?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowHandSam View Post
The "we" refers to me and all those that I know who are Southern.

Just because you may have "stayed" here, doesn't make you one of us. You may not understand our vernacular, but just because you are unable to understand, doesn't mean that everything we say is racist.

So, I'll join weezer and ask that you boys take the victim talk elsewhere.

I'd like to go back to reading about oj.

You mean like you just did?

[limakey]

TV Diner,

The DA's spent a huge amount of time at Bundy, they were responsible for the Bundy crime scene and they did the same thing the defense did at Rockingham. I remember there was some sort of argument about the landscape and some other things that escape me at the moment. The problem for the DA's, they again guessed wrong.

Instead of showing a home where a mother and friend were murdered, they showed a very sterile home that only left the jurors with questions like how could no one hear or see anything that night. How did the kids sleep through this.

I don't have a problem with your anger regarding the switched picture, however, both sides do the exact same thing and in this case, the DA's again made the wrong choice.

I do realize that the condo at Bundy was listed for sale, however, the DA's had total control over of this and it should have been preserved as a crime scene---they guessed wrong.

[tv]

TV Diner,

The DA's spent a huge amount of time at Bundy, they were responsible for the Bundy crime scene and they did the same thing the defense did at Rockingham. I remember there was some sort of argument about the landscape and some other things that escape me at the moment. The problem for the DA's, they again guessed wrong.

Instead of showing a home where a mother and friend were murdered, they showed a very sterile home that only left the jurors with questions like how could no one hear or see anything that night. How did the kids sleep through this.

I don't have a problem with your anger regarding the switched picture, however, both sides do the exact same thing and in this case, the DA's again made the wrong choice.

I do realize that the condo at Bundy was listed for sale, however, the DA's had total control over of this and it should have been preserved as a crime scene---they guessed wrong.limakey, you mistake anger for curiosity. There's no reason it would make me angry. I just haven't seen an explanation for the switch of that picture and others that makes sense to me.

[William Anthony]

I haven't gotten your comments confused but since you two seem to be of the same mind I thought it wouldn't matter. When I asked why making a comment on the picture made me biased you had a list of my biases. Maybe MARTIN II has something he'd like to add.

If you feel that Martin and I are of the same mindset, then why would you mind (pun intended), if I responded to your post? :)

[limakey]

Slow Hand Sam,

I think you are forgetting a very important part regarding that one witness' testimony regarding Simpson walking back and forth at Nicole's home. Didn't Nicole tell him that she had been having some problems lately and that she asked Simpson if he check things out?

Don't forget, MF and Phillips knew Mrs. Simpson before the murders. Nicole was getting some obscene phone calls, she called the police, they responded and apparently they found out who it was and the phone calls stopped.

(Rumour was it was Ron Shipp---but I don't think that was ever proven.)

[martin II]

You mean like these strings?

William
By now i think that most informed people regardless of where they are from
have learned that calling a black adult man a 'BOY' has long been rejected as derogatory and a attempt to demean. I can only say that it is sad that some have not learned this lesson or that they still use this term when addressing adult black men.imo

[William Anthony]

What did any picture Simpson had in his home have to do with helping the jury decide if the prosecution proved its case?

[tv]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9106123]What did any picture Simpson had in his home have to do with helping the jury decide if the prosecution proved its case?[/QUOTEI]
I completely agree. I see no reason for the defense to change any of the pictures in the house. I'm still looking for a reasonable explanation.

[William Anthony]

William
By now i think that most informed people regardless of where they are from
have learned that calling a black adult man a 'BOY' has long been rejected as derogatory and a attempt to demean. I can only say that it is sad that some have not learned this lesson or that they still use this term when addressing adult black men.imo

Some seem to think that the requests of Black men do not need to be listened to. I am reminded of the book, The Invisible Man. I seem to hear the not too distant hum from the off-topic train coming, smile.

[martin II]

limakey, you mistake anger for curiosity. There's no reason it would make me angry. I just haven't seen an explanation for the switch of that picture and others that makes sense to me.

I think it was shortly after the murders that the prosecution allowed Lou Brown to wash the whole Bundy crime scene down with a water hose.

[SlowHandSam]

I get it big men are not allowed in that neighborhood after say 10:00 pm and especially not walking by the home of single neighbors. It had nothing to do with the fact that the single neighbor was a White woman or that the description was probably a big Black man. Are you saying that all burglars are big men? Are you saying that all burglars commit burglary at night? Are you saying that all burglars commit burglary on single White women? Beware all big men that walk by a single White woman's home in Brentwood at night time!

No, that isn't what I said.

I think it is suspicious for a man, to be pacing back and forth and then standing and staring at a home at anypoint during the day. However, I feel that it is more so suspicious to do this after dark.

I never said single white woman. I said single neighbor. Let's not play games.

A good neighbor watches out for fellow neighbors. A single woman with 2 children having some man, at dark, pace back and forth in front of her home, then stop and stare then pace again SHOULD cause neighbors to be suspicious.

[limakey]

TV Dinner,

If you can find any sense in hanging a nude photo of a wife, girl friend, boyfriend, etc., please let me know because I just don't get it. I have nothing against taking a "special photo" for a loved one, but I would go beserk if the jerk hung it up where it could be seen by everybody and his brother! Again, that is just me.

I can understand why the defense team switched the pictures, however, I do believe had it been a naked photo of black woman, the photo was going to come down. I think it was a picture of Nicole, it was coming down.

I still believe both sides will do whatever they can to get the advantage.

[tv]

I think it was shortly after the murders that the prosecution allowed Lou Brown to wash the whole Bundy crime scene down with a water hose.What does that have to do with switching the picture?

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9106123]What did any picture Simpson had in his home have to do with helping the jury decide if the prosecution proved its case?[/QUOTEI]
I completely agree. I see no reason for the defense to change any of the pictures in the house. I'm still looking for a reasonable explanation.

As you have stated, you found it to be inappropriate, considering the children. This view could have been shared by some of the jurors. The jury was not there to consider, whether or not Simpson acted appropriately in his home. They were there to consider whether or not the evidence presented by the prosecution proved his guilt. The pictures on his wall were not evidence. Therefore, he had the right, through his defense team or anyone else, to put whatever pictures he wanted in any room he wanted in his house at anytime he wanted to put them there. If the magnificent one realized that some irrelevant and immaterial pictures were more prejudicial than probative and were not evidence for the jury to consider, it adds to my respect for him. It is
UNREASONABLE to allow the jury to consider things that are not evidence.

[martin II]

Slow Hand Sam,

I think you are forgetting a very important part regarding that one witness' testimony regarding Simpson walking back and forth at Nicole's home. Didn't Nicole tell him that she had been having some problems lately and that she asked Simpson if he check things out?

Don't forget, MF and Phillips knew Mrs. Simpson before the murders. Nicole was getting some obscene phone calls, she called the police, they responded and apparently they found out who it was and the phone calls stopped.

(Rumour was it was Ron Shipp---but I don't think that was ever proven.)

I think it was Furhman that investigated the calls to Nicoles house.Cora Fishman testified that even after the caller had been identified by le the calls continued. Nicole did ask for ojs help with these calls.

[limakey]

Martin and TV Dinner,

I was not talking about the outside of Bundy. I can't blame the Browns or the DA's for wanting the blood to be washed away. I was talking about the inside of Bundy.

Now, lets talk about the pictures that were inside Bundy. There was a huge photograph of OJ Simpson where it could be seen by anyone who walked in the Condo, I believe Officer Riske mentioned this and that is why he did what he did. I also believe there were several pictures of OJ and Nicole and their kids throughout the house. In all fairness, do you think the DA's would have allowed those pictures to be seen by the jurors? Those would have been yanked as well because it went against their case.

Also, remember the DA's had another huge problem at Bundy. It is very clear from the evidence that the first impression of many of the police officers that Nicole was setting the stage for a romantic evening---candles, the music, etc. There is no way they could have allowed the jury to even consider that possibility. There was no way they could have proved that it was just Nicole's way of relaxing or winding down for the day.

After just posting what I did, perhaps the DA's did do the right thing by turning the condo into a sterile one....they certainly protected their case with this move. God, I hate when I do that!!!!!

[tv]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9106124]

As you have stated, you found it to be inappropriate, considering the children. This view could have been shared by some of the jurors. The jury was not there to consider, whether or not Simpson acted appropriately in his home. They were there to consider whether or not the evidence presented by the prosecution proved his guilt. The pictures on his wall were not evidence. Therefore, he had the right, through his defense team or anyone else, to put whatever pictures he wanted in any room he wanted in his house at anytime he wanted to put them there. If the magnificent one realized that some irrelevant and immaterial pictures were more prejudicial than probative and were not evidence for the jury to consider, it adds to my respect for him. It is

Since I'm never going to get an explanation for why my opinion of the picture makes me biased against OJ Simpson, the jury, Johnnie Cochran and southerners who do not use the word boy when speaking to adults I'm going to let this subject slip into the cesspool that's already littered with circular arguments, snide remarks, fantasy theories, paranoia and character assassinations. It won't be long before you MEN with your big MEN pants on have it full to the top.

[martin II]

What does that have to do with switching the picture?

tv
It supports Limakeys comment that both sides did things for their advantage.
Washing the Bundy crime scene down so quickly after the murders prevented any additional investigation or study by anyone.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9106129]

Since I'm never going to get an explanation for why my opinion of the picture makes me biased against OJ Simpson, the jury, Johnnie Cochran and southerners who do not use the word boy when speaking to adults I'm going to let this subject slip into the cesspool that's already littered with circular arguments, snide remarks, fantasy theories, paranoia and character assassinations. It won't be long before you MEN with your big MEN pants on have it full to the top.

TV
I answered your question in post #3617.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9106129]

Since I'm never going to get an explanation for why my opinion of the picture makes me biased against OJ Simpson, the jury, Johnnie Cochran and southerners who do not use the word boy when speaking to adults I'm going to let this subject slip into the cesspool that's already littered with circular arguments, snide remarks, fantasy theories, paranoia and character assassinations. It won't be long before you MEN with your big MEN pants on have it full to the top.

tv
Do you have the same problem with le steralizing the inside of Nicoles house
of ojs pictures or trying to hide the fact that nicole had lit candeles in certain rooms of her house prior to the expected arrival of Ron Goldman.

[limakey]

Martin,

For some reason, I thoughtPhillips was also worked on this case. I remember thinking that if they both responded to this case, then why did both of them go out of there way to say they didn't know the victim or why these phone calls never made it into the investigation.

However, was a name ever mentioned on who was making these calls?

[martin II]

Martin,

For some reason, I thoughtPhillips was also worked on this case. I remember thinking that if they both responded to this case, then why did both of them go out of there way to say they didn't know the victim or why these phone calls never made it into the investigation.

However, was a name ever mentioned on who was making these calls?

I only remember from some place that Fhurman and i guess Phillips had investigated the calls by tracing the origin of the calles from Nicoles phone and that the person was interviewed and i guess told not stop but not charged.Cora testified that the caller did make some few more calls before stopping. This issue seemed to have just dissapeared for some reason.

[martin II]

No, that isn't what I said.

I think it is suspicious for a man, to be pacing back and forth and then standing and staring at a home at anypoint during the day. However, I feel that it is more so suspicious to do this after dark.

I never said single white woman. I said single neighbor. Let's not play games.

A good neighbor watches out for fellow neighbors. A single woman with 2 children having some man, at dark, pace back and forth in front of her home, then stop and stare then pace again SHOULD cause neighbors to be suspicious.

Walking on a public sidewalk at 10:30 is what crime.

[martin II]

Martin,

For some reason, I thoughtPhillips was also worked on this case. I remember thinking that if they both responded to this case, then why did both of them go out of there way to say they didn't know the victim or why these phone calls never made it into the investigation.

However, was a name ever mentioned on who was making these calls?

Ron Shipp would be a good suspect. Especially if he had been drinking.

[tv]

tv
It supports Limakeys comment that both sides did things for their advantage.
Washing the Bundy crime scene down so quickly after the murders prevented any additional investigation or study by anyone.For the love of God, MARTIN II, I wouldn't want my butchered child's blood in full view on a sidewalk either.

[tv]

TV Dinner,

If you can find any sense in hanging a nude photo of a wife, girl friend, boyfriend, etc., please let me know because I just don't get it. I have nothing against taking a "special photo" for a loved one, but I would go beserk if the jerk hung it up where it could be seen by everybody and his brother! Again, that is just me.

I can understand why the defense team switched the pictures, however, I do believe had it been a naked photo of black woman, the photo was going to come down. I think it was a picture of Nicole, it was coming down.

I still believe both sides will do whatever they can to get the advantage.

I don't see the sense in it myself but then I'm not a Hollywood sophisticate so maybe that's the difference. According to MARTIN II is has something to do with her fine frame that makes it okay. I wonder what picture was replaced by the Norman Rockwell print of an event during the civil rights movement that was taken out of Johnnie Cochran's office and placed in the house?

[SlowHandSam]

Walking on a public sidewalk at 10:30 is what crime.

he wasn't "walking" he was going "back and forth" and then standing and staring at the home. More than once.

he wasn't out for a stroll with his dog or out for an exercise walk.

[tv]

Martin and TV Dinner,

I was not talking about the outside of Bundy. I can't blame the Browns or the DA's for wanting the blood to be washed away. I was talking about the inside of Bundy.

Now, lets talk about the pictures that were inside Bundy. There was a huge photograph of OJ Simpson where it could be seen by anyone who walked in the Condo, I believe Officer Riske mentioned this and that is why he did what he did. I also believe there were several pictures of OJ and Nicole and their kids throughout the house. In all fairness, do you think the DA's would have allowed those pictures to be seen by the jurors? Those would have been yanked as well because it went against their case.

Also, remember the DA's had another huge problem at Bundy. It is very clear from the evidence that the first impression of many of the police officers that Nicole was setting the stage for a romantic evening---candles, the music, etc. There is no way they could have allowed the jury to even consider that possibility. There was no way they could have proved that it was just Nicole's way of relaxing or winding down for the day.

After just posting what I did, perhaps the DA's did do the right thing by turning the condo into a sterile one....they certainly protected their case with this move. God, I hate when I do that!!!!!

limakey, don't you think it's possible that the Browns removed photographs of Simpson from the condo because they thought he was responsible for butchering their daughter?

[William Anthony]

No, that isn't what I said.

I think it is suspicious for a man, to be pacing back and forth and then standing and staring at a home at anypoint during the day. However, I feel that it is more so suspicious to do this after dark.

I never said single white woman. I said single neighbor. Let's not play games.

A good neighbor watches out for fellow neighbors. A single woman with 2 children having some man, at dark, pace back and forth in front of her home, then stop and stare then pace again SHOULD cause neighbors to be suspicious.

I guess then you would not consider it suspicious if a woman was pacing back and forth and then standing in staring at a home. You say you never said single White woman, which I did not claim you did. However, you then go on to describe Nicole, a single woman with children, although you left out mixed children by a Black man. I think that the consensus of opinion is that Nicole was White and Simpson is Black. Let's not play games. No one is saying that the witness was not a good neighbor, or did not have reason to be suspicious.
However, the witness implied what his suspicions were, which were that a man of that description was pacing back and forth and staring in the house. I think that it is obvious that the witness separated the description from the conduct. I think it is obvious what the witness meant. Let's not play games. Race was always an issue in the trial, imho.

[tv]

I guess then you would not consider it suspicious if a woman was pacing back and forth and then standing in staring at a home. You say you never said single White woman, which I did not claim you did. However, you then go on to describe Nicole, a single woman with children, although you left out mixed children by a Black man. I think that the consensus of opinion is that Nicole was White and Simpson is Black. Let's not play games. No one is saying that the witness was not a good neighbor, or did not have reason to be suspicious.
However, the witness implied what his suspicions were, which were that a man of that description was pacing back and forth and staring in the house. I think that it is obvious that the witness separated the description from the conduct. I think it is obvious what the witness meant. Let's not play games. Race was always an issue in the trial, imho.

William Anthony, this needs to stop. :flamemad:

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9106129]

Since I'm never going to get an explanation for why my opinion of the picture makes me biased against OJ Simpson, the jury, Johnnie Cochran and southerners who do not use the word boy when speaking to adults I'm going to let this subject slip into the cesspool that's already littered with circular arguments, snide remarks, fantasy theories, paranoia and character assassinations. It won't be long before you MEN with your big MEN pants on have it full to the top.

I did not intend for it to mean that it was your opinion of the picture that led me to believe you may be biased against the jury, Simpson, the magnificent one and southerners that do not call adults boys. I thought it was clear that I said your numerous posts is what reinforces my opinion of your biases. For instance, your posts believing that the evidence on MF's expressed feelings and actions toward Black citizens is irrelevant to the issues in this trial and should not have been allowed, even though I believe it is common knowledge that a witness' propensity for telling the truth is an issue in any trial. MF created the cesspool with his vile and despicable remarks, his racial paranoia and his infamous character but put on his little boy pants on cross examination, which facts you defend.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9106134]

TV
I answered your question in post #3617.

Martin,

It makes no difference how many times and ways we answer the question, if the poster will not accept the explanation.

[tv]

[QUOTE=martin II;9106136]

Martin,

It makes no difference how many times and ways we answer the question, if the poster will not accept the explanation.I not only accepted it I let it slide into the cesspool. Everything's A-ok. ;)

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, this needs to stop. :flamemad:

Why, does this need to stop? Those are the facts of the case and, even though the witness had all reason to be suspicious, he should have thought that it could have been her former husband and father of her children. This still would not prevent him from calling the police. There was testimony that Simpson had been to his home on prior occasions and that Simpson and Nicole's son played with the witness' son. I am not sure of whether he knew of Simpson's concern for his children. The point is that the poster described Nicole but left off, imho, some important facts that may have minimized some of the witness' concerns, unless his first thought was that a person fitting that particular description was out of place in that neighborhood at that time of night, which was his testimony.

Why does it need to stop when all of the evidence should be considered? We know from what happened that Simpson was looking into Nicole's home. Why not place all the circumstances in their proper context? Do you think the jury did not?

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9106151]I not only accepted it I let it slide into the cesspool. Everything's A-ok. ;)

The it will find company beside MF. That's not A-ok with me.

[tv]

Why, does this need to stop? Those are the facts of the case and, even though the witness had all reason to be suspicious, he should have thought that it could have been her former husband and father of her children. This still would not prevent him from calling the police. There was testimony that Simpson had been to his home on prior occasions and that Simpson and Nicole's son played with the witness' son. I am not sure of whether he knew of Simpson's concern for his children. The point is that the poster described Nicole but left off, imho, some important facts that may have minimized some of the witness' concerns, unless his first thought was that a person fitting that particular description was out of place in that neighborhood at that time of night, which was his testimony.

Why does it need to stop when all of the evidence should be considered? We know from what happened that Simpson was looking into Nicole's home. Why not place all the circumstances in their proper context? Do you think the jury did not?

If you don't see what's wrong with your post and that sentence in particular then there's no use in pointing it out to you. However, I repeat, it needs to STOP.

[limakey]

TV Diner,

The point is that the DA's had total control over the Bundy of crime scene and knowing how the condo looked on the night of the murders may have put their case in jeopardy. It would be a hard sell for the DA's to say that Nicole was done OJ, she had it, she was over him and then to see all these photos of him, OJ and Nicole and OJ and Nicole and their kids.

It also would have been a very hard sell on proving that Nicole was not expecting a visitor for a romantic evening, especially with Kato's testimony. IMO, I believe the DA's made all decisions based on what was best for their case and not out of any compassion for Nicole or her family.

In all fairness to the DA's, I would think it would be a constant battle between showing compassion for the victims' families vs what is best for their case and their job is to prove their case. I think the same can be said of defense lawyers. Either you show compassion for the victims and their families or you do what is best for your client. I kind of think that in order to be successful, you would have learn this lesson several times before it finally sank in. Again, IMO.

[martin II]

limakey, don't you think it's possible that the Browns removed photographs of Simpson from the condo because they thought he was responsible for butchering their daughter?

I does not matter what they thought. The condo was a crime scene just as ojs house was. Are you attempting to make a excuse for removing pictures at Bundy and not accepting one for pictures being removed fron ojs house??

[William Anthony]

If you don't see what's wrong with your post and that sentence in particular then there's no use in pointing it out to you. However, I repeat, it needs to STOP.

Q. Was Nicole Brown Simpson White?

Q. Is Orenthal James Simpson Black?

Q. Did they marry?

Q. Did they have children during that marriage?

Q. Did there come a time that Nicole and Orenthal divorced?

Q. Did the witness testify that it was Orenthal staring at Nicole's house after they were divorced?

Q. Have my questions stated the facts, correctly?

Q. What is it that you find offensive about these facts?

[William Anthony]

I does not matter what they thought. The condo was a crime scene just as ojs house was. Are you attempting to make a excuse for removing pictures at Bundy and not accepting one for pictures being removed fron ojs house??

Correction-At the time that the evidence was collected, which causes me some concern as it relates to the Bundy gate, the residences were no longer crime scenes. I think that the Rockingham scene was released by the time pictures were switched but I am not sure about Bundy.

[martin II]

he wasn't "walking" he was going "back and forth" and then standing and staring at the home. More than once.

he wasn't out for a stroll with his dog or out for an exercise walk.

Walking, standing ,walking back and forth running standing,looking. from a public sidewalk is what crime. Did the sidewalk belong to anyone in the bloc or to the public?

[William Anthony]

Further direct testimony from the prosecution's 9th witness.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU REALIZED THAT THE MAN YOU SAW LOOKING AT NICOLE BROWN'S HOME WAS IN FACT THE DEFENDANT?

A: WELL, I WAS EMBARRASSED THAT I HAD CALLED 911 BECAUSE I DIDN'T FEEL THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS A THREAT TO ME OR TO ANYONE ELSE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, SO I DID NOT CALL THE POLICE BACK, BECAUSE SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE POLICE DID APPEAR AND I TOLD THEM WHO IT WAS AND WHAT THE NATURE OF THE INCIDENT HAD BEEN.

[limakey]

Slow Hand,

I do not have a problem with the neighbor calling the police. I agree with some of your statements. However, the problem is the DA's tried to use this witness to paint Mr. Simpson as a stalker and that was not the case. I could not believe the DA's used this witness. At times, it seemed like they were on a mission to sink their own case!

There was a resonable reason why the neighbor called the police, there was a resonable reason why Mr. Simpson was there, there was a resonable reason why Nicole had asked Mr. Simpson and others to watch her home and there was a resonable reason why the witnesses was embarrassed because not only was it Mr. Simpson, but it was Mrs. Simpson who asked him to check things out.

That is the problem with this case, so often resonable reasons and explainations were made but have been totally trashed because that is not how we see it.

Perfect example, Mr. Simpson seeing Mrs. Simpson with Keith in her living room. Mr. Simpson did not make a scene, he rang the door bell and left. He was not even aware that Nicole and Keith were still unware that were seen and could be seen through the window. However, others still insist that OJ went beserk and made a scene, he did not and he explained why he did not make scene.

Now, it was me, I know that I would never have left until I ruined that little Kodac Moment. There is no way that I ever would have extened my hand for a handshake to the person I saw with my ex. However, I would have made sure that I made it clear that my kids could have walked in and that they could have been seen by others.

The sole reason why the DA's didn't use this because it shows a man in a very difficult position, not freaking out and not making a scene. It showed a man who was in control and explained why he did what he did. Perhaps I know myself too well but I would have also made it clear that my kids could have seen it as well. (However, I would not have blamed Nicole one bit had she retorted or asked him if he was thinking about what the kids saw in his home, etc.)

[SlowHandSam]

Further direct testimony from the prosecution's 9th witness.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU REALIZED THAT THE MAN YOU SAW LOOKING AT NICOLE BROWN'S HOME WAS IN FACT THE DEFENDANT?

A: WELL, I WAS EMBARRASSED THAT I HAD CALLED 911 BECAUSE I DIDN'T FEEL THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS A THREAT TO ME OR TO ANYONE ELSE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, SO I DID NOT CALL THE POLICE BACK, BECAUSE SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE POLICE DID APPEAR AND I TOLD THEM WHO IT WAS AND WHAT THE NATURE OF THE INCIDENT HAD BEEN.

did I not say that he was later embarrassed because I'm quite certain I did.

It doesn't negate the fact that a MAN was seen pacing back and forth and staring at the door of a home, at night. It is suspicious behavior.

You quoted my original posted and changed my context to be single white woman versus just a single woman like I stated. I don't give a crap if she's white or if her kids are white, black or mixed.

A man, pacing in front of a SINGLE WOMAN's home then stopping and starting and pacing again then stopping and staring, at 10:30pm, is suspicious behavior. Period. Criminal or not, it's suspicious.

You would honestly tell me that if you saw a man doing what oj was described to do, at 10:30pm, in front of the home of... oh let's say ... a neighbor who is elderly and widowed - that you would not be suspicious?

Right.

[William Anthony]

I do not have a problem with the neighbor calling the police. I do have a problem with people saying it was the defense that injected race into the trial or made race an issue when it should not have been. The fact is that race was an issue, as evidenced by the prosecution's 9th witness, far before the defense exposed MF. I simply posted that witness' testimony to refute the claim, blaming the defense. People tend to make remarks without directly saying they are racial but, when the evidence shows that they were racial, they want to end the discussion or say stop. This is not an open and honest discussion of the issues, or at least one, in the case, imho.

[martin II]

Further direct testimony from the prosecution's 9th witness.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU REALIZED THAT THE MAN YOU SAW LOOKING AT NICOLE BROWN'S HOME WAS IN FACT THE DEFENDANT?

A: WELL, I WAS EMBARRASSED THAT I HAD CALLED 911 BECAUSE I DIDN'T FEEL THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS A THREAT TO ME OR TO ANYONE ELSE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, SO I DID NOT CALL THE POLICE BACK, BECAUSE SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE POLICE DID APPEAR AND I TOLD THEM WHO IT WAS AND WHAT THE NATURE OF THE INCIDENT HAD BEEN.

Seems like oj was recognized at GG anmd would have been recognized at Bundy.
But this KIND of MAN was out of place on the public sidewalk near her house
until she understood who he was. oh i am sorry. silly me. hi oj.

[limakey]

William,

I understand your feelings the best that I can not being of your race. When I heard this testimony, I never gave race a thought. I was just astounded that Mr. Simpson was asked to check the place out by Mrs. Simpson. That she had asked others to do so as well.

I think it is very possible for people to make comments that may sound very racist to people when that was not their intent at all. For instance, this neighbor who called the police, don't you think it is very possible they saw a man and were concerned enough to observe the man. Okay, the decision was made to call the cops, better to be safe then sorry, okay, what were going to be the first questions from police, a description of that man they saw. Do you have any proof that this same witness would not have called if they saw a white man doing the exact same thing?

I think the problem with using the word racist is that it has been used so much, what does it really mean? IMO, MF is a racist, this witness was not a racist. However, the testimony can be twisted and turned many ways and one of those ways is to make it racist. IMO, this is a mistake. Again, IMO.

[William Anthony]

did I not say that he was later embarrassed because I'm quite certain I did.

It doesn't negate the fact that a MAN was seen pacing back and forth and staring at the door of a home, at night. It is suspicious behavior.

You quoted my original posted and changed my context to be single white woman versus just a single woman like I stated. I don't give a crap if she's white or if her kids are white, black or mixed.

A man, pacing in front of a SINGLE WOMAN's home then stopping and starting and pacing again then stopping and staring, at 10:30pm, is suspicious behavior. Period. Criminal or not, it's suspicious.

You would honestly tell me that if you saw a man doing what oj was described to do, at 10:30pm, in front of the home of... oh let's say ... a neighbor who is elderly and widowed - that you would not be suspicious?

Right.

Let me try to be open with you so that we can have an honest discussion. I did not change your context. I added to it to put it in its proper perspective. I do not think the race of the neighbor or her marital status was as important to the witness as his description of the person he saw. I think that, if it had been a single black woman, he would have called the police. However, I think a single black woman would have been out of place in that neighborhood. Try as you would like, the witness described the person's actions and went on to say that a person fitting that description at that time of night in that neighborhood. It is obvious that not only was he describing what the person was doing but also what the person looked like, which that description was out of place in that neighborhood at that time of night. Do you think he called the police and said there is a big man pacing back and forth in the neighborhood, acting suspicious? I think you know he called and said there is a big Black man or big African-American man pacing back and forth in the neighborhood, acting suspicious. I do not fault him for calling the police. My point is that race is always an issue. I will venture to say that he would not have been as suspicious if it was a big White man in the neighborhood at that time of night pacing back and forth and acting suspicious. One of my favorite quotes is from that ex mayor of Chicago, IIRC, David Dinkins, when he said there is not a moment in America, when race is a total irrelevancy. It is unfortunate, imho, that this is the situation. However, let's not blame the defense for bringing race into the trial when it was there long before MF was exposed. We know the race of the person pacing and we know the race of Nicole. Yes, given the situation you have stated, I would call the police and describe the person as a big Black man. Because I live in a mixed neighborhood, I would describe the person as a big White man or Caucasian. The time would not have mattered in either situation. However, when we take this witness' testimony in context, you see that it was out of place for a person of that description (Black) being in that neighborhood at that time of night. Race, rightly or wrongly, was an issue in the mind of that witness and an issue in the trial before the defense exposed MF. I hope you understand what I am saying and I was not trying to change your post but I was trying to place his testimony in context with the evidence.

[martin II]

Further direct testimony from the prosecution's 9th witness.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU REALIZED THAT THE MAN YOU SAW LOOKING AT NICOLE BROWN'S HOME WAS IN FACT THE DEFENDANT?

A: WELL, I WAS EMBARRASSED THAT I HAD CALLED 911 BECAUSE I DIDN'T FEEL THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS A THREAT TO ME OR TO ANYONE ELSE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, SO I DID NOT CALL THE POLICE BACK, BECAUSE SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE POLICE DID APPEAR AND I TOLD THEM WHO IT WAS AND WHAT THE NATURE OF THE INCIDENT HAD BEEN.

Seems like oj was recognized at GG and would have been recognized at Bundy.
But this KIND of MAN was out of place on the public sidewalk near her house
until she understood who he was. oh i am sorry. silly me. hi oj.

[William Anthony]

William,

I understand your feelings the best that I can not being of your race. When I heard this testimony, I never gave race a thought. I was just astounded that Mr. Simpson was asked to check the place out by Mrs. Simpson. That she had asked others to do so as well.

I think it is very possible for people to make comments that may sound very racist to people when that was not their intent at all. For instance, this neighbor who called the police, don't you think it is very possible they saw a man and were concerned enough to observe the man. Okay, the decision was made to call the cops, better to be safe then sorry, okay, what were going to be the first questions from police, a description of that man they saw. Do you have any proof that this same witness would not have called if they saw a white man doing the exact same thing?

I think the problem with using the word racist is that it has been used so much, what does it really mean? IMO, MF is a racist, this witness was not a racist. However, the testimony can be twisted and turned many ways and one of those ways is to make it racist. IMO, this is a mistake. Again, IMO.

You misunderstand. I never said that the witness was racist. I said race was an issue. The witnesses testimony was that those were his thoughts as he looked out his window. He had not yet called the police. I am not blaming this witness for anything. I am just refuting the claim that the defense brought race into the trial. It was there from the moment Simpson was arrested for these murders. It was there when the witness looked out his window. Of course the witness had the right to feel the way he felt but do not try to blame the defense for making the witness or any other person feel the way they feel. That is my point.

Racist to me means feeling that your race is superior to all other races. I never meant to twist the testimony of this witness to mean that. There is no need to twist MF's words-that's racist, imho. My whole point is that these murders did not take place on Mars; they took place in America where race is an issue and the defense did not create or play it. They exposed it. If it were not an issue, we would not be talking about the fact that Obama received the nomination for President.

[martin II]

Slow Hand,

I do not have a problem with the neighbor calling the police. I agree with some of your statements. However, the problem is the DA's tried to use this witness to paint Mr. Simpson as a stalker and that was not the case. I could not believe the DA's used this witness. At times, it seemed like they were on a mission to sink their own case!

There was a resonable reason why the neighbor called the police, there was a resonable reason why Mr. Simpson was there, there was a resonable reason why Nicole had asked Mr. Simpson and others to watch her home and there was a resonable reason why the witnesses was embarrassed because not only was it Mr. Simpson, but it was Mrs. Simpson who asked him to check things out.

That is the problem with this case, so often resonable reasons and explainations were made but have been totally trashed because that is not how we see it.

Perfect example, Mr. Simpson seeing Mrs. Simpson with Keith in her living room. Mr. Simpson did not make a scene, he rang the door bell and left. He was not even aware that Nicole and Keith were still unware that were seen and could be seen through the window. However, others still insist that OJ went beserk and made a scene, he did not and he explained why he did not make scene.

Now, it was me, I know that I would never have left until I ruined that little Kodac Moment. There is no way that I ever would have extened my hand for a handshake to the person I saw with my ex. However, I would have made sure that I made it clear that my kids could have walked in and that they could have been seen by others.

The sole reason why the DA's didn't use this because it shows a man in a very difficult position, not freaking out and not making a scene. It showed a man who was in control and explained why he did what he did. Perhaps I know myself too well but I would have also made it clear that my kids could have seen it as well. (However, I would not have blamed Nicole one bit had she retorted or asked him if he was thinking about what the kids saw in his home, etc.)

Limakey
I like your honesty.
I have talked to many men who have said that if seeing nicole and KZ did not set him off, then nothing would. For me it does show that oj had come to a place where what nicole did, did not matter to him.imo

[limakey]

William,

I now understand your point and I agree with you. Race is a part of America and it always has been and it will always be a part of us.

[SlowHandSam]

William,

I now understand your point and I agree with you. Race is a part of America and it always has been and it will always be a part of us.

Agreed however it doesn't have to be every single comment turned into race.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9106151]I not only accepted it I let it slide into the cesspool. Everything's A-ok. ;)

tv
Your position on the issue should be respected and my response to your quesiton deserves to go to that cesspool you are managing? WHY?

[William Anthony]

William,

I now understand your point and I agree with you. Race is a part of America and it always has been and it will always be a part of us.

Thank you. I live for but doubt I will live long enough to see when it will not be.

[weezer]

TV Diner,

The DA's spent a huge amount of time at Bundy, they were responsible for the Bundy crime scene and they did the same thing the defense did at Rockingham. I remember there was some sort of argument about the landscape and some other things that escape me at the moment. The problem for the DA's, they again guessed wrong.

Instead of showing a home where a mother and friend were murdered, they showed a very sterile home that only left the jurors with questions like how could no one hear or see anything that night. How did the kids sleep through this.

I don't have a problem with your anger regarding the switched picture, however, both sides do the exact same thing and in this case, the DA's again made the wrong choice.

I do realize that the condo at Bundy was listed for sale, however, the DA's had total control over of this and it should have been preserved as a crime scene---they guessed wrong.

1. the jury was not taken to orenthal's house to view the trophy room, the fireplace, the picture of his mother on his bedside (which, quite honestly, in and of itself I find kinda creepy).

2. to say that Bundy should have been maintained as a crime scene is asinine. how in the world do you think that was going to be?

3. you remember some kind of argument over landscape? WTH?

4. rather than compare how nice the homes did or did not look, it seems to me the better question is why the jurors weren't taken to the locations at night time in order to have a better understanding of the conditions the night orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole.

[William Anthony]

Agreed however it doesn't have to be every single comment turned into race.

Not every single comment has been turned into race. I have engaged in conversations about other evidence-prolonged ones, without being told to stop.:) I do think that there will be occasions when the subject will not be able to be avoided. I think that, if we are able to control our emotions and listen to what each other is truly saying, progress can be made and agreements reached.
I think that you have good points and should express them. The fact that we disagree on some things should not prevent us from communicating. You might find that if you debate the point with me and persuade me that I was wrong, I will stand corrected. :)

[limakey]

Martin,

I believe OJ always cared what Nicole did and I believe Nicole always cared what OJ did. To this day, I believed they loved each other and I do believe that if Nicole was alive today, they would have continued to be on-off-on-off again.

OJ basically said that he had no right to comment on Nicole's activities because he cheated on her. He never denied that his cheating crushed Nicole and that was the reason his marriage fell apart. However, as bad as he felt, he still didn't stop it. As much as he knew it hurt Nicole, he still didn't stop it. I think OJ realized that he pushed Nicole too far with his cheating and he honestly felt that she was just as entitled as he was to have sex life.

[weezer]

Slow Hand Sam,

I think you are forgetting a very important part regarding that one witness' testimony regarding Simpson walking back and forth at Nicole's home. Didn't Nicole tell him that she had been having some problems lately and that she asked Simpson if he check things out?

Don't forget, MF and Phillips knew Mrs. Simpson before the murders. Nicole was getting some obscene phone calls, she called the police, they responded and apparently they found out who it was and the phone calls stopped.

(Rumour was it was Ron Shipp---but I don't think that was ever proven.)

which witness was that limakey? I don't remember that testimony. Nicole knew it was orenthal stalking her -- she told family and friends that he was.

MF and Phillips didn't respond to a call from Nicole about obscene phone calls.

Ron Shipp was never accused of or found to be the person making the obscene phone calls.

[martin II]

Correction-At the time that the evidence was collected, which causes me some concern as it relates to the Bundy gate, the residences were no longer crime scenes. I think that the Rockingham scene was released by the time pictures were switched but I am not sure about Bundy.

The prosecution never presented any testimony by le of all of the pictures of oj in nicoles condo on 6/13. They talked about the ice cream container.There was talk about a mans jacket on a chair but no testimony. There was slight mention of the lit candles.
i think both scenes had been released when the pictures were switched.
my question was why was bundy released for clean up so soon.

[limakey]

FBG,

If you read my next post, you will see where I totally reversed my position on why the DA's did what they did.

Also, it was the DA's who claimed that Simpson dripped blood throughout his home. While it was not the DA's fault that Simpson had white carpet in his home, the jurors still had the right to see the home and form their own opinons. The fact that Mr. Simpson had a trophy room again has nothing to do with the actual murders, however, if he dripped blood in that room, now that would have mattered, IMO.

It is clear that both sides did what they did to gain the advantage in this area. The fact that the DA's got the short end of the stick does not mean they did not do or attempt to do the same thing the DA's did.

There was another motion by the defense, I think to go back to the crime scene at night. Wasn't that when Judge Ito blew a gasket about both sides fighting over was "waxing vs waning moon"? Didn't the DA fight against any night time visit to the crime scene and gave their reasons why they were against it?

What it came down to was the defense wanted to prove that if the bloody paw prints were there, the couple on the blind date would have saw them. The defense wanted to claim that if Nicole was killed when the DA's said she was, her body would have been seen from the street. The DA's said there were lighting issues and that there was no way to reconstruct the crime scene as to how it was that night.

There was also the issue of Nicole's Condo being emptied of all contents. Again, this was the DA's choice. They fought against lighting candles, doing ice cream expermints, etc. The DA's could not be sure how any of these experiments would have turned out and they were not going to risk it.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

I believe OJ always cared what Nicole did and I believe Nicole always cared what OJ did. To this day, I believed they loved each other and I do believe that if Nicole was alive today, they would have continued to be on-off-on-off again.

OJ basically said that he had no right to comment on Nicole's activities because he cheated on her. He never denied that his cheating crushed Nicole and that was the reason his marriage fell apart. However, as bad as he felt, he still didn't stop it. As much as he knew it hurt Nicole, he still didn't stop it. I think OJ realized that he pushed Nicole too far with his cheating and he honestly felt that she was just as entitled as he was to have sex life.

If I might, I believe there comes a point, when all rational people realize that dysfunctional is not functional. I do not doubt that they loved each other and that the situation was passionate and volatile.

I think that Simpson's willingness to take responsibility for the end of the marriage meant that he had reconciled himself with the fact that it was over.
I think that all rational people realize that, when they have been rejected, the best thing they can do is give the person who rejected them a good leaving alone. I truly believe that they had mutually reached this rationalization, unless someone can show me what caused Simpson to become so enraged on that particular night to allegedly commit murder. I know that the prosecution does not have to prove motive. However, given their history and the prosecution's decision to include spousal abuse, they were wedded into giving some plausible explanation. Their children and his finances were enough to allow him to keep a large amount of control, imho. It just does not fit, imho.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution never presented any testimony by le of all of the pictures of oj in nicoles condo on 6/13. They talked about the ice cream container.There was talk about a mans jacket on a chair but no testimony. There was slight mention of the lit candles.
i think both scenes had been released when the pictures were switched.
my question was why was bundy released for clean up so soon.

I understood your point and I probably was not clear in my response. I don't see how they could have released it and gone back three weeks later and allegedly collected blood from the gate but allowed a clean up prior to that.

[martin II]

which witness was that limakey? I don't remember that testimony. Nicole knew it was orenthal stalking her -- she told family and friends that he was.

MF and Phillips didn't respond to a call from Nicole about obscene phone calls.

Ron Shipp was never accused of or found to be the person making the obscene phone calls.

The witness testimony is posted. No one said shipp was accused. i don't know how you know the other stuff.

[martin II]

I understood your point and I probably was not clear in my response. I don't see how they could have released it and gone back three weeks later and allegedly collected blood from the gate but allowed a clean up prior to that.

I know.

[martin II]

It is obvious from reading your books that you are very familiar with the way the police work. What are your thoughts on how the LAPD performed in this investigation?

… Los Angeles for many years had operated with a police department that was far smaller than other police departments had in areas of comparable or larger size, New York and Chicago being the most obvious examples. Now, when you have a police department that's only a portion of the size of other major cities, anybody in law enforcement will tell you that the reason they're able to quell crime is pretty simple, and that's because they break the rules all the time, and they really operate in areas where crime occurs frequently with disregard to the law. They break heads; they break rules. They break into houses. They rule by terror. And again, after the fact, we now know that all of the horrible events that were part of the Rampart scandal in Los Angeles were going on at this time.

So it's not very hard to understand that the suspicion of the L.A. police department in the minority community was enormous, and I think that the only way to have won that case once decisions were made that led to having an almost exclusively minority jury was to be able to stand in front of that jury and say: "I know what you've heard about the L.A. police; I've heard it, too. But I'm going to show you that's not the case here; that's not how we're prosecuting this case. Everything's on the up-and-up."

Instead they went in the complete opposite direction. They did it the way they've always done it. [Detectives Philip] Vannatter and [Mark] Fuhrman climbed over the wall of the Simpson home or compound in Brentwood and went in there. And again, it's obvious why they went in there: They wanted to question O.J. Simpson before he got a lawyer. Then they get on the witness stand when [defense attorney] Robert Shapiro moved to suppress the evidence they gained by entering the house and testified that they'd gone in there, because with Nicole Simpson dead several blocks away, they feared for the safety of somebody else inside the house. Now, there's no causal connection between those two things; that's rank speculation, not to mention the fact that it's obvious horse hockey.

And yet the prosecutors put them on the stand to say that, and the municipal court judge who heard that testimony acted as if she believed it. And I am one who said at that point, "They've lost, they've lost." Now, did I know that Fuhrman was ultimately going to get convicted of perjury? No, I didn't expect that, but it was obvious to me that they were on the road to hell.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/prosecution.html

[martin II]

If I might, I believe there comes a point, when all rational people realize that dysfunctional is not functional. I do not doubt that they loved each other and that the situation was passionate and volatile.

I think that Simpson's willingness to take responsibility for the end of the marriage meant that he had reconciled himself with the fact that it was over.
I think that all rational people realize that, when they have been rejected, the best thing they can do is give the person who rejected them a good leaving alone. I truly believe that they had mutually reached this rationalization, unless someone can show me what caused Simpson to become so enraged on that particular night to allegedly commit murder. I know that the prosecution does not have to prove motive. However, given their history and the prosecution's decision to include spousal abuse, they were wedded into giving some plausible explanation. Their children and his finances were enough to allow him to keep a large amount of control, imho. It just does not fit, imho.


OJ knew that nicole was seeing other men and Nicole certainly knew that Paula had plans to become the next mrs Simpson.

[limakey]

William and Martin,

I agree that OJ and Nicole knew that their marriage was over, in their heads. However, being over in one's heart is another matter.

[martin II]

Hi Weezy. Let's talk evidence. Gloves.


This is what Cochran said in his closing argument.
"Remember there is a question he was asked about gloves and lee bailey asked him about. Well--he says, well--he is talking about gloves and he says, "Them." He never explained that. He says "Them." Does that mean two gloves? He said, "I saw them." Is that two gloves? Why would you say "Them"?

Cochran completely misrepresented this issue. He said there is a question he was asked about "gloves." Poor Mr. Johnnie didn't even get Bailey's script right with that false statement. Uelmen didn't ask Fuhrman about "gloves" he asked him about one glove.
Q All right. And from that vantage point, you first observed the glove that you told us about?
A Not first, no.
Q When did you first observe it?

Cochran then said to the jury, "Well--he says, well--he is talking about gloves and he says "Them."

Another false statement from Cochran. Fuhrman never said he was talking about "gloves." Fuhrman answered Uelmen's question with the words "the glove" and then went on to explain what he saw from his vantage point. The evidence under the plant leaves. Them. A knit cap and a glove.

Mr. Johnnie says, "He never explained that. He says "Them." Does that mean two gloves?"
Mr. Johnnie was wrong again. Fuhrman did explain what he meant.
Q I'M SIMPLY ASKING WHETHER GLOVE, LINE 14, WAS THE ITEM YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT JUST PRIOR TO SAYING "I SAW THEM AT HIS FEET"?
A "THEM," I WAS REFERRING TO THE KNIT CAP, THE GLOVE.

Every time William you repeat the false claim that Mark Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet you are lying.

bobaugust

Weezy and Bob forgive the snips. A pair of Aris Light XL gloves were bought at Bloomingdales for Simpson. He wore them from 90 to June 94.

A left hand Aris Light Glove was found at Bundy. A right hand glove was found at Rockingham.

Weezy, what are your thoughts on this?


The gloves didn't fit so they had to acquit.That is the reality of the gloves.:cool:

[martin II]

Belle

Exactly how did the oj trial effect Australians and specifically how did the trial effect the Blacks you speak of in Australia.

See post #3313 and 3314.

[William Anthony]

Hi Weezy. Let's talk evidence. Gloves.


This is what Cochran said in his closing argument.
"Remember there is a question he was asked about gloves and lee bailey asked him about. Well--he says, well--he is talking about gloves and he says, "Them." He never explained that. He says "Them." Does that mean two gloves? He said, "I saw them." Is that two gloves? Why would you say "Them"?

Cochran completely misrepresented this issue. He said there is a question he was asked about "gloves." Poor Mr. Johnnie didn't even get Bailey's script right with that false statement. Uelmen didn't ask Fuhrman about "gloves" he asked him about one glove.
Q All right. And from that vantage point, you first observed the glove that you told us about?
A Not first, no.
Q When did you first observe it?

Cochran then said to the jury, "Well--he says, well--he is talking about gloves and he says "Them."

Another false statement from Cochran. Fuhrman never said he was talking about "gloves." Fuhrman answered Uelmen's question with the words "the glove" and then went on to explain what he saw from his vantage point. The evidence under the plant leaves. Them. A knit cap and a glove.

Mr. Johnnie says, "He never explained that. He says "Them." Does that mean two gloves?"
Mr. Johnnie was wrong again. Fuhrman did explain what he meant.
Q I'M SIMPLY ASKING WHETHER GLOVE, LINE 14, WAS THE ITEM YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT JUST PRIOR TO SAYING "I SAW THEM AT HIS FEET"?
A "THEM," I WAS REFERRING TO THE KNIT CAP, THE GLOVE.

Every time William you repeat the false claim that Mark Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet you are lying.

bobaugust

Weezy and Bob forgive the snips. A pair of Aris Light XL gloves were bought at Bloomingdales for Simpson. He wore them from 90 to June 94.

A left hand Aris Light Glove was found at Bundy. A right hand glove was found at Rockingham.

Weezy, what are your thoughts on this?

Good morning, Mr. Bell,

With all due respect, the glove evidence has been worn out (pun intended). Posters have had many discussions of the convicted perjurer's use of the word them, when specifically asked about one glove (the one he claimed to have seen at Bundy) and not having been asked about the cap in several pages of testimony. Do not forget my posting of the testimony where LE are trained how to testify. MF knew exactly what he was saying when he said them and so did the Brilliant Bailey (MF saw two gloves at Bundy).

Quite to the contrary of your post, the Brilliant Bailey was talking about gloves and MF's use of the word them in the transcript. You misunderstood as usual. The magnificent one was not talking about Uelmen's question. He was speaking of the Brilliant one's questions about the gloves, which trapped the convicted perjurer, who was not convicted at that point, but there was direct evidence that MF was a perjurer. There was direct evidence that the soon convicted perjurer was an evidence planter. I do not know where you got your quote that the soon-to-be convicted perjurer answered Ulemen's question about one glove, with the answer, "I saw the glove." The transcript, which the Brilliant Bailey read verbatim in court, reads that the soon-to-be convicted perjurer answered "them" when Ulemen specifically asked him about seeing one glove. We also have had the discussion about some posters willingness to accept the explanation of a soon-to-be convicted perjurer.

The magnificent one was correct. The soon-to-be convicted perjurer never explained his use of the word them. He concocted a lying explanation, which the Brilliant Bailey exposed, by asking him if he had been asked about the cap in several pages of testimony.

I see that you rely on someone that called me a liar and it was proven that he lied or, as this particular poster liked to attribute to some, was mistaken and made a human error, while calling others liars (I hope you get my point). In fact this particular poster made another human error or mistake and claimed that no one but me ever made the claim that the soon-to-be convicted perjurer used the word them to mean he saw two gloves and no defense lawyer ever argued that. When I posted the magnificent one's closing I proved that particular poster, who has devoted his life, one might say become obsessed with, this trial to reading transcripts and coming up with theories to prove Simpson guilty, he had to admit that he was mistaken or some could say he lied. With all due respect, you rely on a poster that some might say was proven to be a liar and a convicted perjurer to support your claims. I realize that reading what the magnificent one actually said may be tricky for some. However, it is correct that the Brilliant Bailey was speaking about gloves, the two that the soon-to-be convicted perjurer, admitting to seeing at Bundy when he had his slip but non-slip of the tongue.
I think some may want to claim that the magnificent one deceived the jury when he did not. In fact, the same poster that you rely on made that claim, in regard to Simpson having a falling out with Paula. When I explained that the evidence was that Paula fell out with Simpson and there was no evidence, as the magnificent one claimed, that Simpson fell out with Paula, the poster again admitted he was mistaken. It seems that the sources upon which you rely may not be the best. Sort of like the prosecution's case too many mistakes, human errors and lies.

I will not stoop to your tactics to post another poster's false claim to imply that I am a liar. Instead, I will tell you directly that you still have gotten only one thing right, imho, in the numerous posts you have made on these threads. I would also like to ask you a couple of questions. Why are you asking another poster their thoughts? Do you have a thought of your own on the issues in the criminal trial?

[William Anthony]

The gloves didn't fit so they had to acquit.That is the reality of the gloves.:cool:

I wish they could have made MF put the gloves on.;)

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

I agree that OJ and Nicole knew that their marriage was over, in their heads. However, being over in one's heart is another matter.

A very interesting statement. Does the heart control the head or does the head control the heart? It is commonly believed that the head or brain controls our actions and senses. Is love an emotion controlled by the head or is it an entirely different animal, whose source is from some extraordinary location? Was Simpson somehow unable to control his actions due to the love he felt for Nicole and was she able to control her actions toward him? Is there a defense that can be raised in similar cases, where the ex-husband is accused of murdering his former spouse? I remember when my parents used to whip me saying they did it because they loved me. I asked them could they love me a little less.:)

[weezer]

A very interesting statement. Does the heart control the head or does the head control the heart? It is commonly believed that the head or brain controls our actions and senses. Is love an emotion controlled by the head or is it an entirely different animal, whose source is from some extraordinary location? Was Simpson somehow unable to control his actions due to the love he felt for Nicole and was she able to control her actions toward him? Is there a defense that can be raised in similar cases, where the ex-husband is accused of murdering his former spouse? I remember when my parents used to whip me saying they did it because they loved me. I asked them could they love me a little less.:)

abuse is never about love -- it's about control. orenthal had lost control of Nicole and he couldn't handle it.

[martin II]

I wish they could have made MF put the gloves on.;)

I think furhman wore size 12 shoes also.

[William Anthony]

abuse is never about love -- it's about control. orenthal had lost control of Nicole and he couldn't handle it.

I would agree but for the fact that they had children that need to be raised. Before anyone comments on the type of father he may have been, that was not my point. I have had the misfortune of being in relationships with women that have had children while they were married. I have in most cases found the ex-husband will use the children to maintain control, as sad as that is. They will haul the mother into court criticizing their actions in order for the mother to change. I have found that, unless the ex-husband has remarried, he really does not want custody of the children. Simpson had the financial resourced to control or attempt to control Nicole's lifestyle for years through the courts. It just does not fit that he would pick that particular night to lose control, when he allegedly had seen her in situations that I feel would have caused him to lose control much quicker. I guess it takes a more plausible reason for me to believe that he lost control, considering he was engaged to another woman.

[martin II]

I wish they could have made MF put the gloves on.;)

I think furhman wore size 12 shoes also.

[William Anthony]

I think furhman wore size 12 shoes also.

I think he was pigeon-toed.:)

[martin II]

I think he was pigeon-toed.:)

I think split tounge and a eight inch nose.

[William Anthony]

I think split tounge and a eight inch nose.

We should not joke about him. I mean he suffered from some serious diseases-foot-in-mouth and incurable dumbness, imho.

[martin II]

I would agree but for the fact that they had children that need to be raised. Before anyone comments on the type of father he may have been, that was not my point. I have had the misfortune of being in relationships with women that have had children while they were married. I have in most cases found the ex-husband will use the children to maintain control, as sad as that is. They will haul the mother into court criticizing their actions in order for the mother to change. I have found that, unless the ex-husband has remarried, he really does not want custody of the children. Simpson had the financial resourced to control or attempt to control Nicole's lifestyle for years through the courts. It just does not fit that he would pick that particular night to lose control, when he allegedly had seen her in situations that I feel would have caused him to lose control much quicker. I guess it takes a more plausible reason for me to believe that he lost control, considering he was engaged to another woman.

At the divoice oj gave Nicole about $400,000. $10,000 mo child support,plus childrens insurance,a $500,000 SF Condo, i believe the expensive sports car and when she could not qualify for the lease for the GG house he signed to guarantee it for her.

Seem to me he was attempting to give her control of her own life.:cool:

[William Anthony]

At the divoice oj gave Nicole about $400,000. $10,000 mo child support,plus childrens insurance,a $500,000 SF Condo, i believe the expensive sports car and when she could not qualify for the lease for the GG house he signed to guarantee it for her.

Seem to me he was attempting to give her control of her own life.:cool:

I agree and I may be wrong but I don't remember anything about a custody battle between Nicole and him.

[martin II]

abuse is never about love -- it's about control. orenthal had lost control of Nicole and he couldn't handle it.

Why would oj want control over nicole when he had Paula. That makes no sense.

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

IMO, the most important testimony about the gloves, the judge never allowed the jury to hear. That testimony was by MF when he disobeyed a direct order not to speak to LHM.

He said it very clearly, "the glove is everything, if I go down, the glove goes down, the case goes bye-bye and Clark knows it!". I probably shouldn't have put them in quotes because I am not sure if those are his exact words but that is the gist of what he said. Why the judge never allowed the jury to hear this, makes no sense. However, this statement can't be ignored in reference to MF and what this case meant to him.

Also, I am not sure if you know this, but MF had the DA's by the throat and the DA's mistaken thought they had the judge by the throat. While Fuhrman played games about his past and the DA's were only too ready this game, Fuhrman's real ace in the whole was his past confrontations with the judge's wife and that she committed perjury in this case by signing declaration that she had no real memory of MF. There is no way Capt York could have forgotten her "meetings" with MF.

Many people saw that glove demonstration and many people only saw what they wanted to see. While I agree that the fit of the gloves doesn't really matter, the circumstances surrounding the "finding" of the glove didn't help the DA's one bit. IMO.

[martin II]

I agree and I may be wrong but I don't remember anything about a custody battle between Nicole and him.

I don't think there was one. Nicole wanted the money and the Rockingham house and oj refused to give it to her but she accepted the settlement without a big fight.

[William Anthony]

Mr. Bell,

IMO, the most important testimony about the gloves, the judge never allowed the jury to hear. That testimony was by MF when he disobeyed a direct order not to speak to LHM.

He said it very clearly, "the glove is everything, if I go down, the glove goes down, the case goes bye-bye and Clark knows it!". I probably shouldn't have put them in quotes because I am not sure if those are his exact words but that is the gist of what he said. Why the judge never allowed the jury to hear this, makes no sense. However, this statement can't be ignored in reference to MF and what this case meant to him.

Also, I am not sure if you know this, but MF had the DA's by the throat and the DA's mistaken thought they had the judge by the throat. While Fuhrman played games about his past and the DA's were only too ready this game, Fuhrman's real ace in the whole was his past confrontations with the judge's wife and that she committed perjury in this case by signing declaration that she had no real memory of MF. There is no way Capt York could have forgotten her "meetings" with MF.

Many people saw that glove demonstration and many people only saw what they wanted to see. While I agree that the fit of the gloves doesn't really matter, the circumstances surrounding the "finding" of the glove didn't help the DA's one bit. IMO.

I have posted on that statement and asked what MF could have possibly meant by that statement and received the standard response that he was only posturing.

I remember the prosecution wanting Ito to recuse himself, then not wanting him to and wanting him to. Those tapes were extremely damaging to the prosecution's case in more ways than one, imho. I know MF did not want the jury to hear them (pun intended).

[martin II]

I agree and I may be wrong but I don't remember anything about a custody battle between Nicole and him.

I don't think there was one. Nicole wanted the money and the Rockingham house and oj refused to give it to her but she accepted the settlement without a big fight.They may have had joint custody not sure.

[William Anthony]

I don't think there was one. Nicole wanted the money and the Rockingham house and oj refused to give it to her but she accepted the settlement without a big fight.

Sometimes people ask for more than what they want in order to get what they want. I think the courts are aware of this.

[limakey]

William,

I am not so sure if your statement about most men not wanting anything to do with their children until they re-marry is a fair way to describe this. IMO, at least for our generation, I think most men truly believe that the children do belong with the mother and that is because the woman gave actual birth and that the bond between mother and child is much stronger then the bond between a father and a child. However, it also appears to me that this changes as the children get older. It seems that the older the child gets, the more involved the father gets. Apparently there was an unwritten parental law that said the mother is automatically the more patient, nuturing parent and the father's main responsibility is still to earn the money to put food on their table.

Think about it William, what would your dad's boss say to him if your dad asked for a day off from work because you were home sick?

I do believe this is changing and I am happy about that. I do not think being a woman automatically makes you a better parent, however, I still believe that alot of people still may very well believe this.

[limakey]

William,

As I have posted before, the DA's knew the only place they were going to win their case was in the court of public opinion and I believe their actions regarding the judge were nothing more then a stunt for the press.

And despite how Darden and Clark trashed and bashed Ito, they knew he was one their best friends in the court room! IMO.

[Kate Sachel]

At the divoice oj gave Nicole about $400,000. $10,000 mo child support,plus childrens insurance,a $500,000 SF Condo, i believe the expensive sports car and when she could not qualify for the lease for the GG house he signed to guarantee it for her.

Seem to me he was attempting to give her control of her own life.:cool:

Or perhaps it was just his way of continuing to maintain control over her.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Seems like oj was recognized at GG and would have been recognized at Bundy.
But this KIND of MAN was out of place on the public sidewalk near her house
until she understood who he was. oh i am sorry. silly me. hi oj.

Yes, generally someone who appears to be pacing outside of a neighbor's home would appear to be out of place if you do not realize right away that the person is the ex-husband of your neighbor who still engages in interaction with your neighbor. Once that is realized, it makes sense that you would no longer consider that to be out of place.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

William,

As I have posted before, the DA's knew the only place they were going to win their case was in the court of public opinion and I believe their actions regarding the judge were nothing more then a stunt for the press.

And despite how Darden and Clark trashed and bashed Ito, they knew he was one their best friends in the court room! IMO.

Can you explain your last statement please? I would like clarification prior to my response.

Kate

[martin II]

William,

As I have posted before, the DA's knew the only place they were going to win their case was in the court of public opinion and I believe their actions regarding the judge were nothing more then a stunt for the press.

And despite how Darden and Clark trashed and bashed Ito, they knew he was one their best friends in the court room! IMO.

ito could have allowed all the tapes to be played and that furhman statement about his importance.

[martin II]

Weezer Your comments?

how about your comments to this.

Belle

Exactly how did the oj trial effect Australians and specifically how did the trial effect the Blacks you speak of in Australia.

See post #3313 and 3314.

[William Anthony]

William,

I am not so sure if your statement about most men not wanting anything to do with their children until they re-marry is a fair way to describe this. IMO, at least for our generation, I think most men truly believe that the children do belong with the mother and that is because the woman gave actual birth and that the bond between mother and child is much stronger then the bond between a father and a child. However, it also appears to me that this changes as the children get older. It seems that the older the child gets, the more involved the father gets. Apparently there was an unwritten parental law that said the mother is automatically the more patient, nuturing parent and the father's main responsibility is still to earn the money to put food on their table.

Think about it William, what would your dad's boss say to him if your dad asked for a day off from work because you were home sick?

I do believe this is changing and I am happy about that. I do not think being a woman automatically makes you a better parent, however, I still believe that alot of people still may very well believe this.

I did not mean that men did not want anything to do with their children. I meant that they did not want the responsibility of custody, meaning providing full-time nurturing. I found that they only want to control the ex-wife and her associations through threat of court action. I will not go into details but a friend on mine claimed to want his children, who had been placed in a bad environment out of state, and wanted my help in rescuing them. Another friend asked me to reconsider what we had planned. The friend, who claimed to want his children, took some others, went out of state, captured his children, who were by all accounts in a bad environment and this was all done in peril. The friend kept his children one week before returning them by his own volition to the mother.

The issue I was addressing was not which parent is better, but the reality that men, who want control, often use the children as a means to retain that control. I have found this to be true in quite a number of relationships I have had and only find that the ex-husbands that have remarried are the one that sue for custody. I do not know, if this is because of the court's view or whether the ex-husband wants the new wife to have the responsibility of nurturing.

[William Anthony]

Weezer Your comments?

We have the comments of another poster in an old post addressed to me that has been answered quite effectively, if I might add, by me and now you ask another poster for their thoughts. I reiterated my question to you, which is, do you have a thought of your own about the issues in the criminal trial.

[William Anthony]

William,

As I have posted before, the DA's knew the only place they were going to win their case was in the court of public opinion and I believe their actions regarding the judge were nothing more then a stunt for the press.

And despite how Darden and Clark trashed and bashed Ito, they knew he was one their best friends in the court room! IMO.

That may well be true but I think they were additionally assessing whether or not they were winning the case and the damage that the tapes would do to their case. I think many hours were spent in debating whether or not they were winning at that point and, like their subsequent presentation of the case, they were wrong, imho.

[martin II]

Weezer Your comments?

Furhman was made aware of the time oj left his house immediately after he made that illegal entry to ojs property and talked to Kato,Arnell & kATHY.

The bloody glove 'FOUND/PLANTED" after that, on ojs property would implicate him in some way regardless of whos blood was on the glove.There was no evidence or testimony that oj was ever in the place on 6/12 where the glove was found . Only speculation. Testimony by Vanhatters and 2-3 other officers contradicted the prosecution idea that oj entered his property by the south fense.imo
martinII

[Kate Sachel]

Furhman was made aware of the time oj left his house immediately after he made that illegal entry to ojs property and talked to Kato,Arnell & kATHY.

The bloody glove 'FOUND/PLANTED" after that, on ojs property would implicate him in some way regardless of whos blood was on the glove.There was no evidence or testimony that oj was ever in the place on 6/12 where the glove was found . Only speculation. Testimony by Vanhatters and 2-3 other officers contradicted the prosecution idea that oj entered his property by the south fense.imo
martinII

Please take note that his entry to OJ's property was never deemed illegal by anyone, and be certain to remain aware of that in the future.

Kate

[martin II]

I am not sure when the prosecution understood they were loosing the case but here is a opinion of one of the reasons they did loose.



What were the prosecution's big mistakes?

I hate second-guessing other lawyers, because I know that I've tried and lost cases, and somebody could sit there and say, "Should have done it this way," and they'd have been right. It's clear to me in retrospect that the Simpson prosecutors Marcia Clark, Christopher Darden, spent too long trying their case. The case, for example, against [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh that was tried just a little bit later was probably more complex and yet was put in by those prosecutors in six weeks.

They took six months to present the evidence against O.J. Simpson. And when it takes you six months to make your case, the jury is going to be left with either one of two impressions: Either your evidence is overwhelming, or in point of fact it's not, and you're laboring day by day to make it appear to be better than it is. And unfortunately in this case, it was the latter impression that the jury got left with. …

[William Anthony]

Yes, generally someone who appears to be pacing outside of a neighbor's home would appear to be out of place if you do not realize right away that the person is the ex-husband of your neighbor who still engages in interaction with your neighbor. Once that is realized, it makes sense that you would no longer consider that to be out of place.

Kate

Perhaps, you have illuminated the most telling part of the witness' testimony. I think it would still be suspicious, if the ex-husband appeared to be casing the ex-wifes residence, even though they still have interactions, which means there would be reason for the ex-husband to knock on the door or to have called and let her know he was on his way.

The fact that he did not recognize Simpson meant that he consider it suspicious that a person fitting that description (Black) was in his neighborhood at that time of night. As I have said, I find no fault in what this witness did or testified to. I would have done the same thing, which means that I do not find this witness to be racist. I find that the witness realistically considered a trend in America. He thought that a Black man had no business in his neighborhood at that time of night, be it right or wrong for him to think this. That is not the issue. The issue is that he changed his opinion once he felt that the particular Black man, Simpson, had business in his neighborhood at that time of night. Simpson was not out of place in his opinion.

I point to these facts only to refute the too often repeated phrase that the defense played the race card. Race was an issue in the trial, as I have said, when the witness looked out his window, failing to recognize Simpson, and when Simpson was arrested. It is a sad but true fact that Blacks are considered out of place in some locations in America at night. The pacing and peering outside of Nicole's home still would make Simpson appear suspicious, imho, without knowing any other circumstances, but this witness did not feel threatened by a Black man that was recognizable being in his neighborhood at that time of night, regardless of how suspicious his activities were.

[martin II]

The prosecutions abuse mistake.

What did your client, Brenda Moran, have to say about the jury's decision to acquit?

Brenda said that they just could not buy the connection between O.J. Simpson having previously engaged in domestic violence and him murdering his ex-wife. That was too big of a leap. And she couldn't understand why they spent so much time trying to make that connection. [The jury] just didn't buy it. They didn't buy the lack of blood or other physical evidence in O.J. Simpson's home. She was of the belief -- and many jurors were of the belief -- that whoever committed this heinous murder had to be covered with blood. Well, in the trial it came out that O.J. Simpson came home and took a shower, and the LAPD did Luminol tests to check for blood in the shower. And they took loose his plumbing and pipes, and they found no [traces of] blood. And it was those sort of things that just in the minds of Brenda and the jurors, [was] enough to make them believe there was a reasonable doubt.

And the glove didn't fit. It really didn't fit. And they couldn't explain that. There was no explanation for this supposedly damning evidence of a glove left at the scene that was supposedly O.J. Simpson's, and it was stuck in her mind. When O.J. Simpson stood up and tried to put that glove on, it didn't fit. And what resonated in her mind later was, Johnnie in his closing argument saying: "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."…



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/prosecution.html

[martin II]

William
Cochran vs Darden.

"How did the prosecution's lawyers compare to the defense's lawyers? "

Well, Johnnie Cochran will go down in history as one of the greatest lawyers in American society ever. When you talk about Clarence Darrow, people like this, when they write the history 50, 100, 200 years from now, Cochran's name will be on that list. So you're talking about a guy at the top of his profession, great deal of experience. … He had been in the game so to speak for a long time. Very experienced and very skillful.

Darden didn't have the experience. He didn't have the charisma, and his personality was such that on television, and I would assume in the courtroom as well, he didn't come across so strongly, particularly when going against Johnnie Cochran. Johnnie Cochran was like Michael Jordan, and Christopher Darden was like some 8th grade kid playing basketball in his backyard. I mean, it really wasn't even fair.

And Cochran I'm sure knew every move Darden was going to make before he made it.

Darden often played into his hands. You look at the situation about the glove. It's real interesting watching that dynamic, because you know there's this sort of black male code, that's unspoken but Cochran basically played Darden. He challenged his manhood. Darden bit. And here's O.J. struggling to put the glove on. You could make an argument that that turns the case. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." Right?

Do you think Darden was chosen to be a part of the prosecution's team because he

Todd Boyd

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/prosecution.html

[martin II]

Here is a point i had missed on the missing blood amount.


What were some of the problems for the prosecution?
Well, the prosecution never tied things together. Let's take for example the blood evidence. In order for the blood evidence to be powerful you have to account for the chain of custody. That wasn't done, and it wasn't done in ways that were obvious. For example, there was a guy named Thano Peratis who took some of the blood that was in question and one-eighth of a cc was missing. He never accounted for that. And when asked the first time he says he doesn't know what happened. Later, toward the end of the trial, the prosecution goes to him and in a deposition outside of the presence of defense, he comes up with a convenient explanation. But it doesn't really make sense. Why didn't he know about that before?

What's also interesting is the amount of blood that was found in O.J.'s car was about the size of the blood sample that was missing. None of this makes any sense. The prosecution did not present evidence in a way that was powerful, it presented evidence in such a way that it raised more questions than it answered. …



Donald Jones.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/prosecution.html

[weezer]

Weezer Your comments?

ahhh -- I miss bobaugust's posts.

the NG's must know somewhere down deep that for Fuhrman to have picked up a glove no one else saw for hours before he got there, to be able to hide that glove on his body (they claim a plastic bag that he just happen to have-- LOL), to plant the glove at Rockingham in a location where a witness hours earlier heard and felt noise is pure nonsense.

[weezer]

Walking on a public sidewalk at 10:30 is what crime.

how about a peeping tom in the bushes? you can't put lipstick on this one. orenthal was sneaking around Nicole's house late at night and got caught. She told friends and family that he was stalking and spying on her and she was right.

[weezer]

Ron Shipp would be a good suspect. Especially if he had been drinking.

no one has ever said/written/insinuated that Ron Shipp was a suspect in the calls. personally, I think orenthal put someone up to it. maybe paula? we know she was insanely jealous of Nicole.

[weezer]

TV Diner,

The point is that the DA's had total control over the Bundy of crime scene and knowing how the condo looked on the night of the murders may have put their case in jeopardy. It would be a hard sell for the DA's to say that Nicole was done OJ, she had it, she was over him and then to see all these photos of him, OJ and Nicole and OJ and Nicole and their kids.

It also would have been a very hard sell on proving that Nicole was not expecting a visitor for a romantic evening, especially with Kato's testimony. IMO, I believe the DA's made all decisions based on what was best for their case and not out of any compassion for Nicole or her family.

In all fairness to the DA's, I would think it would be a constant battle between showing compassion for the victims' families vs what is best for their case and their job is to prove their case. I think the same can be said of defense lawyers. Either you show compassion for the victims and their families or you do what is best for your client. I kind of think that in order to be successful, you would have learn this lesson several times before it finally sank in. Again, IMO.

I know your post was to TV Diner but ...

Nicole was over orenthal -- she made it clear just days before he murdered her. Orenthal on the other hand could not handle losing control of Nicole -- he wanted to commit suicide at her graveside for goodness sakes.

There were pictures of Bundy -- inside and out. I don't know why the Brons would have left Bundy 'as is' until after the trial. The children's clothing, toys, etc., were there, food in the refrigerator, etc., so to say that it should have been left is kinda silly. Once any one thing was removed -- the chidren's clothes -- then the scene still wouldn't have been the same.

I'm not sure about ALL of the pictures of orenthal in the house. I know there was testimony that she had pictures of friends -- some of which were male that orenthal objected to.

[martin II]

no one has ever said/written/insinuated that Ron Shipp was a suspect in the calls. personally, I think orenthal put someone up to it. maybe paula? we know she was insanely jealous of Nicole.

Nicoles trips to ojs house to see if paula was there causes me to believe it was the other way around.

[martin II]

no one has ever said/written/insinuated that Ron Shipp was a suspect in the calls. personally, I think orenthal put someone up to it. maybe paula? we know she was insanely jealous of Nicole.

Nicole said the caller was male not female.

[martin II]

I know your post was to TV Diner but ...

Nicole was over orenthal -- she made it clear just days before he murdered her. Orenthal on the other hand could not handle losing control of Nicole -- he wanted to commit suicide at her graveside for goodness sakes.

There were pictures of Bundy -- inside and out. I don't know why the Brons would have left Bundy 'as is' until after the trial. The children's clothing, toys, etc., were there, food in the refrigerator, etc., so to say that it should have been left is kinda silly. Once any one thing was removed -- the chidren's clothes -- then the scene still wouldn't have been the same.

I'm not sure about ALL of the pictures of orenthal in the house. I know there was testimony that she had pictures of friends -- some of which were male that orenthal objected to.


OJ was over nicole when he refused to allow her to move back into the rockingham house after she made several request that he do so.imo

[Kate Sachel]

OJ was over nicole when he refused to allow her to move back into the rockingham house after she made several request that he do so.imo

That makes no sense whatsoever.

So because he refused to allow her to move back in until he knew if their reconcilliation attempt would work means he was over her?

He was with Paula at the time Nicole requested a reconcilliation. If he was so over her and so in love with Paula, why the reconcilliation attempt?

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

TV Diner,

The DA's spent a huge amount of time at Bundy, they were responsible for the Bundy crime scene and they did the same thing the defense did at Rockingham. I remember there was some sort of argument about the landscape and some other things that escape me at the moment. The problem for the DA's, they again guessed wrong.

Instead of showing a home where a mother and friend were murdered, they showed a very sterile home that only left the jurors with questions like how could no one hear or see anything that night. How did the kids sleep through this.

I don't have a problem with your anger regarding the switched picture, however, both sides do the exact same thing and in this case, the DA's again made the wrong choice.

I do realize that the condo at Bundy was listed for sale, however, the DA's had total control over of this and it should have been preserved as a crime scene---they guessed wrong.

Once Bundy was released from a crime scene status, the District Attorneys did not have any control over the family removing items from the property. Whre did you get the idea that they did?

Kate

[weezer]

Here is a point i had missed on the missing blood amount.


What were some of the problems for the prosecution?
Well, the prosecution never tied things together. Let's take for example the blood evidence. In order for the blood evidence to be powerful you have to account for the chain of custody. That wasn't done, and it wasn't done in ways that were obvious. For example, there was a guy named Thano Peratis who took some of the blood that was in question and one-eighth of a cc was missing. He never accounted for that. And when asked the first time he says he doesn't know what happened. Later, toward the end of the trial, the prosecution goes to him and in a deposition outside of the presence of defense, he comes up with a convenient explanation. But it doesn't really make sense. Why didn't he know about that before?

What's also interesting is the amount of blood that was found in O.J.'s car was about the size of the blood sample that was missing. None of this makes any sense. The prosecution did not present evidence in a way that was powerful, it presented evidence in such a way that it raised more questions than it answered. …



Donald Jones.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/prosecution.html

do you think this article is correct?

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .The fact that he did not recognize Simpson meant that he consider it suspicious that a person fitting that description (Black) was in his neighborhood at that time of night. . ."

why twist the statement into something different than what the witness said? He said he didn't recognize orenthal and called police because he didn't recognize anyone fitting that description. Your insistence that he meant black is ludicrous. If black was the issue, the logical thing would have been, "Oh, there's a black guy outside Nicole's -- must be orenthal."

[weezer]

Why would oj want control over nicole when he had Paula. That makes no sense.

he didn't have paula -- remember? she dumped him that day and went to be with M Bolton. . . .

[weezer]

I did not mean that men did not want anything to do with their children. I meant that they did not want the responsibility of custody, meaning providing full-time nurturing. I found that they only want to control the ex-wife and her associations through threat of court action. I will not go into details but a friend on mine claimed to want his children, who had been placed in a bad environment out of state, and wanted my help in rescuing them. Another friend asked me to reconsider what we had planned. The friend, who claimed to want his children, took some others, went out of state, captured his children, who were by all accounts in a bad environment and this was all done in peril. The friend kept his children one week before returning them by his own volition to the mother.

The issue I was addressing was not which parent is better, but the reality that men, who want control, often use the children as a means to retain that control. I have found this to be true in quite a number of relationships I have had and only find that the ex-husbands that have remarried are the one that sue for custody. I do not know, if this is because of the court's view or whether the ex-husband wants the new wife to have the responsibility of nurturing.

orenthal was an absentee father -- as testimony from family and friends attested.

orenthal wasn't thinking about his children the night he stalked Nicole and rang the doorbell late at night, the night he broke the door down at Gretna Green and screamed, ranted, and raved, the night he butchered their mother and left her body laying in her own blood for them to find.

[martin II]

I know your post was to TV Diner but ...

Nicole was over orenthal -- she made it clear just days before he murdered her. Orenthal on the other hand could not handle losing control of Nicole -- he wanted to commit suicide at her graveside for goodness sakes.

There were pictures of Bundy -- inside and out. I don't know why the Brons would have left Bundy 'as is' until after the trial. The children's clothing, toys, etc., were there, food in the refrigerator, etc., so to say that it should have been left is kinda silly. Once any one thing was removed -- the chidren's clothes -- then the scene still wouldn't have been the same.

I'm not sure about ALL of the pictures of orenthal in the house. I know there was testimony that she had pictures of friends -- some of which were male that orenthal objected to.


The prosecution when describing the inside of the bundy house talked about candles and ice cream cup no mention of oj pictures through out the house.
This was kinda kept from the jury i guess.

Nothing at either house was left until after the trial and no one suggested that. The washing of the outside crime scene with a water hose so quickly,
prevented any additional study by anyone. That was not necessary. imo

[martin II]

orenthal was an absentee father -- as testimony from family and friends attested.

orenthal wasn't thinking about his children the night he stalked Nicole and rang the doorbell late at night, the night he broke the door down at Gretna Green and screamed, ranted, and raved, the night he butchered their mother and left her body laying in her own blood for them to find.

You do see things differently.
one can hardly be home by 5pm nightly if one it announcing football games for nbc and masking hertyz commercials because you are the only income producer of the two kids and two adults in the house. i have never read or heard any comment that ojs children or nicole were not well provided for.

[martin II]

he didn't have paula -- remember? she dumped him that day and went to be with M Bolton. . . .

It was Nicole that crashed and spolied the xmas day party Paula and oj had arranged in new york for themselves and the kids. That indicated that it was nicole that did not want paula and ojs relationship to florish.
imo

[Kate Sachel]

You do see things differently.
one can hardly be home by 5pm nightly if one it announcing football games for nbc and masking hertyz commercials because you are the only income producer of the two kids and two adults in the house. i have never read or heard any comment that ojs children or nicole were not well provided for.

Providing financially for your children does not automatically make you a good father; you can be quite an absentee father if the only thing your children are recieving from you is a paycheck.

There are divorced men who have nothing to do with their children, but do provide monthly child support. Does that equate into being a good father?

Kate

[martin II]

Absentee father = murderer. ha ha ha ha
traces of marijuana = murderer. ha ha ha ha

[martin II]

he didn't have paula -- remember? she dumped him that day and went to be with M Bolton. . . .

She caught the next flight from vegas and went to ojs side where she stayed for the trial. We have been over this many times and you know this.
The prosecution made another blunder when they tried to convince the jury that oj received a call from PAULA and then lost it and went to kill nicole.imo

[weezer]

The prosecution when describing the inside of the bundy house talked about candles and ice cream cup no mention of oj pictures through out the house.
This was kinda kept from the jury i guess.

Nothing at either house was left until after the trial and no one suggested that. The washing of the outside crime scene with a water hose so quickly,
prevented any additional study by anyone. That was not necessary. imo

martin, look up 'biohazard'

[martin II]

William
The first several witnesses presentred by the prosecution imo were part of the character assassination oj simpson effort especially when they tried to toss in some very weak abuse claims. They got their first shock when some dismissed jurors did interviews and said the prosecution was kinda stuck in the mud with the case talking about all that abuse nonsense.I believe this is when the case was lost but am not sure they admitted it to themselves. But there was not really much they could do with the defense eating their lunch at every turn. IMO

[martin II]

martin, look up 'biohazard'

I already know you.you should look it up.

[martin II]

correction assassination of oj

[martin II]

ahhh -- I miss bobaugust's posts.

the NG's must know somewhere down deep that for Fuhrman to have picked up a glove no one else saw for hours before he got there, to be able to hide that glove on his body (they claim a plastic bag that he just happen to have-- LOL), to plant the glove at Rockingham in a location where a witness hours earlier heard and felt noise is pure nonsense.

No one testified to any physical proof that oj simpson was in his south walk way on 6/12. Only guess and "i think" he was.

[martin II]

do you think this article is correct?

i think it was 1.6 cc of blood that was missing.which = 24 blood drops.

[William Anthony]

ahhh -- I miss bobaugust's posts.

the NG's must know somewhere down deep that for Fuhrman to have picked up a glove no one else saw for hours before he got there, to be able to hide that glove on his body (they claim a plastic bag that he just happen to have-- LOL), to plant the glove at Rockingham in a location where a witness hours earlier heard and felt noise is pure nonsense.

I don't know how you missed bobaugust's post. That in and of itself is incredible.
I am not an NG and I remind you of the witness that said LE was trained how to testify. I could teach that class in one minute-tell the truth but we know that at least one did not. MF testified he saw the gloves (them) from a perspective that was different from his first observation. Bailey asked about having bags available and MF admitted they did. Bailey spoke of the marine training in how to carry items in plastic bags in the socks under the pants. What is nonsense is that MF testified that he did not know, if there was a suspect where he allegedly found the glove and proceeded to inspect that area alone without his trusty gun drawn. That ranks up there with some of the other nonsensical testimony from the ghost expert, the nurse who tried acting, the dead expert and Ms. Corn Oil, imho.

[martin II]

orenthal was an absentee father -- as testimony from family and friends attested.

orenthal wasn't thinking about his children the night he stalked Nicole and rang the doorbell late at night, the night he broke the door down at Gretna Green and screamed, ranted, and raved, the night he butchered their mother and left her body laying in her own blood for them to find.

You think Nicole was thinking about her kids when she tossed the party at her house with prostitutes and drug users present. With her children in the house? When one of the people at the party told oj about the party that is what caused him to go to GG in the first place.He left and Nicole called him and asked him to come back so they could talk.imo

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

why twist the statement into something different than what the witness said? He said he didn't recognize orenthal and called police because he didn't recognize anyone fitting that description. Your insistence that he meant black is ludicrous. If black was the issue, the logical thing would have been, "Oh, there's a black guy outside Nicole's -- must be orenthal."

There is nothing to twist. Here is the testimony.

"A: WELL, IT WAS AN EVENING APPROXIMATELY 10:30 OR ELEVEN O'CLOCK AT NIGHT, AND IT IS A VERY -- IT IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, VERY QUIET, AND SOMETIMES BEFORE RETIRING I LOOK -- JUST GO CHECK THE LOCKS AND LOOK AROUND DOWNSTAIRS AND MAKE SURE THE LIGHTS ARE OFF AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND I HAPPENED TO LOOK OUTSIDE AND I SAW A MAN OUTSIDE ON THE SIDEWALK.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT MAN DOING?

A: UMM, HE WAS STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK LOOKING AT WHAT APPARENTLY WAS THE RESIDENCE NEXT DOOR, DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OF US.

Q: AND WHAT TIME OF THE NIGHT WAS THIS?

A: I WOULD SAY IT WAS APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN 10:30 AND ELEVEN O'CLOCK THAT NIGHT.

Q: SO THE MAN WAS STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK?

A: YES. INITIALLY WHEN I SPOTTED HIM HE WAS STANDING ABOUT FIVE YARDS SOUTH OF THE DRIVEWAY AND RELATIVELY STATIONARY LOOKING AT THE HOUSE AND THEN SINCE I SAW HIM I WAS CURIOUS AND I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE HIM, SO I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, WHAT IS A MAN OF THIS DESCRIPTION DOING OUTSIDE AT THAT TIME, SO --

I don't know why you are trying to twist the testimony. He obviously knew that man was Black, because he said what is a man of "THIS DESCRIPTION[B] doing outside at that time and I apologize I thought he said neighborhood at that time. He was suspicious because a man of THIS DESCRIPTION WAS OUTSIDE AT THAT TIME. What he did not recognize until he got a better view was that the Black man was Simpson. Surely, he saw White me in that neighborhood outside in the summer at that time of night. The telling point is that he knew the person was standing south of the driveway and he testified, "THEN SINCE I SAW HIM, I WAS CURIOUS WHAT IS A MAN OF [B]THIS DESCRIPTION..."

[William Anthony]

William
The first several witnesses presentred by the prosecution imo were part of the character assassination oj simpson effort especially when they tried to toss in some very weak abuse claims. They got their first shock when some dismissed jurors did interviews and said the prosecution was kinda stuck in the mud with the case talking about all that abuse nonsense.I believe this is when the case was lost but am not sure they admitted it to themselves. But there was not really much they could do with the defense eating their lunch at every turn. IMO

I think they knew the part of the case on spousal abuse leading to murder was weak. They were relying on genetic footprints in my mind and they lost when they failed to produce a pigeon-toed, game, match and set (pun intended). :)

[William Anthony]

Once Bundy was released from a crime scene status, the District Attorneys did not have any control over the family removing items from the property. Whre did you get the idea that they did?

Kate

I think the scene should not have been released until all the evidence was collected. Miraculously, the blood allegedly remained on the gate after the scene was washed down and was allegedly able to have been collected three weeks later.

[William Anthony]

I don't know how you missed bobaugust's post. That in and of itself is incredible.
I am not an NG and I remind you of the witness that said LE was trained how to testify. I could teach that class in one minute-tell the truth but we know that at least one did not. MF testified he saw the gloves (them) from a perspective that was different from his first observation. Bailey asked about having bags available and MF admitted they did. Bailey spoke of the marine training in how to carry items in plastic bags in the socks under the pants. What is nonsense is that MF testified that he did not know, if there was a suspect where he allegedly found the glove and proceeded to inspect that area alone without his trusty gun drawn. That ranks up there with some of the other nonsensical testimony from the ghost expert, the nurse who tried acting, the dead expert and Ms. Corn Oil, imho.

Addition to the last sentence, the confused photographer, and the semi glove expert.

[martin II]

I think they knew the part of the case on spousal abuse leading to murder was weak. They were relying on genetic footprints in my mind and they lost when they failed to produce a pigeon-toed, game, match and set (pun intended). :)

The jury knew they were judging a murder trial and the prosecution called the first several witnesses to talk about abuse in a effort to tear oj simpson down to size. I guess the jury may have thought they were in the wrong courtroom and Darden, the abuse expert, didn't understand he was loosing the case with that nonsense. imo

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

why twist the statement into something different than what the witness said? He said he didn't recognize orenthal and called police because he didn't recognize anyone fitting that description. Your insistence that he meant black is ludicrous. If black was the issue, the logical thing would have been, "Oh, there's a black guy outside Nicole's -- must be orenthal."

I will ask the board to pardon me before I post this but I could not resist the chance for humor. Since the witness used the term man, we know he was not from the south. :)

[William Anthony]

The jury knew they were judging a murder trial and the prosecution called the first several witnesses to talk about abuse in a effort to tear oj simpson down to size. I guess the jury may have thought they were in the wrong courtroom and Darden, the abuse expert, didn't understand he was loosing the case with that nonsense. imo

I think the prosecution realized earlier on that they did not have a plausible, rational or reasonable explanation as to why Simpson would have chosen that night and such a narrow time line to commit murder. Hence, they tried spousal abuse and, I agree that they tried to paint Simpson as an out of control, enraged, obsessive maniac. However, the evidence showed he was possibly obsessed with Paula and more probably concerned about Paula. Considering the evidence that was excluded on abuse, I think they realized the case was weak, even though Darden could not pronounce cumulative, he did pass the bar. I believe this is why they relied so heavily on the genetic pigeon-toed footprint, which was never produced, so the jury dismissed the other genetic evidence. :) If only they had produced that pigeon-toed shoe print, they might have won, although, based on the weakness of the other evidence, I doubt it.

[William Anthony]

Here is a link that pertains to the witness' testimony and the population statistics of Brentwood.

http://www.city-data.com/city/Brentwood-California.html

"Races in Brentwood:

* White Non-Hispanic (63.1%)
* Hispanic (28.2%)
* Other race (14.5%)
* Two or more races (5.4%)
* Black (2.5%)
* American Indian (1.4%)
* Filipino (1.3%)"

[limakey]

Kate,

In regards to the DA's releasing the Bundy crime scene. I believed until a few days ago, the DA's made a huge mistake in releasing the crime scene at Bundy, the inside of the condo because when the jurors visited it, it was cold and IMO, the jurors could not connect with the victims as well as with the children. However, I now believe the DA's released the crime scene very quickly was really a brilliant move. I think they realized had they left the Bundy condo as it was on that night, it would have gone against every point they were trying to make. As I later posted, it would have been very difficult for them to explain all the pictures Nicole had on display of OJ, her and their life together as well as with their children.

It also would have been very difficult for them to totally dispell the belief that Nicole was in fact expecting someone that night and that person might not have been the one dropping off the glasses or the person was going to dropping off more then a pair of glasses.

Unfortunately for the DA's, they had to deal with the very early comments of Nicole's family and friends and I now they believe they made the right choice.

I can completely understand why both sides did what they did and I think that gaining any advantage that you can goes both ways. I believe it while the choices are hard, there are always risks.

I have no problem with the outside of the Bundy crime scene being released ASAP, however, it makes no sense that they allowed the crime scene to be washed down before Lange conducted his final walk through and there was no inventory taken of the evidence or if one was in fact taken, then it obviously wasn't cross referenced. And we all know how this bit the DA's and the LAPD in the butts in the end.

In regards to Judge Ito being the DA's best friend. He did what many judges do, they ignore obvious police misconduct and always give the DA's and the LAPD the benefit doubt in the end.

The reason why I think it was wrong that Clark and Darden blamed the judge for their loss was because his hands were tied and he was not responsible for the major flaws in their case. Again, IMO.

[limakey]

William and Martin,

IMO, I believe that Clark and all the DA's knew within 2 days this case wasn't going to be won. I believe when Chris Darden entered the case, he confirmed this. If you read their books, then you know very early on that they case was lost because eventually, the jury, any jury of any racial make up or gender make up, was going to be given the same instructions by the judge. If you are given two reasonable explainations regarding any piece of evidence, the defense is to be given the benefit of this reasoning.

Also, if you find that one witness has lied regarding a material issue to the case, you may consider all of this testimony to be less then truthful.

Again, IMO.

[limakey]

TV,

I have waited to make this post about VB's book until some of the passion about his book died down. I have no problem with anyone writing a book on this case. I have never nor will I ever support the Son of Sam Laws.

Having said that, the problem with books like VB's, is that he sees this case as a slam dunk and this case wasn't a slam dunk.

I have read as books on the case as I could and I found that by reading the State's side books (Clark, Darden, Goldberg, Vanatter&Lange and Fuhrman's) that this case was not a slam dunk.

Perfect example in Lange and Vanatter's book they write that a member of the CSI unit made a statement that someone was told to get the blood on the back gate by the LAPD. However, this someone was told by a higher up that they were to ignore that order. In their book, they say this was investigated but they did not know the results of the investigation.

If what they wrote was true and this did happen, how were Clark and Darden supposed to overcome the professional pissing match between the LAPD and the CSI unit? Weren't the DA's left holding the bag on this one?

Another example, in Clark's book, she says that the moment she gave the press conference saying that OJ Simpson was the only murderer, she regretted it and knew she made a huge mistake. However, since she said it, she was "married" it. Again, if this true, why should a DA be "married" to comments made in a press conference? I do know that there are many people on the State's side who believe that one man couldn't have done this, others insist that he had help with the clean up and getting rid of the evidence.

I do know that two jurors felt the same way and they wished the DA's would have opened that door.

Again, if Clark's statement is true and she was married to it, what about after the trial? Shouldn't they have then focused on evidence that perhaps did point to at least an accomplice--wouldn't have been better to at least have someone behind bars in the case---or wasn't only OJ Simpson that mattered?

In all fairness to the DA's, I have always felt and posted that the case was lost in the prelim hearing and that no jury was ever going to believe the LAPD when they said they did not suspect OJ Simpson. There is not a DA alive who could have gotten past that, IMO. Even VB!

However, I do give VB credit, I believe he was the first DA to convict a person of murder when he actually did not participate in them physically. Yet, considering Manson carved up his foreheard and the girls did as well, certainly didn't help his defense team. Same thing with the shaving of the heads.

Not to start any wars about VB--but this was not the slam dunk case that he likes to say it was. One more thing, I believe that many of these authors like VB are in the same situation that we, the public are in, they do not know all the problems of evidence the DA's knew they had. However, what does bother me is that authors like VB know just how many DA's were on this case, how much money the state poured into that case and for that reason alone, I think they have been way too hard on Clark and Darden. Again, IMO.

[limakey]

William and Martin,

I do believe the DA's using spousal abuse as the motive for the murders hurt their case. To this day, I don't understand why they never used the "crime of passion" motive. However, what I did realize during the trial, that it seemed like the DA's and the defense did not want to get into the nature of Ron and Nicole's relationship. It appeared to me they wanted Ron and Nicole to appear more as strangers rather then two people who did have a social relationship at the very least.

I'm sure they had their reasons and they had to be great ones because they totally bombed with the spousal abuse evidence. I think they only thing they proved was that Simpson beat up a car, he was a total jerk when he drank, he did have one physical encounter with Nicole, and that Nicole confirmed, in her own voice that it only happened once.

FYI Martin, did you know that Barry Scheck is also an expert on domestic abuse and the battered woman's syndrome?

[tv]

TV,

I have waited to make this post about VB's book until some of the passion about his book died down. I have no problem with anyone writing a book on this case. I have never nor will I ever support the Son of Sam Laws.

Having said that, the problem with books like VB's, is that he sees this case as a slam dunk and this case wasn't a slam dunk.

I have read as books on the case as I could and I found that by reading the State's side books (Clark, Darden, Goldberg, Vanatter&Lange and Fuhrman's) that this case was not a slam dunk.

Perfect example in Lange and Vanatter's book they write that a member of the CSI unit made a statement that someone was told to get the blood on the back gate by the LAPD. However, this someone was told by a higher up that they were to ignore that order. In their book, they say this was investigated but they did not know the results of the investigation.

If what they wrote was true and this did happen, how were Clark and Darden supposed to overcome the professional pissing match between the LAPD and the CSI unit? Weren't the DA's left holding the bag on this one?

Another example, in Clark's book, she says that the moment she gave the press conference saying that OJ Simpson was the only murderer, she regretted it and knew she made a huge mistake. However, since she said it, she was "married" it. Again, if this true, why should a DA be "married" to comments made in a press conference? I do know that there are many people on the State's side who believe that one man couldn't have done this, others insist that he had help with the clean up and getting rid of the evidence.

I do know that two jurors felt the same way and they wished the DA's would have opened that door.

Again, if Clark's statement is true and she was married to it, what about after the trial? Shouldn't they have then focused on evidence that perhaps did point to at least an accomplice--wouldn't have been better to at least have someone behind bars in the case---or wasn't only OJ Simpson that mattered?

In all fairness to the DA's, I have always felt and posted that the case was lost in the prelim hearing and that no jury was ever going to believe the LAPD when they said they did not suspect OJ Simpson. There is not a DA alive who could have gotten past that, IMO. Even VB!

However, I do give VB credit, I believe he was the first DA to convict a person of murder when he actually did not participate in them physically. Yet, considering Manson carved up his foreheard and the girls did as well, certainly didn't help his defense team. Same thing with the shaving of the heads.

Not to start any wars about VB--but this was not the slam dunk case that he likes to say it was. One more thing, I believe that many of these authors like VB are in the same situation that we, the public are in, they do not know all the problems of evidence the DA's knew they had. However, what does bother me is that authors like VB know just how many DA's were on this case, how much money the state poured into that case and for that reason alone, I think they have been way too hard on Clark and Darden. Again, IMO.

limakey, I haven't read Marcia Clarke or Vannatter and Lange's books so I can't really comment on them. I know that Lange said there was a lot of evidence that was never presented. If she thought the case was going to be lost within two days of the trial starting she needed to burn some midnight oil to find a way to strengthen the case. I think there is more than one reason that the case was lost and it was a combination that allowed a double murderer to walk free. JMO.

[limakey]

TV and Mr. Bell,

My point is that there were other agencies who were just as involved in this case and that many times, it seems their lack of cooperation and/or professionalism that left the DA's in a huge, huge hole and that no amount of spin or talent was going to get it by a jury.

What can a DA do when the jury truly believes that the witness is lying on the stand or not "being square" with them?

How can a DA explain the nurse's testimony in the prelim hearing vs a video tape testimony several months later in which the witness seems to be saying only what the DA's want him to say?

This was not a slam dunk case and again, while it easy for us to find fault with the DA's, I do think it is only fair to remember that we do not know everything they did. Again, IMO.

[limakey]

TV,

I have always wondered why both Lange and Vanatter would even title their book, "Evidenced Dismissed". IMO, if evidence was dismissed in this case, it was because it was even less presentable or proveable then the evidence that was presented.

Also, IMO, if you read their books, then again, you realize that the DA's and the LAPD have had bad blood between them for years and years.

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

IMO, I believe the DA's used the press because they knew their case was in trouble. Again, IMO, I believe had the DA's had more faith in their case, they would have had the "How Do You Like Me Now" attitude in the courtroom. In other words, instead of stunning the jury and the defense with their presentation of the evidence in the courtroom, they showed their hand way too soon. One thing you learn from high profile losses, is how to play to the media and the DA's did a wonderful job, IMO.

I do believe Mr. Simpson to be innocent, not just not guilty, but innocent. However, I do believe that several issues that came up in the Simpson trial have been real issues and instead of focusing on those problems and dealing with them, too much time has been spent blaming race, a judge and a jury that were only doing their jobs. Again, IMO!

As for the judge, what do you think his major mistakes were? Granted, he loved the dancing Ito's and I hated the time pieces in his courtroom but really, what were his big mistakes?

There is a belief that all lawyers are frustrated, out of work actors!

[martin II]

William and Martin,

IMO, I believe that Clark and all the DA's knew within 2 days this case wasn't going to be won. I believe when Chris Darden entered the case, he confirmed this. If you read their books, then you know very early on that they case was lost because eventually, the jury, any jury of any racial make up or gender make up, was going to be given the same instructions by the judge. If you are given two reasonable explainations regarding any piece of evidence, the defense is to be given the benefit of this reasoning.

Also, if you find that one witness has lied regarding a material issue to the case, you may consider all of this testimony to be less then truthful.

Again, IMO.

Limakey
I agree with your post and add that more people should try to understand how jury instructions play into the verdict.

[martin II]

TV,

I have waited to make this post about VB's book until some of the passion about his book died down. I have no problem with anyone writing a book on this case. I have never nor will I ever support the Son of Sam Laws.

Having said that, the problem with books like VB's, is that he sees this case as a slam dunk and this case wasn't a slam dunk.

I have read as books on the case as I could and I found that by reading the State's side books (Clark, Darden, Goldberg, Vanatter&Lange and Fuhrman's) that this case was not a slam dunk.

Perfect example in Lange and Vanatter's book they write that a member of the CSI unit made a statement that someone was told to get the blood on the back gate by the LAPD. However, this someone was told by a higher up that they were to ignore that order. In their book, they say this was investigated but they did not know the results of the investigation.

If what they wrote was true and this did happen, how were Clark and Darden supposed to overcome the professional pissing match between the LAPD and the CSI unit? Weren't the DA's left holding the bag on this one?

Another example, in Clark's book, she says that the moment she gave the press conference saying that OJ Simpson was the only murderer, she regretted it and knew she made a huge mistake. However, since she said it, she was "married" it. Again, if this true, why should a DA be "married" to comments made in a press conference? I do know that there are many people on the State's side who believe that one man couldn't have done this, others insist that he had help with the clean up and getting rid of the evidence.

I do know that two jurors felt the same way and they wished the DA's would have opened that door.

Again, if Clark's statement is true and she was married to it, what about after the trial? Shouldn't they have then focused on evidence that perhaps did point to at least an accomplice--wouldn't have been better to at least have someone behind bars in the case---or wasn't only OJ Simpson that mattered?

In all fairness to the DA's, I have always felt and posted that the case was lost in the prelim hearing and that no jury was ever going to believe the LAPD when they said they did not suspect OJ Simpson. There is not a DA alive who could have gotten past that, IMO. Even VB!

However, I do give VB credit, I believe he was the first DA to convict a person of murder when he actually did not participate in them physically. Yet, considering Manson carved up his foreheard and the girls did as well, certainly didn't help his defense team. Same thing with the shaving of the heads.

Not to start any wars about VB--but this was not the slam dunk case that he likes to say it was. One more thing, I believe that many of these authors like VB are in the same situation that we, the public are in, they do not know all the problems of evidence the DA's knew they had. However, what does bother me is that authors like VB know just how many DA's were on this case, how much money the state poured into that case and for that reason alone, I think they have been way too hard on Clark and Darden. Again, IMO.

I believe that Gill Gargetti did not get the amount of blame that he deserved.
I believe he made the major decisions in the case such as charging oj well before the DA had all they needed to make a strong case.Which is whY Cochran made the charge 'RUSH TO JUDGENMENT" and why so many of their witnesses did so badly under attack by the defense.imo

[martin II]

Hi. I find you to be an honest and impartial poster.
Another example, in Clark's book, she says that the moment she gave the press conference saying that OJ Simpson was the only murderer, she regretted it and knew she made a huge mistake. However, since she said it, she was "married" it. Again, if this true, why should a DA be "married" to comments made in a press conference? I do know that there are many people on the State's side who believe that one man couldn't have done this, others insist that he had help with the clean up and getting rid of the evidence.

This is from your post. My question to you is why the hell did she have a press conference? What was it about ALL the players that propelled them into wanting to be in the limelight? The defence I can understand. You play up Simpson's past glories as the all American good guy football player. I get it.
Why open your mouth and regret it afterwards? Why not just keep your mouth closed and talk in the trial.

You are much kinder towards the prosecution than I am. They screwed up big time. And I repeat, if they had a half way competent judge who could have guided them to as to the law, then they may have done better.

The prosecution charged oj without having all the proof they needed to get the jury to believe their story.They put on witnesses that could not even support their own testinmony.They had evidence collection and handeling problems and did not even collect all the evidence.
Clarke and Darden tried the case to the public and not to the jury.They spent the first part of their case talking about something that the defendant was not charged with ABUSE which left the jury wondering what they were there for.Mazzola,Fung ,Vanhater. Martz, the glove expert were just a few that bombed on the stand.
Le and the prosecution could not agree on the issue of how they thought oj entered his property. A Park gave conflicting testimony at different times as did Kato.
In the end the jury did not believe A Park could have seen what he said he saw from the Ashford gate and this must have been the deciding factor as they deliberated about his testimony just prior to rendering the not guilty verdict.
Many have had harsh words for Clarke and Darden as to how they tried the case, Some had also admitted the many mistakes of collection of evidence, yet some are able to ignore all of these issues including the judges instructions to the jury and blame the jury for the verdict.imo

[martin II]

We will disagree about Simpson's innocence but that's OK.

I'll begin with Ito allowing TV cameras into his courtroom. That's a no-no here. It does not happen. I understand our court system is different to yours but even in the biggest heavy duty trials we have here there are no photogs, no TV. Not because we can't but because we don't think it's appropriate. No offence intended.

Ito played to the cameras. It was his 'moment in the sun.' That's all very well and good but if I was a member of the Brown or Goldman families, I would have been dismayed at watching him presiding over the trial of our children's 'assumed' killer.

The public has a right to view and evaluate all the evidence and testimony for themselves and not through the eyes and opinions of the reporting media.
Therefore tv cameras in the courtroon.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

IMO, I believe that Clark and all the DA's knew within 2 days this case wasn't going to be won. I believe when Chris Darden entered the case, he confirmed this. If you read their books, then you know very early on that they case was lost because eventually, the jury, any jury of any racial make up or gender make up, was going to be given the same instructions by the judge. If you are given two reasonable explainations regarding any piece of evidence, the defense is to be given the benefit of this reasoning.

Also, if you find that one witness has lied regarding a material issue to the case, you may consider all of this testimony to be less then truthful.

Again, IMO.

I agree with your points on the law, according to the jury instructions the jury was given, especially on the point of the defense receiving the benefit of the reasonable doubt. The prosecution does not receive that benefit, because they must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I also agree that the case was weak but disagree that they thought they would lose the case. They relied on DNA evidence to win, imho, which the defense destroyed, imho.

[William Anthony]

limakey, I haven't read Marcia Clarke or Vannatter and Lange's books so I can't really comment on them. I know that Lange said there was a lot of evidence that was never presented. If she thought the case was going to be lost within two days of the trial starting she needed to burn some midnight oil to find a way to strengthen the case. I think there is more than one reason that the case was lost and it was a combination that allowed a double murderer to walk free. JMO.

Agreed and that combination is that the prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove Simpson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and they failed to persuade the jury to accept their version that there was a mountain of evidence.

[martin II]

We will disagree about Simpson's innocence but that's OK.

I'll begin with Ito allowing TV cameras into his courtroom. That's a no-no here. It does not happen. I understand our court system is different to yours but even in the biggest heavy duty trials we have here there are no photogs, no TV. Not because we can't but because we don't think it's appropriate. No offence intended.

Ito played to the cameras. It was his 'moment in the sun.' That's all very well and good but if I was a member of the Brown or Goldman families, I would have been dismayed at watching him presiding over the trial of our children's 'assumed' killer.


judge ito held a open trial. He allowed each side wide latitude in presenting their positions.He allowed the jury to decide what evidence was of value for their consideration as the tryers of fact in the trial. The civil trial judge, by his early rulings acted as the tryer of fact.

[William Anthony]

Well put TV. If you're going to prosecute such a high profile case - no, any case - then you'd better have your facts right. If you don't, then you get the defence walking all over you. Mind you, a half way competent judge would have been able to advise the prosecution when they were screwing things up and point out what was and wasn't acceptable. However, when the judge is more concerned with how he comes across on TV (no pun intended) then what can you expect? A double murderer walks free and 2 families are left to grieve for their lost ones and for justice. Let's just hope that Vegas will bring some retribution to Simpson.

The judge is in charge of the courtroom and is to be impartial. He is not there to assist either party. However, because of the length of the trial and people's attention span, the judge did advise both parties when they were beating a dead horse. Please, allow for the possibility that a double murder walked free because the evidence was insufficient and the prosecution did not prove its case?

[martin II]

I agree with your points on the law, according to the jury instructions the jury was given, especially on the point of the defense receiving the benefit of the reasonable doubt. The prosecution does not receive that benefit, because they must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I also agree that the case was weak but disagree that they thought they would lose the case. They relied on DNA evidence to win, imho, which the defense destroyed, imho.

I agree and will add that when the prosecution set their case up depending on DNA they did not know maby that the defense would send P Neufield and B Schak after this evidence.

[William Anthony]

Hi. I find you to be an honest and impartial poster.
Another example, in Clark's book, she says that the moment she gave the press conference saying that OJ Simpson was the only murderer, she regretted it and knew she made a huge mistake. However, since she said it, she was "married" it. Again, if this true, why should a DA be "married" to comments made in a press conference? I do know that there are many people on the State's side who believe that one man couldn't have done this, others insist that he had help with the clean up and getting rid of the evidence.

This is from your post. My question to you is why the hell did she have a press conference? What was it about ALL the players that propelled them into wanting to be in the limelight? The defence I can understand. You play up Simpson's past glories as the all American good guy football player. I get it.
Why open your mouth and regret it afterwards? Why not just keep your mouth closed and talk in the trial.

You are much kinder towards the prosecution than I am. They screwed up big time. And I repeat, if they had a half way competent judge who could have guided them to as to the law, then they may have done better.

With all due respect, the judge is there to determine what the law is and how it should be applied to the issues in the trial and to instruct the jury on the applicable law. The judge is not there to guide either party as to the law. However, some judges seem to believe that is their role.

[martin II]

With all due respect, the judge is there to determine what the law is and how it should be applied to the issues in the trial and to instruct the jury on the applicable law. The judge is not there to guide either party as to the law. However, some judges seem to believe that is their role.

The civil judge tried to do this.

[William Anthony]

We will disagree about Simpson's innocence but that's OK.

I'll begin with Ito allowing TV cameras into his courtroom. That's a no-no here. It does not happen. I understand our court system is different to yours but even in the biggest heavy duty trials we have here there are no photogs, no TV. Not because we can't but because we don't think it's appropriate. No offence intended.

Ito played to the cameras. It was his 'moment in the sun.' That's all very well and good but if I was a member of the Brown or Goldman families, I would have been dismayed at watching him presiding over the trial of our children's 'assumed' killer.

He presided over a trial of a person, who was presumed innocent, or, at least that is how it should work in America, until proven guilty. In America, courts are open to the public and tv just made it more open, imho.

[martin II]

OK Martin. The civil trial judge? What are you talking about?

read the civil trial judges decisions preventing certain defense arguments.

[William Anthony]

Disagree. No TV cameras in courtrooms. Read about the trial in newspapers and form your own opinion. Watch the trial on the news and form your own opinion. Search the web and form your own opinion.

Do not watch a courtroom with a cast of actors all playing to the cameras.
IMHO

With all due respect, that happens in every trial. Both parties try to persuade the jury to accept their respective views of the evidence. In doing so, acting is frequently involved but we do not see it for lack of cameras. What you read in newspapers is often the opinion of others on the trial. I watched the trial and formed my own opinions and formulated the reasons why I reached those conclusions without the benefit of third party opinion's. I then listened to and read media reports to see, if there was anything in them that might change my opinion. There were in some instances things I had not previously considered.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution's tactics and sanctions during the presentation of evidence by the prosecution's tenth witness.

MR. DARDEN: THEY NEVER CEASE TO AMAZE ME. THEY HAVE MUCH MORE EXPERIENCE THAN WE HAVE ON THE PROSECUTION SIDE, YOUR HONOR. MUCH MORE TRIAL EXPERIENCE.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, THANK YOU. MR. SHAPIRO.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THE PROSECUTION, DURING THEIR PRESENTATION ON THESE ISSUES, TOLD YOUR HONOR THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE 1989. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING MORE TO SAY. IF WE ARE GOING TO CALL AN EXPERT IN AS TO BEING ABLE TO TELL THE AGE OF A WOMAN WHEN SHE HAS BEEN OUT AT A NEW YEAR'S PARTY AND ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE BEEN DRINKING AND BEEN INVOLVED IN A DOMESTIC DISPUTE AND THEN SHOW A PICTURE OF HER MADE UP, THAT COULD BE THE NEXT DAY AFTER. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY ROOM FOR ANY DOUBT THAT THIS COURT HAS BEEN TOLD, COUNSEL HAS BEEN TOLD, AND I WOULD LIKE MR. DARDEN TO TELL YOUR HONOR THAT HE DIDN'T TELL YOU THESE WERE ALL 1989.

MR. DARDEN: THESE WERE ALL --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. DARDEN: ARCHIVED IN '89. THEY ALL RELATE TO THE 1989 INCIDENT. I THINK THAT IS THE ONLY CONCLUSION WE CAN DRAW, GIVEN WHAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE SAFE-DEPOSIT BOX, JUDGE. I MEAN, IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT WHAT NICOLE BROWN WAS DOING WAS, ONE, IDENTIFYING HER FUTURE MURDERER, HER FUTURE KILLER, AND SHE WAS TRYING TO ESTABLISH FOR US, FOR MYSELF AND MR. GORDON AND MISS CLARK, PROOF OF A PATTERN OF ABUSE AND --

THE COURT: WELL, MR. DARDEN, THAT MAY VERY WELL BE, BUT I THINK THAT COMES IN THE PEOPLE'S REBUTTAL CASE AFTER YOU SEE WHAT DR. WALKER SAYS, AFTER YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT THROUGH YOUR OWN EXPERTS AND THROUGH THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. WALKER. BUT TO THROW UP A PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE CAN'T DATE TO ANY OF THE INCIDENTS THAT I HAVE ALLOWED IS NOT APPROPRIATE. THAT IS THE COURT'S RULING.

MR. DARDEN: WELL, I THINK THEIR FAILURE TO OBJECT --

THE COURT: NO, NO.

MR. DARDEN: -- IS A WAIVER.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WHEN THE COURT ALLOWS 1101(B) EVIDENCE, YOU HAVE TO BE -- YOU, AS THE PROSECUTION, HAVE TO BE VERY CONSERVATIVE AS TO HOW YOU GO ABOUT DOING THAT. IF YOU CAN'T TIE THIS PHOTOGRAPH TO ANY ONE OF THOSE THREE INCIDENTS THAT DENISE BROWN CAN TESTIFY TO, THAT PHOTOGRAPH IS NOT COMING IN. ALL RIGHT.

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I ADDRESS THE COURT ON SANCTIONS, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THE REASON THAT ONE MIGHT ASSUME THAT THAT PHOTOGRAPH WAS THROWN UP RELATES BACK TO THE TESTIMONY OF A POLICE OFFICER NAMED EDWARDS WHO TESTIFIED THAT HE TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS, BUT THE PHOTOGRAPHS DID NOT ADEQUATELY DEPICT THE INJURIES AS HE OBSERVED THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE TAKEN WITH POLAROID FILM AND BECAUSE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON DID NOT WANT TO GO DOWNTOWN FOR PROPER PHOTOGRAPHS.

THE COURT: I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SANCTIONS.

MR. SHAPIRO: WELL, I'M LEADING TO THAT. THE INFERENCE NOW IS THIS IS THE WAY SHE REALLY LOOKED IN 1989, AND I THINK THE SANCTIONS SHOULD BE THAT THE JURY SHOULD STRIKE FROM THEIR DELIBERATIONS ANY REFERENCE TO AN INCIDENT IN 1989, ANY REFERENCE TO ANY INJURIES THAT WERE SUFFERED BY NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, AND ANY PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THEY HAVE SEEN OR ANY TESTIMONY DEPICTING THOSE INJURIES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WHEN WE BEGAN THIS TRIAL THE COURT ORDERED THE DEFENSE TO PROVIDE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THEIR EXHIBITS AND WE WERE GIVEN A NANOSECOND TO DO THAT, AND WHEN WE REALIZED THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH ONE OF THOSE EXHIBITS AND OBJECTED, THE COURT FOUND THAT WE HAD WAIVED THE RIGHT TO OBJECT BECAUSE THE OBJECTION WAS UNTIMELY, AS THE COURT RULED. I THINK THE COURT SHOULD FIND THE SAME IN THIS SITUATION. THEY KNEW WHAT EXHIBIT 9 WAS. THEY HAVE SEEN IT, THEY HAVE IT IN THEIR HAND, THEY HAVE POSSESSED IT. IT WAS AN ISSUE IN THE DV HEARINGS. I MEAN TO SANCTION US NOW --

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE A FOUNDATION FOR THIS PHOTOGRAPH?

MR. DARDEN: YES. IT IS A PHOTOGRAPH THAT DENISE BROWN SAW IN THE EIGHTIES AT ROCKINGHAM.


THE COURT: DOESN'T HELP US. THANK YOU.

MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY, DID YOU SAY SOMETHING, MR. COCHRAN?

MR. COCHRAN: (SHAKES HEAD FROM SIDE TO SIDE.)

THE COURT: LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.

MR. DARDEN: WOULD THE COURT KINDLY INDICATE TO US WHAT THE COURT INTENDS TO TELL THE JURY?

THE COURT: YOU WILL SEE IN ABOUT THIRTY SECONDS.

MR. DARDEN: NO.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, FROM TIME TO TIME I NEED TO SPEAK TO THE LAWYERS ON ISSUES THAT ARE OFTENTIMES COMPLEX AND REQUIRE EXTENSIVE ARGUMENT. DON'T NECESSARILY REQUIRE IT, BUT WE GET EXTENSIVE ARGUMENT, AND I THINK IT IS EASIER FOR ME TO HAVE YOU STEP INTO THE JURY ROOM SO YOU CAN USE THE FACILITIES THERE AND STRETCH A LITTLE, RATHER THAN FOR US TO STAND OVER AT SIDE BAR FOR TWENTY MINUTES TO HALF AN HOUR. THAT IS THE REASON FOR THAT. THE REASON FOR OUR DISCUSSION TODAY WAS THAT LAST PHOTOGRAPH THAT YOU WERE SHOWN, PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT NO. 9, I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE USE OF THAT PHOTOGRAPH, DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN IT. I KNOW IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNRING A BELL, BUT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DISREGARD WHAT YOU SAW IN THAT PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH. THE REASON FOR THAT IS THERE IS NO FOUNDATION, THERE IS A LEGAL FINDING THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR THAT PHOTOGRAPH. IN OTHER WORDS, WE DON'T KNOW THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE WHERE THAT WAS TAKEN, BY WHOM AND WHAT IT PURPORTS TO DEPICT. ALL WE HAVE IS THE PICTURE AND WE CAN'T TELL THE PLACE, DATE AND TIME OR WHO WAS THERE OR WHO TOOK IT AT THIS POINT, SO I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DISREGARD THAT PHOTOGRAPH. AND WE WILL CONTINUE WITH THE TESTIMONY OF DENISE BROWN.

It seems that Darden was complaining because the defense was better.

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

I go back and forth on cameras in the courtroom. However, even if Judge Ito did enjoy his 15 minutes of fame, he still was not responsible for the flaws in this case.

And I am sure that by the end of the first month of the trial, I bet he wished he never allowed cameras in the courtroom!

[martin II]

I will ask the board to pardon me before I post this but I could not resist the chance for humor. Since the witness used the term man, we know he was not from the south. :)

Honestly, i was born and raised in Atlanta Ga and spend some time in Mississippi and other southern states. i can say that only a very few southerners that i have come in contact with still use that term that has been rejected by most. But then there are always one or two that like to hold on.imo:cool:

[martin II]

In the criminal trial?

civil trial.

[William Anthony]

Honestly, i was born and raised in Atlanta Ga and spend some time in Mississippi and other southern states. i can say that only a very few southerners that i have come in contact with still use that term that has been rejected by most. But then there are always one or two that like to hold on.imo:cool:

I understand what you are saying, I believe. Perhaps, it was wrong of me to rule out that the witness was not originally from the South but should have considered that he had learned better through personal experience with a Black man:, :) or had sensitivity training (I guess they might be called the same, :) .

[William Anthony]

This is from the prosecution's eleventh witness.

"Q: NOW, YOU DESCRIBED FOR THE COURT AND JURY THAT AT SOME POINT YOU CAME OVER AND YOU ADDRESSED MR. SIMPSON BECAUSE YOU KNEW HIM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT YOU CONSIDERED HIM A FRIEND; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: ACQUAINTANCE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ACQUAINTANCE AND SO YOU CAME OVER TO HIM, HOWEVER, TO SPEAK; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I DID.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU SPOKE TO THIS ACQUAINTANCE AND HE DIDN'T SEEM TO BE VERY RESPONSIVE AT THE TIME YOU WERE TALKING TO HIM?

A: NO.

Q: WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE SEATED BESIDE HIM AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE TALKING TO HIM?

A: AS I WAS LEAVING? I'M SORRY.

Q: THE TIME WHEN YOU CAME OVER TO SPEAK TO HIM AND YOU SAID HE SEEMED KIND OF NONRESPONSIVE, WAS HE SEATED WITH ANYBODY ELSE IN THAT ROW?

A: UMM, I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOMEONE NEXT TO HIM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. COULD THAT HAVE BEEN DR. RON FISCHMAN?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: DID HE SEEM TO YOU TO BE TIRED THAT EVENING, MR. SIMPSON?

A: NO.

Q: HAD YOU EVER SEEN HIM TIRED BEFORE?

A: I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T REMEMBER.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: I GUESS NOT. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: YOU DON'T KNOW, DO YOU?

A: NO, I DON'T KNOW. "

I fail to yet see a causual connection to any event that would have caused Simpson to lose control and commit murder.

[martin II]

The prosecution's tactics and sanctions during the presentation of evidence by the prosecution's tenth witness.

MR. DARDEN: THEY NEVER CEASE TO AMAZE ME. THEY HAVE MUCH MORE EXPERIENCE THAN WE HAVE ON THE PROSECUTION SIDE, YOUR HONOR. MUCH MORE TRIAL EXPERIENCE.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, THANK YOU. MR. SHAPIRO.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THE PROSECUTION, DURING THEIR PRESENTATION ON THESE ISSUES, TOLD YOUR HONOR THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE 1989. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING MORE TO SAY. IF WE ARE GOING TO CALL AN EXPERT IN AS TO BEING ABLE TO TELL THE AGE OF A WOMAN WHEN SHE HAS BEEN OUT AT A NEW YEAR'S PARTY AND ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE BEEN DRINKING AND BEEN INVOLVED IN A DOMESTIC DISPUTE AND THEN SHOW A PICTURE OF HER MADE UP, THAT COULD BE THE NEXT DAY AFTER. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY ROOM FOR ANY DOUBT THAT THIS COURT HAS BEEN TOLD, COUNSEL HAS BEEN TOLD, AND I WOULD LIKE MR. DARDEN TO TELL YOUR HONOR THAT HE DIDN'T TELL YOU THESE WERE ALL 1989.

MR. DARDEN: THESE WERE ALL --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. DARDEN: ARCHIVED IN '89. THEY ALL RELATE TO THE 1989 INCIDENT. I THINK THAT IS THE ONLY CONCLUSION WE CAN DRAW, GIVEN WHAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE SAFE-DEPOSIT BOX, JUDGE. I MEAN, IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT WHAT NICOLE BROWN WAS DOING WAS, ONE, IDENTIFYING HER FUTURE MURDERER, HER FUTURE KILLER, AND SHE WAS TRYING TO ESTABLISH FOR US, FOR MYSELF AND MR. GORDON AND MISS CLARK, PROOF OF A PATTERN OF ABUSE AND --

THE COURT: WELL, MR. DARDEN, THAT MAY VERY WELL BE, BUT I THINK THAT COMES IN THE PEOPLE'S REBUTTAL CASE AFTER YOU SEE WHAT DR. WALKER SAYS, AFTER YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT THROUGH YOUR OWN EXPERTS AND THROUGH THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. WALKER. BUT TO THROW UP A PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE CAN'T DATE TO ANY OF THE INCIDENTS THAT I HAVE ALLOWED IS NOT APPROPRIATE. THAT IS THE COURT'S RULING.

MR. DARDEN: WELL, I THINK THEIR FAILURE TO OBJECT --

THE COURT: NO, NO.

MR. DARDEN: -- IS A WAIVER.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WHEN THE COURT ALLOWS 1101(B) EVIDENCE, YOU HAVE TO BE -- YOU, AS THE PROSECUTION, HAVE TO BE VERY CONSERVATIVE AS TO HOW YOU GO ABOUT DOING THAT. IF YOU CAN'T TIE THIS PHOTOGRAPH TO ANY ONE OF THOSE THREE INCIDENTS THAT DENISE BROWN CAN TESTIFY TO, THAT PHOTOGRAPH IS NOT COMING IN. ALL RIGHT.

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I ADDRESS THE COURT ON SANCTIONS, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THE REASON THAT ONE MIGHT ASSUME THAT THAT PHOTOGRAPH WAS THROWN UP RELATES BACK TO THE TESTIMONY OF A POLICE OFFICER NAMED EDWARDS WHO TESTIFIED THAT HE TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS, BUT THE PHOTOGRAPHS DID NOT ADEQUATELY DEPICT THE INJURIES AS HE OBSERVED THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE TAKEN WITH POLAROID FILM AND BECAUSE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON DID NOT WANT TO GO DOWNTOWN FOR PROPER PHOTOGRAPHS.

THE COURT: I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SANCTIONS.

MR. SHAPIRO: WELL, I'M LEADING TO THAT. THE INFERENCE NOW IS THIS IS THE WAY SHE REALLY LOOKED IN 1989, AND I THINK THE SANCTIONS SHOULD BE THAT THE JURY SHOULD STRIKE FROM THEIR DELIBERATIONS ANY REFERENCE TO AN INCIDENT IN 1989, ANY REFERENCE TO ANY INJURIES THAT WERE SUFFERED BY NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, AND ANY PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THEY HAVE SEEN OR ANY TESTIMONY DEPICTING THOSE INJURIES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, WHEN WE BEGAN THIS TRIAL THE COURT ORDERED THE DEFENSE TO PROVIDE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THEIR EXHIBITS AND WE WERE GIVEN A NANOSECOND TO DO THAT, AND WHEN WE REALIZED THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH ONE OF THOSE EXHIBITS AND OBJECTED, THE COURT FOUND THAT WE HAD WAIVED THE RIGHT TO OBJECT BECAUSE THE OBJECTION WAS UNTIMELY, AS THE COURT RULED. I THINK THE COURT SHOULD FIND THE SAME IN THIS SITUATION. THEY KNEW WHAT EXHIBIT 9 WAS. THEY HAVE SEEN IT, THEY HAVE IT IN THEIR HAND, THEY HAVE POSSESSED IT. IT WAS AN ISSUE IN THE DV HEARINGS. I MEAN TO SANCTION US NOW --

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE A FOUNDATION FOR THIS PHOTOGRAPH?

MR. DARDEN: YES. IT IS A PHOTOGRAPH THAT DENISE BROWN SAW IN THE EIGHTIES AT ROCKINGHAM.


THE COURT: DOESN'T HELP US. THANK YOU.

MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY, DID YOU SAY SOMETHING, MR. COCHRAN?

MR. COCHRAN: (SHAKES HEAD FROM SIDE TO SIDE.)

THE COURT: LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.

MR. DARDEN: WOULD THE COURT KINDLY INDICATE TO US WHAT THE COURT INTENDS TO TELL THE JURY?

THE COURT: YOU WILL SEE IN ABOUT THIRTY SECONDS.

MR. DARDEN: NO.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, FROM TIME TO TIME I NEED TO SPEAK TO THE LAWYERS ON ISSUES THAT ARE OFTENTIMES COMPLEX AND REQUIRE EXTENSIVE ARGUMENT. DON'T NECESSARILY REQUIRE IT, BUT WE GET EXTENSIVE ARGUMENT, AND I THINK IT IS EASIER FOR ME TO HAVE YOU STEP INTO THE JURY ROOM SO YOU CAN USE THE FACILITIES THERE AND STRETCH A LITTLE, RATHER THAN FOR US TO STAND OVER AT SIDE BAR FOR TWENTY MINUTES TO HALF AN HOUR. THAT IS THE REASON FOR THAT. THE REASON FOR OUR DISCUSSION TODAY WAS THAT LAST PHOTOGRAPH THAT YOU WERE SHOWN, PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT NO. 9, I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE USE OF THAT PHOTOGRAPH, DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN IT. I KNOW IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNRING A BELL, BUT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DISREGARD WHAT YOU SAW IN THAT PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH. THE REASON FOR THAT IS THERE IS NO FOUNDATION, THERE IS A LEGAL FINDING THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR THAT PHOTOGRAPH. IN OTHER WORDS, WE DON'T KNOW THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE WHERE THAT WAS TAKEN, BY WHOM AND WHAT IT PURPORTS TO DEPICT. ALL WE HAVE IS THE PICTURE AND WE CAN'T TELL THE PLACE, DATE AND TIME OR WHO WAS THERE OR WHO TOOK IT AT THIS POINT, SO I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DISREGARD THAT PHOTOGRAPH. AND WE WILL CONTINUE WITH THE TESTIMONY OF DENISE BROWN.

It seems that Darden was complaining because the defense was better.
I cannot believe Darden would in open court Admit that the defense were better lawyers than the prosecution. It is like a kid admiting he was being defeated. Well maby Darden knew somethging the other prosecutors would not admit to themselves.imo

[William Anthony]

I cannot believe Darden would in open court Admit that the defense were better lawyers than the prosecution. It is like a kid admiting he was being defeated. Well maby Darden knew somethging the other prosecutors would not admit to themselves.imo

I read somewhere that he had successfully prosecuted 19 murder cases before the Simpson trial. I'll bet he did not complain about those lawyer's experience.

[martin II]

This is from the prosecution's eleventh witness.

"Q: NOW, YOU DESCRIBED FOR THE COURT AND JURY THAT AT SOME POINT YOU CAME OVER AND YOU ADDRESSED MR. SIMPSON BECAUSE YOU KNEW HIM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT YOU CONSIDERED HIM A FRIEND; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: ACQUAINTANCE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ACQUAINTANCE AND SO YOU CAME OVER TO HIM, HOWEVER, TO SPEAK; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I DID.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU SPOKE TO THIS ACQUAINTANCE AND HE DIDN'T SEEM TO BE VERY RESPONSIVE AT THE TIME YOU WERE TALKING TO HIM?

A: NO.

Q: WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE SEATED BESIDE HIM AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE TALKING TO HIM?

A: AS I WAS LEAVING? I'M SORRY.

Q: THE TIME WHEN YOU CAME OVER TO SPEAK TO HIM AND YOU SAID HE SEEMED KIND OF NONRESPONSIVE, WAS HE SEATED WITH ANYBODY ELSE IN THAT ROW?

A: UMM, I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOMEONE NEXT TO HIM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. COULD THAT HAVE BEEN DR. RON FISCHMAN?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: DID HE SEEM TO YOU TO BE TIRED THAT EVENING, MR. SIMPSON?

A: NO.

Q: HAD YOU EVER SEEN HIM TIRED BEFORE?

A: I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T REMEMBER.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: I GUESS NOT. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: YOU DON'T KNOW, DO YOU?

A: NO, I DON'T KNOW. "

I fail to yet see a causual connection to any event that would have caused Simpson to lose control and commit murder.

At the recital oj was seated a few chairs near Nicole and those seats were for the children. He left at intermission to get some flowers for his kid and stood at the back of the room when he returned until the recital was over.
He had just returned from a business trip in new york the night before and played golf that morning.After the recital he was seen being greeted by Denise Brown and Nicoles family.Nicoles mother invited him to the dinner and he refused.He went home and had a conversaiton with kato who testified that oj was not upset, angry or in no way other than himself.
Some say he was angry for not being inivted to the dinner and decided to go commit murder.NONSENSE.
imo

[martin II]

I read somewhere that he had successfully prosecuted 19 murder cases before the Simpson trial. I'll bet he did not complain about those lawyer's experience.

Maby those 19 cases were against defendants that had inexperienced lawyers.I am sure he never complained.

[martin II]

commitment to his kids.Nicole relationship over.

A. He did not; just said it was over, that their relationship was over.

Q. And what was his demeanor, his facial expression, his words, led you to conclude that he was very upset about this?

A. I didn't have the impression that he was upset. I had the impression that there was a finality to his relationship. For the first -- first time I had this -- he communicated a finality of the relationship with Nicole, and he was thinking about moving to New York and starting all over again, as opposed to staying in Los Angeles.

Q. Now, earlier, you testified that he seemed upset by this development.

A. If -- I didn't realize I said that.



Do you remember the last time, prior to the morning of May 16, when you last spoke to Mr. Simpson?

A. I recall a conversation on the telephone, where he was obligated to do something for us that he had agreed to do. And it may have been this event. And there was something to do with the family. And he had already obligated himself to do this event, and he was -- he was calling me to -- not to get out of it, but to ask me how to handle -- was there any way he could possibly handle it with the people that he had -- that he had committed to. It may have been this event. But it was about a Hertz event. But there was a family obligation that he wanted to -- that he had fouled up by not recognizing the obligation of one of his children or both of his children, and he was committed to do this, and if there was any way he could -- any way he could -- and was there any way he could get out of it -- get out.

Q. Get out of it?

A. Get out of our event.

And I referred him to the person that had organized the event.

Q. Did you tell him that he couldn't get out of it?

A. I told him I didn't realize or know what the commitments were, and that he had to talk to the person that organized the event.

Q. Who did you refer him to?

A. I just don't remember which event it was.

Q. Assuming it was the ASTA regional dinner on May 14, does that cause you to remember?

A. That -- then it would have been Bill Maloney, who is our Vice-President of Travel Industries Sales.

Q. What does ASTA stand for?

A. American Society of Travel Agents.

Q. Is that the last you heard of the question of whether he could get out of the event?

A. Yes.

Q. Did anybody in the company come and talk to you about it after that?

A. I talked to -- if this was the event, I talked to whoever it was, to find out what occurred.

Q. And what did you find out?

A. I found out that, whatever event it was, that he was trying to avoid, that it was impossible to get out of. I mean, there were already brochures printed or something, something. There was a lot of -- There was -- it was not easy to unwind it.

I think, as I recall, the conversation was between the person and -- if it was Maloney and O.J. -- that if O.J. insisted on getting out of it, they would have released him, but it was very difficult for us as a company.

[martin II]

I understand what you are saying, I believe. Perhaps, it was wrong of me to rule out that the witness was not originally from the South but should have considered that he had learned better through personal experience with a Black man:, :) or had sensitivity training (I guess they might be called the same, :) .

i think i was not clear as i was talking about some believing southers still use 'BOY' when addressing black men.

[SlowHandSam]

i think i was not clear as i was talking about some believing southers still use 'BOY' when addressing black men.

Our use of the word does not require "sensitivity" training or anything of the sort. I hear those who are not white use the term "boy", "boys" etc when talking to other male gender folks all the time.

We just don't jump on the "you're a racist" bandwagon.

My colleague, who btw is a black man, just this morning walked into a meeting and said "Mornin' boys" to the group of men at the table. A group of men who were white, Mexican and black ... and me. Not a single person thought anything of it.

[weezer]

The prosecution when describing the inside of the bundy house talked about candles and ice cream cup no mention of oj pictures through out the house.
This was kinda kept from the jury i guess.

Nothing at either house was left until after the trial and no one suggested that. The washing of the outside crime scene with a water hose so quickly,
prevented any additional study by anyone. That was not necessary. imo

so since the jury wasn't told about Paula's naked picture and the other stuff, you agree that the defense was keeping that stuff from the jury i guess.

how long do you believe a bloody crime scene should be left martin?

[weezer]

You do see things differently.
one can hardly be home by 5pm nightly if one it announcing football games for nbc and masking hertyz commercials because you are the only income producer of the two kids and two adults in the house. i have never read or heard any comment that ojs children or nicole were not well provided for.

hey, don't get mad at me -- I'm not the one that said he was an absentte dad -- the testimony/statements came from family and friends.

[weezer]

She caught the next flight from vegas and went to ojs side where she stayed for the trial. We have been over this many times and you know this.
The prosecution made another blunder when they tried to convince the jury that oj received a call from PAULA and then lost it and went to kill nicole.imo

the facts are that she flew to vegas when calls from orenthal's co-conspirator were made begging her to come there because 'daddy' needed her. big bad boy that he was! LOL

[weezer]

William
The first several witnesses presentred by the prosecution imo were part of the character assassination oj simpson effort especially when they tried to toss in some very weak abuse claims. They got their first shock when some dismissed jurors did interviews and said the prosecution was kinda stuck in the mud with the case talking about all that abuse nonsense.I believe this is when the case was lost but am not sure they admitted it to themselves. But there was not really much they could do with the defense eating their lunch at every turn. IMO

"five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member,"

[weezer]

I am not sure when the prosecution understood they were loosing the case but here is a opinion of one of the reasons they did loose.



What were the prosecution's big mistakes?

I hate second-guessing other lawyers, because I know that I've tried and lost cases, and somebody could sit there and say, "Should have done it this way," and they'd have been right. It's clear to me in retrospect that the Simpson prosecutors Marcia Clark, Christopher Darden, spent too long trying their case. The case, for example, against [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh that was tried just a little bit later was probably more complex and yet was put in by those prosecutors in six weeks.

They took six months to present the evidence against O.J. Simpson. And when it takes you six months to make your case, the jury is going to be left with either one of two impressions: Either your evidence is overwhelming, or in point of fact it's not, and you're laboring day by day to make it appear to be better than it is. And unfortunately in this case, it was the latter impression that the jury got left with. …

martin, you really shouldn't try to pass off someone else's work as your own. very unbecoming and against the rules of this board.

[martin II]

"five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member,"

One cannot win a case where the charge is murder and you then talk about abuse or jaywalking. The prosecution found that out the hard way.

[weezer]

No one testified to any physical proof that oj simpson was in his south walk way on 6/12. Only guess and "i think" he was.

you mean except for the matching glove with the blood of both victims and their murderer?

[martin II]

martin, you really shouldn't try to pass off someone else's work as your own. very unbecoming and against the rules of this board.


Your charge is wrong.
but i guess you are looking for a link.
So here it is
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/prosecution.html

[martin II]

you mean except for the matching glove with the blood of both victims and their murderer?

The glove did not fit so there was no proof who it belonged to.

[weezer]

I don't know how you missed bobaugust's post. That in and of itself is incredible.
I am not an NG and I remind you of the witness that said LE was trained how to testify. I could teach that class in one minute-tell the truth but we know that at least one did not. MF testified he saw the gloves (them) from a perspective that was different from his first observation. Bailey asked about having bags available and MF admitted they did. Bailey spoke of the marine training in how to carry items in plastic bags in the socks under the pants. What is nonsense is that MF testified that he did not know, if there was a suspect where he allegedly found the glove and proceeded to inspect that area alone without his trusty gun drawn. That ranks up there with some of the other nonsensical testimony from the ghost expert, the nurse who tried acting, the dead expert and Ms. Corn Oil, imho.

I miss bobaugust's posts because unlike some of the nonsense posted here, he actually brought food for thought and discussion.

flee also lied and said he talked 'marine-to-marine' -- so what? to believe that Fuhrman had some kind of plastic bag on his person and picked up a bloody glove and hid this on his person WITHOUT leaving a trace of that happening (his DNA on the glove) is stupid. imo

[weezer]

I think they knew the part of the case on spousal abuse leading to murder was weak. They were relying on genetic footprints in my mind and they lost when they failed to produce a pigeon-toed, game, match and set (pun intended). :)

"five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member"

who could have guessed that there was a segment of society that believe abuse is okay?

[martin II]

the facts are that she flew to vegas when calls from orenthal's co-conspirator were made begging her to come there because 'daddy' needed her. big bad boy that he was! LOL

When Paula was told oj had been arrested she immediately ran to his side and stayed.It does not matter who informed or asked her. She tossed that phone call out of mind.hahaha

[SlowHandSam]

A question I've been pondering a bit for y'all.

If, as OJ claimed in his deposition, he and the Browns had absolutely no animosity and were in fact "joking around" about Nicole the evening of the recital, why is it the Browns were so quick to embrace the idea that OJ was the one her murdered her?

Perhaps they were doing their best to just be cordial since he is, afterall, the father of grandbabies ... it just doesn't seem normal to me that if they didn't have any issues with him earlier that night that they would believe he did it.

Just something I've been pondering.

[martin II]

I miss bobaugust's posts because unlike some of the nonsense posted here, he actually brought food for thought and discussion.

flee also lied and said he talked 'marine-to-marine' -- so what? to believe that Fuhrman had some kind of plastic bag on his person and picked up a bloody glove and hid this on his person WITHOUT leaving a trace of that happening (his DNA on the glove) is stupid. imo

There is proof of only one person being in the south path on 6/12 MARK FURHMAN.

[SlowHandSam]

When Paula was told oj had been arrested she immediately ran to his side and stayed.It does not matter who informed or asked her. She tossed that phone call out of mind.hahaha

I'm not finding testimony that states that -- but I could be using the wrong search phrase.

Please provide a link to a credible source that states this please? I'd like to read the full context.

[martin II]

"five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member"

who could have guessed that there was a segment of society that believe abuse is okay?

Based on some of your post it is Obvious that you thought the case was about abuse. This was a murder case not abuse and a thousand post about abuse will not change that fact.imo

[weezer]

William and Martin,

I do believe the DA's using spousal abuse as the motive for the murders hurt their case. To this day, I don't understand why they never used the "crime of passion" motive. However, what I did realize during the trial, that it seemed like the DA's and the defense did not want to get into the nature of Ron and Nicole's relationship. It appeared to me they wanted Ron and Nicole to appear more as strangers rather then two people who did have a social relationship at the very least.

I'm sure they had their reasons and they had to be great ones because they totally bombed with the spousal abuse evidence. I think they only thing they proved was that Simpson beat up a car, he was a total jerk when he drank, he did have one physical encounter with Nicole, and that Nicole confirmed, in her own voice that it only happened once.

FYI Martin, did you know that Barry Scheck is also an expert on domestic abuse and the battered woman's syndrome?

it couldn't have been a 'crime of passion' and pre-meditated. the prosecution believed that orenthal went to Bundy with the intention of hurting/killing Nicole. so why are you surprised that the prosecution didn't use that term?

only the segment that believes abuse is okay dismissed the pictures of a beat up Nicole and the 911 phone calls.

where in the world did you read that scheck is an expert on domestic abuse and battered 'woman's' syndrom? LOL

[martin II]

it couldn't have been a 'crime of passion' and pre-meditated. the prosecution believed that orenthal went to Bundy with the intention of hurting/killing Nicole. so why are you surprised that the prosecution didn't use that term?

only the segment that believes abuse is okay dismissed the pictures of a beat up Nicole and the 911 phone calls.

where in the world did you read that scheck is an expert on domestic abuse and battered 'woman's' syndrom? LOL

We know the pre-meditated theory was rejected as there was no evidence or testimony of oj doing anything leading up to the murders that would give that theory validity.Hearsay was not enough.

Nicole stated that oj had hit her only once.If i had to decide whether to believe her or others that believe they know she lied, i would believe her.

The 911 call from GG was oj yelling at nicole about a issue while talking to Kato in the back yard.He did not lay one finger on her as she told the cops that answered the call and that is why he was arrested.
It is not a fair expression of events to try to claim he beat her more than what we know from testimony and fact.imo

The prosecution made a half azz effort to toss in abuse in a effort to support what they obviously knew was a very weak murder case.imo

[martin II]

A pioneer in genetic fingerprinting, Scheck had earned honors as a forensics expert who used scientific evidence to defend indigent suspects facing serious crimes. During 1987, the short, fiery New Yorker masterminded impressive arguments that led to Hedda Nussbaum being declared innocent in the death of her adopted child. Scheck adeptly pleaded that the woman suffered from abuse by her companion, Joel Steinberg, and he convinced jurors that Nussbaum had become a psychological victim of spousal abuse.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/blood_12.html



Scheck started out on Fung wanting to know why the Ford Bronco had not been sealed off as a vital evidentiary object in the Rockingham crime scene, why he was the only criminalist employed on both sites, and what impact on evidence corruption the blanket that covered Nicole's body may have had. Scheck also zeroed in on why junior criminalist Andrea Mazzola was allowed to collect most of the blood evidence.

Over the period of Scheck's cross-examination, he brought up the fact that a crime scene photograph showed an ungloved hand holding the blood-spattered envelope containing Mrs. Brown's eyeglasses. Fung also agreed that he had only collected "representative" smears of the blood in the Ford Bronco, which was why stains were still found in the vehicle six weeks after it was impounded. He also admitted to placing blood samples into plastic bags, which he claimed was purely a temporary measure, although doing this could foster bacteria growth, which in turn could distort test results.

Scheck accused Fung of destroying evidence in an effort to conceal when he received the vial of O.J. Simpson's blood. The criminalist remembered that in fact he had given the vial of blood to his assistant, Mazzola, and she had carried it out to their evidence truck in a black plastic bag. There was also a heated debate over a missing page from the crime scene checklist, which Scheck claimed was replaced as it showed that Fung could not have received the vial at the time he stated he had. The missing page however, subsequently turned up in a crime laboratory notebook, and Judge Ito ruled that its misplacement was inadvertent.

On April 18th, Dennis Fung finished testifying. He denied covering up mistakes, using selective memory and "saying what the prosecution had told him to say," rather than what was the truth. He then amazed everyone in the courtroom, by crossing over to the defense table and shaking hands with O.J. Simpson and his lawyers. It seemed to some observers, that Dennis Fung was just so delighted to be finished with his testimony.

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

Andrea Mazzola was called to give evidence on April 20th and spent four days being grilled by Peter Neufeld, who subjected her to as severe a battering as his partner had to Dennis Fung.

She agreed that she had collected most of the blood samples without any supervision from Fung, although in the preliminary hearing, Fung had claimed the opposite. Neufeld also tried hard to show that Mazzola did a sloppy job, using videotape as evidence of her resting a hand on a dirty footpath, wiping tweezers with a dirty hand, and dropping several blood swabs. She admitted that there were times when she had made mistakes in the collection of evidence, but denied emphatically that anyone, including herself would have deliberately altered evidence.

She was unable to confirm that she had carried out to the evidence truck the vial of Simpson's blood returned to the scene by Detective Vannatter, thus reinforcing the defenses notion that the blood was never handed over to Fung that day, and this delay gave the police ample time to plant blood evidence.



http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/simpson

[martin II]

I'm not finding testimony that states that -- but I could be using the wrong search phrase.

Please provide a link to a credible source that states this please? I'd like to read the full context.

Paulas return to la to be with oj when he was charged is very common knowledge for most everyone posting here.It has been discussed and referred to a few post back. You can do your own research if you are not aware of her testimony.imo

[martin II]

"five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member,"

Most likely talking about spanking kids.

[tv]

There is proof of only one person being in the south path on 6/12 MARK FURHMAN.


What is your explanation for the noise and vibration on the other side of Kato's wall?

[martin II]

I miss bobaugust's posts because unlike some of the nonsense posted here, he actually brought food for thought and discussion.

flee also lied and said he talked 'marine-to-marine' -- so what? to believe that Fuhrman had some kind of plastic bag on his person and picked up a bloody glove and hid this on his person WITHOUT leaving a trace of that happening (his DNA on the glove) is stupid. imo

I bet furhman knew what f lee bailey was talking about.