Issues In The Criminal Trial

[martin II]

What is your explanation for the noise and vibration on the other side of Kato's wall?

i have given this some thought and understand that oj was in his bedroom
so the best alternative is Kato got hold of some of that Hawaiian super or Canadian Green but then it could have been anyone of the players.
But without any physical proof that oj was there. we must ignore the prosecutions theory.M Clarke thought the murders took place at 10:20 which means we have to ignore the dog ,heidstra and jill. right?

ps maby it was a earthquake.

[martin II]

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.

Not mad at you or anyone else.I think oj had a great relationship with his kids
and i have not read any testimony stating other wise. Oj was a busy business man and i assume that he could not be home on many ocassion when he would have like to have been but he was the only working adult in that house as Nicole never worked during her relationship with him so i guess he did miss some kids events but since the murders he has done a great job raising his kids.imo

[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

Do you know for a fact that Furhman did not have latex gloves available to him? Or paper bag?

[William Anthony]

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.

When in Rome, do as the romans. Is that what you mean? You have acquired the same ability as some on this board uncannily acquire, mind reading. Don't you think it is more appropriate to say that you did not hear anyone say anything about it?

[William Anthony]

"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?

Force is not always the same as physical abuse.

[William Anthony]

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.

With all due respect, could you ponder that on the proper thread?

[William Anthony]

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

That did not fit the accused hands.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer View Post
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.

I bet furhman knew what f lee bailey was talking about.

The first poster was correct, imho, with all his mistaken theories, inaccurate, rude, uncivil, disrespectful and baiting posts, there was much to discuss. MF testified he moved the other glove and left no trace of his DNA. Practice makes perfect.

[William Anthony]

i have given this some thought and understand that oj was in his bedroom
so the best alternative is Kato got hold of some of that Hawaiian super or Canadian Green but then it could have been anyone of the players.
But without any physical proof that oj was there. we must ignore the prosecutions theory.M Clarke thought the murders took place at 10:20 which means we have to ignore the dog ,heidstra and jill. right?

ps maby it was a earthquake.

If it was a person he was most likely drunk to hit the wall three times or there were three people. There was a witness who said he saw four people near Nicole's condo and non were Black. That witness' observations weren't investigated, IIRC.

[William Anthony]

THE THIRD THING HAS TO DO WITH A WITNESS BY THE NAME OF LEIF TILDEN, L-E-I-F T-I-L-D-E-N. MR. LEIF TILDEN IS A WITNESS WHO HAS IN FACT BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE PROSECUTION. HE IS A WITNESS WHO SAYS HE SAW FOUR MEN IN THE AREA OF THE BUNDY STREET ADDRESS NEAR DOROTHY ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12, 1994, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, FOUR CAUCASIAN MEN, OR NOT AFRICAN AMERICAN MEN, BETWEEN THE TIME OF 10:00 AND TEN ALSO INDICATED HE HAS IN FACT BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE PROSECUTION. WE RECEIVED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THIS MAN AT ALL, NO REPORTS OR WHATEVER. AS THE COURT HAS POINTED OUT TO ME, DISCOVERY IS RECIPROCAL. THESE ARE -- I STAND HERE UNDERSTANDING THAT AND I WANT TO BRING THIS TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION,

Perhaps, three of these men went to Rockingham and bumped into the wall, not being familiar with the fact that a wall was there as Simpson undoubtedly would have been. Perhaps, they saw Park, Kato, and Simpson and thought let's leave, because there are three of them. Of course, this is all speculation much like the prosecution did but we know for a fact that the only person who testified to being alone at the location he allegedly found the glove was MF, who admitted by direct evidence to planting evidence .

[William Anthony]

If it was a person he was most likely drunk to hit the wall three times or there were three people. There was a witness who said he saw four people near Nicole's condo and non were Black. That witness' observations weren't investigated, IIRC.

Correction-none were Black.

[limakey]

FBG,

I really resent the tone of your replies to my posts. First, I have never dismissed the photos or the domestic violence issue in the Simpson case. However, in the past, I have stated that IMO, violence was done by both of them, both of them had control issues and both of them realized that they could have made excuses for their behavior but both "manned up" and took responsibilty for it.

Barry Scheck was a lawyer for the step mother of Lisa Steinberg--the little girl who was beaten to death by her adopted father several years ago. I had heard of him before and I also read this in Gerry Uelman's book. I helieve her name was Hedda Nausbaum.

I also resent the fact you twist and make fun of information that has been posted when in fact you have no reason to believe that I have posted something that is untrue.

This case is surrounded by gossip and rumour. This case is surround by personal opinons of the evidence and the presentation of such evidence. I would rather not block your posts, because there are times that you have made valid points. I have never treated your posts with distain or ridicule and I expect my to be treated the same way. Fine if you don't agree with them, but please do so with the same respect I give your's.

[limakey]

Martin,

Thank you for the link about the Steinberg case---I missed that post!

[SlowHandSam]

With all due respect, could you ponder that on the proper thread?

with all due respect, which you are owed none, why do you have to be so dang nasty all the time?

tell me William, what would be the proper thread? The civil trial? The Vegas trial.

You talk about Aboriginals in this thread. You talk about slavery in this thread. You go on and on about other topics, why can't I discuss something about OJ in this thread?

I believe I posted this in the correct thread.

You want to play the off topic game? Let's get it on.

[SlowHandSam]

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, I have done my research. There is no posted testimony for Paula in the CRIMINAL trial. I would like to know where testimony is for the CRIMINAL trial from Paula that states what you've claimed.

[William Anthony]

with all due respect, which you are owed none, why do you have to be so dang nasty all the time?

tell me William, what would be the proper thread? The civil trial? The Vegas trial.

You talk about Aboriginals in this thread. You talk about slavery in this thread. You go on and on about other topics, why can't I discuss something about OJ in this thread?

I believe I posted this in the correct thread.

You want to play the off topic game? Let's get it on.

I am not nasty but I do demand respect. If you call that nasty then so be it. The purpose of this thread is to discuss issue that happened in and during the trial in order to discuss whether or not the jury, which has been the recipient of some shall we say nasty comments by some posters, had reasons to find reasonable doubt. There are time when the discussions do stray a tad bit off topic, because of some comments made in posts that are relevant to the issues being discussed, which is different than posting a post that has no relevance to the thread. There is a thread called Key Testimony in the Civil Trial. Since Simpson's deposition took place after the criminal trial, it was not information that the criminal jury could have possibly considered or heard of.

Because you have said that I AM WORTHY OF NO RESPECT AND EVERYTHING WE (SOUTHERNERS) POST IS NOT RACIST, I think I understand where you are coming from. With that said, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: permanently or at least until you and I are able to form different opinions of each other.:cool:

[martin II]

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?

At least until all the evidence has been collected and ample time for both sides to investigate the scene. Both sides removed pictures so why are you only talki g about the defense.haha

[martin II]

Martin,

Thank you for the link about the Steinberg case---I missed that post!

I remembeer that case as if it was yesterday.Great skill on Barrys part.That was really abuse.

[martin II]

FBG,

I really resent the tone of your replies to my posts. First, I have never dismissed the photos or the domestic violence issue in the Simpson case. However, in the past, I have stated that IMO, violence was done by both of them, both of them had control issues and both of them realized that they could have made excuses for their behavior but both "manned up" and took responsibilty for it.

Barry Scheck was a lawyer for the step mother of Lisa Steinberg--the little girl who was beaten to death by her adopted father several years ago. I had heard of him before and I also read this in Gerry Uelman's book. I helieve her name was Hedda Nausbaum.

I also resent the fact you twist and make fun of information that has been posted when in fact you have no reason to believe that I have posted something that is untrue.

This case is surrounded by gossip and rumour. This case is surround by personal opinons of the evidence and the presentation of such evidence. I would rather not block your posts, because there are times that you have made valid points. I have never treated your posts with distain or ridicule and I expect my to be treated the same way. Fine if you don't agree with them, but please do so with the same respect I give your's.

Limakey
I admire the way you post information and have found nothing in any of your post to be untrue.As a matter of fact i have found much that i did not know and had forgot in your post. So please continue to inform us with your informed info and opinions.:beer:

[martin II]

Limakey

You are correct about the Joel Steinberg case.
Initially the media and the public were ready to blame Lisa's murder on both Hedda and Joel as they both were the parents and lived with Lisa when she was abused and murdered.

People were not receptive to the idea that Hedda was not responsible until Barry was able to show that Hedda was in no way responsible as Joel had for years abused both Hedda and Lisa in the house. He had inflicted almost daily beatings on both. Barry's arguments and presentation of facts changed many opinions about abuse and he was given great recognition for his skills in the area of abuse. Joel served some long sentance and was released a few months ago and is in a Harlem halfway house.
imo
martinII

[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.


Mazzola, fung, vanhatter, Martz and the prosecutions glove expert testimony could all be rejected by the jury as a result of the judges instructions to them. imo

[SlowHandSam]

Limakey

You are correct about the Joel Steinberg case.
Initially the media and the public were ready to blame Lisa's murder on both Hedda and Joel as they both were the parents and lived with Lisa when she was abused and murdered.

People were not receptive to the idea that Hedda was not responsible until Barry was able to show that Hedda was in no way responsible as Joel had for years abused both Hedda and Lisa in the house. He had inflicted almost daily beatings on both. Barry's arguments and presentation of facts changed many opinions about abuse and he was given great recognition for his skills in the area of abuse. Joel served some long sentance and was released a few months ago and is in a Harlem halfway house.
imo
martinII

This is off topic.

[martin II]

This is off topic.

See weezers post #3820

[martin II]

Criminal trial DNA presentation.

The jury was subjected to forensic evidence examination for almost two months. In 50,000 pages of trial transcript there are 10,000 references to DNA. If most of it was above Alan Dershowitz's head, it is hard to see just how members of the jury could have absorbed it. The linking of the blood to Simpson and the victims through the crime scenes was perhaps the most crucial part of the trial, but the prosecution obviously failed to make these connections as far as the jury was concerned.

According to Armanda Cooley, the forewoman, it was, ". witness after witness, day after daythey lost us. She (Dr. Cotton) talked down to us, and when you talk down to people, you tend to lose them. When we went on a break, everybody heaved a sigh of relief. Colin Yamauchi was too busy trying to protect his department. Fung and Mazzola, I think they just got caught up and were in a rush and just mishandled things, and then tried to cover it up with explanations that never added uptheir techniques just started getting sloppyit's impossible to believe that this is the first case that they had thirty or forty errors on God knows how many people are in jail right now due to their negligenceit was the same story over and over when it came to how evidence was collected."

The days of autorads and alleles finally ended. The talk of contamination and mixing and commingling, EDTA and ions and homologous chromosomes and genetic markers, evidentiary bands, allelic frequency and fixed-bin analysis was finally put to bed.

There would be some minor skirmishes between defense witnesses and Scheck and Neufeld, mainly over the validity of the databases used by Cellmark Diagnostics and the Californian State Justice Laboratory, suggesting that they were not large enough and did not offer a comprehensive sampling of different racial groups. The prosecution had done its dash by the end of June, and it was going to be up to the jury to finally try to make some sense out the mass of seemingly incomprehensible evidence to which it had been exposed.

According to Chris Darden, he and his team had shown the jury a high wall of physical evidence: blood, hair and fiber from three separate sites, a trail of evidence as conclusive as a video tape of Simpson actually committing the murders. At South Bundy, he had left his footprints, his cap with his hairs attached to it and at least eight separate drops of his blood. At his home he had dropped a glove that matched the one he left near the bodies, and this one contained Goldman's blood. In his bedroom, his socks were splattered with Nicole's blood. In his Ford Bronco, there were samples of both Nicole's and Goldman's blood.

Testing was done at two different laboratories, under strict control, confirming beyond a shadow of a doubt that Simpson was linked to the murders. It was a compelling conclusion. Never in the history of the California legal system had so much blood and DNA evidence been collected and amassed against one defendant to prove his guilt.

Surely, common sense would lead the jury to the only logical motherboard that was driving the prosecution's hard drive. However, as the great French author and philosopher, Voltaire once observed, "Common sense is not all that common."

By July 6th, the prosecution, after presenting 58 witnesses and 488 exhibits, had rested its case, stepping back to allow the "Dream Team" to begin its attack in defense of its client. By this point in time, the prosecutors were in really deep trouble. Their star witnesses, the police investigators and technical experts, had been hijacked, bushwhacked and taken for a one-way ride. The mountain of evidence had seemingly sunk without trace and, to make matters worse, there was the glove.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/billions_13.html

[tv]

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

It was Brenda Moran that wanted the read back on Alan Park's testimony - - this is what her attorney said:

'With respect to the significance of the read-back (of chauffeur Allan Park's testimony) ... the read-back was merely the result of the jurors sitting around the table, each viewing evidence that had been presented to them. And as each juror noticed information within that evidence that was troubling to them or that was of some significance or raised a question, the jurors would raise their hands and then the other jurors would assist them in trying to fret out what the actual problem was. In this case, a juror merely raised their hand with respect to the testimony of Mr. Park. But there was no great significance in the read-back of that testimony"

[tv]

i have given this some thought and understand that oj was in his bedroom
so the best alternative is Kato got hold of some of that Hawaiian super or Canadian Green but then it could have been anyone of the players.
But without any physical proof that oj was there. we must ignore the prosecutions theory.M Clarke thought the murders took place at 10:20 which means we have to ignore the dog ,heidstra and jill. right?

ps maby it was a earthquake.

martin, it's very inappropriate for you to say that Kato was under the influence of drugs when he experienced the three bangs on the wall behind his room. You have absolutely nothing to base this on. I simply asked you for a reasonable explanation for what happened. Unless you know for sure that Kato was smoking an illegal substance that night please use IMO.

PS There was no earthquake activity in Brentwood that night.

[martin II]

It was Brenda Moran that wanted the read back on Alan Park's testimony - - this is what her attorney said:

'With respect to the significance of the read-back (of chauffeur Allan Park's testimony) ... the read-back was merely the result of the jurors sitting around the table, each viewing evidence that had been presented to them. And as each juror noticed information within that evidence that was troubling to them or that was of some significance or raised a question, the jurors would raise their hands and then the other jurors would assist them in trying to fret out what the actual problem was. In this case, a juror merely raised their hand with respect to the testimony of Mr. Park. But there was no great significance in the read-back of that testimony"

tv
I believe Brenda is mistaken.As i remember the jury asked for the readback and as the judge was responding to their request they continued to deliberate
and took a vote for not gulty before the readback was given to them.
I also remember some jury member/s stating that they did not believe Park could have seen what he claim he saw from where he was at Ashford.
imo

martin II

[martin II]

TV
Here are some comments attributed to some jury members.

Armanda Cooley, the lady selected as the foreperson, had also been concerned about the presentation of evidence, saying, "I felt Mr. Simpson was guilty when the prosecutors were putting on their case... I changed my thinking when I heard evidence about the glove... another episode that changed my mind was... the picking up of evidence weeks later... the results were so much different... the DNA content being so much different."

She also commented, "Based on the evidence that was presented... a lot pointed to Mr. Simpson's guilt... because we had no direct evidence... I had no alternative but to think he was not guilty. There were many questions that were not answered."

Perhaps the most pertinent commentary came from juror Carrie Bess:

"As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Simpson would have been behind bars if the police work had been done properly."



http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/dead_16.html

[tv]

tv
I believe Brenda is mistaken.As i remember the jury asked for the readback and as the judge was responding to their request they continued to deliberate
and took a vote for not gulty before the readback was given to them.
I also remember some jury member/s stating that they did not believe Park could have seen what he claim he saw from where he was at Ashford.
imo

martin II

Martin, you can't say she was mistaken simply because you don't want to believe it happened that way. Besides in another part of the article she says she'd already heard the evidence and made up her mind -- so why would it matter about Alan Park? Brenda Moran is the specific juror that requested the read-back so I doubt she is mistanken.

[martin II]

martin, it's very inappropriate for you to say that Kato was under the influence of drugs when he experienced the three bangs on the wall behind his room. You have absolutely nothing to base this on. I simply asked you for a reasonable explanation for what happened. Unless you know for sure that Kato was smoking an illegal substance that night please use IMO.

PS There was no earthquake activity in Brentwood that night.


ok

I don't know what Kato heard.

Without any physical evidence that anyone climbed over the south walk fence on 6/12 and no physical evidence that oj simpson was in that area on 6/12 there is only speculation and guess theories that he was.This is what i call the prosecutions efforts to cut and past guess work togeather and claim it is proof.

The prosecution took Katos claim that he heard some noise on his wall to try to spin the idea that oj made this noise when he climbed that south fence.

However Vanhatter and 2-3 other officers tesfified that there was no indication that anyone climbed the south fence from their investigaiton of that area.( i have posted their testimony previously)

So i am not sure if what Kato said he heaerd has anything to do with oj.


imo
martin II

[martin II]

Martin, you can't say she was mistaken simply because you don't want to believe it happened that way. Besides in another part of the article she says she'd already heard the evidence and made up her mind -- so why would it matter about Alan Park? Brenda Moran is the specific juror that requested the read-back so I doubt she is mistanken.

tv
Some time ago i posted comments by a juror explaining what happened in part of the deliberaitons just prior to the final vote of not guilty. I will look for it and see if i still have it. Brenda may have already made up her mind but others had some level of concren about Parks testimony therefore the readback request.

At any rate above i have posted other comments attributed to some jury members that indicate that there were several reason various members voted not guilty . However, Some have posted that the jury had made up their minds how they would vote when they were first seated.The comments in my above post refutes this claim.These comments also refute the claim by some that the jury was too ignorant, uneducated and biased to listen to or understand the evidence.This jury paid attention to what was presented and
may have leaned in the direction of the prosecution until the defense showed then that the prosecutuions claims could not be believed.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

mountain of evidence opinion.
The prosecution made what was called a media/public comment about this "mountain of evidence' That was ok to claim until the dream team
disected much of it as claims that could not be believed.In the end they could not support their claims as required by law.
martin II


By July 6th, the prosecution, after presenting 58 witnesses and 488 exhibits, had rested its case, stepping back to allow the "Dream Team" to begin its attack in defense of its client. By this point in time, the prosecutors were in really deep trouble. Their star witnesses, the police investigators and technical experts, had been hijacked, bushwhacked and taken for a one-way ride. The mountain of evidence had seemingly sunk without trace and, to make matters worse, there was the glove.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/n...llions_13.html

[martin II]

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

Bell

Do you accept the 'GHOST IN THE MACHINE ' claim by Martz?

[limakey]

TV,

When the detectives woke up Kato in the morning, his eyes appeared very red. Fuhrman did ask him if he was under the influence of anything and gave him a couple standard "checks". Kato said he didn't drink or do drugs but his eyes always look red in the morning. Fuhrman said he passed all the checks and believed that Kato was telling the truth.

In regards to the thumps, IMO, if and that is a really big, big IF, if the thumps had anything to do with the murders, then they were meant to be heard by Kato.

As you know, Mr. Simpson had another way on to his property that would not have even involved the possibility of his being seen or heard by the only person on his estate that night.

I think it was FBG who made a comment that it would have been impossible for Fuhrman to plant the glove without leaving trace evidence behind---however, isn't that what the DA's are claiming, that Simpson left that glove behind the wall without leaving any trace evidence?

There is one more piece of evidence concerning the glove, that is Fuhrman's behavior and actions after he heard about the thumps. What he testified to made no sense, IMO. I believe JC used this as one of his points in his closing statements. Something like why did it take him so long to drop Kato off at the kitchen and then find the glove.

[martin II]

TV,

When the detectives woke up Kato in the morning, his eyes appeared very red. Fuhrman did ask him if he was under the influence of anything and gave him a couple standard "checks". Kato said he didn't drink or do drugs but his eyes always look red in the morning. Fuhrman said he passed all the checks and believed that Kato was telling the truth.

In regards to the thumps, IMO, if and that is a really big, big IF, if the thumps had anything to do with the murders, then they were meant to be heard by Kato.

As you know, Mr. Simpson had another way on to his property that would not have even involved the possibility of his being seen or heard by the only person on his estate that night.

I think it was FBG who made a comment that it would have been impossible for Fuhrman to plant the glove without leaving trace evidence behind---however, isn't that what the DA's are claiming, that Simpson left that glove behind the wall without leaving any trace evidence?

There is one more piece of evidence concerning the glove, that is Fuhrman's behavior and actions after he heard about the thumps. What he testified to made no sense, IMO. I believe JC used this as one of his points in his closing statements. Something like why did it take him so long to drop Kato off at the kitchen and then find the glove.



Experienced cops can do a lot of stuff withour leaving a trace.
I remember a post on another board that layed out a theory that Phillips was involved and also another cop was there but off the record.

[martin II]

Who's Ghost? Ryle or Descartes?

OK Lets try another way.
Do you believe Marttz lied about destroying his test documents?

[martin II]

Comments about prosecutions presentation of DNA.

Jurist #98 Carrie Bess, a postal officer worker, said of the technical evidence, "We heard how people watching the DNA testimony on television found it difficult to keep track of details. Our sentiments exactly."

Alan Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard Law School and perhaps the most experienced attorney in the court, especially on the theory and mechanics of the law, was himself overwhelmed by parts of the trial. He said, "Much of the expert testimony was incomprehensible to me -- and I have been teaching law and science for a quarter of a century."

[martin II]

Comments by VB and Alan Dershowitz re:M Clark


These were to be the key players for the prosecution, backed up by at least another ten lawyers and support staff. Vincent Bugliosi, the man who successfully prosecuted the Manson Family, had little respect for them, calling the prosecution the most incompetent criminal prosecution he had ever seen.



Alan Dershowitz
Dershowitz had little praise for them either. In a television interview he said, "In 35 years of practicing law, I never encountered two more incompetent bunglers than Clark and Darden." He claimed that he had heard Clark whispering to another lawyer in the courtroom, "I want you to remember I'm not wearing any underwear." Added Dershowitz, "And that was one of her better moments."
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/do

[William Anthony]

OK Lets try another way.
Do you believe Marttz lied about destroying his test documents?

I think it was obvious why the prosecution had to distance themselves from Martz' results and why they did not call him as a witness, which was a big mistake, imho. Once they were informed that Martz' results on the amount of EDTA found in the sock and gate stain had to explained away and the defense called Martz, they had to call the expert who claimed the ghost did it or the carryover effect. I think they should have told Martz, after they received the expert's letter, to call ghostbusters or the carryover police and redo his tests. However, they realized that they were again stuck by a witness they had chosen,imho.

[tv]

Comments by VB and Alan Dershowitz re:M Clark


These were to be the key players for the prosecution, backed up by at least another ten lawyers and support staff. Vincent Bugliosi, the man who successfully prosecuted the Manson Family, had little respect for them, calling the prosecution the most incompetent criminal prosecution he had ever seen.

Martin, please don't be so hypocrtical as to use Vincent Bugliosi now that you've found something he said that you like.

Alan Dershowitz
Dershowitz had little praise for them either. In a television interview he said, "In 35 years of practicing law, I never encountered two more incompetent bunglers than Clark and Darden." He claimed that he had heard Clark whispering to another lawyer in the courtroom, "I want you to remember I'm not wearing any underwear." Added Dershowitz, "And that was one of her better moments."
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/do

I already posted what Dershowitz said about the underwear. Old, old, old news.

[William Anthony]

Martin, please don't be so hypocrtical as to use Vincent Bugliosi now that you've found something he said that you like.



I already posted what Dershowitz said about the underwear. Old, old, old news.

You have previously praised what VB had to say on some issues. Are you saying that you do not believe he is correct on this issue?

[tv]

You have previously praised what VB had to say on some issues. Are you saying that you do not believe he is correct on this issue? I don't intend to discuss Vincent Bugliosi's statements and opinions with you. How many different ways and times do I have to say it?

[William Anthony]

I don't intend to discuss Vincent Bugliosi's statements and opinions with you. How many different ways and times do I have to say it?

I guess then you are willing to discuss them with Martin. I apologize.

[tv]

I guess then you are willing to discuss them with Martin. I apologize.I'm not willing to discuss them with Martin. I am only willing to tell Martin he's hypocrtical for bringing up VB and giving him credibility now. The same applies to you.

[William Anthony]

I'm not willing to discuss them with Martin. I am only willing to tell Martin he's hypocrtical for bringing up VB and giving him credibility now. The same applies to you.

Again, I apologize and I am trying to understand. You are only willing to mention him but are unwilling to discuss him but have no problem discussing Martin and me, Correct?:)

[tv]

Again, I apologize and I am trying to understand. You are only willing to mention him but are unwilling to discuss him but have no problem discussing Martin and me, Correct?:)William Anthony, an apology really isn't necessary. Since you're pretending not to understand I'll pretend to believe you -- here it is in plain English. I will not discuss with you or Martin how I personally feel about anything regarding Vincent Bugliosi's statements, books or opinions. It would be a little silly to refuse to even mention his name or to point out when someone is being hypocritical by using a source to make a comment when they've ridiculed that source unmercifully in the past. I hope I'm being clear.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, an apology really isn't necessary. Since you're pretending not to understand I'll pretend to believe you -- here it is in plain English. I will not discuss with you or Martin how I personally feel about anything regarding Vincent Bugliosi's statements, books or opinions. It would be a little silly to refuse to even mention his name or to point out when someone is being hypocritical by using a source to make a comment when they've ridiculed that source unmercifully in the past. I hope I'm being clear.

Clear as a bell. I think there were only a couple of statements that were not agreed with. Many posters have used VB's statements to ridicule the magnificent one, which is the height of hypocrisy to me, since the magnificent one won.

[tv]

Clear as a bell. I think there were only a couple of statements that were not agreed with. Many posters have used VB's statements to ridicule the magnificent one, which is the height of hypocrisy to me, since the magnificent one won.

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

[William Anthony]

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

I know nothing of anyone's private life or actions on this board. I know that the magnificent one's actions caused him to win and he was criticized by those, who never defended a case. I know what their words are. With that said, do you think the three thumps on the wall possibly have anything to do with the four men the witness saw?

[tv]

I know nothing of anyone's private life or actions on this board. I know that the magnificent one's actions caused him to win and he was criticized by those, who never defended a case. I know what their words are. With that said, do you think the three thumps on the wall possibly have anything to do with the four men the witness saw?No. It was Orenthal James Simpson returning to his property after killing Ron and Nicole.

[William Anthony]

No. It was Orenthal James Simpson returning to his property after killing Ron and Nicole.

I think the evidence is that LE allegedly suspected the person who deposited the glove was bleeding. The only blood drops led from Rockingham to the front door and none found where the glove was allegedly found.

[tv]

I think the evidence is that LE allegedly suspected the person who deposited the glove was bleeding. The only blood drops led from Rockingham to the front door and none found where the glove was allegedly found.
That's not entirely true. I believe it was Henry Lee that found blood on the air conditioning unit. Also, blood was found on the glove itself.

[William Anthony]

That's not entirely true. I believe it was Henry Lee that found blood on the air conditioning unit. Also, blood was found on the glove itself.

Yes, I was talking about blood on the property that night suggesting how entry onto the property was made. Lee was not with LE that night and the blood on the air conditioner was found after Simpson gave his sample, correct?

[tv]

Yes, I was talking about blood on the property that night suggesting how entry onto the property was made. Lee was not with LE that night and the blood on the air conditioner was found after Simpson gave his sample, correct?

You can't have it both ways. You say no blood was found on the path and when I refresh your memory about the air-conditioner you reject it.

[William Anthony]

You can't have it both ways. You say no blood was found on the path and when I refresh your memory about the air-conditioner you reject it.

I am not rejecting it. I should have been more clear. On the night of the murders or the AM hours of the following day, LE did not (or at anytime) found any blood that that would suggest that a bleeding killer entered Simpson's home or property in the manner that fit the prosecution's case. If it does not fit....

[tv]

I am not rejecting it. I should have been more clear. On the night of the murders or the AM hours of the following day, LE did not (or at anytime) found any blood that that would suggest that a bleeding killer entered Simpson's home or property in the manner that fit the prosecution's case. If it does not fit....If the defense thought it was planted then why bother to collect it?

[William Anthony]

If the defense thought it was planted then why bother to collect it?

I think the answer to that is obvious. MF found a drop of blood the size of a pin head on the Bronco door but allegedly LE overlooked blood where MF allegedly found the glove and where the consensus of opinion by LE was that the killer was bleeding.

[tv]

I think the answer to that is obvious. MF found a drop of blood the size of a pin head on the Bronco door but allegedly LE overlooked blood where MF allegedly found the glove and where the consensus of opinion by LE was that the killer was bleeding.Mark Fuhrman found the small drop of blood on the Bronco door but Dennis Fung is the one that processed the pathway. If the blood was planted on the air conditoner why didn't the planters plant enough for Dennis Fung to easily find?

By the way, Mark Fuhrman said the reason he saw the spot of blood is because the Bronco was very clean and the blood stood out. Please feel free to scorn and ridicule.

[William Anthony]

Mark Fuhrman found the small drop of blood on the Bronco door but Dennis Fung is the one that processed the pathway. If the blood was planted on the air conditoner why didn't the planters plant enough for Dennis Fung to easily find?

By the way, Mark Fuhrman said the reason he saw the spot of blood is because the Bronco was very clean and the blood stood out. Please feel free to scorn and ridicule.

I think you did not understand my point. The point is that the blood, which we are desired to believe, was allegedly on the air conditioner on the night of the murders. However, the location of where the glove was allegedly found and its proximity should have been closely analyzed for blood. Are we to assume that it was not? If so then LE did not do its job. If it was, then why wasn't the blood spotted until after Simpson gave his sample. Other members of LE testified that they did not observe blood on the pathway. I am sure that MF told, or should have told, other LE members that Kato heard thumps on the wall near the location of the air conditioner.

[William Anthony]

"a: That's Correct.

Q: All Right. And Umm, In The Area, Umm, Of The Air Conditioner, Umm, There Is A Wall?

A: There Is A Wall, Yes.

Q: And It Is Made Of A Stucco Type Material?

A: Yes.

Q: All Right. And That Stucco Type Material Is The Kind Of Thing Where If You Brush Against It With Clothing, If One Brushes Against It With Clothing, Threads Or Fibers Can Get Stuck To It?

A: That Is A Possibility.

Q: Or You Can Get An Abrasion If One Were To Bang Up Against It With Bare Skin, That Kind Of Stucco Can Cause An Abrasion On One's Hand?

Mr. Goldberg: Your Honor, That Calls For Speculation.

The Court: Overruled.

The Witness: Possibly.

Q: By Mr. Scheck: Now, You Found No Hair Or Fiber On The Stucco Wall Area Near The Air Conditioner On June 13th?

A: That's Correct.

Q: You Examined The Fence In The Area Where The Glove Was Recovered?

A: Yes, I Did.

Q: You Found No Fibers On That Fence, No Hair Or Fibers On That Fence?

A: I Did Not See Any.

Q: You Did Not See Any?

A: That's Correct.

Q: And Were You Considering The Possibility That Somebody Might Have Gone Over That Fence?

A: Yes. "

[William Anthony]

"q: And Then The Fourth Time You Went There, You Went With Whom?

A: To The Best Of My Recollection It Was Myself. I Went By Myself And Detective Fuhrman Went On The Other Side Of The Fence.

Q: So In Other Words, You Were Walking Down The South Walkway And Detective Fuhrman Was Walking On The Other Side Of The Fence?

A: That's How I Remember It.

Q: The Two Of You Were Walking Parallel?

A: Well, We Ended Up At The Opposite Ends Of The Fence, Yes.

Q: And Then It Was Detective Fuhrman That Pointed Out This Blue Object On The Other Side Of The Fence?

A: I Think He Had Indicated To Me That There Was One Before That Point And He Went Over To -- At That Point To Help Me Collect It So I Wouldn't Have To Walk All The Way Around.

Q: Wait A Second. You Are The Criminalist, Right?

A: Yes.

Q: And You Are Saying That Detective Fuhrman Volunteered, He Rushed Down That South Walkway -- He Walked Down That South Walkway, Right?

A: I Don't Know If He Rushed Or Walked.

Q: All Right. He Was The Fellow That Went Down There And He Picked Up The Evidence?

A: At My Request.

Q: What About Miss Mazzola? You Couldn't Use Her?

A: To The Best Of My Recollection Miss Mazzola Was Picking Up The Blood Evidence, 7 -- Or The Red Stains 7 And 8 At That Time.

Q: Well, Did You Perform Any Measurements At That Point On The -- That Blue Item, That Blue Plastic Item?

A: Yes.

Q: Well, Did You Measure It -- How Did You Do That? You Did It With Detective Fuhrman?

A: The Plastic Thing -- Container Was Almost Parallel To The Glove, So I Made An Estimate As To Its Location.

Q: And You Didn't Go Around The Fence To Take A Look At Anything Around That Plastic Container? You Left That To Detective Fuhrman?

A: Yes, I Did.

Q: But It Is Your Job, I Guess -- Well, Isn't It Your Job As The Criminalist To Be Collecting The Evidence?

A: (no Audible Response.)

Q: You Are The One In Charge Of Gathering The Evidence?

A: I Am In Charge Of Gathering Evidence.

Q: And Did Detective Fuhrman Wear Any Rubber Gloves When He Was Picking Up That Blue Plastic Bag?

A: I Believe He Used The Scoop Method That I Also Use Sometimes.

Q: Well, You Are Saying He Didn't Have Gloves?

A: I'm Saying He Used A Scoop Method.

Q: Well, In Using The Scoop Method, Do You Know If He Had Gloves?

A: I Don't Know If He Had Gloves. I Don't Think He Did.

Q: Do You Know One Way Or The Other?

A: No, I Don't. I Don't Think He Did, Though.

Q: Wait A Second. You Don't Know One Way Or The Other?

A: I'm Not Sure --

Q: You Don't Have An Independent Recollection Of Whether He Had Gloves Or Not; Isn't That Right?

A: That's Correct. "

[martin II]

It was Brenda Moran that wanted the read back on Alan Park's testimony - - this is what her attorney said:

'With respect to the significance of the read-back (of chauffeur Allan Park's testimony) ... the read-back was merely the result of the jurors sitting around the table, each viewing evidence that had been presented to them. And as each juror noticed information within that evidence that was troubling to them or that was of some significance or raised a question, the jurors would raise their hands and then the other jurors would assist them in trying to fret out what the actual problem was. In this case, a juror merely raised their hand with respect to the testimony of Mr. Park. But there was no great significance in the read-back of that testimony"

What you have described abole is called deliberaitons which some here have claimed the jury did not do.
It is my understanding from jury comments some did not believe Park could have seen what he claimed he saw from where he was at the Ashford gate.
Meaning a clear view through those trees between him and ojs front door.
I june there were a lot of folage there.imo

[martin II]

Martin, please don't be so hypocrtical as to use Vincent Bugliosi now that you've found something he said that you like.



I already posted what Dershowitz said about the underwear. Old, old, old news.

I have never and do not agree with VB. I believe the prosecution got whacked by the defense daily but i also don't think VB had a clue of what the prosecution was faced with as he was only on the outside sitting in the court room just like ever other reporter. He had no clue of the ins and outs of the problems the prosecution had and what the defense did to them.He was not in side bard , he was not included in chanber talks.He was faking it for his book to gullable readers.imo

[martin II]

You can't have it both ways. You say no blood was found on the path and when I refresh your memory about the air-conditioner you reject it.

TV
I am alomst 100% sure no blood was fund on any conditioner.

I need a link to testimony to blood on the airconditioner in the south walkway.
Please.Who collected it.Mazzo9la only collected to the edge on the Garage
link to testimony please.

[martin II]

Mark Fuhrman found the small drop of blood on the Bronco door but Dennis Fung is the one that processed the pathway. If the blood was planted on the air conditoner why didn't the planters plant enough for Dennis Fung to easily find?

By the way, Mark Fuhrman said the reason he saw the spot of blood is because the Bronco was very clean and the blood stood out. Please feel free to scorn and ridicule.

I thought the spot where the glove was found is where oj was supoposed to have hit that wall. This spor was some feet further towards the garage than the air condiitoner.

[martin II]

"q: And Then The Fourth Time You Went There, You Went With Whom?

A: To The Best Of My Recollection It Was Myself. I Went By Myself And Detective Fuhrman Went On The Other Side Of The Fence.

Q: So In Other Words, You Were Walking Down The South Walkway And Detective Fuhrman Was Walking On The Other Side Of The Fence?

A: That's How I Remember It.

Q: The Two Of You Were Walking Parallel?

A: Well, We Ended Up At The Opposite Ends Of The Fence, Yes.

Q: And Then It Was Detective Fuhrman That Pointed Out This Blue Object On The Other Side Of The Fence?

A: I Think He Had Indicated To Me That There Was One Before That Point And He Went Over To -- At That Point To Help Me Collect It So I Wouldn't Have To Walk All The Way Around.

Q: Wait A Second. You Are The Criminalist, Right?

A: Yes.

Q: And You Are Saying That Detective Fuhrman Volunteered, He Rushed Down That South Walkway -- He Walked Down That South Walkway, Right?

A: I Don't Know If He Rushed Or Walked.

Q: All Right. He Was The Fellow That Went Down There And He Picked Up The Evidence?

A: At My Request.

Q: What About Miss Mazzola? You Couldn't Use Her?

A: To The Best Of My Recollection Miss Mazzola Was Picking Up The Blood Evidence, 7 -- Or The Red Stains 7 And 8 At That Time.

Q: Well, Did You Perform Any Measurements At That Point On The -- That Blue Item, That Blue Plastic Item?

A: Yes.

Q: Well, Did You Measure It -- How Did You Do That? You Did It With Detective Fuhrman?

A: The Plastic Thing -- Container Was Almost Parallel To The Glove, So I Made An Estimate As To Its Location.

Q: And You Didn't Go Around The Fence To Take A Look At Anything Around That Plastic Container? You Left That To Detective Fuhrman?

A: Yes, I Did.

Q: But It Is Your Job, I Guess -- Well, Isn't It Your Job As The Criminalist To Be Collecting The Evidence?

A: (no Audible Response.)

Q: You Are The One In Charge Of Gathering The Evidence?

A: I Am In Charge Of Gathering Evidence.

Q: And Did Detective Fuhrman Wear Any Rubber Gloves When He Was Picking Up That Blue Plastic Bag?

A: I Believe He Used The Scoop Method That I Also Use Sometimes.

Q: Well, You Are Saying He Didn't Have Gloves?

A: I'm Saying He Used A Scoop Method.

Q: Well, In Using The Scoop Method, Do You Know If He Had Gloves?

A: I Don't Know If He Had Gloves. I Don't Think He Did.

Q: Do You Know One Way Or The Other?

A: No, I Don't. I Don't Think He Did, Though.

Q: Wait A Second. You Don't Know One Way Or The Other?

A: I'm Not Sure --

Q: You Don't Have An Independent Recollection Of Whether He Had Gloves Or Not; Isn't That Right?

A: That's Correct. "

Sounds like Fung was again giving slippery answers to a direct question.The blue paper had nothing to do with oj.

[martin II]

No. It was Orenthal James Simpson returning to his property after killing Ron and Nicole.

There was no evidence that anyone climbed the south path fence on 6/12
ZIP

[martin II]

I'm not willing to discuss them with Martin. I am only willing to tell Martin he's hypocrtical for bringing up VB and giving him credibility now. The same applies to you.

I am not giving VB credit for anything.I mearly posted two comments one by him and one by A.D.

[martin II]

If the defense thought it was planted then why bother to collect it?

The prosecution had claimed that oj hit the wall when he fell off of that fence.Kato heard this. Then Clarke said oj was running along the path (through all the bushes vines and trash) when he hit the air conditioner.
Vanhatter and three coppers testified that they saw no evidence that anyone climbed over that fence on 6/12.

There was no evidence found on any part of the salangers property leading to their part of the fence and no evidence that anyone manuvered through the thick bushes, vines and hedges on either side of the fence so as to climb over to where that glove was found.imo

Dr Lee testified that the vegitation was so thick and tall that one would have to act like a hellicopter to get over that overgrowth.

Petrocelli suggested to Jason that oj came down the Salangers property and without ladder or any other assistance jumped on top of their garage and then to where the glove was found.Wagner called this Petrocelli's "GOOFY IDEA"
imo
martin II

[martin II]

Mark Fuhrman found the small drop of blood on the Bronco door but Dennis Fung is the one that processed the pathway. If the blood was planted on the air conditoner why didn't the planters plant enough for Dennis Fung to easily find?

By the way, Mark Fuhrman said the reason he saw the spot of blood is because the Bronco was very clean and the blood stood out. Please feel free to scorn and ridicule.

The blood on the gate was seen by people and fung still didn't collect it.

[tv]

TV
I am alomst 100% sure no blood was fund on any conditioner.

I need a link to testimony to blood on the airconditioner in the south walkway.
Please.Who collected it.Mazzo9la only collected to the edge on the Garage
link to testimony please.


MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, in addition to that, doctor, when you were at the Rockingham location did you have occasion to find any item that in your forensic opinion was consistent or appeared to be blood in the area of air conditioning near Kato Kaelin's house?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: And was that something that you believed that--that you thought appeared to be blood?

DR. LEE: I test some doorknobs, some sink traps and air conditioner.

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm just asking about the air conditioner.

DR. LEE: I saw in different places.

MR. GOLDBERG: That is all right, your Honor. I will move on. I think he has answered the question.

http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/simpson/new_docs/lee_testimony.html

[tv]

What you have described abole is called deliberaitons which some here have claimed the jury did not do.
It is my understanding from jury comments some did not believe Park could have seen what he claimed he saw from where he was at the Ashford gate.
Meaning a clear view through those trees between him and ojs front door.
I june there were a lot of folage there.imo

Brenda Moran said they "got deliberated". That's the first time I ever heard that. ha ha

[tv]

The prosecution had claimed that oj hit the wall when he fell off of that fence.Kato heard this. Then Clarke said oj was running along the path (through all the bushes vines and trash) when he hit the air conditioner.
Vanhatter and three coppers testified that they saw no evidence that anyone climbed over that fence on 6/12.

There was no evidence found on any part of the salangers property leading to their part of the fence and no evidence that anyone manuvered through the thick bushes, vines and hedges on either side of the fence so as to climb over to where that glove was found.imo

Dr Lee testified that the vegitation was so thick and tall that one would have to act like a hellicopter to get over that overgrowth.

Petrocelli suggested to Jason that oj came down the Salangers property and without ladder or any other assistance jumped on top of their garage and then to where the glove was found.Wagner called this Petrocelli's "GOOFY IDEA"
imo
martin IIWagner himself was GOOFY so I don't give his theories any credibility.

[William Anthony]

Hi TV. Blood dropped at Bundy was the same type as Simpson's. Correct?
Blood found on socks in Simpson's home matched Nicole's. Correct? Fresh blood after the murders. Correct?
Hairs consistent with Simpson's found on the carpet at Bundy and on Goldman's shirt. Correct? Given Simpson could lose a hair on the carpet. OK. Was he shedding hair on Ron's shirt?

As to the first question and the second quest in the second paragraph, So what and allegedly appeared to be fresh.

Blood allegedly found some months later on some magical socks.

What carpet at Bundy and there was no dandruff in the hair that was identified as belonging to Simpson but there was testimony that Simpson hair had dandruff.

I am somewhat flattered but highly pleased to see that you respect the manner in which I post by copying my style.:)

[martin II]

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, in addition to that, doctor, when you were at the Rockingham location did you have occasion to find any item that in your forensic opinion was consistent or appeared to be blood in the area of air conditioning near Kato Kaelin's house?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: And was that something that you believed that--that you thought appeared to be blood?

DR. LEE: I test some doorknobs, some sink traps and air conditioner.

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm just asking about the air conditioner.

DR. LEE: I saw in different places.

MR. GOLDBERG: That is all right, your Honor. I will move on. I think he has answered the question.

http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/simpson/new_docs/lee_testimony.html

tv

I see nothing in Dr Lee's testimony that says he tested any sample from the airconditioner that turned out to be blood.

I never read any prosecution evidence sample presented as blood sample on the Air conditioner.

[martin II]

Wagner himself was GOOFY so I don't give his theories any credibility.

tv
If you have seen a picture of the salangers garage with Lopez standing near it ,you would know it is impossible that anyone could jumped from the ground to the roof without any assistance ladder etc to them jump over that fence.imo

[martin II]

Hi TV. Blood dropped at Bundy was the same type as Simpson's. Correct?
Blood found on socks in Simpson's home matched Nicole's. Correct? Fresh blood after the murders. Correct?
Hairs consistent with Simpson's found on the carpet at Bundy and on Goldman's shirt. Correct? Given Simpson could lose a hair on the carpet. OK. Was he shedding hair on Ron's shirt?


Bell

Your comment.
"Hairs consistent with Simpson's found on the carpet at Bundy"

What carpet at Bundy are you talking about??

[martin II]

Brenda Moran said they "got deliberated". That's the first time I ever heard that. ha ha

Making fun of the way she may talk may give you some joy but when she needed to speak when it counted she was clear NOT GUILTY.hahaha

[William Anthony]

tv

I see nothing in Dr Lee's testimony that says he tested any sample from the airconditioner that turned out to be blood.

I never read any prosecution evidence sample presented as blood sample on the Air conditioner.

This is why.

"THE COURT: All right. Any other issues we need to address before we go to the Fuhrman tape issue?

MR. SCHECK: One short issue, your Honor. I noticed yesterday, in reviewing some tapes of Dr. Lee's testimony, that there was a question--

THE COURT: Once wasn't enough?

MR. SCHECK: Well, it was something that came out that was--when I watched the tape and I correlated with what I heard in court, it came out a little differently than I had heard it, and I just wanted to be clear on the record because of what the events--

THE COURT: I'm not getting the drift of what you are saying.

MR. SCHECK: Let me be specific. What happened was that Mr. Goldberg asked Dr. Lee a question to the effect of did you make any findings consistent with blood at the Rockingham location? And Dr. Lee said something to the effect of he had conducted tests on a doorknob, sink traps and air conditioner, and at that point as he was about to explain something further, Mr. Goldberg got up and said I think you've answered the question. Now, I at that point was standing up as well because I thought, and it was--I thought what Mr. Goldberg was doing is that he knew, we all knew that there had be presumptive tests conducted at Rockingham on sink traps and a doorknob and the metal top of an air conditioner where there was no red stain, and these are the kind of presumptive tests that Dr. Lee was about to say give false positives because they are metal surfaces and if he tests any sink, any trap of a sink, he is going to get a false positive if he did it in any household, because of bacteria, metal, et cetera, so I thought that was what the answer was. When Mr. Goldberg was stopping him from answering I thought he was doing that because he didn't want to elicit testimony that was against the rule of the court and I thought that it hadn't really come out because he didn't testify to what the results were. But then yesterday, looking at the tapes and the reaction of some people to the tapes, it became a concern of mine that the People might actually try to use that testimony to sum up that blood was found in the air conditioning area of Rockingham. I just want to make clear that we have an objection to that.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: And that that would have been improper. I didn't think it came out that way. That is not what Dr. Lee's testimony would be. And if an affidavit is necessary, I spoke to him this morning, he would gladly submit it to the court, so basically the only relief I'm asking for at this point is that no reference be made to that testimony or argument to that effect, that there was blood evidence found in that area because, that is not the results.

THE COURT: All right. This is a comment for the purposes of making a timely objection, I take it then?

MR. SCHECK: Yes."

[William Anthony]

MR. UELMEN: Do you recognize those words as being spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Aside from "Fat Burger," yes.

MR. UELMEN: You don't recall a specific reference to Fat Burger?

MS. MCKINNY: I do reading it, but I don't have a recollection unless I read it.

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall the context in which these words were spoken?

MS. MCKINNY: We were talking about the way some--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, that is nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MS. MCKINNY: Okay. We were talking about the way some suspects may be arrested, umm, and I'm not familiar with 22nd and Western, so it didn't set up a visual picture for me where Fat Burger was.

MR. UELMEN: Now, at the time of these interviews Officer Fuhrman was a patrol officer in Westwood; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: In this excerpt was he describing an event that actually took place?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

MR. UELMEN: While he was working as a patrol officer in Westwood?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, no foundation, calls for a conclusion.

THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.

MR. UELMEN: All right. Could you explain how it came about that he described this incident to you?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: I need to see my original transcript to be able to read what comes before.

MR. UELMEN: All right.

MR. DARDEN: I will object to that procedure, your Honor.

THE COURT: On what basis?

MR. DARDEN: It is leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. UELMEN: May I?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. UELMEN: I have here, Miss McKinny, a set of the transcripts that been prepared, including--

MR. DARDEN: She has indicated she hasn't needed her recollection--

THE COURT: She has indicated she needs to refresh her recollection from her original transcript is what she has indicated.

MR. UELMEN: Does the binder I have just handed you contain your transcription of the first interview on April 2nd?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: If you could refer to page 33 of that interview, does that page contain the Fat Burger excerpt?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Putting that in context, can you tell us whether this was an explanation or a description of an actual event?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, no foundation, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MS. MCKINNY: Could you ask the question again, please. I was reading.

MR. UELMEN: Is the excerpt a description of an actual event?

MR. DARDEN: Calls for a conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: This is a description of an actual event that took place according to Officer Fuhrman on the previous night.

MR. UELMEN: So he was telling you what had happened the night before; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: That's correct.

MR. UELMEN: If we could have the next excerpt, please, no. 5.

(At 10:11 A.M., Defense exhibit 1365, a videotape, was played.)

MR. UELMEN: Do you recall those words being spoken by Officer Fuhrman?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Can you put them in context for us? What were you speaking about at the time?

MS. MCKINNY: We were talking about administration of LAPD, some of the other administration officers.

MR. UELMEN: So the reference to Commander Hickman, is that a reference to an actual person?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes, it is.

MR. UELMEN: And approximately when and where was this statement made?

MS. MCKINNY: This was made during the first taped interview an April 2nd.

MR. UELMEN: And is the transcript an accurate record of what Officer Fuhrman said at the time?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: And it was made how soon after the conversation took place?

MS. MCKINNY: Within a day or two of the taped interview."

[martin II]

This is why.

"THE COURT: All right. Any other issues we need to address before we go to the Fuhrman tape issue?

MR. SCHECK: One short issue, your Honor. I noticed yesterday, in reviewing some tapes of Dr. Lee's testimony, that there was a question--

THE COURT: Once wasn't enough?

MR. SCHECK: Well, it was something that came out that was--when I watched the tape and I correlated with what I heard in court, it came out a little differently than I had heard it, and I just wanted to be clear on the record because of what the events--

THE COURT: I'm not getting the drift of what you are saying.

MR. SCHECK: Let me be specific. What happened was that Mr. Goldberg asked Dr. Lee a question to the effect of did you make any findings consistent with blood at the Rockingham location? And Dr. Lee said something to the effect of he had conducted tests on a doorknob, sink traps and air conditioner, and at that point as he was about to explain something further, Mr. Goldberg got up and said I think you've answered the question. Now, I at that point was standing up as well because I thought, and it was--I thought what Mr. Goldberg was doing is that he knew, we all knew that there had be presumptive tests conducted at Rockingham on sink traps and a doorknob and the metal top of an air conditioner where there was no red stain, and these are the kind of presumptive tests that Dr. Lee was about to say give false positives because they are metal surfaces and if he tests any sink, any trap of a sink, he is going to get a false positive if he did it in any household, because of bacteria, metal, et cetera, so I thought that was what the answer was. When Mr. Goldberg was stopping him from answering I thought he was doing that because he didn't want to elicit testimony that was against the rule of the court and I thought that it hadn't really come out because he didn't testify to what the results were. But then yesterday, looking at the tapes and the reaction of some people to the tapes, it became a concern of mine that the People might actually try to use that testimony to sum up that blood was found in the air conditioning area of Rockingham. I just want to make clear that we have an objection to that.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: And that that would have been improper. I didn't think it came out that way. That is not what Dr. Lee's testimony would be. And if an affidavit is necessary, I spoke to him this morning, he would gladly submit it to the court, so basically the only relief I'm asking for at this point is that no reference be made to that testimony or argument to that effect, that there was blood evidence found in that area because, that is not the results.

THE COURT: All right. This is a comment for the purposes of making a timely objection, I take it then?

MR. SCHECK: Yes."


tv
Well i am sure you would agree that there was no testimony of any blood found by Dr Lee or anyone else on any Air Conditioner on ojs property.
Nice try but no pepsi.

martin II

[William Anthony]

tv
Well i am sure you would agree that there was no testimony of any blood found by Dr Lee or anyone else on any Air Conditioner on ojs property.
Nice try but no pepsi.

martin II

martin,

You do not think the prosecution was trying to mislead the jury, do you?

[William Anthony]

Bell

Your comment.
"Hairs consistent with Simpson's found on the carpet at Bundy"

What carpet at Bundy are you talking about??

Martin,

Who collected it? I guess it was probably MF. I don't recall any testimony or pictures of outdoor carpet at Bundy. Perhaps, it was on the blanket that LE improperly, imho, injected into the crime scene. I think the coroner's office, if called, or one of the four detectives or any LE member, two of whom trampled through both crime scenes and could have transfered trace evidence, could have gotten some item from the coroner's office to cover the body, or got an item from anywhere, other than the crime scene, to cover the body, imho. I am still wondering how the glove got on that blanket or sheet.

[tv]

Making fun of the way she may talk may give you some joy but when she needed to speak when it counted she was clear NOT GUILTY.hahaha

Sorry, martin, I thought you liked the ha ha. You don't mind using it all the time. You're the one that said she was mistaken about why they had the read-back from Park, remember? I thought she was pretty clear about that.

[tv]

This is why.

"THE COURT: All right. Any other issues we need to address before we go to the Fuhrman tape issue?

MR. SCHECK: One short issue, your Honor. I noticed yesterday, in reviewing some tapes of Dr. Lee's testimony, that there was a question--

THE COURT: Once wasn't enough?

MR. SCHECK: Well, it was something that came out that was--when I watched the tape and I correlated with what I heard in court, it came out a little differently than I had heard it, and I just wanted to be clear on the record because of what the events--

THE COURT: I'm not getting the drift of what you are saying.

MR. SCHECK: Let me be specific. What happened was that Mr. Goldberg asked Dr. Lee a question to the effect of did you make any findings consistent with blood at the Rockingham location? And Dr. Lee said something to the effect of he had conducted tests on a doorknob, sink traps and air conditioner, and at that point as he was about to explain something further, Mr. Goldberg got up and said I think you've answered the question. Now, I at that point was standing up as well because I thought, and it was--I thought what Mr. Goldberg was doing is that he knew, we all knew that there had be presumptive tests conducted at Rockingham on sink traps and a doorknob and the metal top of an air conditioner where there was no red stain, and these are the kind of presumptive tests that Dr. Lee was about to say give false positives because they are metal surfaces and if he tests any sink, any trap of a sink, he is going to get a false positive if he did it in any household, because of bacteria, metal, et cetera, so I thought that was what the answer was. When Mr. Goldberg was stopping him from answering I thought he was doing that because he didn't want to elicit testimony that was against the rule of the court and I thought that it hadn't really come out because he didn't testify to what the results were. But then yesterday, looking at the tapes and the reaction of some people to the tapes, it became a concern of mine that the People might actually try to use that testimony to sum up that blood was found in the air conditioning area of Rockingham. I just want to make clear that we have an objection to that.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: And that that would have been improper. I didn't think it came out that way. That is not what Dr. Lee's testimony would be. And if an affidavit is necessary, I spoke to him this morning, he would gladly submit it to the court, so basically the only relief I'm asking for at this point is that no reference be made to that testimony or argument to that effect, that there was blood evidence found in that area because, that is not the results.

THE COURT: All right. This is a comment for the purposes of making a timely objection, I take it then?

MR. SCHECK: Yes."

If metal gives false positives why even do the tests?

[tv]

Martin,

Who collected it? I guess it was probably MF. I don't recall any testimony or pictures of outdoor carpet at Bundy. Perhaps, it was on the blanket that LE improperly, imho, injected into the crime scene. I think the coroner's office, if called, or one of the four detectives or any LE member, two of whom trampled through both crime scenes and could have transfered trace evidence, could have gotten some item from the coroner's office to cover the body, or got an item from anywhere, other than the crime scene, to cover the body, imho. I am still wondering how the glove got on that blanket or sheet.
You know that Mark Fuhrman didn't collect any evidence.

[William Anthony]

You know that Mark Fuhrman didn't collect any evidence.

I guess that may be technically correct, if the blue plastic wrapper of whatever it was that he rushed to scoop had no value as evidence. He just moved evidence.

[William Anthony]

If metal gives false positives why even do the tests?

Maybe, to expose the tactics to which the prosecution would stoop?

[tv]

Maybe, to expose the tactics to which the prosecution would stoop?No proof was ever offered for the theory of tampering and planting. It was all pure fantasy planted in the minds of jurors looking for any reason to acquit.

[William Anthony]

No proof was ever offered for the theory of tampering and planting. It was all pure fantasy planted in the minds of jurors looking for any reason to acquit.

Did you forget the photos, which, IIRC, DF testified to about the glove being in different locations and MF's testimony that he touched the glove, although he later tried to explain it saying he used a pen?

[tv]

Did you forget the photos, which, IIRC, DF testified to about the glove being in different locations and MF's testimony that he touched the glove, although he later tried to explain it saying he used a pen?

None of that proves the defense's wild theories.

[William Anthony]

No proof was ever offered for the theory of tampering and planting. It was all pure fantasy planted in the minds of jurors looking for any reason to acquit.

It does not seem to matter how many times I remind you that the defense did not have to prove anything; only show why the evidence should not be trusted.

[William Anthony]

None of that proves the defense's wild theories.

If I might, you seem a tad bit too defensive (pun intended) on the issue of planting. Here is my original post, with bold added.

"I guess that may be technically correct, if the blue plastic wrapper of whatever it was that he rushed to scoop had no value as evidence. He just moved evidence."

I think you do not like the fact that MF moved evidence. Neither do I, but it may help understand why the jury found reasonable doubt.

[tv]

If I might, you seem a tad bit too defensive (pun intended) on the issue of planting. Here is my original post, with bold added.

"I guess that may be technically correct, if the blue plastic wrapper of whatever it was that he rushed to scoop had no value as evidence. He just moved evidence."

I think you do not like the fact that MF moved evidence. Neither do I, but it may help understand why the jury found reasonable doubt.

You can think you know what I'm thinking all you want. I assure you that you do not. I will repeat for the umpteenth time that the defense never gave any proof for their wild speculation on tampering and planting.

[tv]

It does not seem to matter how many times I remind you that the defense did not have to prove anything; only show why the evidence should not be trusted.I will remind you again that I understand the concept. IMO, all Johnnie Cochran had to do was wink at the jury and they would have voted not guilty. They avenged the the Rodney King verdict. Too bad the families of Ron and Nicole had to pay the price by being robbed of justice.

[William Anthony]

You can think you know what I'm thinking all you want. I assure you that you do not. I will repeat for the umpteenth time that the defense never gave any proof for their wild speculation on tampering and planting.


The defense did not have to. I was only speaking of one issue, since you brought up the subject of planting in response to my post that MF moved evidence. Let me assure you, that I would never be so presumptuous to believe that I know entirely your thought processes. Some of them amaze and astound me. :) Trying humor again. Is that better? I think you desire to turn the legal responsibility of the parties involved in a trial into something it is not. I am glad the jury understood it.

[tv]

The defense did not have to. I was only speaking of one issue, since you brought up the subject of planting in response to my post that MF moved evidence. Let me assure you, that I would never be so presumptuous to believe that I know entirely your thought processes. Some of them amaze and astound me. :) Trying humor again. Is that better? I think you desire to turn the legal responsibility of the parties involved in a trial into something it is not. I am glad the jury understood it. If the jury understood that the defense didn't have to offer anything or even put on a case then it was one of the few things they understood. To hear you tell it they were all members of Mensa.

[William Anthony]

I will remind you again that I understand the concept. IMO, all Johnnie Cochran had to do was wink at the jury and they would have voted not guilty. They avenged the the Rodney King verdict. Too bad the families of Ron and Nicole had to pay the price by being robbed of justice.

On the matter of winking, I think you have the jury confused with M. Clark. On the issue of Rodney King, there was no testimony about that trial, nor do I believe that same LE officers were involved, although they may have been the same type. It is too bad that LE and the prosecution did not gather evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove that whoever they chose to charge would have been found guilty as charged, instead of rushing to judgment with a mountain of tainted evidence, which the sophisticated jury saw through, imho, so that the families of Ron and Nicole could receive justice.

[William Anthony]

If the jury understood that the defense didn't have to offer anything or even put on a case then it was one of the few things they understood. To hear you tell it they were all members of Mensa.

I think most people understand that but are, for their own reasons, unwilling to accept it.

[tv]

I think most people understand that but are, for their own reasons, unwilling to accept it.I would be much more willing to believe that they truly believed that the defense provided reasonable doubt if it weren't for the victory party. Even if OJ Simpson was stone cold innocent having a victory party with the jury attending was obscene.

[William Anthony]

I would be much more willing to believe that they truly believed that the defense provided reasonable doubt if it weren't for the victory party. Even if OJ Simpson was stone cold innocent having a victory party with the jury attending was obscene.

I have previously said that I considered the jury attending the party as inappropriate. However, I have also said and the Constitutional amendments and common law decisions thereto guarantee citizens the right of freedom of association. I do not respect people simply because of their celebrity status and have no reason to want to be in their company simply to say that I was. However, I can not speak for everyone, as I know plenty of people who brag about celebrities they know and the parties of the celebrities they attended. I understand that for some this may be a once in a lifetime event. If I consider the price of a ticket to a concert too high, I buy the CD but that's just me.

[tv]

I have previously said that I considered the jury attending the party as inappropriate. However, I have also said and the Constitutional amendments and common law decisions thereto guarantee citizens the right of freedom of association. I do not respect people simply because of their celebrity status and have no reason to want to be in their company simply to say that I was. However, I can not speak for everyone, as I know plenty of people who brag about celebrities they know and the parties of the celebrities they attended. I understand that for some this may be a once in a lifetime event. If I consider the price of a ticket to a concert too high, I buy the CD but that's just me.I never said they didn't have the right of association. I said I found them attending a victory party to be obscene. Thanks for your comments...I'm even more sure now that they were star-struck throughout the trial.

[William Anthony]

I never said they didn't have the right of association. I said I found them attending a victory party to be obscene. Thanks for your comments...I'm even more sure now that they were star-struck throughout the trial.

Not only them but also the prosecution. The stars were the members of the defense team. Do not forget Darden's admission that they were out-experienced.

[William Anthony]

I never said they didn't have the right of association. I said I found them attending a victory party to be obscene. Thanks for your comments...I'm even more sure now that they were star-struck throughout the trial.

You consider it obscene to utilize a Constitutionally afforded privilege, correct?

[tv]

Not only them but also the prosecution. The stars were the members of the defense team. Do not forget Darden's admission that they were out-experienced.I'm talking about the jury and their motivations. I believe Alan Dershowitz was exactly right with his assessment of their decision.

[tv]

You consider it obscene to utilize a Constitutionally afforded privilege, correct?Let the twisting begin!

[William Anthony]

I'm talking about the jury and their motivations. I believe Alan Dershowitz was exactly right with his assessment of their decision.

I am talking about the prosecution, being intimidated and putting forth such a weak case, because they were star-struck. If you are talking about AD's comments on M. Clark not wearing underwear. She should have put them on, crossed her legs, rolled up her sleeves and got to the business of prosecuting a murder case, as opposed to murdering any chances she may have had of winning with a team that was far too experienced for her ploys.

[William Anthony]

Let the twisting begin!

Why is it that when I point to what a poster says and offer an opinion supported by the law it is called twisting? You have somewhat agreed that they had the privilege but call it obscene when they use it. I think inappropriate may be a better word. However, I am not one to call everything the jury did as obscene or race related, as with the avenging of the Rodney King verdict. I think that Mr. King was satisfied when he went to the bank, and I believe so were many who had problems with the state criminal verdict in the LE trial.

[tv]

I am talking about the prosecution, being intimidated and putting forth such a weak case, because they were star-struck. If you are talking about AD's comments on M. Clark not wearing underwear. She should have put them on, crossed her legs, rolled up her sleeves and got to the business of prosecuting a murder case, as opposed to murdering any chances she may have had of winning with a team that was far too experienced for her ploys.I've said more than once that I find fault with the prosecution. Once again, you've mentioned Marica Clarke and her lack of underwear. Seems like a favorite topic for you and Martin. As you well know this is the statement from Dershowitz that I was talking about:

...Barry Scheck gave them the intellectual and the moral permission to vote their heart. They wanted to vote acquittal. Barry showed them how to; Johnnie told them why to. ...

Alan Dershowitz hit the nail squarely on the head with that comment.

[tv]

Why is it that when I point to what a poster says and offer an opinion supported by the law it is called twisting? You have somewhat agreed that they had the privilege but call it obscene when they use it. I think inappropriate may be a better word. However, I am not one to call everything the jury did as obscene or race related, as with the avenging of the Rodney King verdict. I think that Mr. King was satisfied when he went to the bank, and I believe so were many who had problems with the state criminal verdict in the LE trial.I didn't agree with the Rodney King verdict and thought the officers involved should have gotten more time when they were finally convicted. I still believe that was part of the verdict. Johnnie Cochran admitted as much in his closing statement. I agree that the jury had the right to attend the party but it's my right to disagree with it. There is often a big difference between morality and legality.

[William Anthony]

I've said more than once that I find fault with the prosecution. Once again, you've mentioned Marica Clarke and her lack of underwear. Seems like a favorite topic for you and Martin. As you well know this is the statement from Dershowitz that I was talking about:

...Barry Scheck gave them the intellectual and the moral permission to vote their heart. They wanted to vote acquittal. Barry showed them how to; Johnnie told them why to. ...

Alan Dershowitz hit the nail squarely on the head with that comment.

I mentioned her flirting and that was the first time I mentioned underwear, only because I thought that was the statement you were talking about. If you find fault with the prosecution, then you should understand that there was probably reasonable doubt. Let's analyze AD's statement. Barry took apart the scientific evidence, without which there was no case. After hearing this and seeing there was not sufficient evidence to convict, they wanted to acquit. Barry showed them how and the magnificent one showed them why to, when he said if it does not fit...

That was the purpose of the dream team.

[William Anthony]

I didn't agree with the Rodney King verdict and thought the officers involved should have gotten more time when they were finally convicted. I still believe that was part of the verdict. Johnnie Cochran admitted as much in his closing statement. I agree that the jury had the right to attend the party but it's my right to disagree with it. There is often a big difference between morality and legality.

See, we agree again. I said it was inappropriate. I just do not feel that it was legally or morally obscene.

[tv]

I mentioned her flirting and that was the first time I mentioned underwear, only because I thought that was the statement you were talking about. If you find fault with the prosecution, then you should understand that there was probably reasonable doubt. Let's analyze AD's statement. Barry took apart the scientific evidence, without which there was no case. After hearing this and seeing there was not sufficient evidence to convict, they wanted to acquit. Barry showed them how and the magnificent one showed them why to, when he said if it does not fit...

That was the purpose of the dream team.That's not why they wanted to acquit. The defense team spoon-fed them to get the verdict they wanted. The prosecution should have done the same but didn't. Barry Scheck didn't 'take apart' the evidence. He gave the jury a way out by suggesting it had been tampered with and/or planted. The evidence was solid and that never changed.

[tv]

See, we agree again. I said it was inappropriate. I just do not feel that it was legally or morally obscene.It was morally obscene when you think of those jurors partying at Simpson's house and partaking of the food and drink, laughing it up while Ron and Nicole lay cold in their graves. You can feel any way about it that you want and I will do the same.

[William Anthony]

It was morally obscene when you think of those jurors partying at Simpson's house and partaking of the food and drink, laughing it up while Ron and Nicole lay cold in their graves. You can feel any way about it that you want and I will do the same.

What makes you think they were laughing it up? Perhaps, they were contemplating the fact that the judicial system worked equally.

[William Anthony]

That's not why they wanted to acquit. The defense team spoon-fed them to get the verdict they wanted. The prosecution should have done the same but didn't. Barry Scheck didn't 'take apart' the evidence. He gave the jury a way out by suggesting it had been tampered with and/or planted. The evidence was solid and that never changed.

That's what I said. Barry took apart the scientific evidence with evidence of contamination, cross contamination, sloppy collection, processing, storage and evidence handling techniques and the magnificent one persuaded them to judge this evidence under the microscope of reasonable doubt by saying if it does not fit. The prosecution's may have been distracted by some type of unprofessional relationship and antics but the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt, imho.

See how easy it is when we agree. :)

[martin II]

I've said more than once that I find fault with the prosecution. Once again, you've mentioned Marica Clarke and her lack of underwear. Seems like a favorite topic for you and Martin. As you well know this is the statement from Dershowitz that I was talking about:

...Barry Scheck gave them the intellectual and the moral permission to vote their heart. They wanted to vote acquittal. Barry showed them how to; Johnnie told them why to. ...

Alan Dershowitz hit the nail squarely on the head with that comment.

tv
After observing that mountain turn to a pile of unproven claims the jury SHOULD have wanted to vote not guilty.

[tv]

What makes you think they were laughing it up? Perhaps, they were contemplating the fact that the judicial system worked equally.


party -

a social gathering, as of invited guests at a private home, for conversation, refreshments, entertainment, etc.: a cocktail party.

Maybe we should rename it the OJ Simpson Victory Wake since, according to you, no one was having fun. If you think those jurors were contemplating anything more serious than making money off furture literary efforts you're very optimistic.

[tv]

tv
After observing that mountain turn to a pile of unproven claims the jury SHOULD have wanted to vote not guilty.

The only unproven claims were on the part of the defense. They really weren't even claims just theories that the jury jumped on to find a reason to acquit.

[martin II]

It was morally obscene when you think of those jurors partying at Simpson's house and partaking of the food and drink, laughing it up while Ron and Nicole lay cold in their graves. You can feel any way about it that you want and I will do the same.

It was the jurys duty to hear the evidence and render a verdict on the claims .They had no obligation to do anything about ron and nicole.

[William Anthony]

party -

a social gathering, as of invited guests at a private home, for conversation, refreshments, entertainment, etc.: a cocktail party.

Maybe we should rename it the OJ Simpson Victory Wake since, according to you, no one was having fun. If you think those jurors were contemplating anything more serious than making money off furture literary efforts you're very optimistic.

Since when is contemplation incompatible with having fun? Some want to say that the jury wanted to acquit before one piece of evidence was introduced. But, if you look at the context and chronology of AD's statement, You will see that the interpretation I offered is reasonable. Some want to say that the members of the jury that attended that party did so at the expense of the families of the murder victims. While two families may have been morning the loss of their loved ones, another family may have been celebrating that they did not lose their loved one as a result of a judicial system that had been historically biased and wanted simply to thank a jury that was sophisticated enough to hold the prosecution to its burden. There are usually more ways than one to view a set of facts, which makes for interesting trials and an expansion of one's mindset, imho.

[tv]

Since when is contemplation incompatible with having fun? Some want to say that the jury wanted to acquit before one piece of evidence was introduced. But, if you look at the context and chronology of AD's statement, You will see that the interpretation I offered is reasonable. Some want to say that the members of the jury that attended that party did so at the expense of the families of the murder victims. While two families may have been morning the loss of their loved ones, another family may have been celebrating that they did not lose their loved one as a result of a judicial system that had been historically biased and wanted simply to thank a jury that was sophisticated enough to hold the prosecution to its burden. There are usually more ways than one to view a set of facts, which makes for interesting trials and an expansion of one's mindset, imho.
There is no doubt that the Brown and Goldman families were "morning" the loss of their loved ones but they were probably also "morning" the loss of justice. To vote not guilty to right a historical wrong is morally reprehensible. I think the jury has justified their decision by saying the evidence was flawed but in reality they were hoping to given some way to acquit.

[tv]

It was the jurys duty to hear the evidence and render a verdict on the claims .They had no obligation to do anything about ron and nicole.Who said they had to do something about Ron and Nicole? Being sorry they're dead would have been good.

[William Anthony]

There is no doubt that the Brown and Goldman families were "morning" the loss of their loved ones but they were probably also "morning" the loss of justice. To vote not guilty to right a historical wrong is morally reprehensible. I think the jury has justified their decision by saying the evidence was flawed but in reality they were hoping to given some way to acquit.

I admire your tenacity. I never said they voted not guilty to right a historical wrong. I said in the relevant portion that "another family may have been celebrating that they did not lose their loved one as a result of a judicial system that had been historically biased and wanted simply to thank a jury that was sophisticated enough to hold the prosecution to its burden." Like it or not, the prosecution had the burden of proof on all elements. That burden of proof only shifted to the defense when they raised an affirmative defense, which they did not. If I was not clear, then allow me to say it this way. Historically, a Black man had to prove he was innocent, which far surpassed the not guilty requirement and unlawfully shifted the burden of proof. That is why I believe that, while the jurors attending a party may have been inappropriate, it was not obscene for a family, considering the historical aspects of Blacks' treatment in the CJS, to want to celebrate the fact that a sophisticated jury was able to deliver justice to their loved one.

[tv]

I admire your tenacity. I never said they voted not guilty to right a historical wrong. I said in the relevant portion that "another family may have been celebrating that they did not lose their loved one as a result of a judicial system that had been historically biased and wanted simply to thank a jury that was sophisticated enough to hold the prosecution to its burden." Like it or not, the prosecution had the burden of proof on all elements. That burden of proof only shifted to the defense when they raised an affirmative defense, which they did not. If I was not clear, then allow me to say it this way. Historically, a Black man had to prove he was innocent, which far surpassed the not guilty requirement and unlawfully shifted the burden of proof. That is why I believe that, while the jurors attending a party may have been inappropriate, it was not obscene for a family, considering the historical aspects of Blacks' treatment in the CJS, to want to celebrate the fact that a sophisticated jury was able to deliver justice to their loved one.I see nothing wrong with a gathering at Simpson's house to celebrate the verdict. My objection is to the jury, that is supposed to be impartial, attending the party. Their service was on behalf of the people, of every color, of the state of California, not the defendant or his family.

[William Anthony]

I see nothing wrong with a gathering at Simpson's house to celebrate the verdict. My objection is to the jury, that is supposed to be impartial, attending the party. Their service was on behalf of the people, of every color, of the state of California, not the defendant or his family.

Your last statement is correct and it was on behalf of the victim's family, which was to make sure that anyone should not be convicted on insufficient evidence and that the prosecution was held to its burden. The jury was only required to be impartial throughout the trial, or, if you will until the verdict was rendered. After rendering their verdict, their service to the State of California was terminated. The reason I said it was inappropriate was because some would speculate that it gave the appearance of partiality. However, with that said, after the trial, it remained an individual choice of every juror member and I do not see anything obscene in their choices.

[tv]

Your last statement is correct and it was on behalf of the victim's family, which was to make sure that anyone should not be convicted on insufficient evidence and that the prosecution was held to its burden. The jury was only required to be impartial throughout the trial, or, if you will until the verdict was rendered. After rendering their verdict, their service to the State of California was terminated. The reason I said it was inappropriate was because some would speculate that it gave the appearance of partiality. However, with that said, after the trial, it remained an individual choice of every juror member and I do not see anything obscene in their choices.
I agree it was individual choice but I disagree with it. Do you think they would have bothered to attend the party of an ordinary citizen. I think not.

[William Anthony]

I agree it was individual choice but I disagree with it. Do you think they would have bothered to attend the party of an ordinary citizen. I think not.

Let's see. Free food and drinks, maybe.

[martin II]

It does not seem to matter how many times I remind you that the defense did not have to prove anything; only show why the evidence should not be trusted.

Mazzola proved for the defense that there was tampering.

[martin II]

Who said they had to do something about Ron and Nicole? Being sorry they're dead would have been good.

Who said they were not sorry.I am sure they were.

[martin II]

I see nothing wrong with a gathering at Simpson's house to celebrate the verdict. My objection is to the jury, that is supposed to be impartial, attending the party. Their service was on behalf of the people, of every color, of the state of California, not the defendant or his family.

They performed their service to all of what you posted.

[bobaugust]

As to the first question and the second quest in the second paragraph, So what and allegedly appeared to be fresh.

Blood allegedly found some months later on some magical socks.

What carpet at Bundy and there was no dandruff in the hair that was identified as belonging to Simpson but there was testimony that Simpson hair had dandruff.

I am somewhat flattered but highly pleased to see that you respect the manner in which I post by copying my style.:)

There was no testimony or evidence that Simpson had dandruff the night of the murders.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Who said they were not sorry.I am sure they were.

I agree.

[William Anthony]

There was no testimony or evidence that Simpson had dandruff the night of the murders.

bobaugust

Testimony is evidence. With that said, there is evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders.

[William Anthony]

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, in that connection, during the time, the 16 years that you cut Mr. Simpson's hair, did he have dandruff in his hair?

MS. MOORE: Uh, periodically he would have dandruff, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you recall particular times when he'd have dandruff more than at other times?

MS. MOORE: Uh, it seemed that he would have dandruff more in the off season, when he was playing golf and in the sun a lot.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, when you say the off season, so we're clear about that, in the last 10 years or so, when you would cut Mr. Simpson's hair, when you say off season, what do you mean by off season as opposed to on season?

MS. MOORE: Well, when he wasn't working as a reporter or he wasn't playing football.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So was there a particular period of the year when Mr. Simpson would either be playing football or working as a sportscaster?

MS. MOORE: Yes. Uh, well, in the recent years, he would be gone like on the season, which would start like September to like January.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Would that be during football season?

MS. MOORE: Yes."

[William Anthony]

"THE COURT: All right. We are over at sidebar. Where are we going with this?

MS. CLARK: Well, the reason that they called her obviously is because of the non-matching hairs in the cap that are tinted, dyed, but black origin hairs. And those hairs could have been from a member of his family who tinted or dyed their hair like Marguerite or Arnelle. So I want to probe with this witness whether she knows whether they treated their hair.

THE COURT: How is it even plausible that Marguerite could be a source?

MS. CLARK: Because this hat has been in his possession for the last--well, they stopped manufacturing this hat in 1980. It's an old hat.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, this is desperate. That is preposterous. She already indicated she didn't know anything about Marguerite. This is beyond the scope. We're trying to move this case along rather than spending three, four days on something that has nothing to do with anything.

THE COURT: The issue of tinted hair is fair game. So I'll allow some limited cross-examination on this area, limited however.

[William Anthony]

"REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Miss Moore, you don't--you've never done Marguerite Thomas' hair, have you?

MS. MOORE: No, I haven't.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. She's not a customer of yours, is she?

MS. MOORE: No.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to Arnelle Simpson, you said her hair looks nice all the time?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And she's not a customer of yours either, is she?

MS. MOORE: No.

MR. COCHRAN: And as far as you know, Mr. Simpson didn't change the water at his house between May 1st and May 25th, did he?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MOORE: Not that I know of.

MR. COCHRAN: And you described for us that you had seen Paula Barbieri back in 1992 and then you next saw her again on May 25th, 1994; is that correct?

MS. MOORE: On May 23rd.

MR. COCHRAN: May 23rd, 1994?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Your birthday, right?

MS. MOORE: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: And the last time that you saw Miss Nicole Brown Simpson was on May 1st, 1994; is that correct?

MS. MOORE: That is correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And were you at Rockingham on that date?

MS. MOORE: Yes."

[William Anthony]

"THE COURT: All right. We are over at sidebar. Where are we going with this?

MS. CLARK: Well, the reason that they called her obviously is because of the non-matching hairs in the cap that are tinted, dyed, but black origin hairs. And those hairs could have been from a member of his family who tinted or dyed their hair like Marguerite or Arnelle. So I want to probe with this witness whether she knows whether they treated their hair.

THE COURT: How is it even plausible that Marguerite could be a source?

MS. CLARK: Because this hat has been in his possession for the last--well, they stopped manufacturing this hat in 1980. It's an old hat.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, this is desperate. That is preposterous. She already indicated she didn't know anything about Marguerite. This is beyond the scope. We're trying to move this case along rather than spending three, four days on something that has nothing to do with anything.

THE COURT: The issue of tinted hair is fair game. So I'll allow some limited cross-examination on this area, limited however.

I think M. Clark did well to catch herself as she was about to misstate the truth to the court or cause any reasonable person to question how she knew where this hat had been in at least the last 14years. They say that necessity is the mother of invention.

[William Anthony]

The last posts just shows the magnificent one's magnificence. He provided circumstantial evidence that Simpson's hair should have had dandruff and, IIRC, he had played golf that day or the day before. This caused the prosecution to become unglued, imho. They focused their attention on the non-matching Black hairs and possible hair coloring in order to say that Arnelle or the ex Ms. Simpson may have worn the hat. What were they trying to prove-that Arnelle or the Ex was the murderer, or that a hat that once was in Simpson's possession in 14 years and was found at the home where his newly divorced wife and children resided belonged to Simpson, or as the magnificent one stated, "We're trying to move this case along rather than spending three, four days on something that has nothing to do with anything?"

[martin II]

I think M. Clark did well to catch herself as she was about to misstate the truth to the court or cause any reasonable person to question how she knew where this hat had been in at least the last 14years. They say that necessity is the mother of invention.

I read piece where the author expressed that M Clarke seemed all to often to have the runs at the mouth.imo

[bobaugust]

Testimony is evidence. With that said, there is evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders.

There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff when Moore cut his hair on May 23, or on the night of the murders, or the days following the murders. When samples of Simpson's hair were taken and given to the prosecution there was no evidence of dandruff.

bobaugust

[tv]

There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff when Moore cut his hair on May 23, or on the night of the murders, or the days following the murders. When samples of Simpson's hair were taken and given to the prosecution there was no evidence of dandruff.

bobaugustThanks, bobaugust. I was wondering if any dandruff was noted when his hair was taken for examination. It kind of blows the whole dandruff theory out of the water.

[William Anthony]

Thanks, bobaugust. I was wondering if any dandruff was noted when his hair was taken for examination. It kind of blows the whole dandruff theory out of the water.

Please do not allow yourself to fall prey to what I have known and tried to warn members about, regarding certain posters, for quite sometime. Here is a link.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE6DF1530F934A35754C0A9639582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

[William Anthony]

There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff when Moore cut his hair on May 23, or on the night of the murders, or the days following the murders. When samples of Simpson's hair were taken and given to the prosecution there was no evidence of dandruff.

bobaugust

I thought you had changed your tactics. However, I was wrong. This from the link I supplied.

"Mr. Deedrick also conceded that while dandruff was found in hairs taken from Mr. Simpson while in prison, there was no dandruff in those hairs resembling Mr. Simpson's found in the blue knit cap retrieved from the crime scene."

[tv]

Please do not allow yourself to fall prey to what I have known and tried to warn members about, regarding certain posters, for quite sometime. Here is a link.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE6DF1530F934A35754C0A9639582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=allIt's still good enough for me. Maybe the dandruff occured afterward and he had none on the night of the murders. The cap has never been important to me. The blood evidence is all I need.

[William Anthony]

It's still good enough for me. Maybe the dandruff occured afterward and he had none on the night of the murders. The cap has never been important to me. The blood evidence is all I need.

Why whatever do you mean? I was talking about a poster, who is so obsessed with proving Simpson guilty and, who some consider knowledgeable, although you were correct in your spelling as it related to his knowledge, and who had a tendency to post as fact false information, causing others to rely on his assumed expertize. This was his post and your response with the emphasis in bold.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bobaugust View Post
There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff when Moore cut his hair on May 23, or on the night of the murders, or the days following the murders. When samples of Simpson's hair were taken and given to the prosecution there was no evidence of dandruff.

bobaugust

Thanks, bobaugust. I was wondering if any dandruff was noted when his hair was taken for examination. It kind of blows the whole dandruff theory out of the water.

I understand you may have other reasons but don't open a can of worms by relying on false posts. :)

[tv]

Why whatever do you mean? I was talking about a poster, who is so obsessed with proving Simpson guilty and, who some consider knowledgeable, although you were correct in your spelling as it related to his knowledge, and who had a tendency to post as fact false information, causing others to rely on his assumed expertize. This was his post and your response with the emphasis in bold.




bobaugust



I understand you may have other reasons but don't open a can of worms by relying on false posts. :)I read your link and posted my reply. There was no need to repost the whole thing. I don't intend to indulge you in your bashing of bobaugust. He can defend what he posted if he wants and if he doesn't I'm a big girl and will stand by what I posted and not blame him for it.

[William Anthony]

I read your link and posted my reply. there was no need to repost the whole thing. I don't intend to indulge you in your bashing of bobaugust. He can defend what he posted if he wants and if he doesn't I'm a big girl and will stand by what I posted and not blame him for it.

Since you are a big girl, then you can admit the dandruff defense was not blown out of the water, even though a false post was made. If your statement that you would rely on the blood was meant to say that you no longer rely on the false post, then I understand. I am not bashing anyone, just alerting the board to his admitted mistakes after they have been pointed out and after he has posted them as facts.

[martin II]

It's still good enough for me. Maybe the dandruff occured afterward and he had none on the night of the murders. The cap has never been important to me. The blood evidence is all I need.

ha ha ha ha ha

[martin II]

Thanks, bobaugust. I was wondering if any dandruff was noted when his hair was taken for examination. It kind of blows the whole dandruff theory out of the water.

Sound like the cap/dandruff was of interest in this post you made.ha ha ha

[tv]

Since you are a big girl, then you can admit the dandruff defense was not blown out of the water, even though a false post was made. If your statement that you would rely on the blood was meant to say that you no longer rely on the false post, then I understand. I am not bashing anyone, just alerting the board to his admitted mistakes after they have been pointed out and after he has posted them as facts.William Anthony, when you can prove to me that you've never made a mistake then we'll keep hashing this small matter over and over. Until such time that you can prove your flawlessness I'm letting this matter drop.

[William Anthony]

It's still good enough for me. Maybe the dandruff occured afterward and he had none on the night of the murders. The cap has never been important to me. The blood evidence is all I need.

I understand that when you are parked in a tight spot, you try to back out without doing damage, damage control. :)

[tv]

ha ha ha ha ha

Sound like the cap/dandruff was of interest in this post you made.ha ha ha

It sure doesn't take much to make you happy. Do you have the giggles today, Martin?

[martin II]

William Anthony, when you can prove to me that you've never made a mistake then we'll keep hashing this small matter over and over. Until such time that you can prove your flawlessness I'm letting this matter drop.

sound like you are runing away from the warm kitchen again after opening yet another can of worms.:cool:

[tv]

sound like you are runing away from the warm kitchen again after opening yet another can of worms.:cool:Martin, you are just too :cool:. I bet that actually is you behind those sunglases.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, when you can prove to me that you've never made a mistake then we'll keep hashing this small matter over and over. Until such time that you can prove your flawlessness I'm letting this matter drop.

Why, whatever do you mean? Have you read my signature? It is not a small matter, imho, because there is a difference between consistent with and a match, imho. If you are speaking of placing your trust in the wrong source, then I am not blaming you for that; only saying caveat emptor.

[martin II]

It sure doesn't take much to make you happy. Do you have the giggles today, Martin?

I am just pleased whenever the truth emerges.So now you know the TRUE story of the dandruff evem if you had to hear it as you sprinted out the door..:cool:

[tv]

Why, whatever do you mean? Have you read my signature? It is not a small matter, imho, because there is a difference between consistent with and a match, imho. If you are speaking of placing your trust in the wrong source, then I am not blaming you for that; only saying caveat emptor.I recall that you stated unequivocally that there was no blood belonging to OJ Simpson on the Rockingham glove. This happened twice. You were wrong. Does that mean you are to be considered an untrustworthy source? If so, I'll remember that in the future.

[William Anthony]

sound like you are runing away from the warm kitchen again after opening yet another can of worms.:cool:

I think they tell too many fish tales in that kitchen, keeping that hot air circulating. :)

[tv]

I am just pleased whenever the truth emerges.So now you know the TRUE story of the dandruff evem if you had to hear it as you sprinted out the door..:cool:Wow, that convinces me...OJ Simpson must be falsely accused...the dandruff tells the whole story. Thanks goodness he never used Head and Shoulders or the truth would have never come out. :biggrin:

[martin II]

Martin, you are just too :cool:. I bet that actually is you behind those sunglases.

It is not my fault that at the fork in the road you went left when you should
have listened to the GSP voice from your dashboard. hahaha:cool: :cool: :cool:

[martin II]

Wow, that convinces me...OJ Simpson must be falsely accused...the dandruff tells the whole story. Thanks goodness he never used Head and Shoulders or the truth would have never come out. :biggrin:

Mazzola, fung. vanhatter and furhmans testimony proved oj was falsly accused.:cool:

[William Anthony]

I recall that you stated unequivocally that there was no blood belonging to OJ Simpson on the Rockingham glove. This happened twice. You were wrong. Does that mean you are to be considered an untrustworthy source? If so, I'll remember that in the future.

I readily admit to my mistakes and do not state them as fact or when caught try to squirm my way out blaming my spell checker or attacking posters who show that I am wrong. Yes, we all make mistakes but a man does not need a woman to champion his mistakes. He admits them when shown wrong. I have never claimed to be an expert on the criminal trial or devoted a website to it. If I had, believe me I would know what I was talking about before I posted it, which is not to say he did not; only that he may have tried to deceive those who are too trusting of those fish tales he is prone to tell.

[William Anthony]

Wow, that convinces me...OJ Simpson must be falsely accused...the dandruff tells the whole story. Thanks goodness he never used Head and Shoulders or the truth would have never come out. :biggrin:

Just one more broken link in the string (not fishing string)of the prosecution's case. ;) :cool:

[martin II]

I think they tell too many fish tales in that kitchen, keeping that hot air circulating. :)

Maby those tales came from the big mouth bass she did not know was next to her.haha:cool:

[William Anthony]

One of my female supervisors asked me where I was originally from and, when I told her, she told me a story about her and her husband stopping there for gas while returning from vacation. She said her husband refused to get out and pump the gas, so she did. She then said that, when she got ready to get back in the car, he unlocked the door. I laughed and said, "You hero". Pardon me, if I am off topic but I believe it is relevant to the discussion. ;) :cool: I admire her loyalty and wish it was reciprocated.

[martin II]

It sure doesn't take much to make you happy. Do you have the giggles today, Martin?

If i were near you i could do you a service by picking up your jaw off of the floor. imo hahaha :cool:

[martin II]

Wow, that convinces me...OJ Simpson must be falsely accused...the dandruff tells the whole story. Thanks goodness he never used Head and Shoulders or the truth would have never come out. :biggrin:

If the cap did not come from ojs head then the cap and glove was planted or left by the killer.

[martin II]

tv
you didn't really think that other posters post was correct did you?

[William Anthony]

tv
you didn't really think that other posters post was correct did you?

It's time for her to put on those big gal pants and get out of that kitchen, listening to those fish tales and microwave some tvdinners.;) :cool:

[tv]

William Anthony and Martin II, you guys are being so funny I can't stop laughing. Have you two men ever thought about starting a comedy team? You might consider it as a way to pass time...you certainly are no good at interpeting evidence in a criminal trial. :)

[William Anthony]

William Anthony and Martin II, you guys are being so funny I can't stop laughing. Have you two men ever thought about starting a comedy team? You might consider it as a way to pass time...you certainly are no good at interpeting evidence in a criminal trial. :)

I have never claimed to be good at "interpeting" evidence in any trial. I will leave that to the likes of others who are more obsessed with posting fiction and agreeing with it. :)

[William Anthony]

So Simpson was scratching his head like crazy when he murdered Ron? Thanks for that image.

No, you might be scratching your head trying to figure a way out of this itchy mess started by another poster. No dandruff was found in the cap. Now, cap (pun intended) that off. ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

And this is supposed to prove what? Ah like he could have dandruff between Sept and Jan. Ah Simpson is looking for fried chicken between Sept and Jan. Ah Simpson is.......between Sept and Jan. Ah it's the football offseason anything could happen. Yeah right. Like murdering 2 innocent people.

First, it proves that the poster who said there was "no testimony or evidence" has a very limited knowledge of what evidence is. Yes, the testimony is that he would have had dandruff during September and January and more dandruff during the remaining months. Your fried chicken remark did not go unnoticed but it is not worthy of any response, except that when you do not like the truth you tend to become rude and offensive. The lack of dandruff is circumstantial testimonial evidence that Simpson was not the murderer. ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

You won't get one Sam because it doesn't fit in with Martin's distorted idea of the 'truth'.

An American essayist, Eric Hoffer, commented once that 'rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.' Remember that when you reply to William and Martin.

And when you don't agree with Mr. Bell. ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

It applies to you as well. Where are your posts to the truth? BobAugust has your measure. How did Simpson's hair get on Goldman's shirt? Your rants (and I understand that word when it's applied to you) haven't explained that. No doubt you'll go off into some totally off topic rant. H'm. Elvis maybe?

With all due respect, I do not know a poster with the nic "BobAugust." bobaugust cannot have my or anybody else's correct measure, because is measuring apparatus is askew, imho. I understand the words crass, rude, offensive, impolite, and disrespectful to name a few that are allowed to be said on this board when they are applied to you. Cross contamination, contamination, improper evidence handling and collection techniques, improperly injecting a probable source of trace evidence into the scene and planting-take your pick.

[William Anthony]

Mr. Bell,

Is this the source of you nic-"The comic book Les dossiers du Professeur Bell by Joann Sfar is about the (fictional) supernatural adventures of Dr. Bell."?:biggrin:

[William Anthony]

So Simpson was scratching his head like crazy when he murdered Ron? Thanks for that image.

Here's an image for you. You running around scratching your behind wondering how you let bobaugust fool you.

[William Anthony]

With all due respect, I do not know a poster with the nic "BobAugust." bobaugust cannot have my or anybody else's correct measure, because his measuring apparatus is askew, imho. I understand the words crass, rude, offensive, impolite, and disrespectful to name a few that are allowed to be said on this board when they are applied to you. Cross contamination, contamination, improper evidence handling and collection techniques, improperly injecting a probable source of trace evidence into the scene and planting-take your pick.

Correction added

[William Anthony]

And this is supposed to prove what? Ah like he could have dandruff between Sept and Jan. Ah Simpson is looking for fried chicken between Sept and Jan. Ah Simpson is.......between Sept and Jan. Ah it's the football offseason anything could happen. Yeah right. Like murdering 2 innocent people.

Ah, Mr. Bell, I am unfamiliar with Australian law and how the courts work but in America, where this trial was held, the defense (not "defence") does not have to prove anything, unless they raise an affirmative defense. They only have to provide evidence, be it circumstantial or direct, to show that the evidence presented by the prosecution should not be trusted beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e. is insufficient to prove guilt. The only thing the prosecution proved in regard to that 14 year or older hat is that, if it belonged to Simpson and those were his hairs, he wore it during football season, i.e. the months between September and January, but the murders were committed in June. I know you may consider this a rant but I wanted to explain fully out of an abundance of caution that you may not have fully understood and appreciated the significance of the defense's evidence in regard to the dandruff testimony. In other words, the defense was able to show by circumstantial testimonial evidence that the prosecution's identification of hairs being consistent with Simpson found in the cap proved nothing in regard to the charges Simpson faced. bobaugust understood this, imho, which is why, imho, he falsely posted that Simpson's hair sample had no dandruff. I understand your intense conviction to believing Simpson was the murderer and your unquestioned agreement to the statements of others who share your conviction. However, in the future, form your own opinions and do not be so unquestioning in order that you may not be so easily duped. Pardon what you may refer to as a rant but I did not want you to be mistaken for a raving maniac by your unquestioned acceptance of a false post.

[William Anthony]

It applies to you as well. Where are your posts to the truth? BobAugust has your measure. How did Simpson's hair get on Goldman's shirt? Your rants (and I understand that word when it's applied to you) haven't explained that. No doubt you'll go off into some totally off topic rant. H'm. Elvis maybe?

Correction-hairs consistent with Simpson's found on Goldman's shirt. However, the prosecution failed to show evidence that those hairs contained dandruff. :)

[martin II]

It applies to you as well. Where are your posts to the truth? BobAugust has your measure. How did Simpson's hair get on Goldman's shirt? Your rants (and I understand that word when it's applied to you) haven't explained that. No doubt you'll go off into some totally off topic rant. H'm. Elvis maybe?

What hair was found on the Bundy carpet??

[martin II]

Martin here's a link for you. 'Ghost in the Machine.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_machine

Enjoy

bell
your link does not work for me.
But if it did it has nothing to do with the question i asked you.

[martin II]

And this is supposed to prove what? Ah like he could have dandruff between Sept and Jan. Ah Simpson is looking for fried chicken between Sept and Jan. Ah Simpson is.......between Sept and Jan. Ah it's the football offseason anything could happen. Yeah right. Like murdering 2 innocent people.

Your post underlines the fact that you have no clue of the issues of the cap or dandruff.
Fried chicken is meant to say what?
The murders were commited in June. you don't seem to understand this.

martin II

[martin II]

You won't get one Sam because it doesn't fit in with Martin's distorted idea of the 'truth'.

An American essayist, Eric Hoffer, commented once that 'rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.' Remember that when you reply to William and Martin.

Eric Hoffer seems to be describing your post.

[martin II]

William Anthony and Martin II, you guys are being so funny I can't stop laughing. Have you two men ever thought about starting a comedy team? You might consider it as a way to pass time...you certainly are no good at interpeting evidence in a criminal trial. :)

The defence and the jury did a good job.

[martin II]

Bell.
Can you explain your "OJ LOOKING FOR FRIED CHICKEN" remark.

[martin II]

And this is supposed to prove what? Ah like he could have dandruff between Sept and Jan. Ah Simpson is looking for fried chicken between Sept and Jan. Ah Simpson is.......between Sept and Jan. Ah it's the football offseason anything could happen. Yeah right. Like murdering 2 innocent people.

bell
You should at least try to get some facts straight before posting.At least some time.

[martin II]

You won't get one Sam because it doesn't fit in with Martin's distorted idea of the 'truth'.

An American essayist, Eric Hoffer, commented once that 'rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.' Remember that when you reply to William and Martin.

I am sure you did not understand it but the truth was testified to by the witness a few post back.:cool:

[martin II]

You can think you know what I'm thinking all you want. I assure you that you do not. I will repeat for the umpteenth time that the defense never gave any proof for their wild speculation on tampering and planting.

Tv
What proof do you believe the defence was required by law to give?
Mazzola tampering was not wild speculation.

[William Anthony]

What hair was found on the Bundy carpet??

I believe that claim and the remarks about scratching his head and looking for fried chicken evidence signs of an overzealous, overworked, overwhelmed, uniformed, unproductive, unintelligible, and unenlightened raving of a fertile but fruitlessly and a forevermore hopelessly biased imagination.

[martin II]

I believe that claim and the remarks about scratching his head and looking for fried chicken evidence signs of an overzealous, overworked, overwhelmed, uniformed, unproductive, unintelligible, and unenlightened raving of a fertile but fruitlessly and a forevermore hopelessly biased imagination.
:beer: :beer:

[William Anthony]

Tv
What proof do you believe the defence was required by law to give?
Mazzola tampering was not wild speculation.

Ah martin,

It seems some want to regress to the days, when certain defendants were required to prove their innocence. I do not believe the poster to whom you responded is one of them. I do think she wants to do away with the concept of reasonable inferences. Others want proof that Simpson did not commit murder, as if he was supposed to bring charges against himself and then prove the charges false. :) ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

bell
You should at least try to get some facts straight before posting.At least some time.

We may never hear from Mr. Bell, again, if he follows your suggestion. :) ;) :cool:

[martin II]

MAZZOLA said samples were dry when taken out of tubes.Yet blood transfer staines were found on bindels/envelopes after required drying time.

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

MR. SCHECK: Well, let's talk about the wet transfer stains on bindle 47. Did you see anything in LAPD records indicating that there was a wet transfer on the item 47 bindle?

DR. LEE: No.

MR. SCHECK: Does the fact that it was not recorded on the LAPD notations mean that it wasn't there?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, there--you made the distinction between scientific fact and interpretation.

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: Any question in your mind that the existence of that wet transfer is a scientific fact?

DR. LEE: That's correct. It's definitive. That's scientific fact.

MR. SCHECK: Is there any question in your mind that the blood swatches such as we have in this case after three hours should be dry?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, conjecture, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Under normal condition, should dry.

MR. SCHECK: If swatches were placed into a bindle something less than three hours, maybe between an hour to three hours, might they leave damp wet transfer stains?

DR. LEE: Could have been.

MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with the testimony of Miss Mazzola and Mr. Fung, that the swatches that they took out of test tubes were dry?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered, argumentative, misstates the testimony, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, you said at the end of your direct examination that as far as you were concerned, the existence of those wet transfers meant that something was wrong.

DR. LEE: I recall last week I did say that.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Anything that has been asked of you in cross-examination that's changed your opinion about that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'm going to object because that's not a forensic opinion. Motion to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: My opinion still remain the same.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you.

[martin II]

Oh yes? Let's go to the next post.

Before we do. why don't you take time out and read at least some trial testimony and review testimony so that you would not continue to make post with so much incorrect and untrue comments. That is if you are in fact a adult and not some underage child posting here.:read: :cool:

martin II

[limakey]

TV,

No one saw the murders being committed. The LAPD, CSI and DA's used circumstantial evidence to make their case, correct?

The defense used the same method to raise reasonable doubt on all of the evidence. Perfect example: The socks. DA's said that the reason why the blood was not found on the socks is because all of their experts who had control of the socks, didn't use the equipment that they knew they had to use to find blood evidence on them.

The defense had a witness who testified why he believed the blood on the socks was planted, something about the "balls" of blood being found that indicated to him that the blood was pressed onto the sock, it was not splashed on to the sock. The DA's only response was that Nicole reached up and grabbed Simpson's ankle. The defense also used the state's own witness to explain why blood wasn't seen on the socks and he had no response. It was clear that the blood could be seen on the socks and the DA's never really responded to that.

As for the blood evidence at Bundy. For some of the drops, they said it was so degraded because the AC unit was out on the evidence truck. However, the defense countered this and basically said, "prove that the only way that the blood could have gotten so degraded was by a failed AC unit in the evidence truck." The DA's never proved it.

However, again there is a common theme---didn't use the right equipment for the socks, used faulty equipment (The truck) when storing key evidence. Think about it, this AC unit was known to be broken before it even left the shop---so why was this done? Was it proven to be a non-issue when gathering other evidence in previous cases? Why wasn't another truck called into service if the AC until was going to play a role in evidence keeping?

Then you have the blood collected on the back gate weeks after the murders. It's exposure to the sun and elements, not to mention the watering down of the crime scene apparently, had no affect on the DNA count, yet the other blood samples because of a broken AC unit in the truck? Then there is the issue of EDTA---which was found in the samples on the back gate and on the socks---which no other samples contained EDTA.

MF and the glove, the DA's never explained how Simpson got behind the wall, then never even attempted to explain the thumps in a clear manner. I'm sure you remember Kato's "demonstration" of the thumps and I am sure you remember that Clark's main focus was on how loud they were. Very, Very clever on her part, however, Kato's demonstration wasn't even close to demonstrating what he heard. And lets not forget, there was no evidence to suggest that any one climbed the fence, crashed into the wall or hit the AC unit. I believe Fund did find some blood on a wire overhanging the scene, however, the sample was not even enough to prove it was a human's blood or an animals. What struck me about this is that if Fung was able to find the blood on the wire, that not only means that the area was clearly searched for any trace evidence to prove that Simpson was back there that night, but his work at Rockingham goes against him not collecting the blood on the back gate. How can he find a tiny, tiny drop of blood on a wire and miss such other obvious evidence?

And to be honest and to be perfectly fair, do you think that if anyone was going to plant evidence, they would do it where there would be witnesses? That they would have the urge to tell someone they did this?

In regards to Mozzola, yes she was new and this was her first case. The thing that struck me about the bindles is that I find it impossible to believe that she did not put her initials on them. It is CSI 101. However, is it impossible to make someone believe they didn't do something when in fact they had done it? Example: Mozzola's supervisor confronts her with the bindles and says that she didn't write her initals on it. Mozzola responds that she did put her initials on it, she remembers she did it. Her supervisor says "Prove It"? Do you really think that Mozzola was going to hold her ground against her supervisor---that she would risk her career over some initials on some bindles? Is it really that hard to make someone doubt themselves?

In the civil trial, the judge said the defense needed to produce eyewitnesses to any tampering and/or planting. They had to give the who, why, what and when answers. Again, if you are going to plant evidence or tamper with it, are you going to do in front of a crowd?

You are also forgetting that MF and Vanatter gave different answers on key issues. You are also forgetting that no one (accept for Mr. August) believes the detectives when they said that Mr. Simpson was not a suspect. You are also forgetting that Vanatter's "potential" suspect theory shot the last toe off of his credibility with that.

And in all fairness to the defense, what theories were so wild? Perhaps had the LAPD cleaned up their act, they have been told to do for years, their theories may have been met with your distain.

In regards to Rodney King, in all fairness to that jury, they stood by their verdict and the comments that were said to be that they sat in the jury box, they saw and heard all the evidence and they gave the only verdict they could legally give. I truly didn't not follow the case after I saw the tape and heard the comments made by the defendants, I thought the cops were going to jail. When the verdict came out and the riots started, I don't remember the jurors being treated the same way as the Simpson trial jurors, on a national level. I don't remember any poster on this board calling those jurors dumb and looking for any excuse to aquit them. The Rodney King "Pay Back" was a media induced reason for the verdict. However, what I find interesting, is that the King jurors had video tapes, the Simpson jury had audio tapes of pure racism, yet the majority of white people still don't find this deeply, deeply distrubing. Like one white, call in viewer said on the Late, Late Show, "It is obvious to me that people with my skin color, white couldn't tell a lying, racist, self admitted evidence planting cop if he took the fifth in the alleged trial of the century!."

Kind of hard to find fault that caller, IMO.

[martin II]

Ah martin,

It seems some want to regress to the days, when certain defendants were required to prove their innocence. I do not believe the poster to whom you responded is one of them. I do think she wants to do away with the concept of reasonable inferences. Others want proof that Simpson did not commit murder, as if he was supposed to bring charges against himself and then prove the charges false. :) ;) :cool:

OH

CJS allows prosecution to file charges against oj.
The prosecution is then required to give the defense all the evidence so the defense can do testing and wait for the defense to finish so they can then do their testing.

The defense is then suppose to disprove prosecutions charges by putting on their "case in chief"

The prosecution is then suppose to disprove ojs disproval of evidence.
Then we ask the jury to believe or not believe the defense defense.

We can then toss the constitution for ojs trial.hahaha
imo
martin II

[limakey]

The hair evidence is not an exact science. Saying that something is consistent with it does not mean it is a match. Just ask Marcia Clark, how many times did Judge Ito have to remind her of this--and after which time did he threaten her with comtempt of court if she said it again?

The reason why the hair evidence is really nothing is because the DA's again "missed" the chance to use other hair samples found inside of Simpson's and Nicole's home to compare samples. Another watch cap was found inside of Nicole's home, however, it was never taken into evidence, why?

Also, wasn't an unidentified hair found on the glove at Rockingham? Wasn't there also an issue of hair tint regarding the samples?

When Lange and Vanatter were promoting their book, they said they found a hat inside the Bronco---yeah-----and...........

That was the DA's case, they would introduce and present the evidence but there was always an-----and................They never linked the evidence together they had way to many gaps fill and they knew it was better to leave the gaps then even try to fill them in. IMO.

[martin II]

TV,

No one saw the murders being committed. The LAPD, CSI and DA's used circumstantial evidence to make their case, correct?

The defense used the same method to raise reasonable doubt on all of the evidence. Perfect example: The socks. DA's said that the reason why the blood was not found on the socks is because all of their experts who had control of the socks, didn't use the equipment that they knew they had to use to find blood evidence on them.

The defense had a witness who testified why he believed the blood on the socks was planted, something about the "balls" of blood being found that indicated to him that the blood was pressed onto the sock, it was not splashed on to the sock. The DA's only response was that Nicole reached up and grabbed Simpson's ankle. The defense also used the state's own witness to explain why blood wasn't seen on the socks and he had no response. It was clear that the blood could be seen on the socks and the DA's never really responded to that.

As for the blood evidence at Bundy. For some of the drops, they said it was so degraded because the AC unit was out on the evidence truck. However, the defense countered this and basically said, "prove that the only way that the blood could have gotten so degraded was by a failed AC unit in the evidence truck." The DA's never proved it.

However, again there is a common theme---didn't use the right equipment for the socks, used faulty equipment (The truck) when storing key evidence. Think about it, this AC unit was known to be broken before it even left the shop---so why was this done? Was it proven to be a non-issue when gathering other evidence in previous cases? Why wasn't another truck called into service if the AC until was going to play a role in evidence keeping?

Then you have the blood collected on the back gate weeks after the murders. It's exposure to the sun and elements, not to mention the watering down of the crime scene apparently, had no affect on the DNA count, yet the other blood samples because of a broken AC unit in the truck? Then there is the issue of EDTA---which was found in the samples on the back gate and on the socks---which no other samples contained EDTA.

MF and the glove, the DA's never explained how Simpson got behind the wall, then never even attempted to explain the thumps in a clear manner. I'm sure you remember Kato's "demonstration" of the thumps and I am sure you remember that Clark's main focus was on how loud they were. Very, Very clever on her part, however, Kato's demonstration wasn't even close to demonstrating what he heard. And lets not forget, there was no evidence to suggest that any one climbed the fence, crashed into the wall or hit the AC unit. I believe Fund did find some blood on a wire overhanging the scene, however, the sample was not even enough to prove it was a human's blood or an animals. What struck me about this is that if Fung was able to find the blood on the wire, that not only means that the area was clearly searched for any trace evidence to prove that Simpson was back there that night, but his work at Rockingham goes against him not collecting the blood on the back gate. How can he find a tiny, tiny drop of blood on a wire and miss such other obvious evidence?

And to be honest and to be perfectly fair, do you think that if anyone was going to plant evidence, they would do it where there would be witnesses? That they would have the urge to tell someone they did this?

In regards to Mozzola, yes she was new and this was her first case. The thing that struck me about the bindles is that I find it impossible to believe that she did not put her initials on them. It is CSI 101. However, is it impossible to make someone believe they didn't do something when in fact they had done it? Example: Mozzola's supervisor confronts her with the bindles and says that she didn't write her initals on it. Mozzola responds that she did put her initials on it, she remembers she did it. Her supervisor says "Prove It"? Do you really think that Mozzola was going to hold her ground against her supervisor---that she would risk her career over some initials on some bindles? Is it really that hard to make someone doubt themselves?

In the civil trial, the judge said the defense needed to produce eyewitnesses to any tampering and/or planting. They had to give the who, why, what and when answers. Again, if you are going to plant evidence or tamper with it, are you going to do in front of a crowd?

You are also forgetting that MF and Vanatter gave different answers on key issues. You are also forgetting that no one (accept for Mr. August) believes the detectives when they said that Mr. Simpson was not a suspect. You are also forgetting that Vanatter's "potential" suspect theory shot the last toe off of his credibility with that.

And in all fairness to the defense, what theories were so wild? Perhaps had the LAPD cleaned up their act, they have been told to do for years, their theories may have been met with your distain.

In regards to Rodney King, in all fairness to that jury, they stood by their verdict and the comments that were said to be that they sat in the jury box, they saw and heard all the evidence and they gave the only verdict they could legally give. I truly didn't not follow the case after I saw the tape and heard the comments made by the defendants, I thought the cops were going to jail. When the verdict came out and the riots started, I don't remember the jurors being treated the same way as the Simpson trial jurors, on a national level. I don't remember any poster on this board calling those jurors dumb and looking for any excuse to aquit them. The Rodney King "Pay Back" was a media induced reason for the verdict. However, what I find interesting, is that the King jurors had video tapes, the Simpson jury had audio tapes of pure racism, yet the majority of white people still don't find this deeply, deeply distrubing. Like one white, call in viewer said on the Late, Late Show, "It is obvious to me that people with my skin color, white couldn't tell a lying, racist, self admitted evidence planting cop if he took the fifth in the alleged trial of the century!."

Kind of hard to find fault that caller, IMO.

Limakey
Great job of laying out some facts that many seen to ignore.
These issues are what some jury members referred to as 'TOO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS" by the prosecution.

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

Unfortunately for the DA's, Ron's body was dragged through the crime scene. Since Mr. Simpson spent a lot of time at Bundy as well as other members of the African American race, the fact that hairs were found on Ron's shirt is not the smoking gun that the DA's wanted it to be.

The fiber evidence is this case is the most useless evidence in this case because of the conflicting testimony. The DA's never linked a garment to the fibers. Kato's testimony regarding what Simpson was wearing that night was never solid, even according to Kato. He never stated he was positive what Simpson was wearing, he gave a description of it, yet he got it totally wrong on what Simpson was wearing to the airport.

None of these fibers were found in any of Simpson's cars, none found inside is home, none found in the washing machine. Again, you can fault the CSI and DA's for not collecting more garments from Simpson's home and compare fibers, however, you must remember, any tests, including comparison tests, the results would have to be turned over to the defense.

I'm sure that every lawyer in the world has learned, very quickly, never ask a questions you don't know the answer to. Chris Darden's glove demonstration is a perfect example of this. IMO.

I found very ironic when Darden said the defense's case was "smoke and mirrors". It was the DA's case that was smoke and mirrors. The defense simply blew all the smoke out of the DA's case as well as windexing their mirrors and showed their case as it truly was---very, very, very, weak. IMO.

[tv]

Tv
What proof do you believe the defence was required by law to give?
Mazzola tampering was not wild speculation.Martin, stop asking me this question.

[limakey]

Martin,

Thank you. It will always amaze me how people saw this case. We all watched, read and followed the trial and the aftermath for years and we all just as strong, if not stronger opinons now then during the actual trial.

[limakey]

TV,

Not to upset you, but I truly would like an answer to Martin's question. What proof would you need to find police misconduct in the case? The evidence was planted? That the collection process and the chain of evidence was so compromised that it did render much of the evidence as useless?

IMO, I think it is a fair question and one that we all can learn from. While you may disagree with my comments and opinons on this case, I believe I have posted why I feel the way that I do.

In all fairness to you and other's who feel Simpson is guilty and no police misconduct took place, I felt the exact same way. Never in a million years did I think the defense was going to have luck with the "Fuhrman-Police Misconduct" defense. I was so confident that the Simpson case would be their redeeming case. They would do everything by the book, they would cross ever T and dot every I. They knew that Mr. Simpson's celebrity was going to be issue, they knew his weath would be a formidable opponent.

To listen to the state's case, my heart sank. I knew no jury would ever believe the police. I knew the jury could not over look the collection or the chain of evidence. By law, they are forced to consider these issues.

My heart also sank when the excuses on why police would never do such things. The fact that we do have laws regarding police misconduct prove that it has happened in the past and still happens today. However, we hear very little about these cases. They are quickly swept under the rug. However, isn't it time to shake out the rug? IMO.

[William Anthony]

TV,

No one saw the murders being committed. The LAPD, CSI and DA's used circumstantial evidence to make their case, correct?

The defense used the same method to raise reasonable doubt on all of the evidence. Perfect example: The socks. DA's said that the reason why the blood was not found on the socks is because all of their experts who had control of the socks, didn't use the equipment that they knew they had to use to find blood evidence on them.

The defense had a witness who testified why he believed the blood on the socks was planted, something about the "balls" of blood being found that indicated to him that the blood was pressed onto the sock, it was not splashed on to the sock. The DA's only response was that Nicole reached up and grabbed Simpson's ankle. The defense also used the state's own witness to explain why blood wasn't seen on the socks and he had no response. It was clear that the blood could be seen on the socks and the DA's never really responded to that.

As for the blood evidence at Bundy. For some of the drops, they said it was so degraded because the AC unit was out on the evidence truck. However, the defense countered this and basically said, "prove that the only way that the blood could have gotten so degraded was by a failed AC unit in the evidence truck." The DA's never proved it.

However, again there is a common theme---didn't use the right equipment for the socks, used faulty equipment (The truck) when storing key evidence. Think about it, this AC unit was known to be broken before it even left the shop---so why was this done? Was it proven to be a non-issue when gathering other evidence in previous cases? Why wasn't another truck called into service if the AC until was going to play a role in evidence keeping?

Then you have the blood collected on the back gate weeks after the murders. It's exposure to the sun and elements, not to mention the watering down of the crime scene apparently, had no affect on the DNA count, yet the other blood samples because of a broken AC unit in the truck? Then there is the issue of EDTA---which was found in the samples on the back gate and on the socks---which no other samples contained EDTA.

MF and the glove, the DA's never explained how Simpson got behind the wall, then never even attempted to explain the thumps in a clear manner. I'm sure you remember Kato's "demonstration" of the thumps and I am sure you remember that Clark's main focus was on how loud they were. Very, Very clever on her part, however, Kato's demonstration wasn't even close to demonstrating what he heard. And lets not forget, there was no evidence to suggest that any one climbed the fence, crashed into the wall or hit the AC unit. I believe Fund did find some blood on a wire overhanging the scene, however, the sample was not even enough to prove it was a human's blood or an animals. What struck me about this is that if Fung was able to find the blood on the wire, that not only means that the area was clearly searched for any trace evidence to prove that Simpson was back there that night, but his work at Rockingham goes against him not collecting the blood on the back gate. How can he find a tiny, tiny drop of blood on a wire and miss such other obvious evidence?

And to be honest and to be perfectly fair, do you think that if anyone was going to plant evidence, they would do it where there would be witnesses? That they would have the urge to tell someone they did this?

In regards to Mozzola, yes she was new and this was her first case. The thing that struck me about the bindles is that I find it impossible to believe that she did not put her initials on them. It is CSI 101. However, is it impossible to make someone believe they didn't do something when in fact they had done it? Example: Mozzola's supervisor confronts her with the bindles and says that she didn't write her initals on it. Mozzola responds that she did put her initials on it, she remembers she did it. Her supervisor says "Prove It"? Do you really think that Mozzola was going to hold her ground against her supervisor---that she would risk her career over some initials on some bindles? Is it really that hard to make someone doubt themselves?

In the civil trial, the judge said the defense needed to produce eyewitnesses to any tampering and/or planting. They had to give the who, why, what and when answers. Again, if you are going to plant evidence or tamper with it, are you going to do in front of a crowd?

You are also forgetting that MF and Vanatter gave different answers on key issues. You are also forgetting that no one (accept for Mr. August) believes the detectives when they said that Mr. Simpson was not a suspect. You are also forgetting that Vanatter's "potential" suspect theory shot the last toe off of his credibility with that.

And in all fairness to the defense, what theories were so wild? Perhaps had the LAPD cleaned up their act, they have been told to do for years, their theories may have been met with your distain.

In regards to Rodney King, in all fairness to that jury, they stood by their verdict and the comments that were said to be that they sat in the jury box, they saw and heard all the evidence and they gave the only verdict they could legally give. I truly didn't not follow the case after I saw the tape and heard the comments made by the defendants, I thought the cops were going to jail. When the verdict came out and the riots started, I don't remember the jurors being treated the same way as the Simpson trial jurors, on a national level. I don't remember any poster on this board calling those jurors dumb and looking for any excuse to aquit them. The Rodney King "Pay Back" was a media induced reason for the verdict. However, what I find interesting, is that the King jurors had video tapes, the Simpson jury had audio tapes of pure racism, yet the majority of white people still don't find this deeply, deeply distrubing. Like one white, call in viewer said on the Late, Late Show, "It is obvious to me that people with my skin color, white couldn't tell a lying, racist, self admitted evidence planting cop if he took the fifth in the alleged trial of the century!."

Kind of hard to find fault that caller, IMO.

I think that anyone that looked at the video of the Rodney King beating and was able to find reasonable doubt, as that jury did, surely must be able to understand how the jury in the criminal case found reasonable doubt. I think that the evidence supports the fact that both of those respective juries found the defenses' views of the evidence more compelling and persuasive. Thank you, for reminding me of some issues I had forgotten. Thank you for adding information to the discussion. In short, thank you for posting. :)

[William Anthony]

TV,

Not to upset you, but I truly would like an answer to Martin's question. What proof would you need to find police misconduct in the case? The evidence was planted? That the collection process and the chain of evidence was so compromised that it did render much of the evidence as useless?

IMO, I think it is a fair question and one that we all can learn from. While you may disagree with my comments and opinons on this case, I believe I have posted why I feel the way that I do.

In all fairness to you and other's who feel Simpson is guilty and no police misconduct took place, I felt the exact same way. Never in a million years did I think the defense was going to have luck with the "Fuhrman-Police Misconduct" defense. I was so confident that the Simpson case would be their redeeming case. They would do everything by the book, they would cross ever T and dot every I. They knew that Mr. Simpson's celebrity was going to be issue, they knew his weath would be a formidable opponent.

To listen to the state's case, my heart sank. I knew no jury would ever believe the police. I knew the jury could not over look the collection or the chain of evidence. By law, they are forced to consider these issues.

My heart also sank when the excuses on why police would never do such things. The fact that we do have laws regarding police misconduct prove that it has happened in the past and still happens today. However, we hear very little about these cases. They are quickly swept under the rug. However, isn't it time to shake out the rug? IMO.

I think it's time to pull out the broom and beat that rug. :)

[limakey]

William,

Thank you for your kind words. IMO, I think it is very, very rare when the defense wins the case for their client. I think many times it is more like the DA's lost the case or lost by a technicality.

IMO, the Simpson defense team won the case for their client. They were able to counter every single piece of evidence. All the technicalities in this case was completely overshadowed by the destruction of the DA's case in chief by the defense.

[martin II]

I think it's time to pull out the broom and beat that rug. :)

tv

It seems you are UP NEXT. The stage is clear.

[William Anthony]

William,

Thank you for your kind words. IMO, I think it is very, very rare when the defense wins the case for their client. I think many times it is more like the DA's lost the case or lost by a technicality.

IMO, the Simpson defense team won the case for their client. They were able to counter every single piece of evidence. All the technicalities in this case was completely overshadowed by the destruction of the DA's case in chief by the defense.

I agree and add that in this case the defense pulled out the broom, swept up the floor with the prosecution and beat the heck out of the rug that covered the prosecution's case. In the current street vernacular, they gave them the beat down. :)

[tv]

tv

It seems you are UP NEXT. The stage is clear.Martin, I do not post on demand. I don't believe there was a police conspiracy no matter how much you wish it to be so. OJ Simpson left his blood, fibers and footprints at Bundy when he murdered Ron and Nicole. I know it's rare you actually have someone post here that agrees with you other than William Anthony so enjoy.

[William Anthony]

Martin, I do not post on demand. I don't believe there was a police conspiracy no matter how much you wish it to be so. OJ Simpson left his blood, fibers and footprints at Bundy when he murdered Ron and Nicole. I know it's rare you actually have someone post here that agrees with you other than William Anthony so enjoy.

I understand, since you very often are the only one on your side that adds something of substance to the discussion, which are not wrong or, as one poster likes to say, "intentionally false". Remember, it is not always about quantity. Sometimes its quality that counts and I find those posters who agree with me to be very qualified. ;) :cool:

[martin II]

Martin, stop asking me this question.

tv
Look, you have often posted about what the defense did not prove or what you believe the defense should have proved as far as their claims.

My question is a follow up to your post.

[weezer]

Not mad at you or anyone else.I think oj had a great relationship with his kids
and i have not read any testimony stating other wise. Oj was a busy business man and i assume that he could not be home on many ocassion when he would have like to have been but he was the only working adult in that house as Nicole never worked during her relationship with him so i guess he did miss some kids events but since the murders he has done a great job raising his kids.imo

"The Juice got squeezed again last week after Miami-Dade police responded to a tearful 911 call from his 17-year-old daughter, Sydney.

The Florida teen called police on the morning of January 18 following an alleged shouting match between her and her father. An emotional teenager is heard sobbing on the muffled 911 tape, "My dad is an a--hole...He doesn't f---ing love me."

[martin II]

Martin, stop asking me this question.

tv
Look, you have often posted about what the defense did not prove or what you believe the defense should have proved as far as their claims.

My question is a follow up to your post.

[tv]

tv
Look, you have often posted about what the defense did not prove or what you believe the defense should have proved as far as their claims.

My question is a follow up to your post.Then you already have your answer.

[martin II]

"The Juice got squeezed again last week after Miami-Dade police responded to a tearful 911 call from his 17-year-old daughter, Sydney.

The Florida teen called police on the morning of January 18 following an alleged shouting match between her and her father. An emotional teenager is heard sobbing on the muffled 911 tape, "My dad is an a--hole...He doesn't f---ing love me."

Like many teenagers that rebel when they do not get their way.The police came and found that Sydney wanted to go to a late party and her father said no.Le calmed her down and and that was the end of it. She is well adjusted and doing well in school and loves her dad as she told the custody judge.
This article in from when they moved to Florida about 6-7 years ago.right.

[limakey]

TV,

Not to put you on the spot, but again, it is difficult to engage in a meaniful debate with a poster who does not post on why they feel the way they do. Your reasons may very well give a person a reason to pause and consider a point that they never considered before.

I do believe that each and every piece of evidence can be interpeted differently. I do believe that most people made up their minds very early on and their gut instincts is what they are basing it on.

Perfect example, Dominck Dunne became convinced of OJ's guilty when he was handcuffed at his home. In his mind, he truly believes that Simpson should have become enraged and tell the cops to take off the cuffs, use all his money to find out who did this, etc.

However, IMO, had Mr. Simpson done what Mr. Dunne thought he should have done, I would have said just the opposite. An innocent man would not have been enraged. He would have realized that the police were making a mistake and that it would be cleared up soon.

In regards to the police conspiracy. Lets just say that the reason you do not believe that there was a police conspiracy because too many officers would have had to be involved and the odds of all them remaining silent about it are slim to none. I think that is a perfect reasonable belief--even if I disagree with it.

[martin II]

Then you already have your answer.

NO

My quesiton is what specifically did you believe the defense should have proved and why.Glove ,blood, hat tampering?

[tv]

TV,

Not to put you on the spot, but again, it is difficult to engage in a meaniful debate with a poster who does not post on why they feel the way they do. Your reasons may very well give a person a reason to pause and consider a point that they never considered before.

I do believe that each and every piece of evidence can be interpeted differently. I do believe that most people made up their minds very early on and their gut instincts is what they are basing it on.

Perfect example, Dominck Dunne became convinced of OJ's guilty when he was handcuffed at his home. In his mind, he truly believes that Simpson should have become enraged and tell the cops to take off the cuffs, use all his money to find out who did this, etc.

However, IMO, had Mr. Simpson done what Mr. Dunne thought he should have done, I would have said just the opposite. An innocent man would not have been enraged. He would have realized that the police were making a mistake and that it would be cleared up soon.

In regards to the police conspiracy. Lets just say that the reason you do not believe that there was a police conspiracy because too many officers would have had to be involved and the odds of all them remaining silent about it are slim to none. I think that is a perfect reasonable belief--even if I disagree with it.

limakey, it's very simple. The reason that I don't believe there was a police conspiracy is because I've seen no proof that there was. People that think OJ Simpson is innocent reject the evidence that proves his guilt. These same people believe in a police conspiracy with no proof at all. I find that very contradictory and it makes no sense to me at all. I've posted this many times before in one way or another as William Anthony and martin II well know. I'm repeating it for you because you and I haven't posted to each other before that I recall. I'm sorry you don't find my posts meaningful but there are days when I don't have the time for indepth posts as much as I might on some other days.

[tv]

NO

My quesiton is what specifically did you believe the defense should have proved and why.Glove ,blood, hat tampering?You and I both know the defense has no legal obligation to prove anything. Stop baiting. :mad:

[martin II]

Martin, I do not post on demand. I don't believe there was a police conspiracy no matter how much you wish it to be so. OJ Simpson left his blood, fibers and footprints at Bundy when he murdered Ron and Nicole. I know it's rare you actually have someone post here that agrees with you other than William Anthony so enjoy.

No demand
Just like you have asked question of posters and just like you have made many posters indicating that the defense should have offered proof of say Planting etc it is reasonable for you to be asked what specific claim should the defense had offered proof on.

Why do you believe that there was no conspiracy by any coppers against oj.

The defense through Mazzolas testimony proved that there was tampering of the blood evidence collected at Rockingham. You say the defense should offered proof that this happened.explain.

[tv]

No demand
Just like you have asked question of posters and just like you have made many posters indicating that the defense should have offered proof of say Planting etc it is reasonable for you to be asked what specific claim should the defense had offered proof on.

Why do you believe that there was no conspiracy by any coppers against oj.

The defense through Mazzolas testimony proved that there was tampering of the blood evidence collected at Rockingham. You say the defense should offered proof that this happened.explain.No, I'm not going to explain. If the jury wanted (and we know they did) to believe the defense suggestions about tampering and planting without proof good for them. Now a double-murder is walking free. Stop asking me about the defense offering proof. Your question has already been answered.

[weezer]

I am just pleased whenever the truth emerges.So now you know the TRUE story of the dandruff evem if you had to hear it as you sprinted out the door..:cool:

I'm still waiting for proof that orenthal had dandruff the night he murdered Ron and Nicole. Not before -- not after -- the night of.

[William Anthony]

No, I'm not going to explain. If the jury wanted (and we know they did) to believe the defense suggestions about tampering and planting without proof good for them. Now a double-murder is walking free. Stop asking me about the defense offering proof. Your question has already been answered.

You seem to misunderstand. The jury decides what is proven by the reasonable inferences they draw from the evidence. Respectfully, therefore, the verdict is the proof. ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

I'm still waiting for proof that orenthal had dandruff the night he murdered Ron and Nicole. Not before -- not after -- the night of.

Again, we know that bobaugust's claim that Simpson's hair sample did not have dandruff is false. Ergo, it is reasonable to assume he had dandruff 5, or 6 0r so nights earlier. The defense did not have to prove he did. With all due respect, the prosecution had to prove he did not, which they failed to do.

[martin II]

No, I'm not going to explain. If the jury wanted (and we know they did) to believe the defense suggestions about tampering and planting without proof good for them. Now a double-murder is walking free. Stop asking me about the defense offering proof. Your question has already been answered.

Under cross examination MAZZOLA was not able to identify any bindels that she initialed as a matter of her regular collecting procedures. This directly conflicted with her Hearing testimony where she said she did initial the bindels.

To many this indicated that sample tampering by someone in that lab had taken place.

In this instance there was nothing the defense had to prove.She proved it for them and the jury understood she did.

You had suggested that the bindels should have been dusted for her fingerprints. But by the time the bindels were presented in court many people had handeled those items.

[limakey]

TV,

I did not mean to give you the impression that I find your posts not meaniful. I was just trying to find out why you believe as passionately as you do that there was no police misconduct, etc. I truly meant no offense.

Asking you to explain what you would have considered to be convincing evidence that suggested police misconduct or conspiracy is the only way I can gage where you are coming from.

I have not rejected any the evidence, however, I have weighed both sides that evidence and I believe that the evidence was so compromised by the DA's witness, you can't place any value on it.

So, that is where my common sense took over. For instance, OJ telling Arnelle to call AC and take the kids to Nicole's parents home. IMO, a guilty man never would have done this. A guilty man would have insisted that Arnelle and AC take the kids to Rockingham or another location and ensure that he would be the first to talk to them about night. A guilty man would not have risked sending the kids to his murdered ex-wife's parents--especially when the ex-wife's parents and sisters have already accused you of the crime.

In Simpson's interview, he could have sent the police on a wild goose chase, he didn't. He also could have said that he was at Nicole's with in one or two days of the murders rather then 10 days.

I also have serious issues with the timeline as well as the phone call made to Nicole's that night by her mother. My reasoning behind this I do believe that Simpson was under the impression that Nicole would not be home that night or that she was expecting another guest. He already knew that Sydney's friend was spending the night. He didn't know that Sydney's friend went home that night.

The phone call from Nicole's mother. While many people believe Dr. Golden didn't take the stand because of his job performance, I believe he never took the stand because of the time of the phone call he wrote down on his papers.

I also believe that is why Mrs. Brown never took the stand---it was the time of that phone call. Again, IMO.

[tv]

You seem to misunderstand. The jury decides what is proven by the reasonable inferences they draw from the evidence. Respectfully, therefore, the verdict is the proof. ;) :cool:Oh, that's right. They came to that intelligent verdict when they got deliberated for less than 4 hours. Thanks for reminding me.

[martin II]

You and I both know the defense has no legal obligation to prove anything. Stop baiting. :mad:

Then why do you believe the defense should have proven certain claims that they made?The defense did not prove planting.The defense did not prove tampering. etc

[tv]

TV,

I did not mean to give you the impression that I find your posts not meaniful. I was just trying to find out why you believe as passionately as you do that there was no police misconduct, etc. I truly meant no offense.

Asking you to explain what you would have considered to be convincing evidence that suggested police misconduct or conspiracy is the only way I can gage where you are coming from.

I have not rejected any the evidence, however, I have weighed both sides that evidence and I believe that the evidence was so compromised by the DA's witness, you can't place any value on it.

So, that is where my common sense took over. For instance, OJ telling Arnelle to call AC and take the kids to Nicole's parents home. IMO, a guilty man never would have done this. A guilty man would have insisted that Arnelle and AC take the kids to Rockingham or another location and ensure that he would be the first to talk to them about night. A guilty man would not have risked sending the kids to his murdered ex-wife's parents--especially when the ex-wife's parents and sisters have already accused you of the crime.

In Simpson's interview, he could have sent the police on a wild goose chase, he didn't. He also could have said that he was at Nicole's with in one or two days of the murders rather then 10 days.

I also have serious issues with the timeline as well as the phone call made to Nicole's that night by her mother. My reasoning behind this I do believe that Simpson was under the impression that Nicole would not be home that night or that she was expecting another guest. He already knew that Sydney's friend was spending the night. He didn't know that Sydney's friend went home that night.

The phone call from Nicole's mother. While many people believe Dr. Golden didn't take the stand because of his job performance, I believe he never took the stand because of the time of the phone call he wrote down on his papers.

I also believe that is why Mrs. Brown never took the stand---it was the time of that phone call. Again, IMO.

All the things you listed as giving you reason to believe in Simpson's innocence are interesting but as far as I'm concerned when a man's blood, fibers and footprints are found at a crime scene there's not much more to say. The only way to counter that is by accusing LE of tampering with or planting evidence and I've seen no proof of that they did anything like that. I can even not take into account the fibers and the footprints and the blood evidence is overwhelming to me. What is your explanation for why OJ Simpson's blood was at the crime scene?

[William Anthony]

Oh, that's right. They came to that intelligent verdict when they got deliberated for less than 4 hours. Thanks for reminding me.

More than happy to remind you that the verdict is not guilty, which means the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[martin II]

Oh, that's right. They came to that intelligent verdict when they got deliberated for less than 4 hours. Thanks for reminding me.


The cjs does not set a deliberation time for any case.So why should you try.
Being required to go to a room to discuss the case and not being allowed to leave could be called "Being Deliberated" depending on how one uses certain words to phrase their comments. I see nothing wrong with that. I am sure you understand that not everyone may use words as you would and there is nothing wrong when they don't. imo

[tv]

More than happy to remind you that the verdict is not guilty, which means the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.Sure. ;)

[limakey]

TV,

I really have issues with the media and others bashing and trashing the jury. The jury came back with a verdict---they did their job (just as the civil trial jurors did.)

However, it appears to me that people who bash and trash jury forget someting that they would not be forgotten if they were a defendant in a murder case. It appears to me that many people who feel Simpson is guilty and the jury was wrong wanted them to pick and choose which evidence was more appealing for a conviction. The glove, I don't know how many times people have posted that the glove was only one piece of evidence and that there was still more of it for a conviction. Should the jurors have voted guilty if they truly believed the glove was planted?

What about the socks? What about the blood on the back gate? How many times can a jury "overlook" the same pattern of problems with the evidence?

There was no blood on the back gate and then later, there is blood on the gate.

There was no blood seen on the socks, then later, blood is found on the socks.

There was no blood in certain places in the Bronco, then later blood is found.

There was no so socks in the video, then there was. There was a conflict of time regarding the picture of Fuhrman pointing at the glove.

Then you have witnesses who say they did things they didn't. Then you have the same witnesses who said they didn't do things, when they did.


If I was a defendant in a murder case, rest assure I would want my jury to know the pattern of the evidence.

Yes, the defense did suggest evidence tampering, police misconduct, etc., however, it was the DA's own witnesses who could not prove otherwise. IMO.

[SlowHandSam]

Oh, that's right. They came to that intelligent verdict when they got deliberated for less than 4 hours. Thanks for reminding me.

I'm still amazed it was only 4 hours after the length of the trial.

I would bet that had it been returned "guilty" the NGs would have complained that they didn't deliberate long enough to really come to that conclusion.

[martin II]

All the things you listed as giving you reason to believe in Simpson's innocence are interesting but as far as I'm concerned when a man's blood, fibers and footprints are found at a crime scene there's not much more to say. The only way to counter that is by accusing LE of tampering with or planting evidence and I've seen no proof of that they did anything like that. I can even not take into account the fibers and the footprints and the blood evidence is overwhelming to me. What is your explanation for why OJ Simpson's blood was at the crime scene?

Why do you continue to ignore Mazzolas testimony that proved tampering occured with the samples she collected at Rockingham.It could not be that difficult to understand but it may be more difficult to admit it did.

We know some blood was found at the crime scene, what you do not know is are those the same samples that were later tested or were switched just as the ones Mazzola collected at Rockingham were. imo

[tv]

TV,

I really have issues with the media and others bashing and trashing the jury. The jury came back with a verdict---they did their job (just as the civil trial jurors did.)

However, it appears to me that people who bash and trash jury forget someting that they would not be forgotten if they were a defendant in a murder case. It appears to me that many people who feel Simpson is guilty and the jury was wrong wanted them to pick and choose which evidence was more appealing for a conviction. The glove, I don't know how many times people have posted that the glove was only one piece of evidence and that there was still more of it for a conviction. Should the jurors have voted guilty if they truly believed the glove was planted?

What about the socks? What about the blood on the back gate? How many times can a jury "overlook" the same pattern of problems with the evidence?

There was no blood on the back gate and then later, there is blood on the gate.

There was no blood seen on the socks, then later, blood is found on the socks.

There was no blood in certain places in the Bronco, then later blood is found.

There was no so socks in the video, then there was. There was a conflict of time regarding the picture of Fuhrman pointing at the glove.

Then you have witnesses who say they did things they didn't. Then you have the same witnesses who said they didn't do things, when they did.


If I was a defendant in a murder case, rest assure I would want my jury to know the pattern of the evidence.

Yes, the defense did suggest evidence tampering, police misconduct, etc., however, it was the DA's own witnesses who could not prove otherwise. IMO.

The blood was seen on the gate on the June 13, 1994 during the initial investigation by Riske, Rossi, Fuhrman, Phillips, Lange and others. Riske is the officer that showed the blood to Fuhrman.

The blood on the socks was not seen because of the dark color of the socks but was seen in the lab. A defense expert, Herbert MacDonell, testifed that the blood would be difficult to see under normal lighting. Dr. Lee, also for the defense, testified that he couldn't tell if there was any blood on the socks in the photograph shown to him.

The blood in the Bronco was hard to see. No mystery there.

[martin II]

tv

Considering the history of lapd at the time of the murders, during the case and after the case and considering all of the watchdog groups critical reports on laspd and then why the US justice department took over the managmet of the department and Fuhmans history and racist words, it is surprising how
seem to believe there could not have been Tampering,Planting etc by a few of them in this case.Remember Rampart and that Crash unit.imo

[limakey]

SlowHand,

If the jury came back with a guilty verdict the same amount of time, yes, NG's would probably be making the same arguements you are. However, your side's arguements would mirror NG's on the reasons why the verdict came back so quickly and why it was what it was.

Your side would have pointed the jury instructions and how they were obligated to go with side who's case they believed. For instance the socks, if the jury would have voted to convict, then that means the jury believed that Nicole did reach up an grab his ankle and that is how the blood got there and they would have reject the defense's expert on this issue.

This case comes down to basic elements. Either you believe the police or you don't. You either trust the CSI evidence or you don't. You believe he had enough time or you don't. When a trial lasts 9 months, how much time do you really need to determine a verdict?

[tv]

I'm still amazed it was only 4 hours after the length of the trial.

I would bet that had it been returned "guilty" the NGs would have complained that they didn't deliberate long enough to really come to that conclusion.You better believe they would. IMO, four hours to deliberate a nine-month case is an insult.

[limakey]

TV,

If all those officers who pointed out the blood on the gate, then why did only one detective write about a bloody fingerprint on the back gate? Also, there is an ongoing debate in the battle of the Simpson books---was Fung told about the blood drops on the back gate and just never collected them or was he told about the blood drops on the back gate and could not collect them because they weren't there? Which is it?

However, that is not the only issue regarding the blood on the gate. The DNA content and EDTA issues can't be ignored.

In regards to the socks, CSI unit is a professional unit, they have no excuse for not using the proper lighting or any other tools they needed to gather evidence from the socks. Just saying that they forgot and didn't feel like doing until August, just doesn't work for me. And to be frank, it shouldn't work for any us as an excuse.

The blood the Bronco was testified from a witness who said he was looking for the blood while he was ripping off the truck! The same witness would not even change his testimony for the civil trial. Another police witness testified she didn't see the blood. Granted, she said that she wasn't looking for it but I guess it is up to us to decide if we believe her or not.

Also, a majority of the officers you mentioned on who saw the blood on the back gate, had major credibility issues. After the four lead detectives denied they suspected OJ Simpson and were just going to his house for his children's sake, just doesn't ring true. So any of the saying they saw those blood drops on the back gate is suspect at best. After Rossi back up their story, his credibility was toast as well. IMO.

[martin II]

TV,

I really have issues with the media and others bashing and trashing the jury. The jury came back with a verdict---they did their job (just as the civil trial jurors did.)

However, it appears to me that people who bash and trash jury forget someting that they would not be forgotten if they were a defendant in a murder case. It appears to me that many people who feel Simpson is guilty and the jury was wrong wanted them to pick and choose which evidence was more appealing for a conviction. The glove, I don't know how many times people have posted that the glove was only one piece of evidence and that there was still more of it for a conviction. Should the jurors have voted guilty if they truly believed the glove was planted?

What about the socks? What about the blood on the back gate? How many times can a jury "overlook" the same pattern of problems with the evidence?

There was no blood on the back gate and then later, there is blood on the gate.

There was no blood seen on the socks, then later, blood is found on the socks.

There was no blood in certain places in the Bronco, then later blood is found.

There was no so socks in the video, then there was. There was a conflict of time regarding the picture of Fuhrman pointing at the glove.

Then you have witnesses who say they did things they didn't. Then you have the same witnesses who said they didn't do things, when they did.


If I was a defendant in a murder case, rest assure I would want my jury to know the pattern of the evidence.

Yes, the defense did suggest evidence tampering, police misconduct, etc., however, it was the DA's own witnesses who could not prove otherwise. IMO.


TV
The prosecution first said the murders took place at 10:20.The defense examined all the neighbors and Heidstra and gave more testimony that the murders did not occur at 10:20 but some time later. The jury understood the prosecution was wrong.

The prosecution said oj entered his property by jumping over his south fense and dropping that glove.
Through testimony of Vanhatter and 2-3m other officers there was strong evidence that no one jumped that fence on 6/12 and zero evidence that oj was there 0n 6/12. The jury understood the prosecution was wrong.

Ps your claim that blood was found on the Air conditioner by Dr Lee. was debunked and proven wrong by Schack.

The jury was listening to these mistakes and had valid reasons to not believe the prosecution.
My answer on the blood is from Mr Baker.
"we dont know if the blood found on the ground is the same blood tested."

Considering tampering by someone of mazzolas bindels there is good reason to agree with him.imo

[martin II]

You better believe they would. IMO, four hours to deliberate a nine-month case is an insult.

TV
if the jury had taken 2 hours and given a guilty verdict you may have been jumping for joy talking about how those black women were smart enough to understood the evidence. Bashing the jury is just, imo release of anger because you may believe that you were entitled to a different verdict.imo

[martin II]

SlowHand,

If the jury came back with a guilty verdict the same amount of time, yes, NG's would probably be making the same arguements you are. However, your side's arguements would mirror NG's on the reasons why the verdict came back so quickly and why it was what it was.

Your side would have pointed the jury instructions and how they were obligated to go with side who's case they believed. For instance the socks, if the jury would have voted to convict, then that means the jury believed that Nicole did reach up an grab his ankle and that is how the blood got there and they would have reject the defense's expert on this issue.

This case comes down to basic elements. Either you believe the police or you don't. You either trust the CSI evidence or you don't. You believe he had enough time or you don't. When a trial lasts 9 months, how much time do you really need to determine a verdict?

Limakey
Your last sentance is exaxctly what Amanda Cooley told the media from her front door.

[weezer]

TV,

No one saw the murders being committed. The LAPD, CSI and DA's used circumstantial evidence to make their case, correct?

The defense used the same method to raise reasonable doubt on all of the evidence. Perfect example: The socks. DA's said that the reason why the blood was not found on the socks is because all of their experts who had control of the socks, didn't use the equipment that they knew they had to use to find blood evidence on them.

the testimony is that the socks were not examined until later -- I don't know what "equipment" you're talking about.

The defense had a witness who testified why he believed the blood on the socks was planted, something about the "balls" of blood being found that indicated to him that the blood was pressed onto the sock, it was not splashed on to the sock. The DA's only response was that Nicole reached up and grabbed Simpson's ankle. The defense also used the state's own witness to explain why blood wasn't seen on the socks and he had no response. It was clear that the blood could be seen on the socks and the DA's never really responded to that.

"the testimony was that the blood was so minute that it was not visible to the naked eye. The question you should ask is how Nicole's blood got on the socks?"

As for the blood evidence at Bundy. For some of the drops, they said it was so degraded because the AC unit was out on the evidence truck. However, the defense countered this and basically said, "prove that the only way that the blood could have gotten so degraded was by a failed AC unit in the evidence truck." The DA's never proved it.

"nothing that was done or not done to the blood was going to change someone else's blood into orenthal's."

However, again there is a common theme---didn't use the right equipment for the socks, used faulty equipment (The truck) when storing key evidence. Think about it, this AC unit was known to be broken before it even left the shop---so why was this done? Was it proven to be a non-issue when gathering other evidence in previous cases? Why wasn't another truck called into service if the AC until was going to play a role in evidence keeping?

Then you have the blood collected on the back gate weeks after the murders. It's exposure to the sun and elements, not to mention the watering down of the crime scene apparently, had no affect on the DNA count, yet the other blood samples because of a broken AC unit in the truck? Then there is the issue of EDTA---which was found in the samples on the back gate and on the socks---which no other samples contained EDTA.

"There was no EDTA found in any of the blood -- not the back gate and not the socks."

MF and the glove, the DA's never explained how Simpson got behind the wall, then never even attempted to explain the thumps in a clear manner. I'm sure you remember Kato's "demonstration" of the thumps and I am sure you remember that Clark's main focus was on how loud they were. Very, Very clever on her part, however, Kato's demonstration wasn't even close to demonstrating what he heard. And lets not forget, there was no evidence to suggest that any one climbed the fence, crashed into the wall or hit the AC unit. I believe Fund did find some blood on a wire overhanging the scene, however, the sample was not even enough to prove it was a human's blood or an animals. What struck me about this is that if Fung was able to find the blood on the wire, that not only means that the area was clearly searched for any trace evidence to prove that Simpson was back there that night, but his work at Rockingham goes against him not collecting the blood on the back gate. How can he find a tiny, tiny drop of blood on a wire and miss such other obvious evidence?

"do you find it the least bit odd that hours before the murders, there would be loud thumps on a wall at orenthal's home? or that orenthal would have dripped blood on his drive and in his home?"

And to be honest and to be perfectly fair, do you think that if anyone was going to plant evidence, they would do it where there would be witnesses? That they would have the urge to tell someone they did this?

In regards to Mozzola, yes she was new and this was her first case. The thing that struck me about the bindles is that I find it impossible to believe that she did not put her initials on them. It is CSI 101. However, is it impossible to make someone believe they didn't do something when in fact they had done it? Example: Mozzola's supervisor confronts her with the bindles and says that she didn't write her initals on it. Mozzola responds that she did put her initials on it, she remembers she did it. Her supervisor says "Prove It"? Do you really think that Mozzola was going to hold her ground against her supervisor---that she would risk her career over some initials on some bindles? Is it really that hard to make someone doubt themselves?

"LOL -- CSI 101 -- LOL -- hell, the jury didn't even comprehend the DNA and you're thinking CSI 101? -- LOL"

In the civil trial, the judge said the defense needed to produce eyewitnesses to any tampering and/or planting. They had to give the who, why, what and when answers. Again, if you are going to plant evidence or tamper with it, are you going to do in front of a crowd?

You are also forgetting that MF and Vanatter gave different answers on key issues. You are also forgetting that no one (accept for Mr. August) believes the detectives when they said that Mr. Simpson was not a suspect. You are also forgetting that Vanatter's "potential" suspect theory shot the last toe off of his credibility with that.

"I believed LE when they said that in that moment in time, orenthal wasn't a suspect."

And in all fairness to the defense, what theories were so wild? Perhaps had the LAPD cleaned up their act, they have been told to do for years, their theories may have been met with your distain.

"LOL -- uh -- the guys hiding int he bushes, the coloumbian drug lords, etc."

In regards to Rodney King, in all fairness to that jury, they stood by their verdict and the comments that were said to be that they sat in the jury box, they saw and heard all the evidence and they gave the only verdict they could legally give. I truly didn't not follow the case after I saw the tape and heard the comments made by the defendants, I thought the cops were going to jail. When the verdict came out and the riots started, I don't remember the jurors being treated the same way as the Simpson trial jurors, on a national level. I don't remember any poster on this board calling those jurors dumb and looking for any excuse to aquit them. The Rodney King "Pay Back" was a media induced reason for the verdict. However, what I find interesting, is that the King jurors had video tapes, the Simpson jury had audio tapes of pure racism, yet the majority of white people still don't find this deeply, deeply distrubing. Like one white, call in viewer said on the Late, Late Show, "It is obvious to me that people with my skin color, white couldn't tell a lying, racist, self admitted evidence planting cop if he took the fifth in the alleged trial of the century!."

Kind of hard to find fault that caller, IMO.

You probably didn't hear any one on this board speak out against the King verdict since we weren't here then. If you're going to invoke the King verdict and aftermath into this discussion, I don't remember hearing any poster disavow the pack of animals that attacked Reginald Denny either.

There has been no proof/evidence that Fuhrman planted any evidence in the simpson or any other case. There is proof/evidence that he recorded tapes as part of a screenplay. A screenplay is make believe -- kinda like Disneyland.

[martin II]

You probably didn't hear any one on this board speak out against the King verdict since we weren't here then. If you're going to invoke the King verdict and aftermath into this discussion, I don't remember hearing any poster disavow the pack of animals that attacked Reginald Denny either.

There has been no proof/evidence that Fuhrman planted any evidence in the simpson or any other case. There is proof/evidence that he recorded tapes as part of a screenplay. A screenplay is make believe -- kinda like Disneyland.

The sock was eventually i think six weeks later examined under a special miscroscope that was always in the lab so there was no excuse for not using this equipment when the socks were first examined. The prosecution never proved how the blood got on the sock. With no reasonable explination they went back and claimed that Nicole MUST HAVE grabbed oj by the ankle even though they claimed he had on long pant legs that would have covered his ankle and the sock.Since Mazzola gave us good reason to believe the Rockingham samples were switched in the lab there is reason to believe other blood samples were switched and or planted.imo

[martin II]

You probably didn't hear any one on this board speak out against the King verdict since we weren't here then. If you're going to invoke the King verdict and aftermath into this discussion, I don't remember hearing any poster disavow the pack of animals that attacked Reginald Denny either.

There has been no proof/evidence that Fuhrman planted any evidence in the simpson or any other case. There is proof/evidence that he recorded tapes as part of a screenplay. A screenplay is make believe -- kinda like Disneyland.

furhmans words.
You believe it was make believe. I believe it was Furhman telling his experiences since it was the same type activitty he had been accused of by other citizens.imo

[martin II]

I'm still amazed it was only 4 hours after the length of the trial.

I would bet that had it been returned "guilty" the NGs would have complained that they didn't deliberate long enough to really come to that conclusion.

This jury was not required to go through 50,000 pages of testimony again to understand the testimony. They sat for 9 months listening to the testimony. They knew which testimony they believed and which they did not believe when it was given. Most juries take a vote when deliberatons starts to see where they stand.If there is no agrement then they ask questions and discuss jurors quesitons.The jury decides when they take votes.In this case all quesitons had been discussed and answered so that decided to take another vote. it was 12 for not guilty.You would not suggest that they should have continued to deliberate after a verdict was reached are you?

[martin II]

You probably didn't hear any one on this board speak out against the King verdict since we weren't here then. If you're going to invoke the King verdict and aftermath into this discussion, I don't remember hearing any poster disavow the pack of animals that attacked Reginald Denny either.

There has been no proof/evidence that Fuhrman planted any evidence in the simpson or any other case. There is proof/evidence that he recorded tapes as part of a screenplay. A screenplay is make believe -- kinda like Disneyland.

Martz found EDTA on the glove and gate sample but could not explain why other than to say 'a GHOST in the machine that caused it. Dr. Reiders proved Martz wrong.imo
The prosecution must not have believe him as they did not call him to prove otherwise. Therefore the jury would have good reason not to believe a GHOST was present either.imo

[weezer]

This jury was not required to go through 50,000 pages of testimony again to understand the testimony. They sat for 9 months listening to the testimony. They knew which testimony they believed and which they did not believe when it was given. Most juries take a vote when deliberatons starts to see where they stand.If there is no agrement then they ask questions and discuss jurors quesitons.The jury decides when they take votes.In this case all quesitons had been discussed and answered so that decided to take another vote. it was 12 for not guilty.You would not suggest that they should have continued to deliberate after a verdict was reached are you?

the jury had been instructed for months NOT to form an opinion. are you saying that the jury -- after 9 months of testimony -- formed an opinion in less than 4 hours?