Issues In The Criminal Trial

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Vanatter was the one who said that the crime scene at Bundy was a major factor regarding their need to enter the estate. Without a doubt, the crime scene at Bundy was horrific. It was a total blood bath that I sure grew even more horrific as the night turned into day. Is it really reasonable to believe that a tiny blood drop was the trigger for the detectives concern regarding any victims in the house. That is the problem with Vanatter, he tripped all over his words. At one time, he was asked what he thought was the motive behind the crime scene at Bundy, he responded that he didn't know what he had. Yet, later when he was asked if this could have been a crime of passion or a drug hit, he says it didn't look like that to him.

The reason the detectives gave for not doing a rape kit, they felt there was no need because they didn't think the crime committed was rape. However, as you know, while it is called a "rape kit", it has at least two more very valuable purposes.

And last but not least, don't forget the two witnesses who testifed that Simpson was the prime suspect. One being a wannabe gangster and another an FBI agent---I think.

Well one last thing, don't forget what Fuhrman wrote in his book and his warning to Nicole..............

[limakey]

Mr. August,

With all due respect, your response did not answer any of my questions.

I asked very simple and pointed questions. If you do know the answers, that is okay. However, I have a funny feeling you do!

[limakey]

Martin,

I do believe that the search at Rockingham was illegal. However, IMO, it was the best thing that happened to the defense. The evidence at Rockingham had the same major flaws as the evidence at Bundy. If all the evidence at Rockingham was thrown out, then the DA's may have had a chance to convince at least one juror that mistakes were made but they were honest mistakes.

I also think that the detectives' testimony regarding the search and Simpson not being a suspect really hurt the credibility of the DA's as well as the judge. I may never have gone to law school but if I didn't belileve the detectives, there is no way the DAs's did and there is no way a judge would either. Again, IMO!

[William Anthony]

You're the one William who has made the claim that because Simpson had dandruff periodically in his life it is somehow reasonable to assume that he had dandruff the night of murders and then you argue that your claim is a reasonable inference. Your claim is neither logical or reasonable. Simpson's attorneys may not have been required to prove Simpson was excluded from being the killer but if there was evidence that did exclude him they would been remiss in not presenting it. Unfortunately for Simpson there was no evidence that excluded him.

bobaugust

They did put the evidence on. Why do you think Ms. Moore was called to testify? Because you don't like it, understand it or agree with it, does not mean it was presented. What was not presented was any evidence to support the prosecution's claim that the hair in the hat that was allegedly consistent with Simpson had dandruff as did his reference sample. They attempted to put on evidence as to why it did not, which failed miserably as does your continued arguments on something you were originally false about and now try unsuccessfully to shift the burden.

[William Anthony]

and if one can't see the evidence through the color of the defendant, one is able to post unsubstatiated nonsense and pretend evidence until ones fingers cramp up.

So, it's Simpson's color that is causing you to post the false information.

[William Anthony]

weezer
i believe previously you had posted that your fellings on race had change after the civil rights movement. right?

I recall that statement also. Perhaps, she just wants to blame her racial views on anything to keep from admitting the prosecution failed.

[weezer]

So, it's Simpson's color that is causing you to post the false information.

I post based on fact -- you and your gang post on coulda's, woulda's, made up and make believe evidence. Simpson's color doesn't bother me. The fact that justice was denied because of Simpson's color bothers me.

[weezer]

I recall that statement also. Perhaps, she just wants to blame her racial views on anything to keep from admitting the prosecution failed.

a MAJORITY of people believe orenthal james simpson murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. a MINORITY of people believed cockroach and the scheme team's SODDI theory. an ignorant and racially biased jury nullified the jury system with their not guilty verdict.

[William Anthony]

limakey, you say "If they thought Mr. Simpson may have been a victim, or his housekeeper, or any one on the estate at 5:00 a.m., then why didn't they have the same concerns at 1 or 2:00 a.m.? What were they waiting for?"

When the detectives were at Bundy they had no reason to suspect Simpson was involved in the murders nor did they have any reason to be concerned that Simpson could be a victim let alone his housekeeper. Those concerns arose after they went to Rockingham to notify Simpson of the death of his ex wife. After no one responded to the gate bell or the telephone. After they were were informed that a live in housekeeper should have been in the house. After the detectives saw blood on the outside of Simpson's Bronco.

bobaugust

LE had two small children who were able to tell them who their father was and MF knew who Nicole was. Why not make a call to see if he could take his children or go there to inform him? Why didn't the make immediate notification or do you buy Bushey's hogwash?

[limakey]

Martin,

I have been thinking about Fred's presss conference and I really do believe it was a possibility that Clark made an arrangement with Fred to go the front steps and express his anger and rage. Believe it or not, I don't have a problem with a DA doing this. However, I wonder if Darden talked to him if he would have included one more person who is obviously "sick".

IMO, I think Darden would have been very understanding of Goldman's rage, however, I think he would have gently point out that regardless of what he thinks of the tapes and the motives behind them, Fuhrman committed perjury on an issue that the judge found to be relevant. Again, not saying that the judge was right to make his finding, but the fact is, he made the ruling and Fuhrman committed perjury. I really think that Darden may have suggested to Mr. Goldman that he should call MF out on this issue as well. Ensure he made very harsh comments about his lying on this issue and how his words may very well set son's killer free. I do not people would be shocked to find out that in the course of battle in regards to crime, perps and cops don't exactly have the best manners when dealing with one another.

I also believe Darden would have been the best person to tell them that race had nothing to do with the actual murders but the police's credibility has every thing to do with the investigation. I just wonder.

[William Anthony]

I post based on fact -- you and your gang post on coulda's, woulda's, made up and make believe evidence. Simpson's color doesn't bother me. The fact that justice was denied because of Simpson's color bothers me.

Did you forget the hair expert's testimony or Matheson's? That was the prosecution's entire case, coulda's, woulda's,shoulda's, as with the glove expert, Martz' and Peratis' testimony. Anyone who can't see that must be blinded by the color of the victims and Simpson's color, imho.

[William Anthony]

I have made my opinion clear that i consider Fred to be a money grabber and therefore the Gold-man comment if i did indeed say that.I really don't remember. Most people north or south know that calling a adult black man 'BOY' is demeaning insult which is why most that may have used it in the past had long stopped. That is most but you. I consider calling the mostly black women of the jury Ignorrant, uneducated and biased to be vile.I consider ignoring Furhmans admitted racial hatered of people not like him to be vile.imo

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

[William Anthony]

William and Mr. August,

Okay, lets have the reader digest version of the hair testimony, okay?

The hair found at the scene was only consistent with an African-American, correct? From my understanding of the testimony, from the hair samples from the hat, that it could not be proved if it came from an African American male or female, correct?

Am I correct that while the hair samples can't not exclude Mr. Simpson, they can not conclusively prove it was his hair?

I think you hit the dandruff free nail on its head. It can not even circumstantially prove it, because the sample hair had dandruff. The leap is too attenuated and I think bobaugust knew that when he claimed to make those three mistakes in his first hiatus return post.

[William Anthony]

a MAJORITY of people believe orenthal james simpson murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. a MINORITY of people believed cockroach and the scheme team's SODDI theory. an ignorant and racially biased jury nullified the jury system with their not guilty verdict.

I don't know what the majority believe, unless you are talking about those who post on this board. If so, I agree. That majority can't see the evidence as gray but only see black and white, imho. White being that evidence presented by the prosecution in favor of the victims and you know what the black stands for, as you say cockroach and ignorant, racially biased jury. Obama is seeking to make a change. Perhaps, your views on race will change again after he is elected President.

[martin II]

limakey, there were 10 hairs found in the knit cap, 2 hairs on the knit cap. and one hair found on Ron's shirt that all had the same microscopic characteristics as Simpson's hair samples.

bobaugust

The operative word is characteristics which is not proof. I think you will agree.

[martin II]

I don't know what the majority believe, unless you are talking about those who post on this board. If so, I agree. That majority can't see the evidence as gray but only see black and white, imho. White being that evidence presented by the prosecution in favor of the victims and you know what the black stands for, as you say cockroach and ignorant, racially biased jury. Obama is seeking to make a change. Perhaps, your views on race will change again after he is elected President.

The majority of people agreed with Bush that we should send our young to war for oil. Now on second thought they believe it was a horrible idea to give 4,300 of our young for nothing. So much for majority opinion.imo

[William Anthony]

Martin,

I have been thinking about Fred's presss conference and I really do believe it was a possibility that Clark made an arrangement with Fred to go the front steps and express his anger and rage. Believe it or not, I don't have a problem with a DA doing this. However, I wonder if Darden talked to him if he would have included one more person who is obviously "sick".

IMO, I think Darden would have been very understanding of Goldman's rage, however, I think he would have gently point out that regardless of what he thinks of the tapes and the motives behind them, Fuhrman committed perjury on an issue that the judge found to be relevant. Again, not saying that the judge was right to make his finding, but the fact is, he made the ruling and Fuhrman committed perjury. I really think that Darden may have suggested to Mr. Goldman that he should call MF out on this issue as well. Ensure he made very harsh comments about his lying on this issue and how his words may very well set son's killer free. I do not people would be shocked to find out that in the course of battle in regards to crime, perps and cops don't exactly have the best manners when dealing with one another.

I also believe Darden would have been the best person to tell them that race had nothing to do with the actual murders but the police's credibility has every thing to do with the investigation. I just wonder.

Bailey showed his brilliance when he got the tapes admitted. The prosecution was winning the motion to have them excluded until Bailey stated that they were admissible to impeach MF's credibility. That made the tapes relevant. I do not believe that race was related to the murders but I do believe that it was related to the trial. I agree with your sentence on the police's credibility and an investigation, but I think it is more appropriate in this case to say a rush to judgment.

[martin II]

Martin,

I have been thinking about Fred's presss conference and I really do believe it was a possibility that Clark made an arrangement with Fred to go the front steps and express his anger and rage. Believe it or not, I don't have a problem with a DA doing this. However, I wonder if Darden talked to him if he would have included one more person who is obviously "sick".

IMO, I think Darden would have been very understanding of Goldman's rage, however, I think he would have gently point out that regardless of what he thinks of the tapes and the motives behind them, Fuhrman committed perjury on an issue that the judge found to be relevant. Again, not saying that the judge was right to make his finding, but the fact is, he made the ruling and Fuhrman committed perjury. I really think that Darden may have suggested to Mr. Goldman that he should call MF out on this issue as well. Ensure he made very harsh comments about his lying on this issue and how his words may very well set son's killer free. I do not people would be shocked to find out that in the course of battle in regards to crime, perps and cops don't exactly have the best manners when dealing with one another.

I also believe Darden would have been the best person to tell them that race had nothing to do with the actual murders but the police's credibility has every thing to do with the investigation. I just wonder.

limakey
i can easily buy into the idea that Clarke and Darden instructed Fred to make the racist comments he made. What i believe was wrong about this caper was that it was fred that they used to defect the blame for the loss immediately to Cochran and the dream team and away from themselves to get maximum media blame. Having told fred that the case was some kind of slam dunk against oj. He was maby confused when the verdict came down.It was maby like he was waiting for a cuban cigar and instead he got one of those trick cigars that blew up in his face. However, he sat in on all the case, if he chose to ignore the sytomatic destruction of the prosecutions case in front of his eyes, that is on him.

If freds statement was not enough, Darden walked up to the mike and proceeded to put on his baby crying for milk act clearly for his own PR benefit as if someon had done something to him personally. Trying to make himself the victin. And many baught into it.

They used Fred to run from blame and he did not even understand what they did to him.imo

[martin II]

I post based on fact not true-- you and your gang post on coulda's, woulda's, made up and make believe evidence. Simpson's color doesn't bother me.i doubt that statement The fact that justice was denied because of Simpson's color bothers me.

Justice was served because the charges were fabricated and the educated and informed jury proved that.

[bobaugust]

They did put the evidence on. Why do you think Ms. Moore was called to testify? Because you don't like it, understand it or agree with it, does not mean it was presented. What was not presented was any evidence to support the prosecution's claim that the hair in the hat that was allegedly consistent with Simpson had dandruff as did his reference sample. They attempted to put on evidence as to why it did not, which failed miserably as does your continued arguments on something you were originally false about and now try unsuccessfully to shift the burden.

Just because the defense called Moore is not evidence that Simpson had dandruff at the time of the murders. The defense raised many issues that turned out to be dead ends for them. The prosecution did not have to present any evidence that Simpson's hair at the murder scene had dandruff since, as far as I know, no ever claimed that it did or that if should have. Just you. Besides the fact Deedrick testified that dandruff is not a characteristic that is used for exclusion because as he said, "it most often may be a temporary condition and also it may not be present on the surface of the hair for very long. If the hair is deposited on a clothing item, contacts or whatever may dislodge it. It is not something that is attached; it just happens to be there."

I'm not shifting the burden of the prosecutors I'm disputing a claim that you William have made and argue is a reasonable inference. A speculative claim and unreasonable inference, that as far I know, were never made by any of Simpson's attorneys in either trial.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Martin,

I do believe that the search at Rockingham was illegal. However, IMO, it was the best thing that happened to the defense. The evidence at Rockingham had the same major flaws as the evidence at Bundy. If all the evidence at Rockingham was thrown out, then the DA's may have had a chance to convince at least one juror that mistakes were made but they were honest mistakes.

I also think that the detectives' testimony regarding the search and Simpson not being a suspect really hurt the credibility of the DA's as well as the judge. I may never have gone to law school but if I didn't belileve the detectives, there is no way the DAs's did and there is no way a judge would either. Again, IMO!

When Vanhatter took a breath after saying oj was not a suspect,the jury knew that was a lie. So did i.

[martin II]

a MAJORITY of people believe orenthal james simpson murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. a MINORITY of people believed cockroach and the scheme team's SODDI theory. an ignorant and racially biased jury nullified the jury system with their not guilty verdict.

So much for your racial views.Now we know.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution did not have to present any evidence that Simpson's hair at the murder scene had dandruff since, as far as I know, no ever claimed that it did or that if should have. Just you.

A speculative claim and unreasonable inference, that as far I know, were never made by any of Simpson's attorneys in either trial.

bobaugust

Let me first address this part of your post as their seems to be an abundance of distortions in your posts. You have devoted a website to the criminal trial and trying to prove Simpson guilty and I reiterate this, because, if I had done that, I would know the case like the back of my glove (pun intended). Now, this from Scheck's closing on September 28.

"Okay. Now, also, it should be noted that it came out during the testimony of Miss Brockbank that the two gloves and the two hats, the knit hat and the plaid hat found in Mr. Simpson's Bronco and the Bronco carpet that was cut out of the car were all placed in the same box. I mean, the way they handled this stuff, and then they want to come in and say there's integrity of the hair and fiber evidence is ridiculous. Briefly on the hat, we had testimony about dandruff. You heard Mr. Simpson's barber say in the off season, in the summer, spring, he gets dandruff. Right after he's arrested, they removed known hair samples. His hair has dandruff. There's no dandruff in the hair in that hat. Now, if we look at the hair and fiber evidence as a whole, there are--and this is just weak association evidence. Nonetheless, there are powerful inferences consistent with innocence and these were put on slides that are in evidence. I would like to review them briefly with you. Both gloves, no hair consistent with Mr. Simpson on the Bundy glove, no hair consistent with Mr. Simpson on the Rockingham glove. That's the slide we put up. Do you know what we should have added to that slide? Very significant facts that I hope you don't forget. There was an unidentified Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove. Did they test Mark Fuhrman? Did we get a hair exemplar from him? Uh-uh. "

I will take your qualification, "as far as you know", as a sign of respect. However, to devote so much of your life and energy and do not know is, imho, a terrible waste of time. Have you considered doing other things? I will not call this portion of your post false because of that qualification. I will say mistake/human error. I am sure you will admit your mistake.

[William Anthony]

Just because the defense called Moore is not evidence that Simpson had dandruff at the time of the murders.

I'm not shifting the burden of the prosecutors I'm disputing a claim that you William have made and argue is a reasonable inference.

bobaugust

Now, let's take these statements under review. A witness is usually excluded if their testimony is cumulative of irrelevant or more prejudicial than probative. Come on, bobaugust be respectful, Ms. Moore. She was called because her testimony on dandruff was material and relevant to proving that Simpson was not the killer. She provided through her testimony and I reiterate circumstantial evidence as Scheck stated that Simpson's hair should have had dandruff. I reiterate that the defense did not have to prove that Simpson's hair had dandruff. The prosecution had to provide evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it his hair did not. Every time you make the statement that the defense did not show that he had dandruff you are shifting the burden. I know this should not be too hard for you to grasp. If Ms. Moore did not have evidence (testimony) from which a reasonable inference could be drawn on a relevant and material issue necessary to the jury's determination of the facts, she would not have been allowed to testify, i.e. her testimony would have been deemed inadmissible.

I don't think the remainder of your post needs to be addressed because the expert testified he did not when the hairs got on the hat.

[William Anthony]

A little more on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. September 28.

"Now, Mr. Sims had said that he would expect that when you did fingernail scrapings, you would find--excuse me for just a second--he would expect that there would be skin under the nails. Now, he's a fine man and a fine forensic scientist. I have no quarrel with him, but he was admittedly testifying in an area outside of his expertise when he told you--he was saying that was his common sense understanding. But Dr. Baden came in and testified about what one ordinarily finds as a Coroner with fingernail scrapings. Dr. Lakshmanan didn't dispute it. And that is that with fingernail scrapings, when you find it, you find blood under the nails, but you don't find skin because when it grabs, the blood comes up, but the skin doesn't come with it. That's what Dr. Baden says you find. That's what the textbooks say you find when you get fingernail scrapings. So you would get blood, but not tissue. So let's explore that myth right away. But now we have a problem for the Prosecution, that when they do the fingernail scrapings, they come up on the EAP system with a B. That is not O.J. Simpson's type. That is not Nicole Brown Simpson's type. That is not Mr. Goldman's type. It is some other person.

And that's what their typing result showed. And so then it doesn't fit. It can't be right. So we have to see if we can make an assessment that would somehow undercut that finding. Now, remember, when you have two conflicting reasonable interpretations of evidence in a circumstantial evidence case, you have to go with the one inference that's consistent with innocence. Now, let's look at what happened. Mr. Matheson said, "I think what could be here is that we had--" can we show this slide? "--a four-banded BA from Nicole Brown Simpson that degrades into a two-banded B." Now, you recall this testimony I'm sure and the cross-examination by Mr. Blasier and the testimony by Mr. Sims who's been doing serology a lot longer than Mr. Matheson, had a lot of experience in forensic serology. These are the facts. The facts are in the literature. This supposed degradation pattern that Greg Matheson suggests could occur does not exist. There is no literature. Dr. George Sensabaugh, all the experts in this field, that doesn't happen. Nobody has seen it. Mr. Sims, who did more conventional serology than Mr. Matheson, said he in his experience has never seen a four-banded BA degrade into a two-banded B. Never. Mr. Matheson says he thinks he recalls somewhere he saw it. That ain't good enough. That kind of maybe, maybe I saw it, that ain't good enough. Maybe doesn't cut it in a criminal case. We're taking proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is nonsense."

[William Anthony]

A little bit more on reasonable inferences and circumstantial evidence. September 28

"Also--and this is a fascinating point. Kato the dog, his hair was found on the Rockingham glove. And I'd like to read this testimony to you because I don't think it was an answer that Miss Clark particularly liked, and this was in the cross-examination of Mr. Deedrick. "Question: --" and they were talking about Kato's hair on page 34349 of the transcript: "Is the finding of such hairs, Kato's hairs on the Rockingham glove, accounted for by possible contact between the wearer of that glove, the murderer, and Kato the dog either during or immediately after the murders?

"Answer: Could have. It could have been a direct transfer from the dog or, as I stated before, an indirect transfer from hairs at the crime scene. "Question: That would say where? "Answer: On the ground maybe. Would have to have been on the ground. "Question: Have to have been on the ground? "Answer: Or perhaps from one of the victims who had been on the ground and collected the hairs. "Question: And that you previously described those as being common to the under part of the dog as opposed to the tougher, the coat?" Now, he's talking about the hair. This was a soft hair from Kato the dog found on the Rockingham glove. "Answer: Okay. It may be just a matter of semantics here. When I say the under part, under the fur, under the outer coat, which could have been on the belly, it could have been on the back, but it is just the soft, fine hairs that are closer to the body.

"Question: If that dog used this shaded place to sleep or lie down on a regular basis when it was in the Bundy residence, might you expect to find some fur hairs left behind in the soil? "Answer: I would expect that, yes. "Question: And if the Rockingham glove were deposited any time on that soil, the Rockingham glove being on the Bundy soil in the closed-in area were deposited any time on this soil, might that not explain the presence of those hairs?

"Answer: It could, yes." So very simply, he's saying that this is hair from the soft under belly of Kato the dog, the kind you would expect to be shed if he were lying on the ground there, not the kind that you get if the dog sort of passed you, all right, or comes up on you as you're--they're going to probably claim fleeing the crime scene or something. It's a soft hair. It's the kind you would find on the ground in the closed-in area.

What does that mean? That means that Rockingham glove started at Bundy. Somebody took it somewhere else, and you know who that was."

Let's not forget MF's slip but non slip of the tongue when he said "them" in response to a question specifically about seeing one glove at Bundy.

So far the defense is racing down an eight lane interstate highway running unimpeded through the prosecution's case.

[bobaugust]

Let me first address this part of your post as their seems to be an abundance of distortions in your posts. You have devoted a website to the criminal trial and trying to prove Simpson guilty and I reiterate this, because, if I had done that, I would know the case like the back of my glove (pun intended). Now, this from Scheck's closing on September 28.

"Okay. Now, also, it should be noted that it came out during the testimony of Miss Brockbank that the two gloves and the two hats, the knit hat and the plaid hat found in Mr. Simpson's Bronco and the Bronco carpet that was cut out of the car were all placed in the same box. I mean, the way they handled this stuff, and then they want to come in and say there's integrity of the hair and fiber evidence is ridiculous. Briefly on the hat, we had testimony about dandruff. You heard Mr. Simpson's barber say in the off season, in the summer, spring, he gets dandruff. Right after he's arrested, they removed known hair samples. His hair has dandruff. There's no dandruff in the hair in that hat. Now, if we look at the hair and fiber evidence as a whole, there are--and this is just weak association evidence. Nonetheless, there are powerful inferences consistent with innocence and these were put on slides that are in evidence. I would like to review them briefly with you. Both gloves, no hair consistent with Mr. Simpson on the Bundy glove, no hair consistent with Mr. Simpson on the Rockingham glove. That's the slide we put up. Do you know what we should have added to that slide? Very significant facts that I hope you don't forget. There was an unidentified Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove. Did they test Mark Fuhrman? Did we get a hair exemplar from him? Uh-uh. "

I will take your qualification, "as far as you know", as a sign of respect. However, to devote so much of your life and energy and do not know is, imho, a terrible waste of time. Have you considered doing other things? I will not call this portion of your post false because of that qualification. I will say mistake/human error. I am sure you will admit your mistake.

Scheck never claimed that Simpson had dandruff the night of the murders. Moore testified that sometimes in the summer Simpson would have dandruff and sometimes he would not. No hairs consistent with Simpson on the killer's gloves? What is incriminating is the evidence that was on the gloves not what wasn't on them. Simpson's blood, fibers from Simpson's Bronco carpet, and the same blue black cotton fibers that were on Ron's shirt and on Simpson's socks. The unidentified light brown Caucasian hair had some of the same microscopic characteristics as Ron Goldman's hair.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Now, let's take these statements under review. A witness is usually excluded if their testimony is cumulative of irrelevant or more prejudicial than probative. Come on, bobaugust be respectful, Ms. Moore. She was called because her testimony on dandruff was material and relevant to proving that Simpson was not the killer. She provided through her testimony and I reiterate circumstantial evidence as Scheck stated that Simpson's hair should have had dandruff. I reiterate that the defense did not have to prove that Simpson's hair had dandruff. The prosecution had to provide evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it his hair did not. Every time you make the statement that the defense did not show that he had dandruff you are shifting the burden. I know this should not be too hard for you to grasp. If Ms. Moore did not have evidence (testimony) from which a reasonable inference could be drawn on a relevant and material issue necessary to the jury's determination of the facts, she would not have been allowed to testify, i.e. her testimony would have been deemed inadmissible.

I don't think the remainder of your post needs to be addressed because the expert testified he did not when the hairs got on the hat.

Moore's testimony regarding Simpson's dandruff was a dead end for the defense just As Rosa Lopez's testimony was as to when she last saw Simpson's parked Bronco. Cochran was mistaken as to what these witnesses would establish. Moore never said Simpson had dandruff on May 23 and could not say he had dandruff on June 12. Lopez's testimony contradicted what Cochran told the jury in his opening statement she would testify to.

Post where Scheck said that Simpson's hair found at Bundy should have had dandruff. Include the date please.

bobaugust

[tv]

I do believe that the Nation of Islam and most reasonable people do not believe that Jesus was a blue-eyed, blond-haired White man, considering the location of his birth and Solomon's statement, "I am Comely, I am Black", and the description of God in the burning bush. The Bible also warns against making graven images unto God. While I do not agree with Farakan's remarks, I understand the historical context that may have prompted him to say them. While I do not agree with them, I am not ashamed of them, because I understand the significance of history in making his remarks and understand the possible anger and frustration he felt. I am not excusing them but just trying to allow others the chance to understand why he possibly made them.

I wasn't talking about the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit. I'm talking about Farrakhan calling white people the skunk of the earth and blue-eyed devils. I'm not a skunk or a devil but am among those that Farrakhan is reviling. I don't expect you to be ashamed of his remarks. Take your lame excuse of historical context and put it where the sun doesn't shine.

[tv]

A little bit more on reasonable inferences and circumstantial evidence. September 28

"Also--and this is a fascinating point. Kato the dog, his hair was found on the Rockingham glove. And I'd like to read this testimony to you because I don't think it was an answer that Miss Clark particularly liked, and this was in the cross-examination of Mr. Deedrick. "Question: --" and they were talking about Kato's hair on page 34349 of the transcript: "Is the finding of such hairs, Kato's hairs on the Rockingham glove, accounted for by possible contact between the wearer of that glove, the murderer, and Kato the dog either during or immediately after the murders?

"Answer: Could have. It could have been a direct transfer from the dog or, as I stated before, an indirect transfer from hairs at the crime scene. "Question: That would say where? "Answer: On the ground maybe. Would have to have been on the ground. "Question: Have to have been on the ground? "Answer: Or perhaps from one of the victims who had been on the ground and collected the hairs. "Question: And that you previously described those as being common to the under part of the dog as opposed to the tougher, the coat?" Now, he's talking about the hair. This was a soft hair from Kato the dog found on the Rockingham glove. "Answer: Okay. It may be just a matter of semantics here. When I say the under part, under the fur, under the outer coat, which could have been on the belly, it could have been on the back, but it is just the soft, fine hairs that are closer to the body.

"Question: If that dog used this shaded place to sleep or lie down on a regular basis when it was in the Bundy residence, might you expect to find some fur hairs left behind in the soil? "Answer: I would expect that, yes. "Question: And if the Rockingham glove were deposited any time on that soil, the Rockingham glove being on the Bundy soil in the closed-in area were deposited any time on this soil, might that not explain the presence of those hairs?

"Answer: It could, yes." So very simply, he's saying that this is hair from the soft under belly of Kato the dog, the kind you would expect to be shed if he were lying on the ground there, not the kind that you get if the dog sort of passed you, all right, or comes up on you as you're--they're going to probably claim fleeing the crime scene or something. It's a soft hair. It's the kind you would find on the ground in the closed-in area.

What does that mean? That means that Rockingham glove started at Bundy. Somebody took it somewhere else, and you know who that was."

Let's not forget MF's slip but non slip of the tongue when he said "them" in response to a question specifically about seeing one glove at Bundy.

So far the defense is racing down an eight lane interstate highway running unimpeded through the prosecution's case.

Of course we know who that was. It got started at Bundy and OJ Simpson took it to Rockingham. Duh.

[limakey]

Martin,

I have asked a few G posters to keep this case exactly the same as was but put Ron Goldman in the defendant's chair. (Haven't gotten any responses yet, but I haven't read all of the posts yet!)

Would your opinon of Mr. Goldman change if he gave a very emotional press conference saying the Judge was denying his son his right to fair trial because he did not play all of the tapes or introduce all of the racial basis of Mark Fuhrman? That he, MF is the sick one and that never should have been a cop and the LAPD has for years ignored the racial realities within their department?

Would your opinon of Mr. Goldman change if even after 10 years, even though his son was in prison, he was still passionately pleading his son's case, still looking for justice for his son?

That is why I do not feel that Mr. Goldman is motivated by money nor is he a racist. I feel that Mr. Goldman would be just as passionate and would seek every media opportunity he could to say his son was innocent. I think he would take every opportunity to point out the pattern of problems with the evidence. I think he would spend every single dime he had trying to find justice for his son. IMO.

[limakey]

Martin,

My basic question was do you think if Chris Darden was involved in the plan to give that press conference, he may have given Mr. Goldman different advice and/or perhaps explain to Mr. Goldman, bottom line, Fuhrman committed perjury which may very well set your son's killer free? That he may have advised him that he can say anything he wants, but he should make mention, several times, that Fuhrman never had to lie about this issue and his lie has cost his son justice?

I do believe both Darden and Clark played the "victim card" in regards to their performance in the trial. I might add, this card paid off hansomely for them. Again, before anybody jumps down on me for this, I have no problem with their book deals.

However, I do believe his tears at the press conference were real and that he, like other lawyers knew in this case, the not guilty verdict was going to "rip the scab off of the healing racial divide wound". All of the lawyers followed the case in the press and the media, and lets face it, some very ignorant and unbelieve stupid things were being said. While I do believe Mr. Darden does believe OJ is guilty, I do believe that some of his tears for for his country, which was being torn apart.

He did make an interesting comment in his book. His anger at the jury was their length of diberations. He felt their verdict would have been understood and accepted more had they deliberated longer. I think this is a very telling comment from Darden.

I still believe he can pout better then any two year old I know, but I do believe his emotion during that press conference was real and that he was tore up because his country was being torn apart, his community was being torn apart. Again, IMO.

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

What would you need to even consider police misconduct and evidence planting --- don't even have to use the Simpson trial. I am really curious to know.

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

When it comes to police misconduct and evidence planting in this case, I think many people who believe Simpson is guilty is basing their opinon that they believe had a police officer seen MF pick up the glove, they would have reported it.

I would truly like to say that in theory, if I was cop that night at Bundy and saw MF pick up the glove, that I would have reported it.

However, my reality of reporting what I saw could cost me my life, ruin my career and possibly put my family in danger. Would I risk being out in the streets and receiving no coverage because I turned in a fellow officer? Would I risk everything to turn in a fellow officer who I truly believe is guilty?

Would I risk everything over a defendant who may or not be guilty but has the wealth to hire a slew of defense lawyers, a slew of experts as well as a slew of private investigators? I have to be honest, I would not have said a word about what I saw or didn't see that night regarding any police misconduct, etc. I would not risk my life or career for MF, I would not risk my life for OJ Simpson.

I do not understand why people feel so many would have had to be involved in any police misconduct. I am sure that any officer who weighs planting evidence is also weighing the chances he will be seen or caught. I don't think anyone who plants evidence has to do it in front of a witness. IMO.

[limakey]

William,

IMO, the DA's felt they had to use the hat and would have rather left it alone except for the fact that it was described as a ski mask in Fuhrman's notes.

Marcia Clark knew that Simpson using wearing just a knit watch cap as some sort of disguise or used it to try to conceal his identity was just makes no sense. As she clearly stated in her closing arguements---although I don't think she realized it at the time.

I would agree that a ski mask is much more sinister and easier to believe that it was in fact to hide or conceal his face--a very famous face. However, just a knit cap? Makes no sense. I guess she has MF to thank for this little problem.

The DA's also had to know that hair evidence is not conclusive proof of anything nor can it exclude any one. I really think they would have rather left the knit cap out of their case, IMO.

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

Good! Now we are getting some where! I agree with you regarding non police personnel coming forward to report any police misconduct they saw that night or other things they have saw and heard that night that may have pointed away from Mr. Simpson.

However, it is a sad but proven fact that many private citizens will not come forward because they are afraid and therefore do not want to get involved. I am pretty sure that you can't force a private citizen to testify but even if you could, I don't think any lawyer would want to use a witness who may say just opposite on the stand. I am sure that witnesses come forward and tell the police what they know, but will come right out and say they will not testify and if they are forced to, they will lie on the stand.

I already covered why I believe a police officer may not report any police misconduct---at least through my eyes.

What assumptions did Simpson's lawyers make:

Were the socks examined at three times, twice by the state's experts and did they note that no blood was found? Did they later, for some unknown reason months later decide to check the socks one more time and find blood?

Those are not assumptions, those are facts.

Did a state hire employee say that in the course of his filming that he did not see the socks and that if he had, he would have filmed them? Again, that is not an assumption, that is a fact.

Did the nurse testify that he was positive in one hearing on how much blood he drew, with in a few drops then later come back and say that maybe he was wrong, that he did not draw as much as he said he did? These are facts.

Was the amount of blood that the defense alleged was taken from the samples of blood come very close to amount of blood that was found on objects much later in the case? Again, these are facts.

Did MF testify to the time that he had his picture taken, pointing at the glove and the person who took the photo testified to a different time? Again, these are facts.

IMO, DA's also base much of their case on their assumptions---they have to don't they? Isn't that what they base their case on to win a conviction.

One last thing about non-police witnesses. There are times that their past will hurt their credibility so the lawyers won't use them--which doesn't mean they are lying about what they saw or heard that night. However, for some bizarre reason, murder cases have a tendency to bring out total nut bags.

And there are witnesses who do not have a credibility issue but their recollections of events or what they saw do not jive with their case in chief.

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

Never watched Starskey and Hutch--but I guess I dated my self because I remember the series!

I thought I did answer your questions, in two posts. I do believe that it is possible that one or two officers may have seen police misconduct but would not report it because of the reprisals that they knew would come their way.

As for private citizens, again, they may also worry about possible reprisals or just don't want to get involved.

I believe that both sides had witnesses that had credibility issues and this is why they did not use these witnesses.

I also believe that both sides had witnesses that had information that would have helped float their case, however, this very same witness could have sunk case their case with the rest of their testimony.

You said that you could not accept a lawyers assumptions, which I assumed you meant the defense lawyer's assumptions to police misconduct and evidence planting.

I stated some facts regarding the evidence and asked didn't the DA's also make assumptions regarding the evidence? Didn't both sides do the exact same thing? Why did the defense assume the glove was planted and why did the DA's assume it wasn't?

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

I don't know how the courts work in your country but our judges are to ensure that a defendant gets a fair trial. However, many people fail realize, judges also extend the same to the DA's.

An example: If Mrs. Simpson was the one who killed Mr. Simpson and her legal team was going to use the battered woman's defense, a judge has to approve this defense or he can deny it.

Judge Ito felt that there was enough evidence to suggest police misconduct, that does not mean he personally felt that there was, but he did allow this defense.

In the civil trial, I believe the only arguement the defense could make regarding planting of evidence was the glove found at Rockingham. He thought the possibililty was so slight, however, he felt he had to let the defense use this. If I got this wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me!

In regards to the other evidence, the defense had to prove who did it, why they did it and when they did it. My response is still the same, who plants evidence in a crowd?

[William Anthony]

Scheck never claimed that Simpson had dandruff the night of the murders. Moore testified that sometimes in the summer Simpson would have dandruff and sometimes he would not. No hairs consistent with Simpson on the killer's gloves? What is incriminating is the evidence that was on the gloves not what wasn't on them. Simpson's blood, fibers from Simpson's Bronco carpet, and the same blue black cotton fibers that were on Ron's shirt and on Simpson's socks. The unidentified light brown Caucasian hair had some of the same microscopic characteristics as Ron Goldman's hair.

bobaugust

I see that you are still not willing to admit your mistakes and I realize that bad habits are hard to break. You said there was no evidence from which I could draw a reasonable inference that Simpson's hair had dandruff or that no attorney claimed he had it on the night of the murders. I see you really do not have a true understanding of argument and circumstantial evidence and you must have overlooked this part of my post to which you responded, although I do not understand how when I placed it in bold or at least some of it. So, here it comes again. "Now, if we look at the hair and fiber evidence as a whole, there are--and this is just weak association evidence. Nonetheless, there are powerful inferences consistent with innocence... Please, remember that this statement followed his argument on dandruff. If you are unwilling to admit your mistake, I understand why. R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

[William Anthony]

Moore's testimony regarding Simpson's dandruff was a dead end for the defense just As Rosa Lopez's testimony was as to when she last saw Simpson's parked Bronco. Cochran was mistaken as to what these witnesses would establish. Moore never said Simpson had dandruff on May 23 and could not say he had dandruff on June 12. Lopez's testimony contradicted what Cochran told the jury in his opening statement she would testify to.

Post where Scheck said that Simpson's hair found at Bundy should have had dandruff. Include the date please.

bobaugust

With all due respect, it seems that you do not understand anything about a trial. We are not talking about Ms. Rosa Lopez (respect, remember) at this point. We are talking about Ms. Moore. With all due respect, the only thing that was a dead end was the expert's testimony, stating he did not know or could testify as to when the hairs were on or in the hair. If I lived in California, I would have been upset at the way the prosecution wasted my money. You seem to neither understand circumstantial evidence or argument.
Perhaps, you can read up on those subjects and we can discuss those things intelligently, with all due respect.

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

The most famous case regarding police reprisals is Frank Serpico, a NYC detective that exposed police corruption. He got a bullet to the face. He did not get the back up he requested from his fellow officers.

Mayor Rudi G. of NYC also made a comment regarding this during the Abner Lomia case. He praised the police who did come forward and said that they did the right thing and would not get into any trouble for doing so.

Do you have the blue wall of silence in your country?

In this trial, Officer Riske was asked about this. He made a very telling comment, he said that if you "burn" a fellow police officer for police misconduct, then you get promoted. However, what made this comment stick out for me is he used the word 'burn'.

Also in this case, W.Andy Purdy. He over heard two lawyers talking about the defense claims about MF and outragous they were. He told them that the defense claims were not outragous about MF because he kept a log of what Fuhrman and his fellow officer pals has done and gotten away with. However, this police officer refused to testify against MF and burned his log because he didn't want to go up against MF and his pals. He was afraid to testify against MF.

Capt York committed perjury for MF. She was afraid of what would have happened to her and her husband had she not lied about MF. IMO, it is clear that she felt she had no control over MF and MF made it clear that she had no authority to do anything to him.

The City of LA paid out $100,000.00 lawsuit to a career petty criminal because he alleged that MF planted a knife by his side. That is a pretty handsome sum for a common criminal, IMO. All because they did not want this case to come into play during the Simpson case.

Also, if you read MF's book, he clearly writes about what a "real cop" is, and how true cops stick together.

[William Anthony]

Of course we know who that was. It got started at Bundy and OJ Simpson took it to Rockingham. Duh.

Let's draw reasonable inferences. I thought it would be bobaugust that would respond in this manner to this post. Remember the prosecution's witnesses testified they expected the killer to be bleeding at the time they believed the killer dropped the glove at Rockingham. There was no blood found near the glove and MF went alone to the place he allegedly found it. The reasonable inference is that MF, who said he saw them (two gloves at Bundy) and admitted to planting evidence, and had eight set of foot prints, IIRC, track through the location, covering any footprints of who was there, was the one that deposited that glove at Rockingham. Your Duh should be posted to those who cannot understand how to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and you know who they are. Do not forget that the dog hair would have fallen off by the expert's testimony. However, if the glove were carefully placed in plastic and taken out when one was alone, the dog hair would have remained, imho, Duh.

[William Anthony]

I wasn't talking about the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit. I'm talking about Farrakhan calling white people the skunk of the earth and blue-eyed devils. I'm not a skunk or a devil but am among those that Farrakhan is reviling. I don't expect you to be ashamed of his remarks. Take your lame excuse of historical context and put it where the sun doesn't shine.

There is a theory that the Caucasian race, who were descendants of the Black race, moved to a colder climate, where the sun did not shine. I think some of them may be familiar with that place. I have said that I do not agree with his remarks but, if you are unwilling to consider what caused him to say them, then you should not judge them. Since the Bible tells us to make no graven images unto the Lord and there were plenty made mistakenly portraying Jesus as a blond-haired blue-eyed Caucasian, when the evidence is that he would have not looked that way, it was at least a devilishly attempt to conceal the truth. I was duped for years. Perhaps, this is what he meant. Perhaps, because he is a minister he did not want to see religion distorted. I am not excusing his words and do not agree but offering a possible explanation. I am sure he can explain them more thoroughly, if you write him and explain your anger.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, the DA's felt they had to use the hat and would have rather left it alone except for the fact that it was described as a ski mask in Fuhrman's notes.

Marcia Clark knew that Simpson using wearing just a knit watch cap as some sort of disguise or used it to try to conceal his identity was just makes no sense. As she clearly stated in her closing arguements---although I don't think she realized it at the time.

I would agree that a ski mask is much more sinister and easier to believe that it was in fact to hide or conceal his face--a very famous face. However, just a knit cap? Makes no sense. I guess she has MF to thank for this little problem.

The DA's also had to know that hair evidence is not conclusive proof of anything nor can it exclude any one. I really think they would have rather left the knit cap out of their case, IMO.

I think that they really wished they had not put on that weak case and Darden wept uncontrollably out of embarrassment.

[William Anthony]

Proof. Not a lawyer standing in court and giving his assumptions about what happened. That's what he does because he wants to get his client off.

Video tape, mobile phone pictures, emails, mobile phone videos, 3/4/5/9/10independent witnesses police or non police who saw misconduct and are prepared to testify. Digital camera photos. Proof.

Evidence is introduced in a trial and the jury determines what the evidence proves. The prosecution's burden to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is higher than the defense's burden to produce evidence. Let's not get it twisted.

[William Anthony]

I wasn't talking about the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit. I'm talking about Farrakhan calling white people the skunk of the earth and blue-eyed devils. I'm not a skunk or a devil but am among those that Farrakhan is reviling. I don't expect you to be ashamed of his remarks. Take your lame excuse of historical context and put it where the sun doesn't shine.

I could have said take your I am a victim mentality and move on. Get over it. However, I did not offer an excuse but a possible explanation so that you would not feel victimized or, at least have some understanding of what caused him to say the things he said so that we can have healing on issues that seem to divide Black and White Americans.

[William Anthony]

Mr. Bell,

The most famous case regarding police reprisals is Frank Serpico, a NYC detective that exposed police corruption. He got a bullet to the face. He did not get the back up he requested from his fellow officers.

Mayor Rudi G. of NYC also made a comment regarding this during the Abner Lomia case. He praised the police who did come forward and said that they did the right thing and would not get into any trouble for doing so.

Do you have the blue wall of silence in your country?

In this trial, Officer Riske was asked about this. He made a very telling comment, he said that if you "burn" a fellow police officer for police misconduct, then you get promoted. However, what made this comment stick out for me is he used the word 'burn'.

Also in this case, W.Andy Purdy. He over heard two lawyers talking about the defense claims about MF and outragous they were. He told them that the defense claims were not outragous about MF because he kept a log of what Fuhrman and his fellow officer pals has done and gotten away with. However, this police officer refused to testify against MF and burned his log because he didn't want to go up against MF and his pals. He was afraid to testify against MF.

Capt York committed perjury for MF. She was afraid of what would have happened to her and her husband had she not lied about MF. IMO, it is clear that she felt she had no control over MF and MF made it clear that she had no authority to do anything to him.

The City of LA paid out $100,000.00 lawsuit to a career petty criminal because he alleged that MF planted a knife by his side. That is a pretty handsome sum for a common criminal, IMO. All because they did not want this case to come into play during the Simpson case.

Also, if you read MF's book, he clearly writes about what a "real cop" is, and how true cops stick together.

I would guess that it was much the same as his confessions on the tapes.

[William Anthony]

Proof. Not a lawyer standing in court and giving his assumptions about what happened. That's what he does because he wants to get his client off.

Video tape, mobile phone pictures, emails, mobile phone videos, 3/4/5/9/10independent witnesses police or non police who saw misconduct and are prepared to testify. Digital camera photos. Proof.

You are almost correct and I appreciate that. Not assumptions, if I might interject. The lawyer gives his view of what he thinks the evidence proves. Otherwise, a lawyer could stand up and say anything. Theoretically, his/her argument must be made on the evidence. That is the second part of the burden of proof.

[William Anthony]

There is a theory that the Caucasian race, who were descendants of the Black race, moved to a colder climate, where the sun did not shine. I think some of them may be familiar with that place. I have said that I do not agree with his remarks but, if you are unwilling to consider what caused him to say them, then you should not judge them. Since the Bible tells us to make no graven images unto the Lord and there were plenty made mistakenly portraying Jesus as a blond-haired blue-eyed Caucasian, when the evidence is that he would have not looked that way, it was at least a devilishly attempt to conceal the truth. I was duped for years. Perhaps, this is what he meant. Perhaps, because he is a minister he did not want to see religion distorted. I am not excusing his words and do not agree but offering a possible explanation. I am sure he can explain them more thoroughly, if you write him and explain your anger.

Correction-it was at least a devilish attempt...

[martin II]

Once again, I ask you where is your proof? That's a very heavy duty remark to make unless you have proof.

York has ben discussed many times and itos decision not to remove himself has been discussed. This is common community knowledge so no link is required imo.

There has been more than 2-3 request for links to your claims which you have ignored so don't ask posters to do something you refuse to do.imo
martin II

[martin II]

I wasn't talking about the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit. I'm talking about Farrakhan calling white people the skunk of the earth and blue-eyed devils. I'm not a skunk or a devil but am among those that Farrakhan is reviling. I don't expect you to be ashamed of his remarks. Take your lame excuse of historical context and put it where the sun doesn't shine.

tv
Did you actually mean to include your last sentance??

[martin II]

I could have said take your I am a victim mentality and move on. Get over it. However, I did not offer an excuse but a possible explanation so that you would not feel victimized or, at least have some understanding of what caused him to say the things he said so that we can have healing on issues that seem to divide Black and White Americans.

Since origionally adopting those remarks of Elija Mohammed, fARRAKHAn has since then rejected those comments. imo
Those remarks were only accepted by a small number of followers of the that movement and were basically used to recruit new members to The old version of the Nation.
They were never accepted by the larger black commuity then or now. imo

[William Anthony]

tv
Did you actually mean to include your last sentance??

Thank you, Martin.

However, I am not so insensitive as to not understand people's feelings when it comes to racially offensive statements. I think they should be addressed, recognized, discussed and, thereby, validated. I am not so insensitive as to tell them to take their I am a victim mentality, move on and forget about it. I can appreciate and understand the hurtful and anger sentiments such statements evoke. That is why I can say I am not ashamed of statements Blacks and Whites make, but try to understand what caused them to make those statements. I have heard explanations, such as the stress of his job, that caused MF to make the statements he made. A poster seems to think that another poster did not have the right to feel ashamed about those statements and asked whether Blacks felt ashamed of Farrakan's statements. I do no think the poster felt shamed, because of the statements that MF made. As I read her post, she felt ashamed that others tried to minimize those statements. I am not trying to minimize Farrakan's remarks, simply offering a possible explanation for them as possible explanations were offered for MF's.

I do not agree with either of those two people's statements. I can consider reasons that caused them to make them, which in no way takes away from the fact that they were hurtful and offensive and racist, imho. I think to recognize and openly and honestly discuss the causes of those statements goes a long way in promoting healing. I realize that everyone does not share my belief and are not receptive to the idea that it promotes healing. I think that to just sit and brood about the statements allows them to fester into a cesspool of hatred. I am thankful for everyday that God allows me to see the sunshine and hope that all posters will have a multitude of sunshiny days in the future. I realize that all do not share my respect for the benefits of sunshine but to those who like to idle in the sun getting tans or simply basking in its warmth I think they can appreciate my best wishes.

[William Anthony]

Since origionally adopting those remarks of Elija Mohammed, fARRAKHAn has since then rejected those comments. imo
Those remarks were only accepted by a small number of followers of the that movement and were basically used to recruit new members to The old version of the Nation.
They were never accepted by the larger black commuity then or now. imo

Thank you for that educational information as I have done just a little research on the Koran and less on the Nation of Islam. I have had the opportunity to talk with some Muslims and none of them spoke of race. They did say that one of their basic beliefs was that there is only one true God and whoever believes that is Muslim.

I am also aware of the difference in some theologies as to who Jesus is and I think that may have added to the minister's remarks. With that said, I know of no theology that would have explained MF's remarks but do consider that stress may have caused him to make them.

[martin II]

Martin,

My basic question was do you think if Chris Darden was involved in the plan to give that press conference, he may have given Mr. Goldman different advice and/or perhaps explain to Mr. Goldman, bottom line, Fuhrman committed perjury which may very well set your son's killer free? That he may have advised him that he can say anything he wants, but he should make mention, several times, that Fuhrman never had to lie about this issue and his lie has cost his son justice?

I do believe both Darden and Clark played the "victim card" in regards to their performance in the trial. I might add, this card paid off hansomely for them. Again, before anybody jumps down on me for this, I have no problem with their book deals.

However, I do believe his tears at the press conference were real and that he, like other lawyers knew in this case, the not guilty verdict was going to "rip the scab off of the healing racial divide wound". All of the lawyers followed the case in the press and the media, and lets face it, some very ignorant and unbelieve stupid things were being said. While I do believe Mr. Darden does believe OJ is guilty, I do believe that some of his tears for for his country, which was being torn apart.

He did make an interesting comment in his book. His anger at the jury was their length of diberations. He felt their verdict would have been understood and accepted more had they deliberated longer. I think this is a very telling comment from Darden.

I still believe he can pout better then any two year old I know, but I do believe his emotion during that press conference was real and that he was tore up because his country was being torn apart, his community was being torn apart. Again, IMO.


Limakey

Last year Darden on Oprah stated that 'As far as he was concerned Furhman was worse than oj" He basically claimed that he Darden did not know of furhmans history until he was on the stand.He did say "There were some rummors about furhman" He gave the impression that he and clark knew nothing about Furhman and were surprised. that was bs.

This Oprah comment leads me to believe he would have instructed Fred to make those comments about Furhman but it seems that fred directed all of his comments to Cochran and The Nation Of Islam. Maby fred was so out of control that he forgot Dardens instructions.
I am not sure Darden was thinking about the counrty but more about the scorn he would received from the media for the failure. I am sure that Darden
never felt too good after the failed glove demo. He had to take the fall for the whole train wreck.

Ps Darden on the oprah show also claimed that before the prosecution put Furhman on the stand Cochran told Darden "chris don't put that white boy(furhman) on the stand"

He also said after the trial he took a vacation as did Clark. That before he returned to work at the da office he was fired.
He said that Cochran had helped him set up his new law office and gave him many new clients that helped him establish his present business.

imo
martin II

[martin II]

Thank you for that educational information as I have done just a little research on the Koran and less on the Nation of Islam. I have had the opportunity to talk with some Muslims and none of them spoke of race. They did say that one of their basic beliefs was that there is only one true God and whoever believes that is Muslim.

I am also aware of the difference in some theologies as to who Jesus is and I think that may have added to the minister's remarks. With that said, I know of no theology that would have explained MF's remarks but do consider that stress may have caused him to make them.

Elijah Mohammad in Boston used these remarks as a method to 'FISH' for members on the lower rung of society.His first efforts were directed to people in jail and those that seemed to have little hope of repairing their lives. It worked for a while for some as some were also attracted to the strick way of living folloow Elijas Boston version of the kORAN. Farrakhan did repeat these remarks in his earlier years but several years ago he rejected his remarks and has since concentrated on other positives programs for the Nation including accepting white members.

I think Farrakhan through the advice of people like J Jackson and others realized he was wrong and that the larger Black community rejected these kind of comments about whites and jews.imo
martin II
of

[William Anthony]

Elijah Mohammad in Boston used these remarks as a method to 'FISH' for members on the lower rung of society.His first efforts were directed to people in jail and those that seemed to have little hope of repairing their lives. It worked for a while for some as some were also attracted to the strick way of living folloow Elijas Boston version of the kORAN. Farrakhan did repeat these remarks in his earlier years but several years ago he rejected his remarks and has since concentrated on other positives programs for the Nation including accepting white members.

I think Farrakhan through the advice of people like J Jackson and others realized he was wrong and that the larger Black community rejected these kind of comments about whites and jews.imo
martin II
of

Thank you again, Martin.

[SlowHandSam]

Elijah Mohammad in Boston used these remarks as a method to 'FISH' for members on the lower rung of society.His first efforts were directed to people in jail and those that seemed to have little hope of repairing their lives. It worked for a while for some as some were also attracted to the strick way of living folloow Elijas Boston version of the kORAN. Farrakhan did repeat these remarks in his earlier years but several years ago he rejected his remarks and has since concentrated on other positives programs for the Nation including accepting white members.

I think Farrakhan through the advice of people like J Jackson and others realized he was wrong and that the larger Black community rejected these kind of comments about whites and jews.imo
martin II
of

this is so off topic, can we please shelve the Islam talk and get back to OJ.

[William Anthony]

This on reasonable inferences and more specifically on the allocation of the burden of proof and the false claim that Uelmen understood what MF meant when he said them.

"I THINK HE AGAIN BECOMES VERY, VERY IMPORTANT IN THAT REGARD BECAUSE HE'S ONE OF THE FIRST ONES THERE. AND HIS TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, REFERRING TO THE GLOVES AT THE BUNDY SCENE AS "THEM". AND IT'S INTERESTING. MISS LEWIS AGAIN, BEING HONEST ABOUT IT, SAYS THERE'S AMBIGUITY THERE. THERE'S AMBIGUITY. HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVES. BUT HE SAYS "THE GLOVES" AND HE SAYS "THEM". NOW, SHE SAYS, WELL, GEE, PROFESSOR UELMEN DIDN'T GO INTO THAT. BUT, YOUR HONOR, HE WAS THE PROSECUTION WITNESS. IF THERE WAS AMBIGUITY, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO CLEAR IT UP? IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. NOT MR. -- NOT PROFESSOR UELMEN'S. SO IT WASN'T HIS OBLIGATION.

MF was trapped by his slip/non slip of the tongue and the prosecution could not bridle it in the context of the other evidence presented.

[William Anthony]

A question was asked on the board by a poster and explanations given. If that poster is satisfied with the explanations, respectfully, I think the poster should so inform the board.

[SlowHandSam]

In regard to Ms. Moore's testimony on the dandruff ...

She states she arrived, on her day off which also happened to be her birthday, at 6-6:30pm. She then later states she didn't cut his hair until 8:30-9pm.

She claims she had dinner with oj, Paula and his movie director and then watched (sort of) his movie.

Clearly she had become a "friend" to oj over the course of the 16 years.

I see inconsistencies in her testimony.

She claims she can tell if someone tints or dyes their hair, but on cross she's vague and elusive about whether or not Arnelle or Marguerite has dyed or tinted their hair. Additionally, she then states that she couldn't always tell.

She was pedaling fast at that point.

I question the 3+ hours she was at oj's home, on her birthday and day-off, to "cut his hair". I question the full extent of the relationship with oj and just what she would do for him in the event he was accused of something - in this case double murder.

I think my opinion is that she was a biased witness and would state whatever was needed or asked of her to state to support the "big defense".

[William Anthony]

I think that anyone develops a relationship with someone that cuts their hair over a 16 year period and the prosecution presented several friends and neighbors of Ms. Nicole to testify. I see nothing odd, evasive or strange about either party so doing. I do not find it evasive for a person to testify that they had no knowledge of whether or not someone dyed their hair, who was never their customer. What I did see were a ridiculous and irrelevant set of questions made out of desperation to try have the jury make too far an attenuated leap to say that the unidentified and inconsistent hairs found on the cap either belonged to Arnelle or the former Ms. Simpson or both or ANYONE OTHER BLACK PERSON, WHO DYED THEIR HAIR. It simply showed how weak the prosecution's case was!!!!

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

Again, if you read Fuhrman's book, he decribed how he and Marcia Clark were saving Capt. York's perjury as their "silver bullet". In fact, IMO, he brags about it. He describes what she had tried to do to him in terms of reprimanding his for a couple of infractions and made it clear to her that he had no respect for her because she was a woman and he didn't have to listen to a woman.

[limakey]

Martin,

I do believe that Clark and Darden did not know about the tapes. Which brings up another interesting issue in this case. We know that at least Ron Phillips did know about the tapes and he did order Fuhrman not to talk to that author (per Lange and Vanatter's book) again. We know that there had to be a reason why he ordered Fuhrman not to talk to LHM.

Bottom line, the LAPD refused to tell the DA's that if they put Fuhrman on, they will be putting on a witness who they knew was going to lie on the stand.

I also believe that had Darden heard rumours about the tapes, I really think he would have followed up on it, however, I can see Marcia Clark not wanting to know about the tapes. IMO.

[limakey]

Slow Hand,

I think your post about Ms. Moore brought up a lot of good points and you stated why you questioned some her testimony and what led you to believe that perhaps she was willing to shade her testimony toward the defense. I have no problem with that.

However, if you apply that line of thinking, on what a witness will do to protect a friend to the defense's witnesses, you have to apply the same way of thinking with the state's witnesses. Such as MF, Ron Phillips knew about those tapes, Ron Phillips knew that when MF said he never used the n-word, he was lying. Phillips never warned the DA's. He never told the DA's that MF committed perjury on a relevant issue in this case.

Defense witnesses are not the only witnesses who will "shade" the truth in order to protect their "friend", the case, the honor of the PD. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Slow Hand,

I think your post about Ms. Moore brought up a lot of good points and you stated why you questioned some her testimony and what led you to believe that perhaps she was willing to shade her testimony toward the defense. I have no problem with that.

However, if you apply that line of thinking, on what a witness will do to protect a friend to the defense's witnesses, you have to apply the same way of thinking with the state's witnesses. Such as MF, Ron Phillips knew about those tapes, Ron Phillips knew that when MF said he never used the n-word, he was lying. Phillips never warned the DA's. He never told the DA's that MF committed perjury on a relevant issue in this case.

Defense witnesses are not the only witnesses who will "shade" the truth in order to protect their "friend", the case, the honor of the PD. IMO.

I did not get the same shading of Ms. Moore's testimony. She could have easily have said that he had dandruff every time she cut his hair. She provided honesty testimony, imho. I think she was simply confused by the irrelevant questions on Arnelle and the former Ms. Simpson.

[martin II]

this is so off topic, can we please shelve the Islam talk and get back to OJ.

Did you believe tv was ot when she posted her comments on post# 4368??

[limakey]

William,

I do not believe that Ms. Moore shaded her testimony either. However, it is obvious that Slow did consider her testimony and posted why she had issues with it.


I also agree with you about the questions she was asked. Any lawyer can confuse any witness to get a response they are looking for---think of the nurse.

Another example, Brian Kelberg kept asking the defense's witness, Dr. H, if Simpson could have committed the crimes if the victims were in a stationary position to blunt his testimony regarding that Mr. Simpson was not, in his opinon fit enough to have committed the murders. What I didn't understand is why the judge allowed Kelberg to use the word stationary when he knew that at least Ron put up a hell of fight. IMO.

[martin II]

I did not get the same shading of Ms. Moore's testimony. She could have easily have said that he had dandruff every time she cut his hair. She provided honesty testimony, imho. I think she was simply confused by the irrelevant questions on Arnelle and the former Ms. Simpson.

William
i agree with ms moore's testimony. if she had wanted to HELP the defense she could have just said OJ ALWAYS HAD DANDRUFF when i cut his hair.Who could have proved otherwise.

[William Anthony]

William,

I do not believe that Ms. Moore shaded her testimony either. However, it is obvious that Slow did consider her testimony and posted why she had issues with it.


I also agree with you about the questions she was asked. Any lawyer can confuse any witness to get a response they are looking for---think of the nurse.

Another example, Brian Kelberg kept asking the defense's witness, Dr. H, if Simpson could have committed the crimes if the victims were in a stationary position to blunt his testimony regarding that Mr. Simpson was not, in his opinon fit enough to have committed the murders. What I didn't understand is why the judge allowed Kelberg to use the word stationary when he knew that at least Ron put up a hell of fight. IMO.

I have reread Ms. Moore's testimony and found no inconsistencies. Are you talking about the staged video, when the nurse said something to the effect did I get it right? I think there was a theory and testimony that Mr. Ronald Goldman was stationary at some point. I think everyone understood that Kellberg and Harmon were posturing for the camera, long on form and short on substance.

[William Anthony]

William
i agree with ms moore's testimony. if she had wanted to HELP the defense she could have just said OJ ALWAYS HAD DANDRUFF when i cut his hair.Who could have proved otherwise.

Exactly. No one.

[limakey]

William,

My point was that a person reviewing any testimony in this case has the same right as a juror. They may evaluate the testimony but also question witness bias--completely fair game, IMO.

However, my other point is that defense witnesses are not the only witnesses that may have bias. For some reason, at least in this case, every single witness for the defense was either biased, well paid or wanted their 15 minutes of fame.

Now the state's witnesses, they were only motivated by their honor, their sense of truth. In other words, defense witnesses wear a black hat, the DA's witnesses wore a white hat.

Yes I was talking about the nurse's tape. Goldberg made it clear that is goal with the nurse to make it clear to the jury he simply did not know how much blood he drew.

[William Anthony]

William,

My point was that a person reviewing any testimony in this case has the same right as a juror. They may evaluate the testimony but also question witness bias--completely fair game, IMO.

However, my other point is that defense witnesses are not the only witnesses that may have bias. For some reason, at least in this case, every single witness for the defense was either biased, well paid or wanted their 15 minutes of fame.

Now the state's witnesses, they were only motivated by their honor, their sense of truth. In other words, defense witnesses wear a black hat, the DA's witnesses wore a white hat.

Yes I was talking about the nurse's tape. Goldberg made it clear that is goal with the nurse to make it clear to the jury he simply did not know how much blood he drew.

I completely understood your point and the poster's opinion of Ms. Moore's testimony and the statements posed to the possibility of bias. There is no doubt in my mind that Ms. Moore was biased in Simpson's favor. However, I did not see anything in her testimony that would indicate her bias prevented her from testifying honestly, unlike I did with the nurse's. After rereading her testimony, I did not see the inconsistencies, not even one, that the poster said partially caused her to believe Ms. Moore was biased in her testimony.

I think that when a poster makes such a statement they should, out of respect, be able to point to some portion of the testimony to support their opinion as opposed to saying I think she was. Don't you? I think the hats (pun intended) were transposed. ;) :cool:

[limakey]

William,

I believe Slow was very honest on the assesment of the testimony. Slow posted what the issues were in this testimony----through Slow's eyes.

As of right now, Slow has not responded to the posts and perhaps Slow may or may not agree with the responses. I also feel that Slow has done something many others have refused to do, Slow explained her questions and issues with the testimony. I wish others would do the same. IMO.

Look at how hard you and Martin have tried to explain your reasons on why you distrust the DA's case. IMO.

[SlowHandSam]

I completely understood your point and the poster's opinion of Ms. Moore's testimony and the statements posed to the possibility of bias. There is no doubt in my mind that Ms. Moore was biased in Simpson's favor. However, I did not see anything in her testimony that would indicate her bias prevented her from testifying honestly, unlike I did with the nurse's. After rereading her testimony, I did not see the inconsistencies, not even one, that the poster said partially caused her to believe Ms. Moore was biased in her testimony.

I think that when a poster makes such a statement they should, out of respect, be able to point to some portion of the testimony to support their opinion as opposed to saying I think she was. Don't you? I think the hats (pun intended) were transposed. ;) :cool:

I don't owe you cut and pastes. I stated what I thought about her testimony and why I believed she was biased. I find it unusual that she went to his house, on her birthday and her day off to "cut his hair" yet was there some 2+ hours before she did so. Of course, she had to have dinner with him, his gf AND his movie director.

She stated she could tell if someone dyed or tinted their hair. But when pressed about whether or not hair had been dyed or tinted she claimed she could not always tell. That is an inconsistency in my mind.

You said you reread the testimony - you can either choose to read it without bias or with bias.

[William Anthony]

Limakey,

This is the most pointless series of questions I have ever heard.

"MS. CLARK: You have seen Marguerite Simpson on television; have you not?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: In connection with this case, correct?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you have seen her in your shop perhaps?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And when was the very first time you saw her in your shop?

MS. MOORE: Umm, probably about 1979 maybe.

MS. CLARK: And when you saw her in 1979, was her hair died or treated?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object. That's irrelevant and immaterial. She saw her in 1979.

THE COURT: Overruled based on the offer.

MS. MOORE: I don't remember.

MS. CLARK: Since that time though, you've seen her on other occasions; have you not?

MS. MOORE: I saw her about--I'm not sure. I'm not sure when it was, but it was maybe in the last few months or so. She came to the shop.

MS. CLARK: And when she came to the shop in the last few months, did you notice that her hair was dyed or treated?

MR. COCHRAN: I object. That assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: Can you tell us what your observation was of her hair?

MS. MOORE: You know, to be honest, I don't remember.

MS. CLARK: You don't remember?

MS. MOORE: No. I don't remember what her hair was like. I don't remember.

MS. CLARK: As a hairdresser, doesn't the way people's hair look, isn't that something that stands out to you?

MR. COCHRAN: I object, your Honor.

MS. MOORE: That's true.

MR. COCHRAN: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: And that's something that you take particular notice of because that's your job, that's your profession?

MS. MOORE: That's true.

MS. CLARK: And you do not recall what Miss Simpson's hair looked like when you saw it a few months ago?

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: You did not--you do not recall whether your observation of her hair revealed to you that it was dyed or treated when you saw her three months ago?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. You've already asked the question."

When I have held depositions, I have been accused of refusing to accept the answer until I get the one I want. From reading this, I have a new appreciation of what they were telling me but I don't believe I badgered on such an immaterial point.

[SlowHandSam]

William,

I believe Slow was very honest on the assesment of the testimony. Slow posted what the issues were in this testimony----through Slow's eyes.

As of right now, Slow has not responded to the posts and perhaps Slow may or may not agree with the responses. I also feel that Slow has done something many others have refused to do, Slow explained her questions and issues with the testimony. I wish others would do the same. IMO.

Look at how hard you and Martin have tried to explain your reasons on why you distrust the DA's case. IMO.

Limakey, the problem is that no matter what I post - some poster's will find some fault, attack or other. I choose to not respond with cutting and pasting testimony as I felt I articulated my concerns well.

This is the problem - instead of asking in a civil manner it becomes a bullying match and I refuse to do that. I'm just far too over it at this point.

And the last part of that is -- Martin and WA are asked often to post links but refuse to do so -- yet bully and attack others for not doing the same. I don't want to play in that spin cycle. I just want to discuss the case.

[bobaugust]

I see that you are still not willing to admit your mistakes and I realize that bad habits are hard to break. You said there was no evidence from which I could draw a reasonable inference that Simpson's hair had dandruff or that no attorney claimed he had it on the night of the murders. I see you really do not have a true understanding of argument and circumstantial evidence and you must have overlooked this part of my post to which you responded, although I do not understand how when I placed it in bold or at least some of it. So, here it comes again. "Now, if we look at the hair and fiber evidence as a whole, there are--and this is just weak association evidence. Nonetheless, there are powerful inferences consistent with innocence... Please, remember that this statement followed his argument on dandruff. If you are unwilling to admit your mistake, I understand why. R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Just because Simpson sometimes had dandruff in the summer is not evidence that he had dandruff on June 12. Just because Simpson had dandruff weeks after the murders when he was incarcerated is not evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. No attorney ever claimed Simpson had dandruff on June 12 or claimed that Simpson's hair found at the murder scene should have had dandruff. They were smart enough not to claim this because they knew there was no evidence to support that claim. Your claim William that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 is only unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

With all due respect, it seems that you do not understand anything about a trial. We are not talking about Ms. Rosa Lopez (respect, remember) at this point. We are talking about Ms. Moore. With all due respect, the only thing that was a dead end was the expert's testimony, stating he did not know or could testify as to when the hairs were on or in the hair. If I lived in California, I would have been upset at the way the prosecution wasted my money. You seem to neither understand circumstantial evidence or argument.
Perhaps, you can read up on those subjects and we can discuss those things intelligently, with all due respect.

Both Lopez and Moore were defense witnesses who testified to facts that contradicted what Cochran wanted the jury to believe. I know you understand William that what an attorney says is not evidence so the question is why are you unable to admit that your claim that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders is not a fact, it's unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[tv]

There is a theory that the Caucasian race, who were descendants of the Black race, moved to a colder climate, where the sun did not shine. I think some of them may be familiar with that place. I have said that I do not agree with his remarks but, if you are unwilling to consider what caused him to say them, then you should not judge them. Since the Bible tells us to make no graven images unto the Lord and there were plenty made mistakenly portraying Jesus as a blond-haired blue-eyed Caucasian, when the evidence is that he would have not looked that way, it was at least a devilishly attempt to conceal the truth. I was duped for years. Perhaps, this is what he meant. Perhaps, because he is a minister he did not want to see religion distorted. I am not excusing his words and do not agree but offering a possible explanation. I am sure he can explain them more thoroughly, if you write him and explain your anger.

The color of Jesus makes no difference to me. The area of the world he was born in tells us that he was probably not blue-eyed and blonde-haired. Who cares? A minister calling ANY race the skunk of the earth and blue-eyed devil is wrong. If he doesn't want the religion distorted then he needs to stop distorting it. I'm not angry at Farrakhan, William Anthony, because he's not worthy of it. I'm pointing out to you that you find an excuse for any remark made about white people. There's always a historical context or hundreds of years of oppression or police misconduct. It's never that the person making the comment is prejudiced against the white race or just plain wrong.

[William Anthony]

I see nothing wrong with a person choosing to celebrate their birthday with whomever they so choose and cannot say that, because they did, their testimony is biased. It might cause me to look at their testimony with close scrutiny. There has been a recent post that is not quite accurate, so I decided to post the actual testimony. Here it is.

"MS. CLARK: And in--as part of your expertise, you know what tinted or dyed hair looks like, correct?

MS. MOORE: Well, sometimes you can tell. Sometimes you can't.

MS. CLARK: Right. Okay. As a professional, do you think that you can tell better than say I could whether someone's hair is dyed or treated?

MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment. I object to the form of that question. Assumes that she would know what Miss Clark knows. Object to the form.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: I'm not a hairdresser. Do you think that you as a hairdresser have a better ability to determine whether someone treats or dyes their hair than someone who is not a hairdresser and not--does not have the experience of dying and treating hair on a regular basis?

MS. MOORE: Yes."

The testimony is that she could not always tell if someone tinted their hair just because she had more experience in recognizing tinted hair. There is no inconsistency in her testimony as she testified she could not always tell.

[William Anthony]

Just because Simpson sometimes had dandruff in the summer is not evidence that he had dandruff on June 12. Just because Simpson had dandruff weeks after the murders when he was incarcerated is not evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. No attorney ever claimed Simpson had dandruff on June 12 or claimed that Simpson's hair found at the murder scene should have had dandruff. They were smart enough not to claim this because they knew there was no evidence to support that claim. Your claim William that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 is only unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

I have posted it. I think the board knows the truth and knows your unwillingness to admit your wrongness. ;) :cool: :)

[tv]

tv
Did you actually mean to include your last sentance??Yes.

[tv]

this is so off topic, can we please shelve the Islam talk and get back to OJ.Agreed. I think I'm the one that took it off topic so it's finished for me.

[William Anthony]

Both Lopez and Moore were defense witnesses who testified to facts that contradicted what Cochran wanted the jury to believe. I know you understand William that what an attorney says is not evidence so the question is why are you unable to admit that your claim that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders is not a fact, it's unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

Talk about twisting. You must have been up all night spinning the wheels of your mind to come up with this one. I posted what the evidence was, which was contrary to your false claims. I posted what the attorney said about inferences, concerning the hair and fiber evidence. I will not admit to something I did not claim, i.e. "so the question is why are you unable to admit that your claim that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders is not a fact.", that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders. I claimed there was circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that he did have dandruff on the night of the murders. Unlike you, I do not post false claims as facts and then try to twist and squirm my way out of them. I admit I was wrong by saying I stand corrected. Respect.;) :cool:

[SlowHandSam]

Just because Simpson sometimes had dandruff in the summer is not evidence that he had dandruff on June 12. Just because Simpson had dandruff weeks after the murders when he was incarcerated is not evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. No attorney ever claimed Simpson had dandruff on June 12 or claimed that Simpson's hair found at the murder scene should have had dandruff. They were smart enough not to claim this because they knew there was no evidence to support that claim. Your claim William that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 is only unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

and considering, what Ms. Moore stated, that if he failed to apply the oil to his scalp it could result in dandruff ... I'm not surprised if he would have dandruff while incarcerated because wouldn't have access to his hair products ... or perhaps because he was so "grief stricken" :rolleyes: he failed to remember to apply his product.

[tv]

Mr. Bell,

Again, if you read Fuhrman's book, he decribed how he and Marcia Clark were saving Capt. York's perjury as their "silver bullet". In fact, IMO, he brags about it. He describes what she had tried to do to him in terms of reprimanding his for a couple of infractions and made it clear to her that he had no respect for her because she was a woman and he didn't have to listen to a woman.limakey, Mark Fuhrman does not say he had no respect for Capt. York because she was a woman. That is not an accurate characterization of what he said. My question is why did Capt. York lie about Mark Fuhrman?

[bobaugust]

This on reasonable inferences and more specifically on the allocation of the burden of proof and the false claim that Uelmen understood what MF meant when he said them.

"I THINK HE AGAIN BECOMES VERY, VERY IMPORTANT IN THAT REGARD BECAUSE HE'S ONE OF THE FIRST ONES THERE. AND HIS TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, REFERRING TO THE GLOVES AT THE BUNDY SCENE AS "THEM". AND IT'S INTERESTING. MISS LEWIS AGAIN, BEING HONEST ABOUT IT, SAYS THERE'S AMBIGUITY THERE. THERE'S AMBIGUITY. HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVES. BUT HE SAYS "THE GLOVES" AND HE SAYS "THEM". NOW, SHE SAYS, WELL, GEE, PROFESSOR UELMEN DIDN'T GO INTO THAT. BUT, YOUR HONOR, HE WAS THE PROSECUTION WITNESS. IF THERE WAS AMBIGUITY, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO CLEAR IT UP? IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. NOT MR. -- NOT PROFESSOR UELMEN'S. SO IT WASN'T HIS OBLIGATION.

MF was trapped by his slip/non slip of the tongue and the prosecution could not bridle it in the context of the other evidence presented.

Here we go again. More incorrect information. When Fuhrman testified in the preliminary hearing he never said, "the gloves" Fuhrman said. "the glove." When Fuhrman said the word "them" he was referring to the evidence he could see under the plant leaves at Ron's feet. The same evidence every police officer saw including the officers who were at Bundy and hour before before Fuhrman arrived there. A knit cap and a glove.

bobaugust.

[William Anthony]

The color of Jesus makes no difference to me. The area of the world he was born in tells us that he was probably not blue-eyed and blonde-haired. Who cares? A minister calling ANY race the skunk of the earth and blue-eyed devil is wrong. If he doesn't want the religion distorted then he needs to stop distorting it. I'm not angry at Farrakhan, William Anthony, because he's not worthy of it. I'm pointing out to you that you find an excuse for any remark made about white people. There's always a historical context or hundreds of years of oppression or police misconduct. It's never that the person making the comment is prejudiced against the white race or just plain wrong.

Such lack of concern for the savior of the world and the Son of God. You were the one that posted the comment, after another poster expressed her feelings of shame about how Whites reacted to MF's words; not me. You would not allow her to feel ashamed without mentioning Blacks. ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

Here we go again. More incorrect information. When Fuhrman testified in the preliminary hearing he never said, "the gloves" Fuhrman said. "the glove." When Fuhrman said the word "them" he was referring to the evidence he could see under the plant leaves at Ron's feet. The same evidence every police officer saw including the officers who were at Bundy and hour before before Fuhrman arrived there. A knit cap and a glove.

bobaugust.

I really thought you would recognize by the quotation marks that the magnificent one was stating what Ms. Lewis said. The obvious inference of that is that Ms. Lewis' tongue slipped, indicating she was aware that there were probably two gloves seen by MF at Bundy, imho.

[tv]

Such lack of concern for the savior of the world and the Son of God. You were the one that posted the comment, after another poster expressed her feelings of shame about how Whites reacted to MF's words; not me. You would not allow her to feel ashamed without mentioning Blacks. ;) :cool:How dare you tell me I have lack of concern for God?? You've really gone over the top this time. I will tolerate many things from you but this isn't one of them. I don't care how ashamed she felt. I was pointing out to the obtuse people on this forum that think racism is one-sided that there are racists in every race. If you care what color eyes and skin Jesus had that says a lot about you.

[William Anthony]

William,

I believe Slow was very honest on the assesment of the testimony. Slow posted what the issues were in this testimony----through Slow's eyes.

As of right now, Slow has not responded to the posts and perhaps Slow may or may not agree with the responses. I also feel that Slow has done something many others have refused to do, Slow explained her questions and issues with the testimony. I wish others would do the same. IMO.

Look at how hard you and Martin have tried to explain your reasons on why you distrust the DA's case. IMO.

I understand but she defended her feelings with specific claims and one was not accurate. Perhaps she will reevaluate her assessment. I don't think that, because someone spends time with Simpson, they will automatically slant their testimony in his favor. I mean Shipp proved that. I was simply asking for something a little more concrete. Contrary to popular claims, I have supported everything I claimed as fact with links and often things to support my opinion.

Thanks for the recognition. That was very respectful of you.

[tv]

Mr. Bell,

Again, if you read Fuhrman's book, he decribed how he and Marcia Clark were saving Capt. York's perjury as their "silver bullet". In fact, IMO, he brags about it. He describes what she had tried to do to him in terms of reprimanding his for a couple of infractions and made it clear to her that he had no respect for her because she was a woman and he didn't have to listen to a woman.limakey, it really doesn't help this discussion when you spin the truth. You don't have to like Mark Fuhrman and you are well within your right to think he's a racist but everyone owes it to this discussion to not mischaracterize statements. This is what he actually said:

"My problems with Margaret York might be dismissed as a disgruntled cop complaining about a strong female leader. But our problems were professional, not personal. I couldn't stand being led by someone who I thought was an inexperienced supervisor, no matter what gender. And I didn't hide it."

[William Anthony]

How dare you tell me I have lack of concern for God?? You've really gone over the top this time. I will tolerate many things from you but this isn't one of them. I don't care how ashamed she felt. I was pointing out to the obtuse people on this forum that think racism is one-sided that there are racists in every race. If you care what color eyes and skin Jesus had that says a lot about you.

Not quite true. I said such lack of concern for the savior of the world and the Son of God. Here is the relevant portion of your post.

"Originally Posted by tvdinner View Post

The color of Jesus makes no difference to me. The area of the world he was born in tells us that he was probably not blue-eyed and blonde-haired. Who cares?

I care that the Savior was misrepresented, because the bible tells me to be aware of false prophets. I am surprised that you asked that question. I am surprised that you do not care that people may have been duped into idol worship.

[tv]

Not quite true. I said such lack of concern for the savior of the world and the Son of God. Here is the relevant portion of your post.

"Originally Posted by tvdinner View Post



I care that the Savior was misrepresented, because the bible tells me to be aware of false prophets. I am surprised that you asked that question. I am surprised that you do not care that people may have been duped into idol worship.
I'm Catholic. The savior of the world and God are the same to me. This discussion is over.

[William Anthony]

The color of Jesus makes no difference to me. The area of the world he was born in tells us that he was probably not blue-eyed and blonde-haired. Who cares? A minister calling ANY race the skunk of the earth and blue-eyed devil is wrong. If he doesn't want the religion distorted then he needs to stop distorting it. I'm not angry at Farrakhan, William Anthony, because he's not worthy of it. I'm pointing out to you that you find an excuse for any remark made about white people. There's always a historical context or hundreds of years of oppression or police misconduct. It's never that the person making the comment is prejudiced against the white race or just plain wrong.

You must have overlooked my post where I said that Farrakan's and MF's remarks were racist.

[William Anthony]

I'm Catholic. The savior of the world and God are the same to me. This discussion is over.

I understand and perhaps, you should not have mentioned Farrakan.

[SlowHandSam]

I understand but she defended her feelings with specific claims and one was not accurate. Perhaps she will reevaluate her assessment. I don't think that, because someone spends time with Simpson, they will automatically slant their testimony in his favor. I mean Shipp proved that. I was simply asking for something a little more concrete. Contrary to popular claims, I have supported everything I claimed as fact with links and often things to support my opinion.

Thanks for the recognition. That was very respectful of you.

I was not inaccurate. And I do not need to reevaluate my assessment, thank you very much.

I think, considering she was his BARBER - that her claim she went over to cut his hair was not entirely accurate. Perhaps her plan was to cut his hair after visiting with him and having dinner with his gf and movie producer. Had she been forthcoming in her reasoning for being there, then perhaps I wouldn't have the opinion I have.

"OJ needed his hair cut and I said I'd come over ... he said since I was over and it was my birthday how about I plan to stay for dinner." <- a SCENARIO that would have been more truthful.

It was her day off. And her birthday. I just don't buy that she went to some client's house just to cut hair on these two particular days for the sake of her business. I believe they had a far more personal relationship and thus she was willing to slant her testimony to fit the need.

OJ apparently had a way with controlling and manipulating women to meet his whim. This, to me, is no different.

And for the record - no you have not.

[tv]

I understand and perhaps, you should not have mentioned Farrakan.I already said I took it off-topic and wouldn't discuss it anymore. Let it go. You don't always have to have the last word.

[William Anthony]

I have posted the testimony and it is not what you claimed it was and Yes, I have. I really did not think you would reevaluate anything, even though you saw it in black and white. So, with all due respect, since I have neither the desire or the inclination to indulge in conversations with posters, who post false information about the trial and about me, I will exercise my option to continue to give you a good leaving alone. :seeya: ;) :cool: :)

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .I would truly like to say that in theory, if I was cop that night at Bundy and saw MF pick up the glove, that I would have reported it.

. . . I have to be honest, I would not have said a word about what I saw or didn't see that night regarding any police misconduct, etc. . ."

I guess it's a matter of character -- either you have it or you don't.

[William Anthony]

I already said I took it off-topic and wouldn't discuss it anymore. Let it go. You don't always have to have the last word.

It might be the lawyer in me. :) Could you ask, as opposed to ordering, sometime?:)

[tv]

It might be the lawyer in me. :) Could you ask, as opposed to ordering, sometime?:)Experience has taught me that sublety doesn't work with you.

[SlowHandSam]

It might be the lawyer in me. :) Could you ask, as opposed to ordering, sometime?:)

so you finally finished school and passed the bar? Congratulations.

[William Anthony]

Experience has taught me that sublety doesn't work with you.

As trying to be polite does not work with you. You do not have the authority to order me to do anything to which I will comply unless I feel so inclined.

[tv]

As trying to be polite does not work with you. You do not have the authority to order me to do anything to which I will comply unless I feel so inclined.You're right. Now you've had the last word, feel better?

[William Anthony]

You're right. Now you've had the last word, feel better?

How can I when you continue to post. :)

[tv]

How can I when you continue to post. :)Good point.

[William Anthony]

Good point.

Thanks. :)

[bobaugust]

I have posted it. I think the board knows the truth and knows your unwillingness to admit your wrongness. ;) :cool: :)

You have never posted where any attorney claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 or claimed that Simpson's hair found at the murder scene should have had dandruff. And everyone on this board knows that.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Talk about twisting. You must have been up all night spinning the wheels of your mind to come up with this one. I posted what the evidence was, which was contrary to your false claims. I posted what the attorney said about inferences, concerning the hair and fiber evidence. I will not admit to something I did not claim, i.e. "so the question is why are you unable to admit that your claim that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders is not a fact.", that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders. I claimed there was circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that he did have dandruff on the night of the murders. Unlike you, I do not post false claims as facts and then try to twist and squirm my way out of them. I admit I was wrong by saying I stand corrected. Respect.;) :cool:

Post Number 3902 you said, "there was no dandruff in the hair that was identified as belonging to Simpson but there was testimony that Simpson hair had dandruff."

Post Number 3962 you said, "there is evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders."

There is no direct or circumstantial evidence that Simpson had dandruff the night of the murders, only speculation. An inference based on a witness saying "sometimes" is not a reasonable inference.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I really thought you would recognize by the quotation marks that the magnificent one was stating what Ms. Lewis said. The obvious inference of that is that Ms. Lewis' tongue slipped, indicating she was aware that there were probably two gloves seen by MF at Bundy, imho.

I don't see anywhere in this statement where Cochran attributes that quote to Lewis. I believe that Cochran was trying to quote what he thought Fuhrman said, not Lewis and Cochran got it wrong, either intentionally or mistakenly. If you think Lewis made the mistaken comment "the gloves" then post it please. The fact is that Fuhrman never said "the gloves" when answering Uelmen's question he said "the glove." All the evidence and testimony is that there was only one glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves at Bundy when the police arrived there. No matter how many times incorrect information is repeated or false interpretations and false claims are made it does not change that evidence.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You have never posted where any attorney claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 or claimed that Simpson's hair found at the murder scene should have had dandruff. And everyone on this board knows that.

bobaugust

:read:

[William Anthony]

I don't see anywhere in this statement where Cochran attributes that quote to Lewis. I believe that Cochran was trying to quote what he thought Fuhrman said, not Lewis and Cochran got it wrong, either intentionally or mistakenly. If you think Lewis made the mistaken comment "the gloves" then post it please. The fact is that Fuhrman never said "the gloves" when answering Uelmen's question he said "the glove." All the evidence and testimony is that there was only one glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves at Bundy when the police arrived there. No matter how many times incorrect information is repeated or false interpretations and false claims are made it does not change that evidence.

bobaugust

:read:

[weezer]

:read:

oh good -- glad to see you're going to finally read up on the case. maybe now we can have some real debate.

[William Anthony]

Post Number 3902 you said, "there was no dandruff in the hair that was identified as belonging to Simpson but there was testimony that Simpson hair had dandruff."

Post Number 3962 you said, "there is evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders."

There is no direct or circumstantial evidence that Simpson had dandruff the night of the murders, only speculation. An inference based on a witness saying "sometimes" is not a reasonable inference.

bobaugust

"there was no dandruff in the hair that was identified as belonging to Simpson but there was testimony that Simpson hair had dandruff."-true.


Post Number 3962 you said, "there is evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders."-true

There is no direct or circumstantial evidence that Simpson had dandruff the night of the murders, only speculation. An inference based on a witness saying "sometimes" is not a reasonable inference.-not true as it relates to Ms. Moore's testimony for the following reasons and true as it relates to the expert's maybes, shoulda's woulda's coulda's and assumptions.

Ms. Moore unequivocally testified that Simpson's hair would have more dandruff during the months of May and June. Scheck stated the inference, which was not objected to, and, least I forget, the only evidence that requires an inference is circumstantial evidence. Ms. Moore based her testimony on 16 years of observations of his hair. The prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving that his hair did not have dandruff as it normally did. With that said, I know the board is tired of your refusal to admit when you are wrong, even if they don't say it. In case they are unwilling, I grow tired and look to have an intelligent and honest discussion on another issue or with a poster desirous of honest and intelligent discussion of the same issue. With that said, I respectfully decline to respond to any more posts of yours on this subject. 'Respect, find out what it means to me."

[William Anthony]

oh good -- glad to see you're going to finally read up on the case. maybe now we can have some real debate.

Yes, bobaugust should read his own website. On second thought read someone else's. I don't think you are ready to debate anything until you show those pigeon-toed footprints you ramble on about, smile.

[William Anthony]

I don't see anywhere in this statement where Cochran attributes that quote to Lewis. I believe that Cochran was trying to quote what he thought Fuhrman said, not Lewis and Cochran got it wrong,

bobaugust

MISS LEWIS AGAIN, BEING HONEST ABOUT IT, SAYS THERE'S AMBIGUITY THERE. THERE'S AMBIGUITY. HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVES. BUT HE SAYS "THE GLOVES" AND HE SAYS "THEM". I don't know when or where she said it, whether or not it was in chambers or in court. However, the magnificent one attributed the statement to her and then she went on to try to explain the ambiguity. Whether or not she meant to say it or not. I see where it can be ambiguous but as it stands he is saying what Ms. Lewis said. This was doing a hearing on the admissibility of him saying the word them, so I am sure the magnificent one was aware of what MF said. I think Ms. Lewis misspoke and the magnificent one took advantage of it.

seeya:

[martin II]

Yes.

Could you take that kind of remark directed at you??

[tv]

Could you take that kind of remark directed at you??I already have. But some people would say they were talking about shade. I won't make that claim.

[martin II]

*Snipped*

I guess it's a matter of character -- either you have it or you don't.

Furhman must have left his at home when ever he was at work or near a tape machine.But for sure when he was on the stand.imo:cool:

[martin II]

I already have. But some people would say they were talking about shade. I won't make that claim.

TV

I bet you did not get that from the stations of the cross.:cool:

[martin II]

Yes, bobaugust should read his own website. On second thought read someone else's. I don't think you are ready to debate anything until you show those pigeon-toed footprints you ramble on about, smile.

I am not sure weezer can produce that.She has many request but she plays dodge ball on the issue and then ask others for links hahahahaimo

[martin II]

Yes, bobaugust should read his own website. On second thought read someone else's. I don't think you are ready to debate anything until you show those pigeon-toed footprints you ramble on about, smile.

PLEASE.
Your second suggestion is better.hahahaha

[martin II]

limakey, it really doesn't help this discussion when you spin the truth. You don't have to like Mark Fuhrman and you are well within your right to think he's a racist but everyone owes it to this discussion to not mischaracterize statements. This is what he actually said:

"My problems with Margaret York might be dismissed as a disgruntled cop complaining about a strong female leader. But our problems were professional, not personal. I couldn't stand being led by someone who I thought was an inexperienced supervisor, no matter what gender. And I didn't hide it."

tv
but furhman was a member of MAW. He didn't like any women in lapd.That was suppose to be the topic of the tapes until he started talking about his actions against blacks and mixed couples.imo

[bobaugust]

"there was no dandruff in the hair that was identified as belonging to Simpson but there was testimony that Simpson hair had dandruff."-true.


Post Number 3962 you said, "there is evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders."-true

There is no direct or circumstantial evidence that Simpson had dandruff the night of the murders, only speculation. An inference based on a witness saying "sometimes" is not a reasonable inference.-not true as it relates to Ms. Moore's testimony for the following reasons and true as it relates to the expert's maybes, shoulda's woulda's coulda's and assumptions.

Ms. Moore unequivocally testified that Simpson's hair would have more dandruff during the months of May and June. Scheck stated the inference, which was not objected to, and, least I forget, the only evidence that requires an inference is circumstantial evidence. Ms. Moore based her testimony on 16 years of observations of his hair. The prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving that his hair did not have dandruff as it normally did. With that said, I know the board is tired of your refusal to admit when you are wrong, even if they don't say it. In case they are unwilling, I grow tired and look to have an intelligent and honest discussion on another issue or with a poster desirous of honest and intelligent discussion of the same issue. With that said, I respectfully decline to respond to any more posts of yours on this subject. 'Respect, find out what it means to me."

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue

Dandruff is a temporary condition that comes and goes and is easily treated. Moore testified that sometimes Simpson would have dandruff in the summer and sometimes he would not and when he did have dandruff he would treat it. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on May 23 and no evidence that he dandruff on June 12. Moore 's testimony is irrelevant to Simpson's hair condition on June 12. That's why no attorney in this case ever claimed Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders or that Simpson's hair found at Bundy should have had dandruff.

Scheck simply repeated some unrelated facts in his closing statement. A clever deceiving tactic. Scheck did not and could not ever say that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders or that Simpson's hair found at the murder scene should have had dandruff. because he was smart enough to know that there was no evidence to support those claims. He simply left it to the imagination. And that's what you did, you imagined it.

This isn't about the prosecution's burden it's about your claim, William You crossed the line that none of Simpson's attorneys would cross by making a false claim and trying to defend it as a reasonable inference. Your claim is unsupported and your inference based on speculation not fact is not reasonable at all.

bobaugust

[tv]

TV

I bet you did not get that from the stations of the cross.:cool:Martin, don't attempt to preach at me. What I do or do not get at Stations of the Cross is my personal business.

[bobaugust]

MISS LEWIS AGAIN, BEING HONEST ABOUT IT, SAYS THERE'S AMBIGUITY THERE. THERE'S AMBIGUITY. HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVES. BUT HE SAYS "THE GLOVES" AND HE SAYS "THEM". I don't know when or where she said it, whether or not it was in chambers or in court. However, the magnificent one attributed the statement to her and then she went on to try to explain the ambiguity. Whether or not she meant to say it or not. I see where it can be ambiguous but as it stands he is saying what Ms. Lewis said. This was doing a hearing on the admissibility of him saying the word them, so I am sure the magnificent one was aware of what MF said. I think Ms. Lewis misspoke and the magnificent one took advantage of it.

seeya:

Repeating it does not clear it up but I'm happy to see that you realize whoever said it was mistaken since Fuhrman never said, "the gloves."

Please post the date of Cochran's comments so I can try and track this down.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue

Dandruff is a temporary condition that comes and goes and is easily treated. Moore testified that sometimes Simpson would have dandruff in the summer and sometimes he would not and when he did have dandruff he would treat it. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on May 23 and no evidence that he dandruff on June 12. Moore 's testimony is irrelevant to Simpson's hair condition on June 12. That's why no attorney in this case ever claimed Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders or that Simpson's hair found at Bundy should have had dandruff.

Scheck simply repeated some unrelated facts in his closing statement. A clever deceiving tactic. Scheck did not and could not ever say that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders or that Simpson's hair found at the murder scene should have had dandruff. because he was smart enough to know that there was no evidence to support those claims. He simply left it to the imagination. And that's what you did, you imagined it.

This isn't about the prosecution's burden it's about your claim, William You crossed the line that none of Simpson's attorneys would cross by making a false claim and trying to defend it as a reasonable inference. Your claim is unsupported and your inference based on speculation not fact is not reasonable at all.

bobaugust

You really should put quotes around the definition of circumstantial evidence before someone believes those are your words. The remainder of you mind-bogglingly insufficient understanding of legal concepts contained in the post assures me that they are not your words. In fairness, you are almost correct on one point. Scheck told the jury there was strong inferences, which I posted and you obviously chose to ignore. He also told the jury that the dandruff evidence was a weak association, nevertheless it was not unreasonable for them to infer that there was dandruff in Simpson's hair based on the evidence. I have suggested that you :read: but obviously you did not take heed to my suggestion. A reasonable inference does not have to be made from strong associations, just a logical common-sense association. It would have been improper for him to tell them what inference to draw (this is the one point you are almost correct on when you said he did not make that claim). What he did is remind them of the evidence and the association (clever word). A trial is all about the burden of the person bringing the charges, in this case the prosecution. I had decided not to respond to your posts on this subject any longer. However, I could not, out of respect for this community, allow your unbridled tongue to spread inaccuracies about a field of study, which I believe is of paramount importance to America. I hope that you :read: :read: more, because I think then we can have an honest and knowledgeable discussion about a trial. Even if you do not respect me, respect yourself and the law. Thanks. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Repeating it does not clear it up but I'm happy to see that you realize whoever said it was mistaken since Fuhrman never said, "the gloves."

Please post the date of Cochran's comments so I can try and track this down.

bobaugust

You made the claim that the magnificent one (paraphrasing) misrepresented the truth. I simply showed you that he was saying what Ms. Lewis said. I have honestly forgotten the date but, since you asked respectfully, I will try to remember and post it. Respect, find out what it means to me. January 13th and here is a part that might help you.

CAN WE DEMONSTRATE FOR THIS COURT AND FOR THIS JURY THAT EVIDENCE, CERTAINLY OTHER THAN THE GLOVE, HAD BEEN MOVED, THE SCENE HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH, THAT PEOPLE HAVE WALKED THROUGH BLOOD MAKING FOOTPRINTS? CAN WE SHOW THOSE THINGS? I THINK WE CAN SHOW THOSE THINGS. I THINK HE AGAIN BECOMES VERY, VERY IMPORTANT IN THAT REGARD BECAUSE HE'S ONE OF THE FIRST ONES THERE. AND HIS TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, REFERRING TO THE GLOVES AT THE BUNDY SCENE AS "THEM". AND IT'S INTERESTING. MISS LEWIS AGAIN, BEING HONEST ABOUT IT, SAYS THERE'S AMBIGUITY THERE. THERE'S AMBIGUITY. HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVES. BUT HE SAYS "THE GLOVES" AND HE SAYS "THEM". NOW, SHE SAYS, WELL, GEE, PROFESSOR UELMEN DIDN'T GO INTO THAT. BUT, YOUR HONOR, HE WAS THE PROSECUTION WITNESS. IF THERE WAS AMBIGUITY, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO CLEAR IT UP? IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. NOT MR. -- NOT PROFESSOR UELMEN'S. SO IT WASN'T HIS OBLIGATION.

I think that shows he was talking about her statements in connection to MF's. She obviously made the statement prior to that date.

[martin II]

Martin, don't attempt to preach at me. What I do or do not get at Stations of the Cross is my personal business.

your comment about stuffing something breaks the rules.

[William Anthony]

your comment about stuffing something breaks the rules.

Better the rules than where the sun does not shine. Why can't we all just get along?:) No harm, no foul. Seriously, I think that we all get more passionate over certain things. I understand how you feel, Martin, and I appreciate it. I think I understand how tvdinner felt. You are right Martin and we all need to control how we respond to each other. There have been two posters that said they do not respect me. That to me breaks all the rules of human decency when the only thing they know about me is my posts on these boards. That is what I am passionate about and I offer no apology. I did not intend for this to be this long but I guess I am asking the board to understand, if I seem a little short with some posters, after asking if we can get along. :)

[William Anthony]

Alright, I have had my fun with one of the posters who posted they had no respect for me and I guess the other one gets a free pass, since I am interested in raising the level of posting. I think that if we do try to raise the level other members will post and some that have stopped will return. I want to hear the opinions and discussions of all who want to add to the discussions.

[bobaugust]

You really should put quotes around the definition of circumstantial evidence before someone believes those are your words. The remainder of you mind-bogglingly insufficient understanding of legal concepts contained in the post assures me that they are not your words. In fairness, you are almost correct on one point. Scheck told the jury there was strong inferences, which I posted and you obviously chose to ignore. He also told the jury that the dandruff evidence was a weak association, nevertheless it was not unreasonable for them to infer that there was dandruff in Simpson's hair based on the evidence. I have suggested that you :read: but obviously you did not take heed to my suggestion. A reasonable inference does not have to be made from strong associations, just a logical common-sense association. It would have been improper for him to tell them what inference to draw (this is the one point you are almost correct on when you said he did not make that claim). What he did is remind them of the evidence and the association (clever word). A trial is all about the burden of the person bringing the charges, in this case the prosecution. I had decided not to respond to your posts on this subject any longer. However, I could not, out of respect for this community, allow your unbridled tongue to spread inaccuracies about a field of study, which I believe is of paramount importance to America. I hope that you :read: :read: more, because I think then we can have an honest and knowledgeable discussion about a trial. Even if you do not respect me, respect yourself and the law. Thanks. :seeya:

If the defense had claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 it would have been their burden to provide evidence to support their claim. They did not make that claim because there was no evidence to support it.

Moore did not testify that Simpson had dandruff on May 23 nor could she say Simpson had dandruff on June 12. Moore said sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't and when he did he would use over the counter dandruff shampoo to treat it. To argue that it is reasonable to use Moore's testimony to assume that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 is not only not using any common sense it's not reasonable at all. Using pure speculation as evidence is something Simpson's attorneys wouldn't even stoop to. The dandruff evidence is not just weak it's nonexistent.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You made the claim that the magnificent one (paraphrasing) misrepresented the truth. I simply showed you that he was saying what Ms. Lewis said. I have honestly forgotten the date but, since you asked respectfully, I will try to remember and post it. Respect, find out what it means to me. January 13th and here is a part that might help you.

CAN WE DEMONSTRATE FOR THIS COURT AND FOR THIS JURY THAT EVIDENCE, CERTAINLY OTHER THAN THE GLOVE, HAD BEEN MOVED, THE SCENE HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH, THAT PEOPLE HAVE WALKED THROUGH BLOOD MAKING FOOTPRINTS? CAN WE SHOW THOSE THINGS? I THINK WE CAN SHOW THOSE THINGS. I THINK HE AGAIN BECOMES VERY, VERY IMPORTANT IN THAT REGARD BECAUSE HE'S ONE OF THE FIRST ONES THERE. AND HIS TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, REFERRING TO THE GLOVES AT THE BUNDY SCENE AS "THEM". AND IT'S INTERESTING. MISS LEWIS AGAIN, BEING HONEST ABOUT IT, SAYS THERE'S AMBIGUITY THERE. THERE'S AMBIGUITY. HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVES. BUT HE SAYS "THE GLOVES" AND HE SAYS "THEM". NOW, SHE SAYS, WELL, GEE, PROFESSOR UELMEN DIDN'T GO INTO THAT. BUT, YOUR HONOR, HE WAS THE PROSECUTION WITNESS. IF THERE WAS AMBIGUITY, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO CLEAR IT UP? IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. NOT MR. -- NOT PROFESSOR UELMEN'S. SO IT WASN'T HIS OBLIGATION.

I think that shows he was talking about her statements in connection to MF's. She obviously made the statement prior to that date.

Thanks for the date. If you make it a habit to post the date whenever you post excerpts from the transcripts you wouldn't have to go back and try and find it. Just a suggestion.

I disagree. I think Cochran was speaking about some of Lewis's comments but when Cochran said, "HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVES. BUT HE SAYS "THE GLOVES" AND HE SAYS "THEM". I believe those are Cochran's words not what Lewis said. We will see if either of us can find out for sure.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

If the defense had claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 it would have been their burden to provide evidence to support their claim. They did not make that claim because there was no evidence to support it.

Moore did not testify that Simpson had dandruff on May 23 nor could she say Simpson had dandruff on June 12. Moore said sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't and when he did he would use over the counter dandruff shampoo to treat it. To argue that it is reasonable to use Moore's testimony to assume that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 is not only not using any common sense it's not reasonable at all. Using pure speculation as evidence is something Simpson's attorneys wouldn't even stoop to. The dandruff evidence is not just weak it's nonexistent.

bobaugust

I have said that I want to see the level of posting raised in this community. Although I was curt in some of my responses to you, they were true. Again the defense does not have to offer proof on anything other than an affirmative defense. They only have to offer evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that rebuts the prosecution's evidence. That was the purpose of calling Ms. Moore to allow the reasonable inference, albeit weak as Scheck said that the hairs found in the hat may not have been Simpson's or that, if they were they were in the hat in the months between September and January, when he had little or no dandruff. The onus was on the prosecution, especially after the dandruff sample to produce sufficient evidence from which the jury could draw a reasonable inference that the hairs were put in the hat by Simpson on the night of the murders. The other rebuttal evidence that rebutted that was the expert's admission that he could not say when those hairs were put there.

Ms. Moore provided circumstantial evidence that the hair, if Simpson had deposited on the night of the murders should have had dandruff. You may not like it because it is weak. However, weak or not it is reasonable. It is up to the jury to draw inferences. The prosecution had no evidence that there was dandruff in Simpson's hair, as with his hair exemplar. They tried with the expert's coulda, woulda, maybe and assumptions. Those do not allow anyone to draw a reasonable inference sufficient to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, which was the prosecution's burden. I will give you credit for having a quantity of knowledge on the case. However, you should give me credit on having a quantity of knowledge on the law and legal concepts. The defense usually has an advantage, because the evidence they produce, if they choose to produce any, does not need to be sufficient to prove beyond anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the defense's evidence and inferences drawn therefrom does not have to be as strong as the prosecution's. Like it or not that is the state of the law.

[martin II]

so you finally finished school and passed the bar? Congratulations.

When you are promoted to the 6th grade let us know.

[SlowHandSam]

When you are promoted to the 6th grade let us know.

Now why did you have to be a jerk? You made a comment about the "lawyer in me" and previously you had stated you were in school. I took that to mean you had finished school and passed the bar. Is that not the case? Did you misstate the facts? Have you even finished college or attended law school and passed the bar? If not - then you are not a lawyer ....

Raise the level of the community martin - parrot away.

[SlowHandSam]

Now why did you have to be a jerk? You made a comment about the "lawyer in me" and previously you had stated you were in school. I took that to mean you had finished school and passed the bar. Is that not the case? Did you misstate the facts? Have you even finished college or attended law school and passed the bar? If not - then you are not a lawyer ....

Raise the level of the community martin - parrot away.

Oh wait, I see an error on my part.

It was WA that stated the "lawyer in me" and being in school ...

I didn't pay attention at first.

I guess I got confused that you were taking up for your William.

My bad.

[William Anthony]

Now why did you have to be a jerk? You made a comment about the "lawyer in me" and previously you had stated you were in school. I took that to mean you had finished school and passed the bar. Is that not the case? Did you misstate the facts? Have you even finished college or attended law school and passed the bar? If not - then you are not a lawyer ....

Raise the level of the community martin - parrot away.

Let's try to get things right. I am the poster that made the comment that it must be the lawyer in me. I chose to ignore your comment about finishing law school and the bar. Do you know what the passing the bar means or better yet where the expression comes from? Let me inform you. It comes from the expression where the judge calls a lawyer to that area in front of his bench where he talks privately with the lawyers. I have had the opportunity to represent myself four times in court, not counting administrative proceedings. I have passed the bar during three cases. I have had several conference meetings with the status conferences with judges. I have had both written and oral motions and conducted many depositions. I have said that anyone can be an attorney. A lawyer is someone who practices law. Since I have represented myself four times in a court of law, that is what I was talking about when I said the lawyer in me. It was disrespect by a federal judge that made me want to get a license to formally practice law.

Attending law school and completing it gives a person a juris doctor degree. There are many attorneys with that degree who have never represented anyone in a court of law, either by choice or other circumstances. Fortunately, I have been both an attorney and a lawyer. I am in the process of obtaining a license so that I can represent others in a court of law.

[William Anthony]

Oh wait, I see an error on my part.

It was WA that stated the "lawyer in me" and being in school ...

I didn't pay attention at first.

I guess I got confused that you were taking up for your William.

My bad.

Not taking up for me but wanting to raise the level of the postings, as I see it.

[William Anthony]

September 28th,

BURDEN OF PROOF

"I think I may have said she said that Mr. Simpson did not have dandruff, and if I did say that, I got that wrong. She said Mr. Simpson would get dandruff I think in the off season, in the string and summer when he was here, as opposed to when he was in New York. And I wanted to make sure. In looking at the transcript over the lunch hour I noted Miss Clark seemed to be amazed when Mr. Scheck said that Kelly Mulldorfer said that she didn't see blood on that Bronco, so to save her some time I'm going to read you the transcript. Kelly Mulldorfer at 38268, lines 26 through line 9, I think on 38269. "Question: And when you looked at the console do you remember seeing any blood there? "Answer: No, I don't have any specific recollection." That is the lady, the investigator who was looking at this. And so now we come to some jury instructions which I think have sine real relevance as we conclude this case, hopefully. We have already talked about a witness willfully false. We talked an awful lot and you know now a lot about circumstantial evidence, and I dare say you know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. We want to talk further about--and you know what happens where the proved circumstances are equally consistent, one of which points to innocence and the other which points to guilt. Where they are both reasonable, you must adopt that which points to innocence. You understand that. You understand about circumstantial evidence. So enough about this. And we have displayed this and we have taked about how this works and how it inures to the benefit of the Defendantl because there is this burden of proof. But there is another instruction which I want to talk to you about now and this is one that--where the Prosecutors keep wanting to change things around and ask what we proved and what we didn't do. This is what the law is: "The Prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crimes charged in the information and that the Defendant was a perpetrator of any such crimes." There is no doubt about it among any of us, is it. "The Defendant is not required to prove him or herself innocent or to prove that another person committed the crime charged." So now if that is what the law is and the judge gave you that, why did Mr. Darden ask the question, who did this? Who committed this crime? Why would he ask you that when the judge just said the Defendant doesn't have to show anything, when we know in this case in a rush to judgment they didn't look at anybody else. That is a question he should be asking these detectives, not us. "

[SlowHandSam]

Let's try to get things right. I am the poster that made the comment that it must be the lawyer in me. I chose to ignore your comment about finishing law school and the bar. Do you know what the passing the bar means or better yet where the expression comes from? Let me inform you. It comes from the expression where the judge calls a lawyer to that area in front of his bench where he talks privately with the lawyers. I have had the opportunity to represent myself four times in court, not counting administrative proceedings. I have passed the bar during three cases. I have had several conference meetings with the status conferences with judges. I have had both written and oral motions and conducted many depositions. I have said that anyone can be an attorney. A lawyer is someone who practices law. Since I have represented myself four times in a court of law, that is what I was talking about when I said the lawyer in me. It was disrespect by a federal judge that made me want to get a license to formally practice law.

Attending law school and completing it gives a person a juris doctor degree. There are many attorneys with that degree who have never represented anyone in a court of law, either by choice or other circumstances. Fortunately, I have been both an attorney and a lawyer. I am in the process of obtaining a license so that I can represent others in a court of law.

You are incorrect. The term "passing the bar" is used commonly to express whether or not someone has passed the competency test for their state(s) to practice law.

A lawyer is one who graduated law school. An attorney is one who is licensed to practice law and represent others. You've stated you don't have your license so how is it possible you've been an attorney??

Representing one's self in a court of law does not make one a lawyer. So my question remains - did you graduate from law school?

[martin II]

You are incorrect. The term "passing the bar" is used commonly to express whether or not someone has passed the competency test for their state(s) to practice law.

A lawyer is one who graduated law school. An attorney is one who is licensed to practice law and represent others. You've stated you don't have your license so how is it possible you've been an attorney??

Representing one's self in a court of law does not make one a lawyer. So my question remains - did you graduate from law school?

You are fighting a loosing battle.

[SlowHandSam]

You are fighting a loosing battle.

that's okay - you not answering answered it all.

I'm not sure how I'd "loose" a battle unless "battle" is a word for an object that I could misplace or unscrew from something.


I'm going to head back on topic now.

[William Anthony]

You are incorrect. The term "passing the bar" is used commonly to express whether or not someone has passed the competency test for their state(s) to practice law.

A lawyer is one who graduated law school. An attorney is one who is licensed to practice law and represent others. You've stated you don't have your license so how is it possible you've been an attorney??

Representing one's self in a court of law does not make one a lawyer. So my question remains - did you graduate from law school?

You are incorrect. Have you never heard of a power of attorney? A person is not a lawyer until they practice law. Why do you think they call it a bar exam? That restricted area in front of the judges bench where he summons the lawyers in a case to communicate to them is called the bar. Unless you are practicing law by representing yourself, i.e. lawyering, you are not permitted passed the bar. The words are attorney and lawyer are commonly transposed. When the judge asks are your represented by an attorney he is using the commonly accepted term for lawyer. When you represent yourself, pro se, you are your lawyer.

Perhaps, this will explain what I am trying to say.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mattorney.html

I was honestly surprised to learn from one of my lawyer professors or, if you will, instructors that a person in my state can sign a power of attorney to allow a layperson to represent them in court.

[William Anthony]

You are fighting a loosing battle.

Martin,

Thank you for your recognition and trust. :beer: :beer:

[SlowHandSam]

You are incorrect. Have you never heard of a power of attorney? A person is not a lawyer until they practice law. Why do you think they call it a bar exam? That restricted area in front of the judges bench where he summons the lawyers in a case to communicate to them is called the bar. Unless you are practicing law by representing yourself, i.e. lawyering, you are not permitted passed the bar. The words are attorney and lawyer are commonly transposed. When the judge asks are your represented by an attorney he is using the commonly accepted term for lawyer. When you represent yourself, pro se, you are your lawyer.

Perhaps, this will explain what I am trying to say.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mattorney.html

I was honestly surprised to learn from one of my lawyer professors or, if you will, instructors that a person in my state can sign a power of attorney to allow a layperson to represent them in court.

a PoA gives one the authority to act on your behalf when you are unable to do so. It does NOT make one an attorney. Please.

Since you've not passed the bar EXAM - I'm dropping this subject because you will never concede that you are incorrect.

[William Anthony]

a PoA gives one the authority to act on your behalf when you are unable to do so. It does NOT make one an attorney. Please.

Since you've not passed the bar EXAM - I'm dropping this subject because you will never concede that you are incorrect.

Yes, that is the purpose of a POA. I will admit when I am wrong but, unlike your claim, I supplied a link to support my post. The A in POA stands for Attorney, which I am sure you realize. There are several types of POA, usually broken down into two categories, limited and general. You simply do not want to admit that I am correct and use the tactics that others use, I am ready to drop the subject now, things understood don't have to be explained. :)

[martin II]

a PoA gives one the authority to act on your behalf when you are unable to do so. It does NOT make one an attorney. Please.

Since you've not passed the bar EXAM - I'm dropping this subject because you will never concede that you are incorrect.

Most posers here know what Williams status is as far as his education in the area of law is as it has been explained many times.So i don't kow what your point is. Could it be that you are the chairman of the bar association in your area or something?

[SlowHandSam]

Most posers here know what Williams status is as far as his education in the area of law is as it has been explained many times.So i don't kow what your point is. Could it be that you are the chairman of the bar association in your area or something?

yes, most "posers" do know.

yup.

[martin II]

Correction
Most Posters.

[martin II]

a PoA gives one the authority to act on your behalf when you are unable to do so. It does NOT make one an attorney. Please.

Since you've not passed the bar EXAM - I'm dropping this subject because you will never concede that you are incorrect.

If the point of your questions is to get legal advice you can get that from the Legal Aid Society near you.IMO

[weezer]

*Snipped* "The A in POA stands for Attorney. . ."

HOT DOG! I'M A LAWYER/ATTORNEY since I have 3 different POA's naming me as their representative. :rolleyes:

[SlowHandSam]

If the point of your questions is to get legal advice you can get that from the Legal Aid Society near you.IMO

I don't need advice.

The point of the post was originally to congratulate for finishing law school and passing the bar exam after the comment made about being a lawyer.

Now that you've gone on and on with your jerk replies - can we get back on topic?

Thanks.

[tv]

*Snipped*

HOT DOG! I'M A LAWYER/ATTORNEY since I have 3 different POA's naming me as their representative. :rolleyes:I'm a POA for one person. I guess I'm an attorney too. ;)

[William Anthony]

I'm a POA for one person. I guess I'm an attorney too. ;)

You are an attorney for that person designated to do whatever those specific powers authorize you to do. Look at the link I provided.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

HOT DOG! I'M A LAWYER/ATTORNEY since I have 3 different POA's naming me as their representative. :rolleyes:

You mean that your were able to locate three people that would authorize you to do act on their behalf. Will wonders never cease?;) :cool: Not a lawyer unless you represent them in court. Oh my! I'll bet if you did in the time span of 15 minutes the objections set a world record, smile, and the people that authorized you were objecting to you questions. Big Grin.

[William Anthony]

I don't need advice.



Thanks.

Now, that's a matter of opinion for real, imho. ;) :cool:

[bobaugust]

I have said that I want to see the level of posting raised in this community. Although I was curt in some of my responses to you, they were true. Again the defense does not have to offer proof on anything other than an affirmative defense. They only have to offer evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that rebuts the prosecution's evidence. That was the purpose of calling Ms. Moore to allow the reasonable inference, albeit weak as Scheck said that the hairs found in the hat may not have been Simpson's or that, if they were they were in the hat in the months between September and January, when he had little or no dandruff. The onus was on the prosecution, especially after the dandruff sample to produce sufficient evidence from which the jury could draw a reasonable inference that the hairs were put in the hat by Simpson on the night of the murders. The other rebuttal evidence that rebutted that was the expert's admission that he could not say when those hairs were put there.

Ms. Moore provided circumstantial evidence that the hair, if Simpson had deposited on the night of the murders should have had dandruff. You may not like it because it is weak. However, weak or not it is reasonable. It is up to the jury to draw inferences. The prosecution had no evidence that there was dandruff in Simpson's hair, as with his hair exemplar. They tried with the expert's coulda, woulda, maybe and assumptions. Those do not allow anyone to draw a reasonable inference sufficient to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, which was the prosecution's burden. I will give you credit for having a quantity of knowledge on the case. However, you should give me credit on having a quantity of knowledge on the law and legal concepts. The defense usually has an advantage, because the evidence they produce, if they choose to produce any, does not need to be sufficient to prove beyond anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the defense's evidence and inferences drawn therefrom does not have to be as strong as the prosecution's. Like it or not that is the state of the law.

As to Moore's testimony, not only did Moore not observe Simpson the night of the murders but when she did see him and cut his hair on May 23 there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff at that time. To make an inference based on Moore's testimony that since Simpson periodically had dandruff in his life means he may have had it on June 12 is an unreasonable inference.

On Friday June 17 Simpson went through a battery of tests conducted by two physicians and two nurses along with Henry Lee and Michael Baden, taking samples and documenting every mark on his body as well as his complete physical condition. There is no documentation or testimony by any of these participants that Simpson had dandruff that day. The only evidence of dandruff came later after Simpson was incarcerated and gave his hair samples, for which there is a logical reasonable explanation that accounts for his condition at that time. To make an inference that based on the fact that dandruff was found on Simpson's hair samples weeks after the murders means that Simpson may have dandruff on June 12 is an unreasonable inference.

There is no credible evidence that suggests Simpson had dandruff on June 12, the night of the murders.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

As to Moore's testimony, not only did Moore not observe Simpson the night of the murders but when she did see him and cut his hair on May 23 there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff at that time. To make an inference based on Moore's testimony that since Simpson periodically had dandruff in his life means he may have had it on June 12 is an unreasonable inference.

On Friday June 17 Simpson went through a battery of tests conducted by two physicians and two nurses along with Henry Lee and Michael Baden, taking samples and documenting every mark on his body as well as his complete physical condition. There is no documentation or testimony by any of these participants that Simpson had dandruff that day. The only evidence of dandruff came later after Simpson was incarcerated and gave his hair samples, for which there is a logical reasonable explanation that accounts for his condition at that time. To make an inference that based on the fact that dandruff was found on Simpson's hair samples weeks after the murders means that Simpson may have dandruff on June 12 is an unreasonable inference.

There is no credible evidence that suggests Simpson had dandruff on June 12, the night of the murders.

bobaugust

You are not going to worry me tonight. ;) :cool:

[martin II]

As to Moore's testimony, not only did Moore not observe Simpson the night of the murders but when she did see him and cut his hair on May 23 there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff at that time. To make an inference based on Moore's testimony that since Simpson periodically had dandruff in his life means he may have had it on June 12 is an unreasonable inference.

On Friday June 17 Simpson went through a battery of tests conducted by two physicians and two nurses along with Henry Lee and Michael Baden, taking samples and documenting every mark on his body as well as his complete physical condition. There is no documentation or testimony by any of these participants that Simpson had dandruff that day. The only evidence of dandruff came later after Simpson was incarcerated and gave his hair samples, for which there is a logical reasonable explanation that accounts for his condition at that time. To make an inference that based on the fact that dandruff was found on Simpson's hair samples weeks after the murders means that Simpson may have dandruff on June 12 is an unreasonable inference.

There is no credible evidence that suggests Simpson had dandruff on June 12, the night of the murders.

bobaugust

Bob
I don't think oj hair samples were taken by Dr Baden and Dr Lee.
However Moore testified that oj regurlarly had dandruff in the summer months
like 6/12 and when he was in the sun playing golf. like the morning of 6/12.
There is no reason not to believe her testimony. Considering she had more experiences with ojs hair than anyone i believe her testimony stand as to did he have dandruff on 6/12.imo

[William Anthony]

Thanks Bob. As ever, the voice of reason.

No reason, wrong season
No rhyme, wrong time
Not right for that night
No evidence use common sense
If it does not fit
You must acquit.

[William Anthony]

On Friday June 17 Simpson went through a battery of tests conducted by two physicians and two nurses along with Henry Lee and Michael Baden, taking samples and documenting every mark on his body as well as his complete physical condition.

bobaugust

Why didn't the prosecution ask them if they saw dandruff? It was the prosecution's burden to show that he did not have dandruff on the night of the murders, which they failed miserably to do with their expert's wouldas, couldas, shouldas, ifs, maybes, and assumptions.

[limakey]

TV,

You are correct, MF never comes out and says that he had no respect for Capt. York because she was a woman. (It was from at least one other Simpson book, Joe Bosco's. I haven't finished checking the others.)

However, the fact is York was his supervisor, he had no right to question her authority or deliberately engage any confrontation with his superiors. The fact that he believed that because York did not work in the "streets" is not a valid reason to disrespect her. If that was the case, then there would be no authority whatsover in any police department or the military.

York entered the force in 1968, where and what was MF doing in 1968? Still in high school? Maybe Middle school?

Why would York lie? I do not believe it was to protect MF. However, perhaps the better question is why did the City of LA settle with J. Britton rather then to go into court a second time. Perhaps the City of LA did not want MF involved in two separate trials, against two African American males and was being accused of planting or moving evidence in both cases. IMO, that is the reason question.

[martin II]

TV,

You are correct, MF never comes out and says that he had no respect for Capt. York because she was a woman. (It was from at least one other Simpson book, Joe Bosco's. I haven't finished checking the others.)

However, the fact is York was his supervisor, he had no right to question her authority or deliberately engage any confrontation with his superiors. The fact that he believed that because York did not work in the "streets" is not a valid reason to disrespect her. If that was the case, then there would be no authority whatsover in any police department or the military.

York entered the force in 1968, where and what was MF doing in 1968? Still in high school? Maybe Middle school?

Why would York lie? I do not believe it was to protect MF. However, perhaps the better question is why did the City of LA settle with J. Britton rather then to go into court a second time. Perhaps the City of LA did not want MF involved in two separate trials, against two African American males and was being accused of planting or moving evidence in both cases. IMO, that is the reason question.


Limakey
Thanks for your post.
I have posted about the Britton payout of $100,000 JUST BEFORE the oj case. I think the Britton case was scheduled to be heard at the same time ojs case came up and the prosecution quickly went to the city attornery office and asked that they Pay Bratton as they did not want the defense
asking furhman if he had another claim of evidence planting against him.

So guess what the city paid Bratton to make that case dissapear.

That just shows how one city agency will cooperate with another to save their azz and sometimes work against a defendant.imo

martin II

[tv]

TV,

You are correct, MF never comes out and says that he had no respect for Capt. York because she was a woman. (It was from at least one other Simpson book, Joe Bosco's. I haven't finished checking the others.)

However, the fact is York was his supervisor, he had no right to question her authority or deliberately engage any confrontation with his superiors. The fact that he believed that because York did not work in the "streets" is not a valid reason to disrespect her. If that was the case, then there would be no authority whatsover in any police department or the military.

York entered the force in 1968, where and what was MF doing in 1968? Still in high school? Maybe Middle school?

Why would York lie? I do not believe it was to protect MF. However, perhaps the better question is why did the City of LA settle with J. Britton rather then to go into court a second time. Perhaps the City of LA did not want MF involved in two separate trials, against two African American males and was being accused of planting or moving evidence in both cases. IMO, that is the reason question.

limakey, thank you for acknowledging you misstated Mark Fuhrman's position on Capt. York. I will have to go back and reread a bit to see if anything else is mischaracterized. I think Capt. York lied to keep her husband's position as presiding judge over the Simpson trial. I don't think it was anything more complicated than that. One thing is for certain, she did lie.

[martin II]

limakey, thank you for acknowledging you misstated Mark Fuhrman's position on Capt. York. I will have to go back and reread a bit to see if anything else is mischaracterized. I think Capt. York lied to keep her husband's position as presiding judge over the Simpson trial. I don't think it was anything more complicated than that. One thing is for certain, she did lie.

tv
So Furhman, a mamber of "men against women" and the guy lmk hired to talk about discrimination against women in the lapd, that instead talked about how he abused, planted and beat minorities, was telling truth.

Ps
I am not sure limakey admitted to what you claim she did.

martin II

[tv]

tv
So Furhman, a mamber of "men against women" and the guy lmk hired to talk about discrimination against women in the lapd, that instead talked about how he abused, planted and beat minorities, was telling truth.

Ps
I am not sure limakey admitted to what you claim she did.

martin III'm not in this discussion to defend Mark Fuhrman but you've yet to prove he did any of the things he said on the tapes. When you come up with proof get back to me.

[martin II]

I'm not in this discussion to defend Mark Fuhrman but you've yet to prove he did any of the things he said on the tapes. When you come up with proof get back to me.

you just finished defending furhman in your post limakey right?

[tv]

you just finished defending furhman in your post limakey right?
No I did not. I pointed out to her that she is misstating what he said. I don't want anyone misquoted whether it's Mark Fuhrman or Johnnie Cochran. It sidetracks the discussion which is supposed to be about the criminal trial not about tracking down false statements which I find I have to do when limakey posts.

[bobaugust]

Why didn't the prosecution ask them if they saw dandruff? It was the prosecution's burden to show that he did not have dandruff on the night of the murders, which they failed miserably to do with their expert's wouldas, couldas, shouldas, ifs, maybes, and assumptions.

Why didn't the prosecution ask them if they saw dandruff? Ask who? Not only was there was no evidence of dandruff found in the knit cap there was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. The defense never claimed Simpson had dandruff the night of the murders they only inferred that he might have based on Moore's testimony. Clark answered that inference in her closing argument by correctly pointing out the facts Moore testified to.

September 29, 1995 Marcia Clark, Closing Argument

"Now, there was also some discussion about the Defendant having dandruff, if you recall. And it was told to you that the Defendant always had dandruff in the off season. That is not what the testimony showed. Here is what the testimony actually showed about that, page 37441. "Question: And sometimes in the summer when you saw him take care of his hair he would have dandruff and sometime he would not? "Answer: That's correct." That was his barber. Another interesting thing that she told us is that unless you brush the hair vigorously, the dandruff does not come off. So I asked her: "If you don't, if you just brush his hair, the dandruff doesn't come off? "Answer: Right, which means if you don't brush or comb the hair and it just falls off by itself, the dandruff doesn't come off, if you don't do anything to the hair, I guess it will just stay there." Now, the hairs in the cap did not have dandruff and the Defense wants you to believe it couldn't be his hair because he has dandruff. That is not what the testimony showed. That is not what the evidence showed. The evidence showed sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't, but actually even if he did, it wouldn't come off in the knit cap because you had to brush vigorously to get it out so that it would show. So what you have in the knit cap are his hairs, the naturally shed hairs that are his because he wore the hat."

bobaugust

[martin II]

Why didn't the prosecution ask them if they saw dandruff? Ask who? Not only was there was no evidence of dandruff found in the knit cap there was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. The defense never claimed Simpson had dandruff the night of the murders they only inferred that he might have based on Moore's testimony. Clark answered that inference in her closing argument by correctly pointing out the facts Moore testified to.

September 29, 1995 Marcia Clark, Closing Argument

"Now, there was also some discussion about the Defendant having dandruff, if you recall. And it was told to you that the Defendant always had dandruff in the off season. That is not what the testimony showed. Here is what the testimony actually showed about that, page 37441. "Question: And sometimes in the summer when you saw him take care of his hair he would have dandruff and sometime he would not? "Answer: That's correct." That was his barber. Another interesting thing that she told us is that unless you brush the hair vigorously, the dandruff does not come off. So I asked her: "If you don't, if you just brush his hair, the dandruff doesn't come off? "Answer: Right, which means if you don't brush or comb the hair and it just falls off by itself, the dandruff doesn't come off, if you don't do anything to the hair, I guess it will just stay there." Now, the hairs in the cap did not have dandruff and the Defense wants you to believe it couldn't be his hair because he has dandruff. That is not what the testimony showed. That is not what the evidence showed. The evidence showed sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't, but actually even if he did, it wouldn't come off in the knit cap because you had to brush vigorously to get it out so that it would show. So what you have in the knit cap are his hairs, the naturally shed hairs that are his because he wore the hat."

bobaugust

bob
why do you have such a problem understand moors testimony that oj had dandruff in the summer especially whem he played golf as he did on 6/12
the cap is a non issue. oj did not have that cap on his head on 6/12 or any other time.imo

[bobaugust]

bob
why do you have such a problem understand moors testimony that oj had dandruff in the summer especially whem he played golf as he did on 6/12
the cap is a non issue. oj did not have that cap on his head on 6/12 or any other time.imo

Martin II, your comment shows you are unaware of what Moore actually testified to. Moore testified that Simpson sometimes had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he did not. The last time Moore saw Simpson was on May 23 and neither Moore nor any other witness ever testified that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. There is no physical evidence to suggest Simpson had dandruff on June 12. To assume that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 based on Moore's testimony is illogical, unreasonable, and meaningless.

Evidently you're also aware of the hair and fiber evidence found on the knit cap. The knit cap was found under the plant leaves at Ron's feet next to one of the killer's gloves at Bundy. Based on the hair and fiber evidence found on the cap it is not unreasonable to infer that the killer wore that cap. And the fact that Simpson's hair was found inside that cap is evidence that contracts your claim that Simpson never wore it.

* A number of hairs from the Akita dog.
* 12 hairs matching the defendant (naturally shed, not "ripped.") (Ten came from inside the cap, two from the outside.)
* 1 cashmere fiber which was consistent with the lining of the gloves.
* "Unusual" x- shaped fiber consistent with the Bronco carpeting.

bobaugust

[limakey]

TV,

IMO, I think it is wrong to think that Capt. York lied to keep her husband on the case, only because that answer is too simple and when you pick simple, you miss all the factors that went into the decision. Just like I think it is wrong of anyone to think Fred Goldman's motivation is greed or that Nicole's sister and other family members sold pictures and items for greed. While many people who do feel that way, IMO, have taken the simple answer to extremely complicated questions.

IMO, I believe Captain York did what she did because she was presented with all the facts. Had she told the truth about Fuhrman, she would have caused more problems for other women in all police departments. She would be proof that even after all these years and all these commissions done on the LAPD, there have been no significant changes. She was also probably warned that if she told the truth, every single case Fuhrman was ever involved will be reviewed and convictions may be overturned or re-trials granted. She also knew that even though she outranked Fuhrman, there was nothing she could do. It seemed like that it didn't matter to her bosses how she was being treated by Fuhrman.

I can barely imagine what it was like for a woman to join the police force in 1968. At that time, a single woman with children weren't even suppose to work, they were suppose to be home with their kids. So what if the ex wasn't paying support, it just wasn't done. However, Capt. York worked, she paid her dues and she earned her "stripes". It is clear with all the hardships she endured, she loved the LAPD and she believed in the institution, perhaps she was protecting somethng she loved, rather then the man she loved.

IMO, I believe Tom Lange and Phil Vanatter did the same thing for Fuhrman. IMO, they took all their hits for the "home team" and not for Fuhrman the man.

My son goes to a Catholic High School. In his theology class, he had to take an exam and he didn't really study for it. He had practice in 5 minutes and he came to the last question, which was what did the cruxifiction of Jesus really mean. Well my brilliant little scholar wrote: "Jesus taking one for the home team." His teacher was ready to throw him out of her class but he had already left. However, the next day, she thought my son was very wise and was amazed at how simple of answer it was.

I don't think there are any simple answers in the Simpson case. IMO.

[limakey]

TV,

Here is another thought----lets say Captain York did lie to protect her husband's job or keep him on the case.

Then can't the same be said of Michelle Kestler (sp?), the head of the CSI lab, her husband is a high ranking member of the LAPD as well. I don't know his name but they were married at the time of the trial.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

First, the word "match" can not legally be said regarding hair comparisons. They can be consistent with, which does not mean "matched". How many times was Clark warned about using the word "match" by Judge Ito regarding this subject? The last warning coming with the threat of contempt of court.

Second, the hairs found can not exclude any African-American nor can it be conclusive. In regards to the dandruff, well that is whole other race debate, as in can you tell if dandruff is from a white person or a black person?

Third, Marcia Clark destroyed the hat's "credibility" as evidence when she made her closing arguements. She told the jury that the reason why Simpson did not get rid of the bloody clothes, knife and other items in a dumpster or some other public place because he was too famous! He was too well known, that he would have been recognized. When heard her say this I just shook my head with utter amazement and I was yelling at the TV, "well if he had his hat on--then he would have gone to dumpster?!" That makes no sense.

Fourth, Ron Goldman's body was dragged through the crime scene.

Fifth, items were moved, and I am not saying all of these items were moved on purposed.

Sixth, there were two reasons why Ito would not let the DA's use Deedrick's report regarding the Bronco fibers---the DA's were lucky because he focused on the time of the report. However, Judge Fujisaki in the civil trial made the ruling that the plaintiffs could not argue these were rare fibers because it was misleading. (Which I think may have been one of the 3 favorable rulings he gave to the defense.)

Seventh, it was a warm June night, if Simpson is the killer, he did a lot of work that night, are we to believe that he did not sweat inside the knit cap? The winter gloves? Are we to believe that the DA's did not know they could get DNA from sweat?

PS--good to talk to you again!

PSS---Ms. Moore's testimony was not meaningless, the defense again produced an "expert" witness that the DA's could not produce. Think about, they use Deedrick---I know Chris Darden is bald but what, he didn't know a barber who had African-American clients? And Doug Deedrick talked in assumptions, he talked around the subject. Ms. Moore, she answered the questions and did so in a direct manner. IMO.

[limakey]

Martin and William,

I know you have posted many times about the "them" that MF said. Well I was looking through his book and in one chapter in his book he as a decription of the evidence. He writes that the glove at Bundy was pulled off, yet the glove at Rockingham was disgarded. How could he know that? To me, disgarded, means throw out--why would Simpson throw out a glove behind Kato's wall?

I think there is a difference between "dropped" and "disgarded", don't you?

Martin, I am with you, the hat meant nothing---unless the hat replaced the ski mask Fuhrman said he saw. IMO.

Also, I think it is very possible that the hat, wear it was found, could have been left there days before the murder. IMO.

[tv]

TV,

IMO, I think it is wrong to think that Capt. York lied to keep her husband on the case, only because that answer is too simple and when you pick simple, you miss all the factors that went into the decision. Just like I think it is wrong of anyone to think Fred Goldman's motivation is greed or that Nicole's sister and other family members sold pictures and items for greed. While many people who do feel that way, IMO, have taken the simple answer to extremely complicated questions.

IMO, I believe Captain York did what she did because she was presented with all the facts. Had she told the truth about Fuhrman, she would have caused more problems for other women in all police departments. She would be proof that even after all these years and all these commissions done on the LAPD, there have been no significant changes. She was also probably warned that if she told the truth, every single case Fuhrman was ever involved will be reviewed and convictions may be overturned or re-trials granted. She also knew that even though she outranked Fuhrman, there was nothing she could do. It seemed like that it didn't matter to her bosses how she was being treated by Fuhrman.

I can barely imagine what it was like for a woman to join the police force in 1968. At that time, a single woman with children weren't even suppose to work, they were suppose to be home with their kids. So what if the ex wasn't paying support, it just wasn't done. However, Capt. York worked, she paid her dues and she earned her "stripes". It is clear with all the hardships she endured, she loved the LAPD and she believed in the institution, perhaps she was protecting somethng she loved, rather then the man she loved.

IMO, I believe Tom Lange and Phil Vanatter did the same thing for Fuhrman. IMO, they took all their hits for the "home team" and not for Fuhrman the man.

My son goes to a Catholic High School. In his theology class, he had to take an exam and he didn't really study for it. He had practice in 5 minutes and he came to the last question, which was what did the cruxifiction of Jesus really mean. Well my brilliant little scholar wrote: "Jesus taking one for the home team." His teacher was ready to throw him out of her class but he had already left. However, the next day, she thought my son was very wise and was amazed at how simple of answer it was.

I don't think there are any simple answers in the Simpson case. IMO.
I still think she lied to keep her husband in the trial. But whatever reason she had why isn't she condemned for the big whopper she told? Everyone seems to give her a pass on it. Your reasoning is a little skewed. Why wouldn't she take this opportunity to expose Mark Fuhrman if she believed him to be the horrible person and cop you say she thought he was? Instead of taking one for the team she would be rescuing the team. The truth is if it had come to light that she remembered him and had hostility toward him Judge Ito would have had to recuse himself. In this instance, the answer is simple.

[William Anthony]

TV,

You are correct, MF never comes out and says that he had no respect for Capt. York because she was a woman. (It was from at least one other Simpson book, Joe Bosco's. I haven't finished checking the others.)

However, the fact is York was his supervisor, he had no right to question her authority or deliberately engage any confrontation with his superiors. The fact that he believed that because York did not work in the "streets" is not a valid reason to disrespect her. If that was the case, then there would be no authority whatsover in any police department or the military.

York entered the force in 1968, where and what was MF doing in 1968? Still in high school? Maybe Middle school?

Why would York lie? I do not believe it was to protect MF. However, perhaps the better question is why did the City of LA settle with J. Britton rather then to go into court a second time. Perhaps the City of LA did not want MF involved in two separate trials, against two African American males and was being accused of planting or moving evidence in both cases. IMO, that is the reason question.

I think he may have said it or words to the effect on the tapes.

[William Anthony]

Why didn't the prosecution ask them if they saw dandruff? Ask who? Not only was there was no evidence of dandruff found in the knit cap there was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. The defense never claimed Simpson had dandruff the night of the murders they only inferred that he might have based on Moore's testimony. Clark answered that inference in her closing argument by correctly pointing out the facts Moore testified to.

September 29, 1995 Marcia Clark, Closing Argument

"Now, there was also some discussion about the Defendant having dandruff, if you recall. And it was told to you that the Defendant always had dandruff in the off season. That is not what the testimony showed. Here is what the testimony actually showed about that, page 37441. "Question: And sometimes in the summer when you saw him take care of his hair he would have dandruff and sometime he would not? "Answer: That's correct." That was his barber. Another interesting thing that she told us is that unless you brush the hair vigorously, the dandruff does not come off. So I asked her: "If you don't, if you just brush his hair, the dandruff doesn't come off? "Answer: Right, which means if you don't brush or comb the hair and it just falls off by itself, the dandruff doesn't come off, if you don't do anything to the hair, I guess it will just stay there." Now, the hairs in the cap did not have dandruff and the Defense wants you to believe it couldn't be his hair because he has dandruff. That is not what the testimony showed. That is not what the evidence showed. The evidence showed sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't, but actually even if he did, it wouldn't come off in the knit cap because you had to brush vigorously to get it out so that it would show. So what you have in the knit cap are his hairs, the naturally shed hairs that are his because he wore the hat."

bobaugust

Baden and Lee. The defense did not infer they reminded the jury of the evidence and allowed them to draw reasonable inferences. What is illogical about Clark's argument? They want to say there was a struggle and the cap became dislodged. That is where her argument fails. The prosecution failed to meet its burden on this issue.

[William Anthony]

Martin II, your comment shows you are unaware of what Moore actually testified to. Moore testified that Simpson sometimes had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he did not. The last time Moore saw Simpson was on May 23 and neither Moore nor any other witness ever testified that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. There is no physical evidence to suggest Simpson had dandruff on June 12. To assume that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 based on Moore's testimony is illogical, unreasonable, and meaningless.

Evidently you're also aware of the hair and fiber evidence found on the knit cap. The knit cap was found under the plant leaves at Ron's feet next to one of the killer's gloves at Bundy. Based on the hair and fiber evidence found on the cap it is not unreasonable to infer that the killer wore that cap. And the fact that Simpson's hair was found inside that cap is evidence that contracts your claim that Simpson never wore it.

* A number of hairs from the Akita dog.
* 12 hairs matching the defendant (naturally shed, not "ripped.") (Ten came from inside the cap, two from the outside.)
* 1 cashmere fiber which was consistent with the lining of the gloves.
* "Unusual" x- shaped fiber consistent with the Bronco carpeting.

bobaugust

You have provided a tenuous link of associations that prove nothing other than, hairs from the dog were on the hat, hairs consistent with Simpson's and many unidentified hairs, inconsistent with Simpson's.
Someone wore or touch cashmere
Consistent with fibers from carpet in many cars.

[William Anthony]

Martin and William,

I know you have posted many times about the "them" that MF said. Well I was looking through his book and in one chapter in his book he as a decription of the evidence. He writes that the glove at Bundy was pulled off, yet the glove at Rockingham was disgarded. How could he know that? To me, disgarded, means throw out--why would Simpson throw out a glove behind Kato's wall?

I think there is a difference between "dropped" and "disgarded", don't you?

Martin, I am with you, the hat meant nothing---unless the hat replaced the ski mask Fuhrman said he saw. IMO.

Also, I think it is very possible that the hat, wear it was found, could have been left there days before the murder. IMO.

Yes, and I think MF knew the difference well, since the prosecution did not drop him but discarded him after his testimony.

[William Anthony]

September 29, 1995 Marcia Clark, Closing Argument

That was his barber. Another interesting thing that she told us is that unless you brush the hair vigorously, the dandruff does not come off. So I asked her: "If you don't, if you just brush his hair, the dandruff doesn't come off? "Answer: Right, which means if you don't brush or comb the hair and it just falls off by itself, the dandruff doesn't come off, if you don't do anything to the hair, I guess it will just stay there."
bobaugust

I think this line of questioning was not objected to because it proves nothing as to showing he did not have dandruff on the night of the murders. Ms. Moore's testimony was that the dandruff will fall off by itself, i.e. you will see the dandruff, but lays in the hair until something is done to dislodge it.
I think any of us, who have suffered with dandruff, knows that when you put on pull-over-the-head clothing, it falls off and you see it on the clothing. The common sense reasoning is that, if the cap was pulled off or knocked off as the prosecution contended and Simpson had dandruff, there would have been dandruff in the cap. Since there was no dandruff found, it was the prosecution's burden to show evidence from which the jury could infer that Simpson did not have dandruff on the night of the murders, which they miserably failed to do, imho.

[martin II]

Yes, and I think MF knew the difference well, since the prosecution did not drop him but discarded him after his testimony.

The prosecution used furhman testimony, tried to keep the tapes from being used and then in the end told the jury this SOB should never have been allowed to be a cop and terstify here. So i wonder what they expected from the jury after that.There must have been a lot of dandruff in the jury box from jury members scratching their heads in bewilderment at clark.

[martin II]

Baden and Lee. The defense did not infer they reminded the jury of the evidence and allowed them to draw reasonable inferences. What is illogical about Clark's argument? They want to say there was a struggle and the cap became dislodged. That is where her argument fails. The prosecution failed to meet its burden on this issue.

I am sure dandruff will come off without combing or brushing.Moore said oj would have dandruff in the summer in ca especially when he played golf in the sun.he played golf on 6/12 in ca in the sun.So i would suggest that
when Kato was sitting next to oj comming from the burger spot, i would not be surprised if Kato did not say, OJ by the way man you got dandruff all over your shoulders.

[bobaugust]

I think this line of questioning was not objected to because it proves nothing as to showing he did not have dandruff on the night of the murders. Ms. Moore's testimony was that the dandruff will fall off by itself, i.e. you will see the dandruff, but lays in the hair until something is done to dislodge it.
I think any of us, who have suffered with dandruff, knows that when you put on pull-over-the-head clothing, it falls off and you see it on the clothing. The common sense reasoning is that, if the cap was pulled off or knocked off as the prosecution contended and Simpson had dandruff, there would have been dandruff in the cap. Since there was no dandruff found, it was the prosecution's burden to show evidence from which the jury could infer that Simpson did not have dandruff on the night of the murders, which they miserably failed to do, imho.

It is not the prosecution's burden to dwell on or spend time disproving imagined unsupported speculative possibilities. There was testimony that provided a reasonable explanation as to why Simpson had dandruff weeks after the murders. There was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and the reason there was no dandruff found in the cap is because Simpson didn't have dandruff when he wore it.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

It is not the prosecution's burden to dwell on or spend time disproving imagined unsupported speculative possibilities. There was testimony that provided a reasonable explanation as to why Simpson had dandruff weeks after the murders. There was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and the reason there was no dandruff found in the cap is because Simpson didn't have dandruff when he wore it.

bobaugust

There is no evidence that Simpson wore that cap on June 12th and his hair exemplar and the reasonable inference to be drawn form Ms. Moore's testimony and the expert's testimony and common sense is that he did not wear it. If it does not fit...

[William Anthony]

I am sure dandruff will come off without combing or brushing.Moore said oj would have dandruff in the summer in ca especially when he played golf in the sun.he played golf on 6/12 in ca in the sun.So i would suggest that
when Kato was sitting next to oj comming from the burger spot, i would not be surprised if Kato did not say, OJ by the way man you got dandruff all over your shoulders.

Yes, Why didn't the prosecution ask Kato, if he saw dandruff. The obvious answer is they were afraid he would say, yes. Why didn't the prosecution bring in his comb and brush? The answer is they were afraid they would see dandruff as they saw it in his exemplar. Neither the prosecution's nor bobaugust's mistakes can change the evidence.

[martin II]

It is not the prosecution's burden to dwell on or spend time disproving imagined unsupported speculative possibilities. There was testimony that provided a reasonable explanation as to why Simpson had dandruff weeks after the murders. There was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and the reason there was no dandruff found in the cap is because Simpson didn't have dandruff when he wore it.

bobaugust

bob
you are trying to cut and paste a case here.You cannot just pick up a loose cap and say oj had it on.

[William Anthony]

It is not the prosecution's burden to dwell on or spend time disproving imagined unsupported speculative possibilities.

bobaugust

They did not. They tried, imho, but failed miserably to produce evidence to rebut the reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the defense's evidence.

[martin II]

It is not the prosecution's burden to dwell on or spend time disproving imagined unsupported speculative possibilities. There was testimony that provided a reasonable explanation as to why Simpson had dandruff weeks after the murders. There was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and the reason there was no dandruff found in the cap is because Simpson didn't have dandruff when he wore it.

bobaugust

you don't know what oj had in his hair on 6/12 because you were not there,The only expert on ojs hair was moore and she said oj usually had dandruff on hot june days when he played golf.That is the description of ojs activity and the climate on 6/12.

[William Anthony]

you don't know what oj had in his hair on 6/12 because you were not there,The only expert on ojs hair was moore and she said oj usually had dandruff on hot june days when he played golf.That is the description of ojs activity and the climate on 6/12.

The prosecution was in the preposterous position of having to disprove its own evidence. We have his hair with dandruff and what we claim to be his cap with no dandruff. We believe our hair evidence is untrustworthy because he could not have had dandruff in order to make this his cap. What don't you get, Mr. bobaugust? That is why you made the three false statements in one post, because the prosecution duped you and others who were believed guilty until proven innocent, imho.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution was in the preposterous position of having to disprove its own evidence. We have his hair with dandruff and what we claim to be his cap with no dandruff. We believe our hair evidence is untrustworthy because he could not have had dandruff in order to make this his cap. What don't you get, Mr. bobaugust? That is why you made the three false statements in one post, because the prosecution duped you and others who were believed guilty until proven innocent, imho.

Correction-That is why the prosecution duped you and others, who believed guilty until proven innocent, imho.

[Kate Sachel]

Fred obviously did not pay attention to what was happening in the court room. Otherwise he would have been raising hell with the prosecution early on as most media and others had decided that the prosecution ( The sex team) had lost the case already. He was sitting there waiting on thr free bee
that he tought he automatically deserved because he was white and oj was black and everyone owed him what the wanted. THERE.

He should have slapped Darden and his daughter should have slapped clark.
Instead he attack Cochran and outed himself as having RAcist views against THE NATION OF ISLAM.IMO

Interesting.

For awhile I thought you to be actually an intelligent man who simply had difficulty articulating his thoughts properly; as it turns out I gave you more credit than due and I stand corrected.

Kate

[limakey]

TV,

Was Capt. York really given a free pass regarding MF? What I find interesting is that both sides knew about the issues between MF and York, both sides were holding it and waiting to see when it would help their case. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, I don't remember ever hearing anything about this until the trial was over.

When I read MF's book as well as Clark's a couple others, they seem to all agree that they have a hard time believing that Capt. York didn't run home and tell Judge Ito about MF. Well, why would a a woman who was confident in her abilities, who very much worked in a male dominent field run home to her husband and tell him about MF? Isn't Capt York entitled to have some pride and dignity and resovle that she was not going to let some low life sexist ruin everything she worked for? That she was going to ride out and no matter how hard it was to deal with the MF's of the force, she would prevail but not quitting?

She did reprimand Fuhrman, she did take action against him, but it appears to me that at every turn she was over turned. Why was she powerless to reprimand a subordinate on even simple insubordination violations? Was it because the City of LA already paid for his two year his vacation and they deemed he was fit to report back to work?

Also, IMO, it is a mistake to believe that MF was the only police member who had these issues. MF, if he is telling the truth, had to learn or know that no matter how disrespectful he was to authority, he would be able to get away with it, depending on the color or the sex of his supervisor.

Should Capt. York bear the brunt of your scorn, or the agency who allowed it not only to happen once, but several times? Where was the public out cry that Capt. York was even put in this position? Could any of us get away with what he said to her and still report for work the next day?

One last thing, IMO, Capt York, along with others knew what type of person Fuhrman was and what he was capable of---don't you think, if she had any love her husband, she would have told him not to take this case? Tell him about Fuhrman to force him off the case? Do you really think that she enjoyed watching her husband being trashed and bashed?

Also, former Chief Gates really went after Capt York on this issue, MF makes it clear that many others knew about their run ins---what didn't any of them go to Judge Ito about this? Judge Burton Katz came right out and said that he doesn't understand why Capt York didn't tell Ito, because even he knew about it, well why didn't he tell Judge Ito about it? He had to know that Capt. York was being put in a position to commit perjury--what didn't he show respect for a fellow Judge?

IMO, there was nothing simple in the case, but I do not believe that Capt. York commited perjury just to keep her husband on a case that she knew was going to be a nightmare.

Again, if Capt York did commit perjury for her husband or for the LAPD, doesn't that lead you to ask questions who else on the state's side would commit perjury to protect their spouse or their agency?

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Yes, the DA's did give a reasonable explaination regarding why a person may have dandruff while in jail. However, the facts are the fact this evidence does not excluse or conclusivly prove who left the hair in the hat. When they left in the hat or how long the hat was left outside.

Sure, the DA's tried like hell but the fact is, there is no way to prove who's hair it was.

I also believe that the DA's did ask the jury to "infer" that because the hair came from African American, have no problem with this. However, you must also give the "infer" right to the jurors who believe that a Simpson never would have used that hat as a means to hide his identity or conceal it. While many people thought JC's demonstration with the hat in his closing made him look silly, however, it is just as silly to believe that Simpson would have used this hat to hid his identity. IMO.

How did the hat come off at Bundy? Wouldn't violent struggles with at least one victim cause hair to be ripped out, not naturally shed? Were all these hair just found on the items of evidence, or were they found in other places? On the ground? Or on other clothes or hats Simpson may have worn?

[tv]

TV,

Was Capt. York really given a free pass regarding MF? What I find interesting is that both sides knew about the issues between MF and York, both sides were holding it and waiting to see when it would help their case. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, I don't remember ever hearing anything about this until the trial was over.

When I read MF's book as well as Clark's a couple others, they seem to all agree that they have a hard time believing that Capt. York didn't run home and tell Judge Ito about MF. Well, why would a a woman who was confident in her abilities, who very much worked in a male dominent field run home to her husband and tell him about MF? Isn't Capt York entitled to have some pride and dignity and resovle that she was not going to let some low life sexist ruin everything she worked for? That she was going to ride out and no matter how hard it was to deal with the MF's of the force, she would prevail but not quitting?

She did reprimand Fuhrman, she did take action against him, but it appears to me that at every turn she was over turned. Why was she powerless to reprimand a subordinate on even simple insubordination violations? Was it because the City of LA already paid for his two year his vacation and they deemed he was fit to report back to work?

Also, IMO, it is a mistake to believe that MF was the only police member who had these issues. MF, if he is telling the truth, had to learn or know that no matter how disrespectful he was to authority, he would be able to get away with it, depending on the color or the sex of his supervisor.

Should Capt. York bear the brunt of your scorn, or the agency who allowed it not only to happen once, but several times? Where was the public out cry that Capt. York was even put in this position? Could any of us get away with what he said to her and still report for work the next day?

One last thing, IMO, Capt York, along with others knew what type of person Fuhrman was and what he was capable of---don't you think, if she had any love her husband, she would have told him not to take this case? Tell him about Fuhrman to force him off the case? Do you really think that she enjoyed watching her husband being trashed and bashed?

Also, former Chief Gates really went after Capt York on this issue, MF makes it clear that many others knew about their run ins---what didn't any of them go to Judge Ito about this? Judge Burton Katz came right out and said that he doesn't understand why Capt York didn't tell Ito, because even he knew about it, well why didn't he tell Judge Ito about it? He had to know that Capt. York was being put in a position to commit perjury--what didn't he show respect for a fellow Judge?

IMO, there was nothing simple in the case, but I do not believe that Capt. York commited perjury just to keep her husband on a case that she knew was going to be a nightmare.

Again, if Capt York did commit perjury for her husband or for the LAPD, doesn't that lead you to ask questions who else on the state's side would commit perjury to protect their spouse or their agency?I don't know where you're getting that Capt. York is bearing the brunt of my scorn when I'm simply giving you my opinion. I still think she lied to protect her husband from being removed from the case and had nothing to do with the LAPD. Judge Ito loved being in the spotlight of the trial which was obvious with his showing of the Dancing Itos to the lawyers in his chambers. He would have been very unhappy, if not devastated, to be removed from the case. Why is her lie okay with you?

[martin II]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9109560]I don't know where you're getting that Capt. York is bearing the brunt of my scorn when I'm simply giving you my opinion. I still think she lied to protect her husband from being removed from the case and had nothing to do with the LAPD. Judge Ito loved being in the spotlight of the trial which was obvious with his showing of the Dancing Itos to the lawyers in his chambers. He would have been very unhappy, if not devastated, to be removed from the case. Well said tv. A lawyer who is his own client has a fool for a lawyer but what do you say about a judge appointed to such an important trial who allows the courtroom histrionics to be televised and then does this in his own chambers? Oh, i never thought anyone would know. I'm just being funny etc. If Simpson had been brought to justice I doubt Limakey would be so serene in her acceptance of his soap opera antics.

More nonsense

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9109560]I don't know where you're getting that Capt. York is bearing the brunt of my scorn when I'm simply giving you my opinion. I still think she lied to protect her husband from being removed from the case and had nothing to do with the LAPD. Judge Ito loved being in the spotlight of the trial which was obvious with his showing of the Dancing Itos to the lawyers in his chambers. He would have been very unhappy, if not devastated, to be removed from the case. Well said tv. A lawyer who is his own client has a fool for a lawyer but what do you say about a judge appointed to such an important trial who allows the courtroom histrionics to be televised and then does this in his own chambers? Oh, i never thought anyone would know. I'm just being funny etc. If Simpson had been brought to justice I doubt Limakey would be so serene in her acceptance of his soap opera antics.

I SUSPECTED YOU OF JUST BEING FUNNY WITH YOUR "YOUR MARTIN AND YOUR WILLIAM, SWEETIE, AND COMMENTS TO MAKE MUSIC WITH MARTIN." SOMETIMES A LAWYER, THAT REPRESENTS HIMSELF CAN BE CREATIVE, PROFESSIONAL, LEARNED AND WISE, BRINGING A RESPECT TO THE COURTROOM AND GET RESPECT FROM THE OTHER LAWYERS AND FORCE SETTLEMENTS WITH HIS ORIGINALITY. JUDGING FROM YOUR POSTS, IT IS MY HONEST OPINION THAT YOU SHOULD NOT TRY IT, SPEND THE MONEY.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9109560]I don't know where you're getting that Capt. York is bearing the brunt of my scorn when I'm simply giving you my opinion. I still think she lied to protect her husband from being removed from the case and had nothing to do with the LAPD. Judge Ito loved being in the spotlight of the trial which was obvious with his showing of the Dancing Itos to the lawyers in his chambers. He would have been very unhappy, if not devastated, to be removed from the case. Well said tv. A lawyer who is his own client has a fool for a lawyer but what do you say about a judge appointed to such an important trial who allows the courtroom histrionics to be televised and then does this in his own chambers? Oh, i never thought anyone would know. I'm just being funny etc. If Simpson had been brought to justice I doubt Limakey would be so serene in her acceptance of his soap opera antics.

I see you strill don't understand that in America the public has a right to see
public trials and not rely on media after testimony reports. Ito was upholding this public right.To bad for the public it is not the same where you are.imo

[martin II]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9109560]I don't know where you're getting that Capt. York is bearing the brunt of my scorn when I'm simply giving you my opinion. I still think she lied to protect her husband from being removed from the case and had nothing to do with the LAPD. Judge Ito loved being in the spotlight of the trial which was obvious with his showing of the Dancing Itos to the lawyers in his chambers. He would have been very unhappy, if not devastated, to be removed from the case. Well said tv. A lawyer who is his own client has a fool for a lawyer but what do you say about a judge appointed to such an important trial who allows the courtroom histrionics to be televised and then does this in his own chambers? Oh, i never thought anyone would know. I'm just being funny etc. If Simpson had been brought to justice I doubt Limakey would be so serene in her acceptance of his soap opera antics.

bell
If you are ever able, with the help of many,to reach the level of true information sharing that Limakey has reached then you may be able to be critical of her post.imo

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=Joseph Bell;9109584][B]

bell
If you are ever able, with the help of many,to reach the level of true information sharing that Limakey has reached then you may be able to be critical of her post.imo

I suspect that will never happen.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=Joseph Bell;9109584][B]

More nonsense

Did you consider the source?

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=Joseph Bell;9109584][B]

bell
If you are ever able, with the help of many,to reach the level of true information sharing that Limakey has reached then you may be able to be critical of her post.imo

Martin,

From Mr. Bell's post, I sought some understanding as to how the Simpson verdict impacted him. I understood how the verdict could have been viewed differently by different Americans but I was completely un-knowledgeable on Australian history, so I searched and found this.

"To treat such people as savages is an incredible insult. But for most of us white Australians, it wasn't intentional: we grew up--and grow old--without even knowing an Aborigine. I've had several chances to remedy my cloistered upbringing, and have close Aboriginal friends. One day when I was getting heated about what we whites had done, one of them laughed and said, `Now don't you go round feeling guilty!' So what should I feel? What constructive action can one take to remedy the sins of history?

In the mid-Seventies a young man who is now one of Australia's leading Aborigines came to my home for a barbecue. I suggested a game of tennis. `But I don't know how to play,' he said. So I showed him the rudiments and we played a set. And then another. Which he won. I didn't see him again for a quarter of a century, but a few weeks ago I was at a conference he addressed. Afterwards he was discussing something apparently important with a group of his advisors when I happened to walk by. He swung round, pointed at me and said, `And I won the tennis!'

There is an overflowing fountain of humanity, humour, perceptiveness and wisdom among the Aboriginal peoples. But we have stood back from it. Having dived into this fountain a few times, I ask myself: What is the cocktail of shyness, arrogance, self-centredness which held us back? It seems the height of stupidity."

I now have a deeper appreciation of Mr. Bell's point of views and how those views may help me to understand his seeming repulsion by the criminal verdict.

[tv]

[QUOTE=Joseph Bell;9109584]

I SUSPECTED YOU OF JUST BEING FUNNY WITH YOUR "YOUR MARTIN AND YOUR WILLIAM, SWEETIE, AND COMMENTS TO MAKE MUSIC WITH MARTIN." SOMETIMES A LAWYER, THAT REPRESENTS HIMSELF CAN BE CREATIVE, PROFESSIONAL, LEARNED AND WISE, BRINGING A RESPECT TO THE COURTROOM AND GET RESPECT FROM THE OTHER LAWYERS AND FORCE SETTLEMENTS WITH HIS [B]ORIGINALITY. JUDGING FROM YOUR POSTS, IT IS MY HONEST OPINION THAT YOU SHOULD NOT TRY IT, SPEND THE MONEY.Why are you quoting me then addressing Jospeh Bell?

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

Yes, the DA's did give a reasonable explaination regarding why a person may have dandruff while in jail. However, the facts are the fact this evidence does not excluse or conclusivly prove who left the hair in the hat. When they left in the hat or how long the hat was left outside.

Sure, the DA's tried like hell but the fact is, there is no way to prove who's hair it was.

I also believe that the DA's did ask the jury to "infer" that because the hair came from African American, have no problem with this. However, you must also give the "infer" right to the jurors who believe that a Simpson never would have used that hat as a means to hide his identity or conceal it. While many people thought JC's demonstration with the hat in his closing made him look silly, however, it is just as silly to believe that Simpson would have used this hat to hid his identity. IMO.

How did the hat come off at Bundy? Wouldn't violent struggles with at least one victim cause hair to be ripped out, not naturally shed? Were all these hair just found on the items of evidence, or were they found in other places? On the ground? Or on other clothes or hats Simpson may have worn?

The prosecution was put in the untenable and precarious position of trying to refute their own evidence; not only with the hair exemplars, but with the missing blood, Mazzola's testimony on her initials, the magical socks, Rokhar's testimony, no blood behind Kato's quarters and Martz' DNA results. What is unexplainable is why they waited so long to collect the hair sample and then put on an alleged expert, who based his testimony on ifs, maybes, could haves, and assumptions. Why didn't they ask any of the witnesses that saw Simpson on June 12th if they saw dandruff. Why didn't they have the photo's blown up to see if Simpson had dandruff on his clothes? I think the answer is obvious, they knew what the answer would be. Regardless, it was their burden to show that he did not have dandruff on the night of the murders by evidence that would allow the jury to draw an inference that he did have dandruff beyond a reasonable doubt, not those if, maybes, could haves and assumptions. Whether that evidence is reasonable or not is not the question, imho. The question is whether of not the evidence was sufficient to draw an inference beyond a reasonable doubt, imho, which that sophisticated jury, imho, appeared to understand. I give you credit for being diplomatic in your responses and I am sure you understood this when you responded. Mr. bobaugust seems to have ridden his horse to death, getting him to the stream to take a drink and wants to blame the horse for dieing, instead of admitting to his mistake, imho. Mr. bobaugust's second most largest mistake is saying that his posts are based on the evidence. There is no "credible evidence" (to use his mistakenly applied terminology, imho) that Simpson's hair did not have dandruff on June 12th.

[tv]

[QUOTE=Joseph Bell;9109584][B]

bell
If you are ever able, with the help of many,to reach the level of true information sharing that Limakey has reached then you may be able to be critical of her post.imoWhy are you quoting me then addressing Joseph Bell?

[William Anthony]

=William Anthony;9109604]Why are you quoting me then addressing Jospeh Bell?

Because of this post by Mr. Bell.

"Well said tv. A lawyer who is his own client has a fool for a lawyer but what do you say about a judge appointed to such an important trial who allows the courtroom histrionics to be televised and then does this in his own chambers? Oh, i never thought anyone would know. I'm just being funny etc. If Simpson had been brought to justice I doubt Limakey would be so serene in her acceptance of his soap opera antics.-Joseph Bell"

I responded to a post that already had your quote.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9109604]Why are you quoting me then addressing Jospeh Bell?

Perhaps, you should advise Mr. Bell to not mention you when he takes umbrage with another poster's post.

[tv]

Well said tv. A lawyer who is his own client has a fool for a lawyer but what do you say about a judge appointed to such an important trial who allows the courtroom histrionics to be televised and then does this in his own chambers? Oh, i never thought anyone would know. I'm just being funny etc. If Simpson had been brought to justice I doubt Limakey would be so serene in her acceptance of his soap opera antics.

I agree. If the outcome had been different, Ito would have been vilified by those who want to believe that OJ Simpson is innocent. Defense attorney, Peter Neufeld told Time magazine "I was very disappointed with Judge Ito, the fact that he was so concerned about his status as a celebrity, his willingness to entertain personalities in chambers, to show the lawyers little videotapes of skits on television." On the subject of the Dancing Itos Neufeld said "He had thought it was great and loved it and wanted all of us to see it in chambers. You may find that amusing on a personal level, but I can assure you on a professional level is is so unacceptable for a judge who's presiding over a murder trial to bring the lawyers into chambers to show them comic reviews."

[tv]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9109613]

Perhaps, you should advise Mr. Bell to not mention you when he takes umbrage with another poster's post.I see the forum is acting up with regard to quoting posts. No need to make a snarky comment.

[William Anthony]

I agree. If the outcome had been different, Ito would have been vilified by those who want to believe that OJ Simpson is innocent. Defense attorney, Peter Neufeld told Time magazine "I was very disappointed with Judge Ito, the fact that he was so concerned about his status as a celebrity, his willingness to entertain personalities in chambers, to show the lawyers little videotapes of skits on television." On the subject of the Dancing Itos Neufeld said "He had thought it was great and loved it and wanted all of us to see it in chambers. You may find that amusing on a personal level, but I can assure you on a professional level is is so unacceptable for a judge who's presiding over a murder trial to bring the lawyers into chambers to show them comic reviews."

I don't understand this. Simpson was arrested, charged, brought to trial, and a verdict was rendered by a jury. It is my understanding that Simpson was brought to justice.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9109618]I see the forum is acting up with regard to quoting posts. No need to make a snarky comment.

I don't think the forum is acting up and I did not make a "snarky" remark. I simply offered a suggestion, since you posed a question to me.

[tv]

I don't understand this. Simpson was arrested, charged, brought to trial, and a verdict was rendered by a jury. It is my understanding that Simpson was brought to justice.If you don't see what's wrong with a judge behaving in such a undignified manner I can't explain it to you. Perhaps you think the judge has no duty to set an example for the courtroom. So be it.

[tv]

I don't think the forum is acting up and I did not make a "snarky" remark. I simply offered a suggestion, since you posed a question to me.Let's not get started with this today. I had some problems with quotes myself this morning but it seems to be working okay now. I take that back -- I just had trouble with the quote.

[William Anthony]

Let's not get started with this today. I had some problems with quotes myself this morning but it seems to be working okay now. I take that back -- I just had trouble with the quote.

Alrighty, then. :) .

[William Anthony]

I agree absolutely tv. Certain other posters would be screaming about Ito if Simpson had been brought to justice.

It seem that some are screaming because he was brought to justice.;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

If you don't see what's wrong with a judge behaving in such a undignified manner I can't explain it to you. Perhaps you think the judge has no duty to set an example for the courtroom. So be it.

In the courtroom.

[martin II]

If you don't see what's wrong with a judge behaving in such a undignified manner I can't explain it to you. Perhaps you think the judge has no duty to set an example for the courtroom. So be it.

Maby ito just got tired of listening to Clarke yell and prance and put on bad testinmony and darden pout and beg.Maby he knew that case was headed to the trashcan so he entertained himself until they had finished.imo

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;9109607]Why are you quoting me then addressing Joseph Bell?

Is it not the same?

[martin II]

Let's not get started with this today. I had some problems with quotes myself this morning but it seems to be working okay now. I take that back -- I just had trouble with the quote.

Do you think we know enough about lynchburg and current day slavery in Australia i can post more
especially about Australia..

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;9109607]Why are you quoting me then addressing Joseph Bell?

did i do that?

[tv]

Do you think we know enough about lynchburg and current day slavery in Australia i can post more
especially about Australia..Please don't. I nearly died of boredom the last time.

[martin II]

Please don't. I nearly died of boredom the last time.

History can be boring sometimes. but i am at your service.I thought the treatment of women in Australia would cause you to comment.

[tv]

History can be boring sometimes. but i am at your service.I thought the treatment of women in Australia would cause you to comment.You were wrong.

[William Anthony]

I am going to ask all posters to drop all past grudges and start posting anew in a civil and respectful manner.

[William Anthony]

There is a case on trutv where there is going to be an argument on the issue of prior bad acts and I do not know if it will be televised. However, I hope it is and sheds some light on a prior discussion on an issue in the Simpson trial. The case is however taking place in Florida.

[martin II]

Can you give me an example of how a juror's race could help his or her understanding of the facts of the case?

A classic example of how race improved the jury's deliberations about the credibility of witnesses occurred during F. Lee Bailey's cross-examination of Mark Fuhrman, when Mr. Fuhrman testified for the prosecution. Bailey's cross-examination of Mark Fuhrman asked several critical questions, whose answers led the African American jurors to appreciate long before white America that Fuhrman was lying about his racist past.

Bailey asked Mark Fuhrman on cross-examination, "Do you care if people believe mistakenly that you have racist beliefs?" And Fuhrman said matter-of-factly, "No, I don't care." "Do you care that people mistakenly believe that you are willing to frame an innocent man by planting incriminating evidence against him?" And Fuhrman reddened and showed a sense of annoyance and anger and replied, "Yes, that matters to me." Two African American jurors immediately looked at each other with disgust, because they understood immediately that those differing answers reflected the fact that Fuhrman probably was a racist. They didn't need the tapes. White America and perhaps the one white juror needed to hear those tapes to understand that Mr. Fuhrman was lying on the stand, but the African American jurors already knew.

...http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/arenella.html

[martin II]

Do you think the outcome of the trial would have been different if the jury had been presented with the same evidence of domestic violence that the public saw?

In this particular case, the evidence of domestic violence was not overwhelming, and even some of the material not presented to the jury still wouldn't by itself lead to a conviction, because any juror could ask, if Mr. Simpson was so out of control, then why in fact had the acts of violence de-escalated during the last few years that they were separated? The pattern wasn't of escalating violence; the pattern was of violence that was decreasing in its incidence, and that is not a story consistent with someone using violence to control an ex-spouse.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/arenella.html

peter arnella

[martin II]

You were wrong.

Maby some women only stand up for some women.

[weezer]

Can you give me an example of how a juror's race could help his or her understanding of the facts of the case?

A classic example of how race improved the jury's deliberations about the credibility of witnesses occurred during F. Lee Bailey's cross-examination of Mark Fuhrman, when Mr. Fuhrman testified for the prosecution. Bailey's cross-examination of Mark Fuhrman asked several critical questions, whose answers led the African American jurors to appreciate long before white America that Fuhrman was lying about his racist past.

Bailey asked Mark Fuhrman on cross-examination, "Do you care if people believe mistakenly that you have racist beliefs?" And Fuhrman said matter-of-factly, "No, I don't care." "Do you care that people mistakenly believe that you are willing to frame an innocent man by planting incriminating evidence against him?" And Fuhrman reddened and showed a sense of annoyance and anger and replied, "Yes, that matters to me." Two African American jurors immediately looked at each other with disgust, because they understood immediately that those differing answers reflected the fact that Fuhrman probably was a racist. They didn't need the tapes. White America and perhaps the one white juror needed to hear those tapes to understand that Mr. Fuhrman was lying on the stand, but the African American jurors already knew.

...http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/arenella.html

yep, in fact at least one of the jurors was so smart that she knew before Fuhrman answered one question that he was a racist. she was so good she could tell just by looking at him. how come nobody is screaming 'racial profile'? LOL

[bobaugust]

There is no evidence that Simpson wore that cap on June 12th and his hair exemplar and the reasonable inference to be drawn form Ms. Moore's testimony and the expert's testimony and common sense is that he did not wear it. If it does not fit...

There was no dandruff found in the knit cap because Simpson didn't have dandruff when he wore it. I know of no evidence that suggests Simpson never wore the knit cap found at Bundy, if you think you do post it please. Moore had no knowledge of Simpson's hair condition on June 12 and there was no direct or physical evidence to support the speculation that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

They did not. They tried, imho, but failed miserably to produce evidence to rebut the reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the defense's evidence.

There was no direct or physical evidence that Simpson had dandruff the night of the murders and the defense never claimed he did. Clark simply pointed out why the speculation about dandruff was not credible.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

There was no dandruff found in the knit cap because Simpson didn't have dandruff when he wore it. I know of no evidence that suggests Simpson never wore the knit cap found at Bundy, if you think you do post it please. Moore had no knowledge of Simpson's hair condition on June 12 and there was no direct or physical evidence to support the speculation that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

bobaugust

There was no dandruff in the cap. Simpson's hair exemplar had dandruff. There was circumstantial testimonial evidence that Simpson's hair should have had dandruff. When a cap is it pulled off during a struggle there will be dandruff. There is no evidence that Simpson wore any cap on the night of the murders or any other night. I never claimed there was "direct evidence". You, on the other hand, claimed there was dandruff in the exemplar and his hair sample. Your claim that you post on evidence is untrue. The prosecution failed to connect Simpson to the cap.

[weezer]

There was no dandruff in the cap. Simpson's hair exemplar had dandruff. There was circumstantial testimonial evidence that Simpson's hair should have had dandruff. When a cap is it pulled off during a struggle there will be dandruff. There is no evidence that Simpson wore any cap on the night of the murders or any other night. I never claimed there was "direct evidence". You, on the other hand, claimed there was dandruff in the exemplar and his hair sample. Your claim that you post on evidence is untrue. The prosecution failed to connect Simpson to the cap.

there would be no reason to assume orenthal had dandruff on the night of the murders simply because he had had dandruff on and off in the past and did have it weeks later when the sample was taken.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Yes, the DA's did give a reasonable explaination regarding why a person may have dandruff while in jail. However, the facts are the fact this evidence does not excluse or conclusivly prove who left the hair in the hat. When they left in the hat or how long the hat was left outside.

Sure, the DA's tried like hell but the fact is, there is no way to prove who's hair it was.

I also believe that the DA's did ask the jury to "infer" that because the hair came from African American, have no problem with this. However, you must also give the "infer" right to the jurors who believe that a Simpson never would have used that hat as a means to hide his identity or conceal it. While many people thought JC's demonstration with the hat in his closing made him look silly, however, it is just as silly to believe that Simpson would have used this hat to hid his identity. IMO.

How did the hat come off at Bundy? Wouldn't violent struggles with at least one victim cause hair to be ripped out, not naturally shed? Were all these hair just found on the items of evidence, or were they found in other places? On the ground? Or on other clothes or hats Simpson may have worn?

If by chance someone had seen a large person dressed in all dark colored clothing with his head covered by a dark colored knit cap in the dark shadows on the Bundy walkway they would not have been able to give a detailed description as to who he saw. Cochran wearing that knit cap under the lights of the court room did not address that reality.

There was no evidence that the knit cap was or could have been under the plant leaves at Bundy before the night of the murders. The ten naturally shed hairs that were found inside the knit cap that all microscopically matched Simpson's hair tell us Simpson wore that knit cap. Another one of Simpson's naturally shed hairs was found on Ron Goldman's shirt. The cashmere fiber found on the knit cap was consistent with the cashmere lining in the killer's gloves. The unusual x-shaped fiber found on the knit cap was consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpeting. The knit cap could very well have been pulled off Simpson's head by Ron Goldman without any contact made to Simpson's short hair.

September 29 Clark's closing argument.
"And one thing that Mr. Scheck said was that Mr. Deedrick and Dr. Lee agreed that hair and fiber association was weak association. Well, here is what Dr. Lee testified to, page 43168. Question posed Dr. Lee. "Do you agree with the following statement: While it is difficult to make absolute individualizations ins these areas, the trace analyst can make identifications with a high degree of certainty and can often establish partial individuality of a specimen with confidence based on experience and analytical results? "Answer: I would say eighty to ninety percent that statement correct. They forgot one thing. Depends on sample. Not all the sample you can reach that degree of certainty. Some of the sample, yes, you can." In other words, it is a very good. What he said, "Can establish partial individuality with confidence." In other words, it is a very strong method of association."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

There was no dandruff in the cap. Simpson's hair exemplar had dandruff. There was circumstantial testimonial evidence that Simpson's hair should have had dandruff. When a cap is it pulled off during a struggle there will be dandruff. There is no evidence that Simpson wore any cap on the night of the murders or any other night. I never claimed there was "direct evidence". You, on the other hand, claimed there was dandruff in the exemplar and his hair sample. Your claim that you post on evidence is untrue. The prosecution failed to connect Simpson to the cap.

There was no evidence of dandruff at the murder scene and there was no credible evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. Hair and fiber evidence connect Simpson to the knit cap.

bobaugust

[martin II]

yep, in fact at least one of the jurors was so smart that she knew before Fuhrman answered one question that he was a racist. she was so good she could tell just by looking at him. how come nobody is screaming 'racial profile'? LOL

Because there was none.But if what you say is true,that juror was on target
as that is what he proved to be.imo

[martin II]

If by chance someone had seen a large person dressed in all dark colored clothing with his head covered by a dark colored knit cap in the dark shadows on the Bundy walkway they would not have been able to give a detailed description as to who he saw. Cochran wearing that knit cap under the lights of the court room did not address that reality.

There was no evidence that the knit cap was or could have been under the plant leaves at Bundy before the night of the murders. The ten naturally shed hairs that were found inside the knit cap that all microscopically matched Simpson's hair tell us Simpson wore that knit cap. Another one of Simpson's naturally shed hairs was found on Ron Goldman's shirt. The cashmere fiber found on the knit cap was consistent with the cashmere lining in the killer's gloves. The unusual x-shaped fiber found on the knit cap was consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpeting. The knit cap could very well have been pulled off Simpson's head by Ron Goldman without any contact made to Simpson's short hair.

September 29 Clark's closing argument.
"And one thing that Mr. Scheck said was that Mr. Deedrick and Dr. Lee agreed that hair and fiber association was weak association. Well, here is what Dr. Lee testified to, page 43168. Question posed Dr. Lee. "Do you agree with the following statement: While it is difficult to make absolute individualizations ins these areas, the trace analyst can make identifications with a high degree of certainty and can often establish partial individuality of a specimen with confidence based on experience and analytical results? "Answer: I would say eighty to ninety percent that statement correct. They forgot one thing. Depends on sample. Not all the sample you can reach that degree of certainty. Some of the sample, yes, you can." In other words, it is a very good. What he said, "Can establish partial individuality with confidence." In other words, it is a very strong method of association."

bobaugust


BOB
That is all mobo jombo.
The simple fact is you cannot find a cap in a yard and say oj had it on.You need more. ojs "Hair Expert" testified he had dandruff in the summer when he played golf.He played golf on 6/12 and that was june. hot summer month.
Using "he must have" or "association" or hair 'Like" other black men is prosecution mobo jombo trying to get the jury to believe something that makes no common sense to them.That cap meant nothing in this case.
imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

BOB
That is all mobo jombo.
The simple fact is you cannot find a cap in a yard and say oj had it on.You need more. ojs "Hair Expert" testified he had dandruff in the summer when he played golf.He played golf on 6/12 and that was june. hot summer month.
Using "he must have" or "association" or hair 'Like" other black men is prosecution mobo jombo trying to get the jury to believe something that makes no common sense to them.That cap meant nothing in this case.
imo
martin II

martin II. you are wrong, Moore did not and could not testify that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. There is no credible evidence that supports the speculation that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

The evidence is that the knit cap was found next to one of the killer's gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet. There was no evidence that the knit cap was or could have been there prior to the murders. The ten naturally shed hairs found inside the knit cap were all mirror matches to the sample hairs Simpson provided for comparison. Those hairs are evidence that Simpson wore that knit cap. A cashmere fiber consistent with the cashmere lining of the killer's gloves found on the knit cap connects the knit cap to the killer's gloves and an unusual x-shaped fiber consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpet found on the knit cap connects the knit cap to Simpson's Bronco.

bobaugust

[limakey]

TV and Mr. Bell,

The incidents between MF and Capt York happened in the mid 1980's. I don't even know if she was even seeing Judge Ito, let alone married to him.

I think you are both missing the "big picture" which is, Capt. York did follow policy and procedures when reprimanding MF for his total lack of respect for authority. No matter what she did, her decisions were being over ruled by her bosses---why? How was MF able to get away with this? I don't care what his personal feelings were regarding Capt. York, it wasn't his call to make. He signed on to the LAPD which is an agency that is dependant on its officers following a very strict code of ethics as well as intense discipline, not to mention signing on to serve and protect. How can the MF's serve and protect all citizens when the MF's have no problem walking into their supervisors, a ranking officer's office and refuse to "serve" under them?

Capt York filed her reprimands, she had to file them with her superiors, as far as I am concerned, she did her job. No where is it in any woman's job description that if you come across a real jerk at work, that you have to report it to your husband.

MF made it clear in his book, several members of the LAPD were aware of the situation, why was York the only one who had to tell her husband?

I believe Judge Ito did the right thing by having the camera in the courtroom. I could have done with out the million and one side bar's. I could have done without the hour glasses as well as the fodder that all the lawyers and players in this trial provided for late night comics. I even agree with you that Ito, at least in the beginning did enjoy the spot light. However, what does his love of the spot light have to do with his rulings? Give me one example of the Dancing Ito's playing a part in a ruling, just one.

And lets be fair, are you saying the DA's didn't love their moment in the sun? How much money did Darden and Clark make on their books? How many times were both of them protrayed as victims of the defense? Everybody loved their moment in the sun. However, I think their moments did not last as long as we may think. Do you think Marcia Clark liked having a topless photo of her published---by a very pissed off ex-mother in law? The messy divorce and custody battle she was engaged in? Do you think JC should not have been offended when he walked into a TV truck and saw his mother's death certificate tacked up on the wall? Do you think Chris Darden liked it when pictures of his brother made the tabs and the world found out he was dying from AIDS because he was a junkie? Do you really think Judge Ito liked knowing that Mark Fuhrman's comments about his wife on those tapes had nothing to do with her skills but were on her weight, appearance and in fact, he didn't even think she looked like a woman at all?

Yes, they all had their moment in the sun, but they all paid a very, very high price for it.

Judge Ito's love of the spotlight had nothing to do with the rulings he had to make and he had to make some that I personally don't think another judge would have had the guts to make, IMO.

Mr. Bell you are just plain wrong regarding your comments about cameras in our courtrooms. The camera has nothing to do with the evidence, it has nothing to do with how that evidence is presented. What really made the trial a circus were the legal and other journalists who gave the color play by play. Ito was not responsible for what the legal talking heads said, some of which never even tried a case or the journalists. Overall, I think Judge Ito did the right thing and he opened a door into the courtroom that should have been open a lot sooner----of course the trial of Bruno Hauptman really did put a decades long ban on cameras in the courtroom. However, this ban was done because it was obvious, after you got through the media slant, that it was very, very possible that an innocent man was put to death.

Ito opened a door that was closed because of the media and antics of the DA's. Guess what, the door has been closed for the very same reason, over 60 years ago. IMO.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Wrong again, similar hats were found inside the condo---the police never collected them into evidence. American Tragedy.

I do not believe that any similiar hats were found at Rockingham.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Wrong again, similar hats were found inside the condo---the police never collected them into evidence. American Tragedy.

I do not believe that any similiar hats were found at Rockingham.

Limakey, there was no evidence that the large knit cap found next to one of the killer's gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet could have been there prior to the murders. If you think there was post it please.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

I believe I did post why I believe there is a very good chance that hat could have been already there---same type of hats found inside the condo. The same condo where two children lived. I don't remember the size of the cap being given, I thought it was a one size fits all? I look again in American Tragedy to see if there are more details.

No similar hats found at Rockingham.

No way to prove how long the hat was there, no way to prove who deposited the hair samples, can't even determine if it was male or female.

Also, there is no way that I believe MF was wrong when he described a ski mask. He was in the military and watch caps are issued items---he knows the difference. Do I think it was possible for someone to switch a ski mask for a watch cap---in this case, you bet I do!

[martin II]

there would be no reason to assume orenthal had dandruff on the night of the murders simply because he had had dandruff on and off in the past and did have it weeks later when the sample was taken.

There was only one oj hair expert.Moore, that had cut his hair for 16 years.
She is the only one that can say when oj had or did not have dandruff and she stated that he would have dandruff when he played golf in the summer months. Like on the morning of 6/12.The others were just guessing and talking prosecution mombo jombo. It is possible stuff.

[William Anthony]

there would be no reason to assume orenthal had dandruff on the night of the murders simply because he had had dandruff on and off in the past and did have it weeks later when the sample was taken.

The only way your scenario works is if you presume Simpson is guilty. The evidence is that he had dandruff in the months from March through August for the past 16 years and more so when he played golf, which he did that day. The only logical inference to be drawn is that the dandruff should have been there. The prosecution wanted to say we did not find dandruff in the cap or the hairs that were shed during the struggle but our exemplars contained hair so we want you to believe that he did not have dandruff, even though the evidence is contrary because we believe Simpson did the crime. Those who believe Simpson was guilty, without considering the evidence are the ones, imho, who would follow that argument that alleviated the prosecution of its burden of proof.

[William Anthony]

There was no evidence of dandruff at the murder scene and there was no credible evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. Hair and fiber evidence connect Simpson to the knit cap.

bobaugust

The hair evidence is exculpatory and the fiber evidence is so weak as to be tantamount to desperation. The prosecution did not produce one shed of clothing from which dark blue cotton fibers could have come from Simpson's clothing.

[SlowHandSam]

There was only one oj hair expert.Moore, that had cut his hair for 16 years.
She is the only one that can say when oj had or did not have dandruff and she stated that he would have dandruff when he played golf in the summer months. Like on the morning of 6/12.The others were just guessing and talking prosecution mombo jombo. It is possible stuff.

she stated that she was not the only one who cut his hair so she would not be the only one who could state whether or not he had dandruff.

[martin II]

Limakey, there was no evidence that the large knit cap found next to one of the killer's gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet could have been there prior to the murders. If you think there was post it please.

bobaugust

BOB

I believe there were many claims made by the prosecution that were not proven my EVIDENCE. There was no physical evidence proving oj jumped his fence or was in the walkway on 6/12 but the prosecution tried to use HE MUST HAVE BEEN type arguments to get the jury to believe he was.There is no physical evidence that oj made the noise Kato said he heard. But the prosecution tried to say IT MUST HAVE BEEN him because we found a glove there.I believe it was in Clarke closing she made a statement something like he is guilty because i said so. Lots of evidence was presented and it was proven that much of it could not be believed. imo