Issues In The Criminal Trial

[William Anthony]

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

Where in that argument is the question that the sample taken was a strong association, as opposed to the fact that "They forgot one thing. Depends on sample. Not all the sample you can reach that degree of certainty." He was speaking generally about different samples. Where is the question about the specific samples taken in this case in her argument? Let me answer. There is none. The jury saw through that, imho.

[bobaugust]

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!

Limakey, just because there was a smaller similar knit cap found inside Nicole's condo that is not evidence that the larger knit cap found under the plant leaves at Ron's feet was there prior to the murders. The hair and fiber evidence found on the knit cap under the plant leaves connects it to the murders and to Simpson.

Just because Fuhrman first described the knit cap as a ski mask doesn't change the evidence. Both Riske and Terrazas, the first police officers to arrived at Bundy testified they saw a glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron's feet about an hour and a half before Fuhrman arrived there.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

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.

Whose duty was it to produce a barber that could testify he didn't have dandruff on the day of the murders? The prosecution failed.

[martin II]

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.

She cut his hair regurlarly for 16 years.Do you know of another hair person that had that amount of experience cutting his hair?

[William Anthony]

Where is the testimony of anyone that places Simpson in that cap on the night of the murders? Where is the testimony of anyone that the hat was pulled off during the struggle? Oh yes, there was a theory which was contradicted by the evidence of no dandruff. When the evidence is capable of two reasonable inferences you must, by the jury instruction, accept the one that points toward innocence. However, in this case, there was no evidence on the issue of the hat and cap that could point toward guilt, imho.

[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.

The fact is that hairs that microscopically mirror matched Simpson's hairs were found in and on the knit cap as well as on Ron's clothing is not exculpatory to Simpson, it's incriminating. The killer Simpson disposed of his clothing so no one could produce it but he could not dispose of the fiber evidence he left on his gloves and his socks and on Ron's shirt.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The fact is that hairs that microscopically mirror matched Simpson's hairs were found in and on the knit cap as well as on Ron's clothing is not exculpatory to Simpson, it's incriminating. The killer Simpson disposed of his clothing so no one could produce it but he could not dispose of the fiber evidence he left on his gloves and his socks and on Ron's shirt.

bobaugust

That may be believable if the admitted evidence planter had not traveled back and forth between crime scenes and thanks to Limakey reminding me they had dragged Ronald's body through the crime scene. Oh those magical socks with the DNA testimony of a dead expert.

[martin II]

Limakey, just because there was a smaller similar knit cap found inside Nicole's condo that is not evidence that the larger knit cap found under the plant leaves at Ron's feet was there prior to the murders. The hair and fiber evidence found on the knit cap under the plant leaves connects it to the murders and to Simpson.

Just because Fuhrman first described the knit cap as a ski mask doesn't change the evidence. Both Riske and Terrazas, the first police officers to arrived at Bundy testified they saw a glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron's feet about an hour and a half before Fuhrman arrived there.

bobaugust

bob

Likewise there is no evidence to prove that the cap was not there before the murders.Risk and Terrazas seeing it when they arrived does not prove that the cap was not there before the murders.imo

[William Anthony]

Simpson's knit wool, IIRC cap found, in the month of June, at the home of his ex-wife with whom he had children with no blood on it and and no dandruff, when the reasonable inference is that he should have had dandruff, and a carpet fiber from a Bronco that he had owned for sometime chinches it for me that he had that wool cap on his head in June to avoid detection or being recognized and surely, would not have drawn attention to himself and so attired murdered two people. Wow, how could the prosecution ever loose?

[bobaugust]

Where is the testimony of anyone that places Simpson in that cap on the night of the murders? Where is the testimony of anyone that the hat was pulled off during the struggle? Oh yes, there was a theory which was contradicted by the evidence of no dandruff. When the evidence is capable of two reasonable inferences you must, by the jury instruction, accept the one that points toward innocence. However, in this case, there was no evidence on the issue of the hat and cap that could point toward guilt, imho.

Any reasonable thinking person understands that Moore's testimony that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summers and sometimes he did not is not credible evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. Moore last saw Simpson on May 23 and could not and did not testify as to Simpson's hair condition on June 12. Any inference drawn from "sometimes" with no direct or physical evidence to support it is only unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[martin II]

The fact is that hairs that microscopically mirror matched Simpson's hairs were found in and on the knit cap as well as on Ron's clothing is not exculpatory to Simpson, it's incriminating. The killer Simpson disposed of his clothing so no one could produce it but he could not dispose of the fiber evidence he left on his gloves and his socks and on Ron's shirt.

bobaugust

As you may say, there was no evidence of any killers clothes that oj had on on 6/12. There was no clothes presented in the trial that was evidence that oj wore them on 6/12. There was no clothes tested and presented as evidence for comparison that any fibers came from those killer clothes.

The prosecution was left with their experts with microscopes and experience
and interpretations of what they saw.They were there to support the prosecutions weak claims. This was before the defense under cross showed it could not be believed.imo

[William Anthony]

Any reasonable thinking person understands that Moore's testimony that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summers and sometimes he did not is not credible evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. Moore last saw Simpson on May 23 and could not and did not testify as to Simpson's hair condition on June 12. Any inference drawn from "sometimes" with no direct or physical evidence to support it is only unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

you posted a definition of circumstantial evidence or did you forget. The trier of fact determines what evidence is credible. The very definition of circumstantial evidence negates the fact that it must be supported by direct evidence. What there was was no circumstantial or direct evidence that Simpson did not have dandruff on the night of the murders. The prosecution had to argue that either their exemplar wasn't trustworthy or there cap hairs weren't. They were force to argue the exemplars weren't, without anything but, ifs, woulda, shouldas, maybes, could haves, and assumptions. The idea that some prisoners developed dandruff in jail does not prove that Simpson did not have dandruff before he went to jail or on the night of the murders. They did not ask anyone who saw Simpson on that day and evening if they noticed dandruff on his clothing or in his hair. Why didn't the prosecution ask Ms. Moore, if he had dandruff on May 23rd? They did not enlarge any photo, or, if they did, they did not enter it into evidence. I think we know what that says.

[martin II]

Any reasonable thinking person understands that Moore's testimony that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summers and sometimes he did not is not credible evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. Moore last saw Simpson on May 23 and could not and did not testify as to Simpson's hair condition on June 12. Any inference drawn from "sometimes" with no direct or physical evidence to support it is only unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

The prosecution made the claim they had the responsibility to prove their claim and they didn't .It is no more than many other claims they did not prove.

[William Anthony]

Here is a simplified definition of circumstantial evidence.

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/BF0C7D2A-574F-4D2A-A917315F616CC8EB/alpha/C/

[bobaugust]

you posted a definition of circumstantial evidence or did you forget. The trier of fact determines what evidence is credible. The very definition of circumstantial evidence negates the fact that it must be supported by direct evidence. What there was was no circumstantial or direct evidence that Simpson did not have dandruff on the night of the murders. The prosecution had to argue that either their exemplar wasn't trustworthy or there cap hairs weren't. They were force to argue the exemplars weren't, without anything but, ifs, woulda, shouldas, maybes, could haves, and assumptions. The idea that some prisoners developed dandruff in jail does not prove that Simpson did not have dandruff before he went to jail or on the night of the murders. They did not ask anyone who saw Simpson on that day and evening if they noticed dandruff on his clothing or in his hair. Why didn't the prosecution ask Ms. Moore, if he had dandruff on May 23rd? They did not enlarge any photo, or, if they did, they did not enter it into evidence. I think we know what that says.

Moore was a defense witness not a prosecution witness. Why didn't the defense ask Moore if Simpson had dandruff on May 23? For the same reason that the defense never claimed Simpson had dandruff on June 12, They evidently knew that he didn't since they were well aware of all the tests Simpson had undergone on June 17.

American Tragedy
"Skin samples, urine samples, hair and blood samples."

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Moore was a defense witness not a prosecution witness. Why didn't the defense ask Moore if Simpson had dandruff on May 23? For the same reason that the defense never claimed Simpson had dandruff on June 12, They evidently knew that he didn't since they were well aware of all the tests Simpson had undergone on June 17.

American Tragedy
"Skin samples, urine samples, hair and blood samples."

bobaugust

Because the defense did not have to prove he did not have dandruff. That was the prosecution's burden. She was available and there to be questioned. If the prosecution knew he did not have it on the 17th, they would have asked anyone that saw him and/or examined him. They did not, because they knew the answer was that he did, imho. The prosecution offered no evidence that he did not have dandruff on the 12th and only argued that he did not and hoped that the jury could not see through their really weak argument because they hoped that the jury would not appreciate their burden, because they were predisposed, as many seem, to think Simpson had to prove himself innocent.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution's position on the dandruff issue is this.

http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-circular.htm

"EXAMPLE 2

A satisfied citizen says: “Richardson is the most successful mayor the town has ever had because he's the best mayor of our history.”

The second part of this sentence offers no evidence — it simply repeats the claim that was already presented. Don’t be fooled into believing that using the word “because” in an argument automatically provides a valid reason. Be sure to provide clear evidence to support your claims, not a version of the premise (the initial statement in an argument)."

The cap is Simpson's worn by him on the night we found it. The hairs found in the cap do not have dandruff but Simpson's hair had dandruff when we took the sample. Therefore, Simpson did not have dandruff on the night he wore the hat and we found it, because the hat is Simpson's.

[SlowHandSam]

She cut his hair regurlarly for 16 years.Do you know of another hair person that had that amount of experience cutting his hair?

I don't think it matters if there was someone else who had the same amount of experience cutting his hair. The bottom line is that she testified that she wasn't the only one who cut his hair. There is no grounds to say that the reasonable inference was that he should have dandruff at the time.

Was he not filming a movie and a video at that time? Surely he'd have "groomers" to ensure he was trimmed, oiled and all that.

Just because he *might* have had dandruff during a similar season doesn't mean he'd have it then. Aside from that, IIRC, he wasn't only in California in that heat immediately before or after he murdered Nicole and Ron.

[William Anthony]

Inference reasoning and I found this.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17603942

I think you can see that an inference is based on things coherent, as opposed to circular.

[weezer]

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.

so she's not telling the truth when she said he didn't have dandruff just prior to the murders when she cut his hair? she never testified that he actually had dandruff during those months. she said that over the years and at different times, orenthal had a problem with dandruff. there is no evidence that he had dandruff either in the weeks before or the night of the murders. in fact, she testified just exactly opposite to what you are arguing. to argue that he had to have dandruff the night he murdered Ron and Nicole because he sometimes did is ludicrous.

[William Anthony]

I don't think it matters if there was someone else who had the same amount of experience cutting his hair. The bottom line is that she testified that she wasn't the only one who cut his hair. There is no grounds to say that the reasonable inference was that he should have dandruff at the time.

Was he not filming a movie and a video at that time? Surely he'd have "groomers" to ensure he was trimmed, oiled and all that.

Just because he *might* have had dandruff during a similar season doesn't mean he'd have it then. Aside from that, IIRC, he wasn't only in California in that heat immediately before or after he murdered Nicole and Ron.

Your argument assumes that he murdered Ron and Nicole and places the burden on him to prove he did not. The prosecution had the responsibility of proving he did. Because he murdered them and he did not show that someone else cut his hair and groomed it to prove he did not have dandruff and did not show that he had dandruff, even though we provided samples that he did, he, therefore, failed to prove he murdered them. This is a perfect example of the misplacement of the burden and circular reasoning.

[William Anthony]

so she's not telling the truth when she said he didn't have dandruff just prior to the murders when she cut his hair? she never testified that he actually had dandruff during those months. she said that over the years and at different times, orenthal had a problem with dandruff. there is no evidence that he had dandruff either in the weeks before or the night of the murders. in fact, she testified just exactly opposite to what you are arguing. to argue that he had to have dandruff the night he murdered Ron and Nicole because he sometimes did is ludicrous.

That is because she never testified to what you claim. Her testimony was that he would have more dandruff in the months between February and August and when he played golf, which he did that day. Again, you misplace the burden. It was the prosecution's duty to show that he did not have dandruff by putting on evidence that he didn't have it to support their theory that the cap was dislodged during a struggle. I think that, after 16 years cutting his hair, she would know the months when his hair had dandruff. Without any evidence that he did something different or evidence that people did not see dandruff on his hair and clothing, the only evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn is that he had dandruff as was his routine.

[limakey]

Martin,

You bring up a point that I forgot about and I'm not even sure if it is one. Do most African-Americans use oil on their hair---I'm not sure if I am using the correct term. Did Mr. Simpson use oil on his hair? Was any oil residue found in the cap?

[limakey]

Mr. August,

I read your excerpts from Clark's closing regarding the hair in this case. I think Clark, again was brilliant because, IMO, she was talking about being able to identify the race of the person, not the sex of the person, not the actual DNA of the person. Just like the white person's hair that was found on the glove at Rockingham---they could only determine the color and it was from a white person. Again, can't identify who's hair it was or the sex, just the race.

Now, I know you are going to come back and say that the hair was Nicole's, however, Nicole did dye or color her hair--that could have been determined, but I don't believe there was any testimony on that.

If you are going to continue this arguement, then deal with the fact that the DA's did nothing to find the identity of the person's hair.

Just like the blood that was found in the Bronco that belonged to a person of the Hispanic race. I know, you will come back and say it was Simpson's maid's. However, why wasn't a sample of her blood taken and compared to this sample? I would have no problem with the DA's saying that it would not be unusal to find her blood in the Bronco because she did have access to it and may have used it on errands.

JC was a well known figure in LA and in the legal community. However, you can't compare his fame and facial recognition to OJ Simpson's fame and facial recognition. A majority of Mr. Simpson's earnings were based on his fame and his face.

Again, it was Clark who said that he was too famous to dispose of the evidence in public dumpster. And btw---does it really make any sense that Mr. Simpson would have done the most excellent job of getting rid the shoes, clothes and weapon but leave the socks on his bedroom floor? Does it really make any sense that he would have attempted to hide the glove behind Kato's wall? Does it really make any sense that Simpson would not have known that he was missing the gloves and the hat? It is not like the killer(s) were in a hurry to leave. It is not like the killer(s) displayed any concern for being recognized by the children---to include their guest.

IMO.

[limakey]

TV,

A while ago you made a post about the socks, about how no one could see blood on them and that Dr. Lee was sent a photograph of them and couldn't see blood on them. Do I have that right?

Well, why was Dr. Lee sent a photograph of the socks? Was it because when he went to the CSI building and asked to see the socks, they couldn't find them? Is it any wonder why Dr. Lee realized that "something was wrong" very early on with this evidence.

Just to be fair, I did read his essays on this case. He made a statement that I think is very interesting---he claimed both sides were afraid the evidence. I can understand the defense being afraid of any evidence in any murder case, however, why would the DA's be afraid of any evidence? Isn't it their job to be fearless in where the evidence may lead them?

[SlowHandSam]

Martin,

You bring up a point that I forgot about and I'm not even sure if it is one. Do most African-Americans use oil on their hair---I'm not sure if I am using the correct term. Did Mr. Simpson use oil on his hair? Was any oil residue found in the cap?

from Ms. Moore's testimony:
MS. MOORE: Well, it would happen mostly if he didn't put oil on his hair. If he put oil on his hair, he wouldn't have dandruff like he did. It would be in--when he played golf, he was in the sun, you know, and with the lack of oil that would create the dry scalp.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you're not a dermatologist, are you?

MS. MOORE: I'm not a dermatologist, no.

MR. COCHRAN: And as such, with regard to when you would see dandruff in his hair or around his shoulders or whatever, what would you do for him or recommend to him?

MS. MOORE: Well, I would tell him to be sure and to put more oil in his hair if he's going to be in the sun and I would tell him to use some kind of dandruff shampoo, you know, over-the-counter shampoo. It wasn't bad enough for him to go to a dermatologist, you know. He could just use a dandruff shampoo.

it isn't that kind of oil ... it typically has no residue. It's essentially conditioner for extra dry hair and scalps.

[William Anthony]

from Ms. Moore's testimony:


it isn't that kind of oil ... it typically has no residue. It's essentially conditioner for extra dry hair and scalps.

Where is the testimony on the brand of oil he used on his hair and the last time he purchased the oil, how much he used and the last time he oiled his scalp, and what brand of hair oil was entered into evidence and the evidence on how much residue that brand left? Another example of circular reasoning, imho.

[martin II]

Martin,

You bring up a point that I forgot about and I'm not even sure if it is one. Do most African-Americans use oil on their hair---I'm not sure if I am using the correct term. Did Mr. Simpson use oil on his hair? Was any oil residue found in the cap?

AA males have a wide range of hair 'QUALITY' from curly, to wavy to kinda kinda wirely. I guess this may be because of varying degrees of mixed blood
most have.

My experience is that if my head is exposed to summer heat with or without a cap it sweats and the results is dandruff when the sweat/moisture is gone.

In 1994 men as a whole did not do the grooming of hair,oil shampoo etc, as they do today so i believe most had a bigger dranduff problem than they do today.

Some of the shampoos actually cause dandruff.

Since le found the cap on 6/12 and they examined ojs body for scars etc why didn't they examine his scalp/hair then.

Most use natural oils now.

[William Anthony]

AA males have a wide range of hair 'QUALITY' from curly, to wavy to kinda kinda wirely. I guess this may be because of varying degrees of mixed blood
most have.

My experience is that if my head is exposed to summer heat with or without a cap it sweats and the results is dandruff when the sweat/moisture is gone.

In 1994 men as a whole did not do the grooming of hair,oil shampoo etc, as they do today so i believe most had a bigger dranduff problem than they do today.

Some of the shampoos actually cause dandruff.

Since le found the cap on 6/12 and they examined ojs body for scars etc why didn't they examine his scalp/hair then.

Why wasn't the question asked of those who examined him if they saw dandruff? The prosecution knew the answer would have been, yes, imho. This may be part of the evidence the prosecution was afraid of. This is a circular argument, :) . The most germane part is that the prosecution lacked proof on the issue that Simpson did not have dandruff on June 12th.

[martin II]

from Ms. Moore's testimony:


it isn't that kind of oil ... it typically has no residue. It's essentially conditioner for extra dry hair and scalps.

'It isn't that kind of oil' what kind of oil do you know oj used on his hair?

[William Anthony]

'It isn't that kind of oil' what kind of oil do you know oj used on his hair?

Mazzola, corn oil.:) Just an attempt at humor.

[SlowHandSam]

'It isn't that kind of oil' what kind of oil do you know oj used on his hair?

It doesn't matter if I know or not which oil he used. I am familiar with the oils, as I use them on my own hair and scalp, and I know that if applied correctly there is no residue. Naturally dry hair and scalp soak up the oil just as another's hair type would soak up traditional conditioner.

Aside from which, his many public appearances it would have been obvious if he had an oily hair-do. IMO.

[William Anthony]

It doesn't matter if I know or not which oil he used. I am familiar with the oils, as I use them on my own hair and scalp, and I know that if applied correctly there is no residue. Naturally dry hair and scalp soak up the oil just as another's hair type would soak up traditional conditioner.

Aside from which, his many public appearances it would have been obvious if he had an oily hair-do. IMO.

How do you know that he applied the alleged oil correctly? IIRC, he had finished the taping of the Frogman movie, as Ms. Moore testified she watched a tape of it on May 23rd. Where's the beef?

[SlowHandSam]

How do you know that he applied the alleged oil correctly? IIRC, he had finished the taping of the Frogman movie, as Ms. Moore testified she watched a tape of it on May 23rd. Where's the beef?

I don't think it's "alleged" oil. Ms Moore testified that he did apply oil.
He was also taping a "fitness" video, was he not?

I thought we agreed we wouldn't discuss food, since other proteins offended you.

[William Anthony]

I don't think it's "alleged" oil. Ms Moore testified that he did apply oil.
He was also taping a "fitness" video, was he not?

I thought we agreed we wouldn't discuss food, since other proteins offended you.

IIRC, both the video and the movie were finished. I will search. Ms. Moore could not testify that he applied oil in his hair at anytime between May 23rd and June 12th, since that was the last time she saw him. What she did testify to was from her 16 years experience with observations of his hair was that he would have dandruff in the month of June and when he played golf. You thought incorrectly.

[William Anthony]

I don't think it's "alleged" oil. Ms Moore testified that he did apply oil.
He was also taping a "fitness" video, was he not?

I thought we agreed we wouldn't discuss food, since other proteins offended you.

As far as I was able to determine the fitness video was finished by the date of May 31st.

[SlowHandSam]

IIRC, both the video and the movie were finished. I will search. Ms. Moore could not testify that he applied oil in his hair at anytime between May 23rd and June 12th, since that was the last time she saw him. What she did testify to was from her 16 years experience with observations of his hair was that he would have dandruff in the month of June and when he played golf. You thought incorrectly.

IMO, you are reaching for the dandruff. I do not believe he did not have his hair groomed or treated for those 3 weeks. I believe he had a maintenance routine at home just as many people do to keep up his appearance.

Unless there is testimony or evidence that supports your claim he must have had dandruff - only because he had had it at SOME point previously in his life, I think we've beaten this horse sufficiently to death.

Was he only in California, doing nothing but, playing golf in the month of June? Is there evidence or testimony that supports he did not wear a cap or groom his hair? Is there testimony or evidence that supports the claims you make that he MUST have had dandruff?

You instructed us we couldn't discuss food - so my comment, albeit with humor, was in direct response to your "where's the beef" question.

[SlowHandSam]

Dr. Robert Huizenga, former team physician for the Los Angeles Raiders, cited injuries he had found while examining the defendant soon after the murders, concluding that "fast walking, slow jogging would be difficult if not impossible."

I'm trying to wrap me head around this comment. How/why would it be "difficult if not impossible" for oj to walk fast or jog when he, just 2 or so weeks prior to the murders, completed an exercise video?

[William Anthony]

IMO, you are reaching for the dandruff. I do not believe he did not have his hair groomed or treated for those 3 weeks. I believe he had a maintenance routine at home just as many people do to keep up his appearance.

Unless there is testimony or evidence that supports your claim he must have had dandruff - only because he had had it at SOME point previously in his life, I think we've beaten this horse sufficiently to death.

Was he only in California, doing nothing but, playing golf in the month of June? Is there evidence or testimony that supports he did not wear a cap or groom his hair? Is there testimony or evidence that supports the claims you make that he MUST have had dandruff?

You instructed us we couldn't discuss food - so my comment, albeit with humor, was in direct response to your "where's the beef" question.

I understood you comment about the food and I never said we could not discuss food. In fact, my where's the beef comment was in humor. I don't know why there is this persistent attempt to shift the burden of proof. Simpson did not have to prove if he had or did not have dandruff. It was the prosecution's responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to show he did not have dandruff on the night of the murders and to show that he wore that cap on the night of the murders. They failed miserably on both points, imho. The fact that the hair they found was inconsistent with Simpson's exemplar is exculpatory, imho. This is why the prosecution had the expert testify to a bunch of ifs, ands, maybes, could haves, and assumptions, none of which came close to reaching their burden. I agree that this horse has been ridden to death and the whole journey was brought about when posters tried to defend a post that clearly misstated the evidence.

[SlowHandSam]

hi Bob.

I have a question. I'm sure y'all have hashed this out before - but with thousands of posts ... yeah.

What is your take on the discrepancy between JC's comment that oj was chipping golf balls and oj's claim he was napping the night of the murders as his explanation for not hearing the limo driver ring the bell?

--shs

[SlowHandSam]

I understood you comment about the food and I never said we could not discuss food. In fact, my where's the beef comment was in humor. I don't know why there is this persistent attempt to shift the burden of proof. Simpson did not have to prove if he had or did not have dandruff. It was the prosecution's responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to show he did not have dandruff on the night of the murders and to show that he wore that cap on the night of the murders. They failed miserably on both points, imho. The fact that the hair they found was inconsistent with Simpson's exemplar is exculpatory, imho. This is why the prosecution had the expert testify to a bunch of ifs, ands, maybes, could haves, and assumptions, none of which came close to reaching their burden. I agree that this horse has been ridden to death and the whole journey was brought about when posters tried to defend a post that clearly misstated the evidence.

they never stated he had dandruff so why did they need to prove he didn't?

[William Anthony]

they never stated he had dandruff so why did they need to prove he didn't?

They claimed he wore the cap on the night of the murders and there was no dandruff found in the cap but was found in the exemplars. To make it fit, they had to provide evidence that Simpson had no dandruff on the night of the murders and that is why there was no dandruff in the cap. Let's not start the discussion again asking a circular question. They only have to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove their contentions, i.e. he did not have dandruff on the night of the murders, because common sense dictates, if he did and the cap was pulled off during the struggle or even fell off, there would have been dandruff in the cap.

[William Anthony]

hi Bob.

I have a question. I'm sure y'all have hashed this out before - but with thousands of posts ... yeah.

What is your take on the discrepancy between JC's comment that oj was chipping golf balls and oj's claim he was napping the night of the murders as his explanation for not hearing the limo driver ring the bell?

--shs

This is limited to issues in the criminal trial.

[SlowHandSam]

They claimed he wore the cap on the night of the murders and there was no dandruff found in the cap but was found in the exemplars. To make it fit, they had to provide evidence that Simpson had no dandruff on the night of the murders and that is why there was no dandruff in the cap. Let's not start the discussion again asking a circular question. They only have to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove their contentions, i.e. he did not have dandruff on the night of the murders, because common sense dictates, if he did and the cap was pulled off during the struggle or even fell off, there would have been dandruff in the cap.

there is no evidence or testimony that supports your claim that he had dandruff the night her murdered Ron and Nicole.

[SlowHandSam]

This is limited to issues in the criminal trial.

clearly it isn't limited since you and martin have gone on your tangents about slavery, Aboriginals, Lynchburg VA and so on ...

but I'll play the game. I'll move it to the other thread. No worries.

I'll be sure to put on notice, next time, you go on any topic that isn't issue with the criminal trial. :)

[William Anthony]

clearly it isn't limited since you and martin have gone on your tangents about slavery, Aboriginals, Lynchburg VA and so on ...

but I'll play the game. I'll move it to the other thread. No worries.

I'll be sure to put on notice, next time, you go on any topic that isn't issue with the criminal trial. :)

Thanks and I will respect your notice. :)

[weezer]

Mr. August,

I read your excerpts from Clark's closing regarding the hair in this case. I think Clark, again was brilliant because, IMO, she was talking about being able to identify the race of the person, not the sex of the person, not the actual DNA of the person. Just like the white person's hair that was found on the glove at Rockingham---they could only determine the color and it was from a white person. Again, can't identify who's hair it was or the sex, just the race.

Now, I know you are going to come back and say that the hair was Nicole's, however, Nicole did dye or color her hair--that could have been determined, but I don't believe there was any testimony on that.

:no: link to 'Nicole did dye or color her hair" please

If you are going to continue this arguement, then deal with the fact that the DA's did nothing to find the identity of the person's hair.

Just like the blood that was found in the Bronco that belonged to a person of the Hispanic race. I know, you will come back and say it was Simpson's maid's. However, why wasn't a sample of her blood taken and compared to this sample? I would have no problem with the DA's saying that it would not be unusal to find her blood in the Bronco because she did have access to it and may have used it on errands.

:no: there was NO blood found in the Bronco that belonged to a person of the hispanic race.

JC was a well known figure in LA and in the legal community. However, you can't compare his fame and facial recognition to OJ Simpson's fame and facial recognition. A majority of Mr. Simpson's earnings were based on his fame and his face.

Again, it was Clark who said that he was too famous to dispose of the evidence in public dumpster. :no: there was a very credible witness that saw orenthal next to the trashcans at the airport. And btw---does it really make any sense that Mr. Simpson would have done the most excellent job of getting rid the shoes, clothes and weapon but leave the socks on his bedroom floor? :no: remember now, he had a co-conspirator at home helping him -- heck he probably blames arnelle for the socks being left on the floor. Does it really make any sense that he would have attempted to hide the glove behind Kato's wall? :no: no one has ever claimed he tried to 'hide' the glove behind the wall.Does it really make any sense that Simpson would not have known that he was missing the gloves and the hat? :no: Oh my -- he had just butchered two human beings. Do you really think he was thinking of his hat and glove? It is not like the killer(s) were in a hurry to leave. It is not like the killer(s) displayed any concern for being recognized by the children---to include their guest. :no: there was no guest at Bundy during the timeframe that orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole.

IMO.

reckless disregard for the truth reflects the character of the person

[tv]

reckless disregard for the truth reflects the character of the personBlood in the Bronco of a Hispanic person and a guest at Bundy during the murders...:confused:

[martin II]

reckless disregard for the truth reflects the character of the person

Do you know if Nicole was a true blond or if she treated her hair.

[weezer]

This is limited to issues in the criminal trial.

if you don't think cockroach's description of what orenthal was doing on the night of the murders is relevant to the criminal trial, what is? and where else would you post it? :punch:

[martin II]

reckless disregard for the truth reflects the character of the person

Do you know if Nicole was a true blond or if she treated her hair.

[weezer]

Do you know if Nicole was a true blond or if she treated her hair.

LOL -- actually no but I never stated as a fact that she was. Do you know if Nicole dyed/colored her hair?

[martin II]

reckless disregard for the truth reflects the character of the person

Trash cans are all over lax.I believe oj was stading near a trash can located where his bags were being unloaded and curb side checkin was taking place.
nothing unusual about that.Unless one is trying to create something.

Le searched the trash cans in the area where oj was at the airport. i guess from checkin to the plane. They found zip.Same for the Chicago le. They even searched the dumpsters in the area of the hotel where oj stayed during his brief trip there.they found zip.
So standing near a trash cans means nothing.IMO

I assume your last comment is in referance furhman and maby Vanhatter. Judge Ito made a comment about Vanhatters lie to the search warrant judge
that was close to your comment.imo

[William Anthony]

if you don't think cockroach's description of what orenthal was doing on the night of the murders is relevant to the criminal trial, what is? and where else would you post it? :punch:

I think the poster understood that what Simpson said in his deposition wasn't, since he did not give a deposition in the criminal trial.

[weezer]

I think the poster understood that what Simpson said in his deposition wasn't, since he did not give a deposition in the criminal trial.

the poster didn't say anything about orenthal's civil trial deposition. the poster asked about the discrepancy between cockroach's and orenthal's statements as to what orenthal said he was doing during the hours before the limo arrived -- all of which was brought out in the criminal trial.

[martin II]

LOL -- actually no but I never stated as a fact that she was. Do you know if Nicole dyed/colored her hair?

Based on your post i thought you knew she was a true blond. I will look for a picture to see if she had brown roots.

[SlowHandSam]

I think the poster understood that what Simpson said in his deposition wasn't, since he did not give a deposition in the criminal trial.

I think I can speak for myself.

My question was directly related to the story the defense used to account for his where-abouts the night of the murders while the limo driver rang the bell. I was specifically questioning the discrepancy of what was said between the defense lawyer and the defendant.

I was specifically asking bobaugust what his take was on that discrepancy because I am very much interested in his interpretation.

Nevertheless, I moved the post to the other thread although I don't necessarily agree that I was off-topic for this thread.

Please do not speak for me in the future. Thanks. :)

[SlowHandSam]

Based on your post i thought you knew she was a true blond. I will look for a picture to see if she had brown roots.

from the autopsy report:
The body is that of a well-developed, well-nourished Caucasian female
stated to be 35 years old. The body weighs 129 pounds and measures 65
inches from crown to sole. The hair on the scalp is brown.

however, I doubt this gives us an answer either way really. Some blondes are a darker shade with darker roots with the ends lighter compliments of the sun, product and procedures.

I've attempted to search and am not really finding anything either way as to what her natural color is. It could be, just like mine, that no one knows! LOL

:eek:

[William Anthony]

the poster didn't say anything about orenthal's civil trial deposition. the poster asked about the discrepancy between cockroach's and orenthal's statements as to what orenthal said he was doing during the hours before the limo arrived -- all of which was brought out in the criminal trial.


The poster said "oj's claim" and distinguished it from the magnificent one's remarks.

[William Anthony]

I think I can speak for myself.

My question was directly related to the story the defense used to account for his where-abouts the night of the murders while the limo driver rang the bell. I was specifically questioning the discrepancy of what was said between the defense lawyer and the defendant.

I was specifically asking bobaugust what his take was on that discrepancy because I am very much interested in his interpretation.

Nevertheless, I moved the post to the other thread although I don't necessarily agree that I was off-topic for this thread.

Please do not speak for me in the future. Thanks. :)

I certainly thought that you understood and, therefore, no need to explain. If you are talking about his statement to the police that was not part of the trial. Ventriloquism is not an art that I have tried.:) I appreciate that you moved it to the proper thread, imho. Yes, perhaps, he will interpret this one correctly-just joking.:)

[SlowHandSam]

I certainly thought that you understood and, therefore, no need to explain. If you are talking about his statement to the police that was not part of the trial. Ventriloquism is not an art that I have tried.:) I appreciate that you moved it to the proper thread, imho. Yes, perhaps, he will interpret this one correctly-just joking.:)

William, it's not complicated what I'm asking. I'm simply asking what does the addressed poster make of the discrepancy between JC's statement that oj was chipping balls and oj's claim he was napping instead of hearing and attending to the limo driver's bell rings.

I believe it's not inappropriate for this thread and could actually be in either.

The arguing about where it goes, IMO, is an attempt to deflect from the question because it either makes oj a liar or JC a liar.

[William Anthony]

William, it's not complicated what I'm asking. I'm simply asking what does the addressed poster make of the discrepancy between JC's statement that oj was chipping balls and oj's claim he was napping instead of hearing and attending to the limo driver's bell rings.

I believe it's not inappropriate for this thread and could actually be in either.

The arguing about where it goes, IMO, is an attempt to deflect from the question because it either makes oj a liar or JC a liar.

It does not make either one a liar, imho. I think that we should start a new thread and, since you were the first to mention it, I will give you the honor of starting one on inconsistencies, although the magnificent one was not part of that socio-political event. :)

[SlowHandSam]

It does not make either one a liar, imho. I think that we should start a new thread and, since you were the first to mention it, I will give you the honor of starting one on inconsistencies, although the magnificent one was not part of that socio-political event. :)

I would disagree on both statements. I don't believe a new thread is required.

Additionally, I strongly disagree that JC wasn't part of the "socio-political" climate as I believe he was one of the ring-leaders in that exercise. Perhaps you meant to say "IMO"?

[William Anthony]

I would disagree on both statements. I don't believe a new thread is required.

Additionally, I strongly disagree that JC wasn't part of the "socio-political" climate as I believe he was one of the ring-leaders in that exercise. Perhaps you meant to say "IMO"?

I said socio-political event and I think everyone knows that I have given my opinion on that unmentionable event on this forum.:)

[Kate Sachel]

The poster said "oj's claim" and distinguished it from the magnificent one's remarks.

But OJ did make those claims long before the civil trial, he made those claims after his arrest, prior to the criminal charges.

I was confused as well as to why you deemed it off-topic, but I had apparently interpreted it differently than you had.

Kate

[William Anthony]

But OJ did make those claims long before the civil trial, he made those claims after his arrest, prior to the criminal charges.

I was confused as well as to why you deemed it off-topic, but I had apparently interpreted it differently than you had.

Kate

Glad to see you posting. If he made them prior to the charges, they were not an issue in the trial.

[Kate Sachel]

Glad to see you posting. If he made them prior to the charges, they were not an issue in the trial.

And I suppose your postings about Islam, Jesus, and Mazzola oil were? Pardon me while I dust off my dictionary and take a closer look at the definition of hypocrisy.

Now, if Cochran made statements during the criminal trial regarding what OJ was doing at the time in question that directly contradict what OJ himself claimed he was doing when questioned about his actions after he was arrested and brought to parker Center, then I would say it is reasonable that the discussion fall into this thread.

Kate

[William Anthony]

And I suppose your postings about Islam, Jesus, and Mazzola oil were? Pardon me while I dust off my dictionary and take a closer look at the definition of hypocrisy.

Now, if Cochran made statements during the criminal trial regarding what OJ was doing at the time in question that directly contradict what OJ himself claimed he was doing when questioned about his actions after he was arrested and brought to parker Center, then I would say it is reasonable that the discussion fall into this thread.

Kate

I have never claimed that my postings were all on topic. I was interested in a rebirth, :) so to speak. It would have been part of the trial, if the statements he made came into the trial. I did use the term, encompassed in" in the first post. At this point, I am not certain as to whether or not it was my intention to limit it to the evidence or not. I never liked to dust. :) I see we are going to use the reasonable man standard (not being sexist). I have been unable to find a link where Simpson claimed to have taken a nap. With all that said, it seems we are discussing it on this thread. I guess I have been overruled.:)

[Kate Sachel]

I have never claimed that my postings were all on topic. I was interested in a rebirth, :) so to speak. It would have been part of the trial, if the statements he made came into the trial. I did use the term, encompassed in" in the first post. At this point, I am not certain as to whether or not it was my intention to limit it to the evidence or not. I never liked to dust. :) I see we are going to use the reasonable man standard (not being sexist). I have been unable to find a link where Simpson claimed to have taken a nap. With all that said, it seems we are discussing it on this thread. I guess I have been overruled.:)

Do you believe there is a need to create a seperate thread just so we can discuss Cochran's statements versus OJ's? There simply has to be a little room for movement and flexibility. Everyone has simply got to give a little.

Thoughts?

Kate

[William Anthony]

Do you believe there is a need to create a seperate thread just so we can discuss Cochran's statements versus OJ's? There simply has to be a little room for movement and flexibility. Everyone has simply got to give a little.

Thoughts?

Kate

I'll bend but I won't break. :)

[Kate Sachel]

I'll bend but I won't break. :)

I wouldn't expect or desire you to break William, that is not what I asked.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I wouldn't expect or desire you to break William, that is not what I asked.

Kate

yes, we all can allow for a little flexibility, which is what I meant. Off topic, smile.

[martin II]

from the autopsy report:


however, I doubt this gives us an answer either way really. Some blondes are a darker shade with darker roots with the ends lighter compliments of the sun, product and procedures.

I've attempted to search and am not really finding anything either way as to what her natural color is. It could be, just like mine, that no one knows! LOL

:eek:

A picture i looked at shows dark brown root hair at her scalp.So i would say bleached blond.

[martin II]

I think if oj was taking a shower he may not have heard the bell when Park first rang. If he was completing packing and heard the buzzer he very well could have been comming down stairs with the two duffle bags so no reason to stop and answer the phone as he knew Park would see him at the front area. He knew Park was not leaving. SO he places the bags at the door, moves the golf bag. Turns in that black bath robe and walks back into the house. Park see him oj pick up the phone, says something to Park Kato opens the gate. Park drives in and sees the two bags oj had just brought down.Oj comes back down with the LV bag and cheech & chung starts to load the bags. It matters not what park thought oj told him he was doing.imo

[martin II]

yes, we all can allow for a little flexibility, which is what I meant. Off topic, smile.

I think what some think Cochran and oj said is too small a subject for a new thread.imo

[William Anthony]

I think if oj was taking a shower he may not have heard the bell when Park first rang. If he was completing packing and heard the buzzer he very well could have been comming down stairs with the two duffle bags so no reason to stop and answer the phone as he knew Park would see him at the front area. He knew Park was not leaving. SO he places the bags at the door, moves the golf bag. Turns in that black bath robe and walks back into the house. Park see him oj pick up the phone, says something to Park Kato opens the gate. Park drives in and sees the two bags oj had just brought down.Oj comes back down with the LV bag and cheech & chung starts to load the bags. It matters not what park thought oj told him he was doing.imo

I am still trying to find a link to when Simpson said he was taking a nap. Are you saying that is what Park said he told him?

[martin II]

they never stated he had dandruff so why did they need to prove he didn't?

because they claimed he had the hat on.

[martin II]

I am still trying to find a link to when Simpson said he was taking a nap. Are you saying that is what Park said he told him?

OJ was running aroung gathering bags to go back downstairs . he answers the phone and tell PARK something . park said he remembers oj saying he must have overslep or something like that.None of it makes and differance
because when park saw him go in the house, oj was returning to the house from bringing the two bags down.

[martin II]

I am still trying to find a link to when Simpson said he was taking a nap. Are you saying that is what Park said he told him?

I think the media reported all kinds of things oj was supposed to have said
about what he was doing.

[William Anthony]

I think the media reported all kinds of things oj was supposed to have said
about what he was doing.

I did not see it in Park's testimony, I thought I heard it somewhere. Maybe, it was the media.

[bobaugust]

bob

Likewise there is no evidence to prove that the cap was not there before the murders.Risk and Terrazas seeing it when they arrived does not prove that the cap was not there before the murders.imo

The fact that the knit cap was seen by both Riske and Terrazas is evidence that contradicts :Limakey's speculation that because Fuhrman first described the knit cap as a ski mask someone switched the ski mask for a watch cap.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Simpson's knit wool, IIRC cap found, in the month of June, at the home of his ex-wife with whom he had children with no blood on it and and no dandruff, when the reasonable inference is that he should have had dandruff, and a carpet fiber from a Bronco that he had owned for sometime chinches it for me that he had that wool cap on his head in June to avoid detection or being recognized and surely, would not have drawn attention to himself and so attired murdered two people. Wow, how could the prosecution ever loose?

The inference that Simpson should have had dandruff the night of the murders is illogical, unsupported speculation.

[bobaugust]

As you may say, there was no evidence of any killers clothes that oj had on on 6/12. There was no clothes presented in the trial that was evidence that oj wore them on 6/12. There was no clothes tested and presented as evidence for comparison that any fibers came from those killer clothes.

The prosecution was left with their experts with microscopes and experience
and interpretations of what they saw.They were there to support the prosecutions weak claims. This was before the defense under cross showed it could not be believed.imo

The evidence is that the killer wore dark colored cotton clothing. The evidence is that Simpson wore dark colored clothing the night of the murders. The evidence is that the same blue black cotton fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt and found on the killer's right had glove were also found on Simpson's socks. Those fibers tie Simpson to the murders.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Because the defense did not have to prove he did not have dandruff. That was the prosecution's burden. She was available and there to be questioned. If the prosecution knew he did not have it on the 17th, they would have asked anyone that saw him and/or examined him. They did not, because they knew the answer was that he did, imho. The prosecution offered no evidence that he did not have dandruff on the 12th and only argued that he did not and hoped that the jury could not see through their really weak argument because they hoped that the jury would not appreciate their burden, because they were predisposed, as many seem, to think Simpson had to prove himself innocent.

The prosecution didn't have to prove that Simpson didn't have dandruff the night of the murders because the defense never claimed that he did. The defense raised some speculation about this and the prosecution made it clear that speculation was not credible by offering a reasonable explanation for why Simpson had dandruff weeks after the murders..

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

I read your excerpts from Clark's closing regarding the hair in this case. I think Clark, again was brilliant because, IMO, she was talking about being able to identify the race of the person, not the sex of the person, not the actual DNA of the person. Just like the white person's hair that was found on the glove at Rockingham---they could only determine the color and it was from a white person. Again, can't identify who's hair it was or the sex, just the race.

Now, I know you are going to come back and say that the hair was Nicole's, however, Nicole did dye or color her hair--that could have been determined, but I don't believe there was any testimony on that.

If you are going to continue this arguement, then deal with the fact that the DA's did nothing to find the identity of the person's hair.

Just like the blood that was found in the Bronco that belonged to a person of the Hispanic race. I know, you will come back and say it was Simpson's maid's. However, why wasn't a sample of her blood taken and compared to this sample? I would have no problem with the DA's saying that it would not be unusal to find her blood in the Bronco because she did have access to it and may have used it on errands.

JC was a well known figure in LA and in the legal community. However, you can't compare his fame and facial recognition to OJ Simpson's fame and facial recognition. A majority of Mr. Simpson's earnings were based on his fame and his face.

Again, it was Clark who said that he was too famous to dispose of the evidence in public dumpster. And btw---does it really make any sense that Mr. Simpson would have done the most excellent job of getting rid the shoes, clothes and weapon but leave the socks on his bedroom floor? Does it really make any sense that he would have attempted to hide the glove behind Kato's wall? Does it really make any sense that Simpson would not have known that he was missing the gloves and the hat? It is not like the killer(s) were in a hurry to leave. It is not like the killer(s) displayed any concern for being recognized by the children---to include their guest.

IMO.

Deedrick testified that the light brown naturally shed Caucasian hair found on the Rockingham glove had the same microscopic characteristics as Ron Goldman's hair near the root only Deedrick had no naturally shed hairs from the Coroner's office for Ronald Goldman to directly compare it to. As I recall the material found on the Bronco steering wheel that DNA was identified as coming from a Hispanic was not blood.

No it doesn't make any sense that Simpson was trying to hide the right hand glove behind Kaelin's room. What makes sense is that he unknowingly dropped it there when he fell against the wall jumping from the top of his fence to enter his estate. I believe Simpson did realize that one of his gloves and his cap were somewhere in the garden area at Bundy but unfortunately for him it was very dark there and both items were under plant leaves. Simpson was in a hurry to get back home before the limousine arrived and evidently decided he did didn't have the time to search for them.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

IIRC, both the video and the movie were finished. I will search. Ms. Moore could not testify that he applied oil in his hair at anytime between May 23rd and June 12th, since that was the last time she saw him. What she did testify to was from her 16 years experience with observations of his hair was that he would have dandruff in the month of June and when he played golf. You thought incorrectly.

Your are correct that Moore could not and did not testify to Simpson's hair condition on June 12 since the last time she saw him was on May 23. You are incorrect when you say that Moore testified that Simpson would have dandruff in the month of June. She never said any such thing.

bobaugust

[limakey]

I have never understood about the debate about what Simpson said was doing that night. IMO, he behaved no differently then any of us if we were called in for questioning and asked to account for a where abouts the night before. IMO, Mr. Simpson was just saying things he remembered doing that night.

However, had Mr. Simpson had his actions and the time he did them down pat, then, IMO, Mr. Simpson had his alibi all set---an innocent man would not be able to recall last nights in the exact perfect same order. A guilty man, however, would have it down.

I do find interesting that many of the legal talking heads always give a different opinon, depending on the witness. In certain cases, they say that it is only natural that a story changes over time, with tweaks and bumps. Then there are the times when they say, "if I was being accused of a crime, you are darn right I would have total recall!".

I really believe it is everybody's personal opinon. Hopefully none of us have ever or will never be put in that position.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

There is not even one fiber, markings on that wall, broken branches or broken plants, etc., to suggest that anyone climbed that fence and jump over it and crashed into the wall. None. However, there is evidence to suggest that somebody was on the opposite side of that fence.

The DA's never produced an expert who could even testify about this possibility. However, the defense did produce an expert witness who explained why, in his opinon, that nobody climbed that fence, how the person would have had to do to jump it.

In regards to the hat, Kardashian and other defense members and their private investigators found the same type of knit caps inside the condo. Lange said they were children's---John McNally put the hat on and pulled it down to his chin. You can't have one size fits all on the knit cap found outside and the same caps found inside the condo and determine that they were children's.

Since the hair samples themselves can't identify the person, does that mean that there were no other tests that could be done on the hat? Like DNA from sweat? Like other hair products residue? If the hair is the only way to determine who's hat it is, I guess your side lost this round as well.

Never did the DA's produce any sweat suit that matched fibers found at the scene. Never did Deedrick say that these fibers came from sweat suit, he used the word garment. There is no way to prove that these fibers, the only source of these fibers could have been a sweat suit. Again, consistent with does not mean "match".

Kato never said that he was positive what Simpson was wearing that night, he did his best but he was never confident enough to testify that he was positive on what Simpson was wearing that night. As you well know, he got it totally wrong on what Simpson was wearing on the way to the airport. In fact, the sweat suit that Kato described didn't even match the sweat suit evidence presented in the civil trial.

It also makes no sense that the LAPD did not take any of Mr. Simpson's clothes from his home. There is no way they could have known, that early on that the only source of the fibers was a sweat suit. Does it make sense to you that the DA's would base their whole fiber evidence on Kato? That it was his belief that Simpson was wearing a sweat suit so they didn't have bother with any other clothing?

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

There is not even one fiber, markings on that wall, broken branches or broken plants, etc., to suggest that anyone climbed that fence and jump over it and crashed into the wall. None. However, there is evidence to suggest that somebody was on the opposite side of that fence.

The DA's never produced an expert who could even testify about this possibility. However, the defense did produce an expert witness who explained why, in his opinon, that nobody climbed that fence, how the person would have had to do to jump it.

In regards to the hat, Kardashian and other defense members and their private investigators found the same type of knit caps inside the condo. Lange said they were children's---John McNally put the hat on and pulled it down to his chin. You can't have one size fits all on the knit cap found outside and the same caps found inside the condo and determine that they were children's.

Since the hair samples themselves can't identify the person, does that mean that there were no other tests that could be done on the hat? Like DNA from sweat? Like other hair products residue? If the hair is the only way to determine who's hat it is, I guess your side lost this round as well.

Never did the DA's produce any sweat suit that matched fibers found at the scene. Never did Deedrick say that these fibers came from sweat suit, he used the word garment. There is no way to prove that these fibers, the only source of these fibers could have been a sweat suit. Again, consistent with does not mean "match".

Kato never said that he was positive what Simpson was wearing that night, he did his best but he was never confident enough to testify that he was positive on what Simpson was wearing that night. As you well know, he got it totally wrong on what Simpson was wearing on the way to the airport. In fact, the sweat suit that Kato described didn't even match the sweat suit evidence presented in the civil trial.

It also makes no sense that the LAPD did not take any of Mr. Simpson's clothes from his home. There is no way they could have known, that early on that the only source of the fibers was a sweat suit. Does it make sense to you that the DA's would base their whole fiber evidence on Kato? That it was his belief that Simpson was wearing a sweat suit so they didn't have bother with any other clothing?

Limakey, the knit caps found in Nicole's condo had nothing to do with the knit cap that was found under the plant leaves at Ron's feet. When Cochran put that knit cap on his head it was clear that it was too big for him. The fact that ten naturally shed hairs that mirror matched Simpson's hair samples were found inside that knit cap is evidence that Simpson wore that cap.

The day after the murders there was no way anyone could tell if someone had pushed their way through the summer growth bushes on the Salingers property the previous night. Additional evidence became known later. There were fresh green leaves near the gloves, leaves from the foliage that was hanging over the fence. And there was a bent wire on the top of the fence right where the glove was found opposite the place on the wall Kaelin said he heard the noises and felt the vibrations on his back. A wire bent towards the back wall of the guest house consistent with someone putting their foot on the top of the fence to scale it from the Salingers property to Simpson's south path. But the best evidence is Kaelin's testimony that there was someone behind his room that night who collided with the sturdy back wall of his room causing strong vibrations that he felt and that tilted a picture on that wall next to his bed. The evidence is that there were only three people at Rockingham at that time. Kaelin, Park, and Simpson. A couple of minutes after that incident happened Park saw both Kaelin and Simpson for the first time almost simultaneously as they each had made their own way around to the front of house in the same amount of time.

There is no reason that Kaelin should have remembered specific details of the clothes Simpson was wearing that night but what he did remember was when they went to McDonalds in Simpson's car and retimed to Rockingham about an hour or so before the murders Simpson was wearing a dark colored cotton like sweat suit. The fact that blue black cotton fibers were found on Simpson's socks is evidence that supports Kaelin's testimony and the fact that the same exact blue black cotton fibers were also found on Ron's shirt and the killer's right hand glove ties Simpson to the murders. The fact is that a freshly washed dark colored sweat was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders. The police had no reason to collect it then but it was video taped when the laundry room was video taped. Later after the police learned that Simpson had been wearing that kind of clothing the night of the murders they obtained a second search warrant and went back to Rockingham to get it, but it was gone.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The prosecution didn't have to prove that Simpson didn't have dandruff the night of the murders because the defense never claimed that he did. The defense raised some speculation about this and the prosecution made it clear that speculation was not credible by offering a reasonable explanation for why Simpson had dandruff weeks after the murders..

bobaugust

That's the way you see it but the truth is that the defense provided evidence that he should have had dandruff as was his custom. I think that everyone sees the truth and there is no need to continue discussing the issue. The prosecution offered excuses based on ifs as to why their evidence did not fit his exemplar.

[William Anthony]

Your are correct that Moore could not and did not testify to Simpson's hair condition on June 12 since the last time she saw him was on May 23. You are incorrect when you say that Moore testified that Simpson would have dandruff in the month of June. She never said any such thing.

bobaugust

Circumstantial evidence. You were incorrect when you stated there was no evidence circumstantial or direct from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that he had dandruff. That is why the defense called her. It was not to explain anything else. They never asked her did Paula and Simpson seem happy or how she rated the frogman video or the dinner. This conversation is going nowhere and you know the truth. The prosecution failed on the hair issue. Why didn't the prosecution enter into evidence Simpson's comb and brush? I have shown the prosecution's circular and flawed reasoning. I see no need to keep going in circles with you on this issue.

[William Anthony]

For anyone interested evidence (anything that tends to prove a fact at issue) that is relevant and material and more probative than prejudicial (admissible) can
be used to prove the fact, either circumstantially or directly.

[William Anthony]

The O. J. Simpson Trial, As It Might Be Described by Dr. Seuss


I did not kill my lovely wife
I did not slash her with a knife
I did not bonk her on the head
I did not know that she was dead.

I stayed at home that fateful night
I took a cab then took a flight
The bag I had was just for me
My bag! My bag! Hey, leave it be.

When I came home I had a gash
My hand was cut from broken glass
I cut my hand on broken glass
A broken glass did cause that gash.

I have nothing, nothing to hide
My friend, he took me for a ride.

Did you take this person's life?
Did you do it with a knife?

I did not do it with a knife
I did not, could not kill my wife
I did not do this awful crime
I could not, would not anytime.

Did you hit her from above?
Did you drop this bloody glove?

I did not hit her from above
I cannot even wear that glove
I did not do it with a knife
I did not, could not kill my wife
I did not do this awful crime
I could not, would not anytime.

And now I'm free, I can return
To my house for which I yearn
And to my family whom I love
Hey now I'm free -- give back my glove!


:hat:

The Saga

Once there was a man
who stood close to a trash can,
but when the police searched there
the found the trash can bare.

Undaunted, they searched high and low
the even searched in Chicago
They had a trial with evidence weak, so
they jury had no choice but to let him go.

However, they were not to be out done
another trial was held without one.
They were determined to find him responsible
with this new tilt the jury found him liable.

Anticipation and preparation are wonderful attributes in a lawyer, don't you think?

[William Anthony]

Mr. Darden: And What Did You Do When You Returned To The Defendant's Home On Rockingham?

Ms. Brown: We Were Sitting At The Bar Talking, Having Some More Drinks And Talking.

Mr. Darden: Okay. While You Were Talking, Did You Say Something To The Defendant?

Ms. Brown: Yes, I Did.

Mr. Darden: What Did You Say To Him?

Ms. Brown: I Told Him He Took Nicole For Granted, And He Blew Up.

Mr. Shapiro: Your Honor, I'm Going To Object. The Question Has Been Asked And Answered. Motion To Strike The Last Response.

The Court: Miss Brown, If You Would, Don't Volunteer Anything Beyond The Actual Question, Please.

Ms. Brown: Okay.

The Court: Thank You.

Mr. Darden: You Told The Defendant That He Took Nicole For Granted?

Ms. Brown: Yes.

Mr. Darden: Why Did You Tell Him That?

Ms. Brown: Because She Did Have –

Mr. Shapiro: Objection. Irrelevant.
The Court: Sustained.

Mr. Darden: On 352 Grounds, Your Honor?

The Court: It's Irrelevant. Why This Witness Thinks That Miss Brown Simpson Was Taken For Granted Is Not Relevant. What's Relevant Is The Fact She Made The Comment And Any Reaction To That Comment.

Mr. Darden: What Reaction If Any Was There By The Defendant When You Told Him That He Took Your Sister Nicole For Granted?

Ms. Brown: He Got Extremely Upset. He –

Mr. Darden: And What Happened Next?

Ms. Brown: He Started Yelling At Me, "i Don't Take Her For Granted. I Do Everything For Her. I Give Her Everything," And He Continued, And Then A Whole Fight Broke Out And Pictures Started Flying Off The Walls, Clothes Started Flying -- He Ran Upstairs, Got Clothes, Started Flying Down The Stairs And Grabbed Nicole, Told Her To Get Out Of His House, Wanted Us All Out Of His House, Picked Her Up, Threw Her Against The Wall, Picked Her Up, Threw Her Out Of The House.
She Ended Up On Her -- She Ended Up Falling. She Ended Up On Her Elbows And On Her Butt. Then She -- He Threw Ed Mccabe Out. We Were All Sitting There Screaming And Crying, And Then He Grabbed Me And Threw Me Out Of The House.

That cinches it for me. They drank too much.

[martin II]

That cinches it for me. They drank too much.

All the time.

[martin II]

In an interview promoting his book on Fox News Simpson offered such incriminating observations as: "I don't think any two people could be murdered without everybody being covered in blood." The announcement of the book was met with a barrage of criticism. Ron Goldman's sister, Kim Goldman, on CNN's Larry King Live, expressed the outrage of victims: "He's telling us one more time, 'I'm gonna continue to get away with killing your family members and I'm not gonna honor the judgment and look at me, ha, ha, ha."' The criticism caused HarperCollins to recall the book and Fox to cancel the Simpson interview.Numerous statements would seem nonsensical if not made by the murderer of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, despite the insistence of Simpson's lawyer that the account is "purely hypothetical."
In September 2007, Beaufort Books published If I Did It, with profits from the sale going to the Goldman family.


Chapter 6: The Night in Question



Motive and State of Mind
According to Simpson's account (which Newsweek describes as employing "the classic language of a wife abuser"), Nicole Brown shared much of the blame for her own death. Simpson calls her the "enemy" and expresses outrage that she would flirt openly with other men in front of their children. He admits to seething with anger on June 12, 1994, the day of the double-murder.
At the Scene of the Crime
After downing a meal with Kato Kaelin, Simpson (dressed in a dark sweat suit) speeds over to Nicole's condo in Brentwood. He parks in the alley, puts on a knit wool cap and gloves, and grabs the knife he keeps in his Bronco. According to Simpson, his intent at this point his to scare his ex-wife, not kill her.

Encounter with Ronald Goldman
After entering the property through a broken gate, Simpson sees Ronald Goldman arriving at the condo. Simpson, in this tell-nearly-all chapter, reports that he accuses Goldman of planning to sleep with Nicole, which Goldman denies. Nicole tells Simpson to leave Goldman alone--that he was just returning glasses she had left in a restaurant. But Nicole's Akita, when it wags its tail to greet Ron, convinces Simpson that Ronald and Nicole have a sexual relationship. Simpson yells at Goldman: "You've been here before!"

Murder (It Seems)
In Simpson's account, Nicole charges at him like "a banshee," falling and smacking her head on the concrete. When Goldman drops to a "karate stance", Simpson loses it. In what amounts in almost anyone's book as a confession, Simpson writes: "Then something went horribly wrong, and I know what happened, but I can't tell you how." Later, in a taped interview to promote the book that was never aired on television, Simpson (according to a partial transcript obtained by the New York Times) said that after "this guy kind of got into a karate thing...I remember I grabbed the knife." Asked in the interview whether he removed his glove before grabbing the knife, Simpson replied, "You know, I had no conscious memory of doing that, but obviously I must have because they found a glove there."Fleeing the Scene
Simpson describes himself as soaked in blood and holding a bloody knife, with Goldman and Nicole dead in front of him. He strips to his socks before re-entering his Bronco. (What happened to the rest of the bloody clothes remains a mystery; Simpson's bloody socks were discovered in the bedroom of his home on Rockingham.) Seeing the limo parked in front of his house, Simpson enters the estate along a darkened pathway, banging loudly into an air conditioner for Kaelin's bedroom as he attempts to do so.

(Source: Newsweek, Jan. 22, 2007 (pp.48-49))

bell
The book was written for people that would have little facts of the murders
and would believe its content although the informed know it was a impossibility for the murders to have happened as written.hahaha

[martin II]

The racial composition of the jury was strongly influenced by the decision of the prosecution to file the Simpson case in downtown Los Angeles rather than--as is usually the case-- in the judicial district where the crime occurred-- in this case, Santa Monica. Had the case be filed in Santa Monica, the Simpson jury would have been mostly white instead of, as was the case, mostly African-American. With poll data showing that most whites believed Simpson to be guilty and most blacks believing him to be not guilty, the decision to file the case in Santa Monica may have been the biggest mistake the prosecution made. Vincent Bugliosi, the celebrated prosecutor in the Charles Manson case, said the mistake "dwarfed anything the defense did."

The prosecution went for the grand jury which meant the case would be tried
in la. The Santa Monica court room was under repair and was too small to try a major murder case. La county is not made up of al blacks in case you are unaware.

[Kate Sachel]

I have never understood about the debate about what Simpson said was doing that night. IMO, he behaved no differently then any of us if we were called in for questioning and asked to account for a where abouts the night before. IMO, Mr. Simpson was just saying things he remembered doing that night.

However, had Mr. Simpson had his actions and the time he did them down pat, then, IMO, Mr. Simpson had his alibi all set---an innocent man would not be able to recall last nights in the exact perfect same order. A guilty man, however, would have it down.

I do find interesting that many of the legal talking heads always give a different opinon, depending on the witness. In certain cases, they say that it is only natural that a story changes over time, with tweaks and bumps. Then there are the times when they say, "if I was being accused of a crime, you are darn right I would have total recall!".

I really believe it is everybody's personal opinon. Hopefully none of us have ever or will never be put in that position.

I don't know how many people expect him to give a play by play recap of his actions from the night before. However, what is expected is that he wouldn't continue to change his story as more evidence and questions came out in the invesitgation. For example, originally he stated that he called Paula from his Bronco and then when his cellular records showed that the call was made at 10:03 pm he changed his story to say that he called her while standing in driveway chipping golf balls. It is clear why he had to change that story, he didn't want anyone to know he was in a vehicle at 10:03.

Civil Trial November 25, 1996

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You told the police you drove to Paula's after the
recital, in your Bronco, and made a call to her from your cell phone, true or
untrue?

A. True.

Q. The only time after the recital that you have any cell phone calls to Paula
is at what time, looking at your cell phone records?

A. 10:03.

Q. So, sir, you were in your Bronco calling Paula at 10:03, just like you told
the police, true?

A. That's incorrect.

Q. Oh, so you lied to the police?

A. No.

Q. You have a different story now. It's different now, isn't it?

A. I think it's more accurate now.

Q. It's different, isn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. It's -- now you say you didn't get in the Bronco, and drive to Paula's, and
call her from the phone, true?

A. That's true.

Q. That's what you now say, true?

A. That's true.

Q. Okay. And you now say that of course after meeting with teams of lawyers and
investigators and defense experts and seeing that there are cell phone records
at 10:03 putting you in the Bronco, true?

A. True.


Kate

[martin II]

Reply to my post.

You need to give links to your claims as requestred by posters.

[martin II]

Limakey

I Agree that many talking heads gave different opinions of events and this in many ways influenced what some people thought.
Many prosecution witnesses changed their stories/testimony based on what they called better recall. I see no differance when oj has better recall.

I believe oj had said he intended to go to Paulas house and that is the reason he called her but when he did not get her he did not drive there.I believe PETRO kinds mistated his comments on that issue.
But what differance does it make if he made the call from his yard or sitting in his bronco in front of his house. These are small issues that the Petro tried to make into a issue of guilt.

[Kate Sachel]

Limakey

I Agree that many talking heads gave different opinions of events and this in many ways influenced what some people thought.
Many prosecution witnesses changed their stories/testimony based on what they called better recall. I see no differance when oj has better recall.

I believe oj had said he intended to go to Paulas house and that is the reason he called her but when he did not get her he did not drive there.I believe PETRO kinds mistated his comments on that issue.
But what differance does it make if he made the call from his yard or sitting in his bronco in front of his house. These are small issues that the Petro tried to make into a issue of guilt.

Thank you for making it clear that you do in fact read my posts, though you claim to have me on "ignore".

Your argument is frankly nonsense; of course it makes a difference whether or not he was on the road at 10:03 instead of at home. To be on the road at 10:03 means he could have been en route to Bundy at that time in the Bronco.

Kate

[tv]

If the sweat suit in the washer means nothing why did disappear? Why wasn't it available for collection at a later date? Where is it?

[weezer]

If the sweat suit in the washer means nothing why did disappear? Why wasn't it available for collection at a later date? Where is it?

I bet no one looked in his lingerie drawer for it! :eek:

[weezer]

That cinches it for me. They drank too much.

on the night they were murdered, Ron Goldman and Nicole did NOT have drugs in their system. on the night he murdered two human beings, orenthal james simpson had drugs in his system. do you suppose he was doing drugs when he beat her?

[tv]

on the night they were murdered, Ron Goldman and Nicole did NOT have drugs in their system. on the night he murdered two human beings, orenthal james simpson had drugs in his system. do you suppose he was doing drugs when he beat her?I believe it was in Petrocelli's book that I read that Simpson had the nickname 'Hoover' because he snorted so much cocaine. I bet that was real good for his arthritis.

[martin II]

The fact that the knit cap was seen by both Riske and Terrazas is evidence that contradicts :Limakey's speculation that because Fuhrman first described the knit cap as a ski mask someone switched the ski mask for a watch cap.

bobaugust

BOB

The fact that Riske and Terrazas said they saw a cap at bundy when they arrived, does in no way, prove that that cap was not in that yard days or weeks before any murder took place.

Riske never picked up or did any close investigation of the item when he made his casual look. He could have very well thought it looked like a cap.

Fhurman was the one standing or squatting in the middle of the bloody walk.
If he said it was a Ski Mask are you saying that is another lie he told.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

I believe it was in Petrocelli's book that I read that Simpson had the nickname 'Hoover' because he snorted so much cocaine. I bet that was real good for his arthritis.

Cora testified that nicole had told her she was often "COKED OUT". you think that may have been good for her daily jogging.imo
martin II

[martin II]

If the sweat suit in the washer means nothing why did disappear? Why wasn't it available for collection at a later date? Where is it?

The last person known to have had possession of the Magical sweat suit was MR DENNIS FUNG and the lapd as they examined it at ojs house. I have always thought that one of the coppers or Fung took it home.imo
martin II

[martin II]

If the sweat suit in the washer means nothing why did disappear? Why wasn't it available for collection at a later date? Where is it?

tv
The problem for the prosecution is their own collection person examined the sweat they said they found and did not find any blood on it or in the machine. Later they had a bright idea that some fibers they found must have come from some source. But they had no source.So they did what they tried on other issues. They tried to trick the jury into believing that the fibers came from some clothing oj owned. They tried this using yet another of their "experts" He tried but the problem was he did not have a source piece of clothing to compare with the fibers and without this source piece of clothing their argument fell flat on its face.imo

martin II

[tv]

The last person known to have had possession of the Magical sweat suit was MR DENNIS FUNG and the lapd as they examined it at ojs house. I have always thought that one of the coppers or Fung took it home.imo
martin III'm sure you do.

[weezer]

Cora testified that nicole had told her she was often "COKED OUT". you think that may have been good for her daily jogging.imo
martin II

is this the same cora that testified that Nicole told her she was afraid of orenthal and that orenthal was going to hurt her? is this the same cora that testified that at the end of her life the ONLY human being she was afraid of hurting her was orenthal james simpson? that cora? because if it's that cora, you've already said you didn't believe it. so which one? or is this like the other evidence and testimony -- you cherry pick which parts fit YOUR defense of the murderer.

[martin II]

is this the same cora that testified that Nicole told her she was afraid of orenthal and that orenthal was going to hurt her? is this the same cora that testified that at the end of her life the ONLY human being she was afraid of hurting her was orenthal james simpson? that cora? because if it's that cora, you've already said you didn't believe it. so which one? or is this like the other evidence and testimony -- you cherry pick which parts fit YOUR defense of the murderer.

I don't believe i have said i did not believe Coras testimony. Whatever you say Nicole told Cora she thought oj was going to do to her is what nicole thought. The fact is that Oj had not hit Nicole in the last several years before she was killed by someome. So Nicole thinking something does not mean that oj did anything to her. It is only what Nicole thought and what cora said nicole told her.imo

martin II

[tv]

tv
The problem for the prosecution is their own collection person examined the sweat they said they found and did not find any blood on it or in the machine. Later they had a bright idea that some fibers they found must have come from some source. But they had no source.So they did what they tried on other issues. They tried to trick the jury into believing that the fibers came from some clothing oj owned. They tried this using yet another of their "experts" He tried but the problem was he did not have a source piece of clothing to compare with the fibers and without this source piece of clothing their argument fell flat on its face.imo

martin II

They did not do a thorough forensic examination of the sweat suit because when they went back to collect it they couldn't find it. The fact that it was never seen again means to me that it would have been of great importance to the investigation. I can think of only one reason for Simpson to get rid of the sweat suit.

[bobaugust]

That's the way you see it but the truth is that the defense provided evidence that he should have had dandruff as was his custom. I think that everyone sees the truth and there is no need to continue discussing the issue. The prosecution offered excuses based on ifs as to why their evidence did not fit his exemplar.

The truth is that the defense never provided any evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders they only provided speculation. The prosecution did give a reasonable explanation as to why Simpson's hair samples taken a month after he was incarcerated showed signs of dandruff. An explanation that was never challenged or contradicted by the defense.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Circumstantial evidence. You were incorrect when you stated there was no evidence circumstantial or direct from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that he had dandruff. That is why the defense called her. It was not to explain anything else. They never asked her did Paula and Simpson seem happy or how she rated the frogman video or the dinner. This conversation is going nowhere and you know the truth. The prosecution failed on the hair issue. Why didn't the prosecution enter into evidence Simpson's comb and brush? I have shown the prosecution's circular and flawed reasoning. I see no need to keep going in circles with you on this issue.

The fact that the defense called Moore to testify is not evidence. Moore could not and did not testify that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. The inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 based on Moore's testimony that "sometimes" he had dandruff in the summer and "sometimes" he didn't is a good example of flawed reasoning. Dandruff was not the only reason the defense called Moore to testify, they had notified the prosecution that she would testify that Simpson's hair was never treated.

Your comment that Moore testified that Simpson would have dandruff in the month of June is incorrect. Moore never said that. But instead of admitting you were mistaken you responded that you just don't want to talk about this anymore. That's understandable.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

BOB

The fact that Riske and Terrazas said they saw a cap at bundy when they arrived, does in no way, prove that that cap was not in that yard days or weeks before any murder took place.

Riske never picked up or did any close investigation of the item when he made his casual look. He could have very well thought it looked like a cap.

Fhurman was the one standing or squatting in the middle of the bloody walk.
If he said it was a Ski Mask are you saying that is another lie he told.
imo
martin II

martin II, I have never read or seen where any one has claimed that because Riske and Terrazas saw the knit cap when they arrived at Bundy that's evidence it was previously not there. Why would you think that?

Fuhrman was simply mistaken when he wrote in his notes that what he saw next to the glove was a ski mask. The knit cap could very well have looked like a knit ski mask to him.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, I have never read or seen where any one has claimed that because Riske and Terrazas saw the knit cap when they arrived at Bundy that's evidence it was previously not there. Why would you think that?

Fuhrman was simply mistaken when he wrote in his notes that what he saw next to the glove was a ski mask. The knit cap could very well have looked like a knit ski mask to him.

bobaugust

Bob
Then we can say that what Riske thought was a cap could have been a ski mask.

[bobaugust]

Bob
Then we can say that what Riske thought was a cap could have been a ski mask.

martin II, no, you can say but you would be wrong again since Riske never said that.

bobaugust

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .The problem for the prosecution is their own collection person examined the sweat they said they found and did not find any blood on it or in the machine. . ." martin II

martin, if your clothes are still dirty after you wash them, it's probably time for a new washer. Yours isn't working. imo

[limakey]

Mr. August,

What exactly did Dennis Fung testify to in regards to the contents of the washing machine? And what were the reasons on why he did not collect any of the contents of the washing machine?

The bottom line is the DA's based their fiber evidence on Kato Kalin's "eye witness" thoughts on what Simpson was wearing that night. One he was never positive on what he was wearing that night, second, if a person who is a victim looks her attacker in the face and swears in court that this is the person who attacked her, yet DNA evidence clears this person, what does that tell you about the value of eye witness testimony? Does this mean that Kato was lying, no, it means he testified to what he thought Mr. Simpson was wearing that night.

You totally lose this round as well. Never did the DA's produce any sweat suit that had these fibers. Deedrick testified that he believe the fibers all came from the same cloth---never did he give any percentages regarding comparisons of fibers from sweat suits.

When did Deedrick testify that these fibers could only have come from a sweat suit?

The DA's had the power to get a search warrant for all of the clothing inside Mr. Simpson's estate. They had the power to even taken Arnelle and Kato's cloths.

Why would the DA's base their fiber evidence on a witness, who Marica Clark clearly hated and who tried her best to make him look like he was an ally of Simpson's? Who was more concerned with maintaining his friendship with Simpson rather then the murder of Nicole? Clark from the moment she made Kato she thought he was holding back---she was livid when he would not testify in the grand jury without his lawyer.

Why would Clark believe Kato's description of the clothes he was wearing that night when she clearly felt that Kato was protecting Simpson? Don't you think that Clark would have gone out of her way to give another example of Kato's loyal feelings toward Simpson by point out how he even gave the wrong description of what Simpson was wearing.

Also, the fact that Kato got the clothing wrong on Simpson's departure to the airport, is proof that eye witness testimony is not always as accurate as we wish it to be. IMO.

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

What was your point about the jury selection? Both the DA's and the Defenses, in every case, try to get jurors who will be biased to their sides.

As for the comments about JC and his comments regarding black jurors who were taken out of the jury selection process, what is your issue with that? Perhaps you do not know that it has not been that long ago where jurors were not being selected simply because of their race, their gender and perhaps even age.

The jurors' education has what bearing on this trial? How much of an education do you need to know that when a judge sites a lead detective in this case for reckless disregard of the truth on a material matter, is not a good sign?

How much of an education do you need to know when another lead detective in this case, the one who found the glove, commited perjury on a material issue in this case? How much of an education did you need to understand that Mark Fuhrman said in open court if anyone came into the courtroom and testified about this issue, they all would be lying but him?

There are many more examples but you get the gist.

Where is your proof that all white jury would have convicted Simpson? For the last time, the jury all white, all black, all asian, all women, all men, they all would have gotten the same jury instructions---the race and the gender of the jury would not change these.

As for Denise Brown, the video tape of her kissing Simpson hurt her testimony. Her testimony regarding the incident in the bar only proved that Simpson was a loud mouth drunk---not a killer.

Her testimony regarding the incident at Simpson's home were her version of events. Shapiro was very clever and knew to ask a very important question, would her date, Ed McCabe testified to the same version of events. I believe she said she didn't know. If Ed McCabe backed up her story, then I would say that would have helped her testimony.

What also hurt her were the comments she made early on in the media. Also, her demeanor on the stand didn't help her all that much either. She was waging her own war against her demon---drink. She did not come across all that well, in fact, some of the journalists reported that she came across as cold and uncaring about her sister as well it being obvious that Denise and Nicole were not all that close over the last few years. Denise knew the only way she would or could conquer her demon was for her to focus on her recovery---I understand that, but I don't think many others did.

It was because Denise's testimony fall on its face, is why the DA's dropped their domestic violence motive. They did not call any more witnesses on this subject. IMO, if Denise was their best witness on this subject, then they were wise to drop it with her. IMO.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

What exactly did Dennis Fung testify to in regards to the contents of the washing machine? And what were the reasons on why he did not collect any of the contents of the washing machine?

The bottom line is the DA's based their fiber evidence on Kato Kalin's "eye witness" thoughts on what Simpson was wearing that night. One he was never positive on what he was wearing that night, second, if a person who is a victim looks her attacker in the face and swears in court that this is the person who attacked her, yet DNA evidence clears this person, what does that tell you about the value of eye witness testimony? Does this mean that Kato was lying, no, it means he testified to what he thought Mr. Simpson was wearing that night.

You totally lose this round as well. Never did the DA's produce any sweat suit that had these fibers. Deedrick testified that he believe the fibers all came from the same cloth---never did he give any percentages regarding comparisons of fibers from sweat suits.

When did Deedrick testify that these fibers could only have come from a sweat suit?

The DA's had the power to get a search warrant for all of the clothing inside Mr. Simpson's estate. They had the power to even taken Arnelle and Kato's cloths.

Why would the DA's base their fiber evidence on a witness, who Marica Clark clearly hated and who tried her best to make him look like he was an ally of Simpson's? Who was more concerned with maintaining his friendship with Simpson rather then the murder of Nicole? Clark from the moment she made Kato she thought he was holding back---she was livid when he would not testify in the grand jury without his lawyer.

Why would Clark believe Kato's description of the clothes he was wearing that night when she clearly felt that Kato was protecting Simpson? Don't you think that Clark would have gone out of her way to give another example of Kato's loyal feelings toward Simpson by point out how he even gave the wrong description of what Simpson was wearing.

Also, the fact that Kato got the clothing wrong on Simpson's departure to the airport, is proof that eye witness testimony is not always as accurate as we wish it to be. IMO.

Limakey, Dennis Fung was never asked about the contents in Simpson's washing machine. The clothing from the washing machine was not collected the day after the murders because the police had no reason to collect it just as they had no reason to collect any of Simpson's other clothing. If they had seen blood on any clothing they probably would have collected that clothing.

What makes Kaelin's testimony so damning to Simpson is that Kaelin was basically a defense witness and even though he told the truth he tried not to say anything that would be detrimental to Simpson. Kaelin didn't know that the killer had worn dark colored cotton clothing when he testified that was exactly what Simpson was wearing a little over an hour before the murders.

The fact that Kaelin only remembered what Simpson was wearing when they rode together in his car to McDonalds only shows that Kaelin wasn't concerned with what Simpson was wearing when he left for the airport. Kaelin had other things on his mind like who had been behind his room and scared the heck out of him. Kaelin testified he was still nervous about that even later when Simpson called him from the airport with instructions to go back to the front of the house and set the house alarm.

It seems you still keep avoiding how incriminating the fiber evidence is and what it tells us. The killer was able to dispose of his clothing but he could not dispose of the fibers his clothing left behind. The fact that blue black cotton fibers were found all over Ron's shirt and on the killer's right hand glove is evidence that the killer wore dark colored cotton clothing. The fact that the same exact blue black cotton fibers were also found on Simpson's socks is extremely incriminating evidence against Simpson.

As to what Deedrick testified to,
June 29, 1995
MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Testimony was presented in this case that as of 9:45 on the night of June the 12th the Defendant was wearing a dark blue or black cotton type sweatsuit. Did you find any fibers like that in any of the fibers collected from the evidence that you examined in this case?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did.
*
MS. CLARK: Can you please tell us from which items you found such fibers?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there were blue black cotton fibers found on the Rockingham glove, on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the socks from the Defendant's bedroom.
*
MS. CLARK: Can you tell us, sir, what conclusion you reached concerning the blue black cotton fibers found on the Rockingham glove, Ron Goldman's shirt and the sock found in the Defendant's bedroom?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they all could have originated from the same fabric.
MS. CLARK: What appearance would those fibers have in a piece of fabric in terms of color?
MR. DEEDRICK: They would be black. It would look black.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

You can not compare the civil trial jury to that of the criminal trial jury because of the burden of proof and the different jury instructions. Also, the two juries were not presented the same case. The civil trial was all about money and maybes. I think it took perhaps a nano second after the verdict in the criminal trial for many journalist and talking heads said that it will be a different in Santa Monica. As far as I am concerned, while I agree the civil trial jury did their duty, I was hardly surprised by the outcome.

Again, what does race have to do with jury instructions? The bottom line in very verdict are the jury instructions. I stand firm that the only legal verdict in this case was not guilty and the racial make up of the jury would not have mattered. The gender of the jury would not have mattered. IMO.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Again, this issue is very simple. The DA's never linked the sweat suit that was described by Kato to Mr. Simpson. Kato was not positive as to what Mr. Simpson wore---he only thought it was like a sweat suit outfit. Again, eye witness testimony is not a reliable as you and DA's would like people to believe.

Since the DA's did not take any of Simpson's clothes or anyone else's for that matter, how were they suppose to compare fibers? Yes, the fibers "probably" all came from the same cloth, however, never did they produce any evidence that the cloth could have been from a sweat suit.

If Fung never testified to the contents of the washing machine, then how do you know it was a sweat suit? How do you know that it was a man's or a woman's? Child or adult?

Your "facts" are not based on any evidence at all---it is based again on the smoke and mirror approach the DA's used more then once in this case. I will say the DA's were clever enough to include a sweat suit on a 2nd search warrant, knowing very well that they would not find one because there was never one to be found. Again, smoke and mirrors.

In reality, the fiber evidence was just as weak as the hair evidence. None of these fibers were found in Simpson's home nor in any of his cars. The fibers were found on the socks, well the tale of the socks is well known, just like how the LAPD knew who's blood was going to be found on them, before the DA's had them sent out for testing. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Mr. Darden: Miss Brown, Showing What You Has Been Marked People's 10 For Identification, Is That A Photograph Of Your Sister, Nicole?

Ms. Brown: Yes, It Is.

Mr. Darden: Is That A Photograph That You Have Seen Before?

Ms. Brown: Yes, It Is.

Mr. Darden: Do You Know Who Took That Photograph?

Ms. Brown: I Did.

Mr. Darden: Do You Recall When It Was That You Took That Photograph?

Ms. Brown: Yeah. It Was Right After The '89 Incident.

Mr. Darden: Was On It New Year's Day Itself?

Ms. Brown: Yeah. I Think It Was A Couple Of Days Later.

Mr. Darden: That Photograph Depicts Certain Injuries To Your Sister; Is That Correct?

Ms. Brown: Yes, It Does.

Mr. Darden: The Swelling Over Her Right Eye, That Isn't How She Usually Looked, Is It?

Ms. Brown: No, It Is Not.

Mr. Darden: Your Honor, May I Show The Jury People's 11 For Identification?

The Court: Yes, You May.

Mr. Darden: Miss Brown, Showing You People's 11 For Identification, In This Photograph Your Sister Has Her Right Arm Raised; Is That Correct?

Ms. Brown: Yes.

Mr. Darden: Do You See Any Injury To Her Right Arm There?

Ms. Brown: Yes, I Do.

Mr. Darden: What Do You See?

Ms. Brown: A Bruise, A Big Bruise.

Mr. Darden: And Directing Your Attention To The Right Side Of Her -- Of Her Head Or Forehead, Do You See Any Injuries To The Right Side Of Her Head?

Ms. Brown: Yes, I Do.

Mr. Darden: That Is Not How She Usually Looked, Is It?

Ms. Brown: No, It Is Not.

Mr. Darden: You Told Us A Moment Ago That You Took These Photographs; Is That Correct?

Ms. Brown: Yes, I Did.

Mr. Darden: Okay. Would You Describe For Us, Please, The Circumstances That Lead To Your Taking These Photographs?

Ms. Brown: Nicole Asked Me To Take Them For Her.

******

There is evidence that he abused her.

[William Anthony]

If the sweat suit in the washer means nothing why did disappear? Why wasn't it available for collection at a later date? Where is it?

There was no blood found it the washing machine.

[William Anthony]

on the night they were murdered, Ron Goldman and Nicole did NOT have drugs in their system. on the night he murdered two human beings, orenthal james simpson had drugs in his system. do you suppose he was doing drugs when he beat her?

Yes, alcohol.

[William Anthony]

They did not do a thorough forensic examination of the sweat suit because when they went back to collect it they couldn't find it. The fact that it was never seen again means to me that it would have been of great importance to the investigation. I can think of only one reason for Simpson to get rid of the sweat suit.

Simpson was in Chicago. I thought the expression was, "the long arm of the law."

[William Anthony]

The truth is that the defense never provided any evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders they only provided speculation. The prosecution did give a reasonable explanation as to why Simpson's hair samples taken a month after he was incarcerated showed signs of dandruff. An explanation that was never challenged or contradicted by the defense.

bobaugust

The community knows the truth.

[William Anthony]

The fact that the defense called Moore to testify is not evidence.

bobaugust

It is statement's like this that cause me not to want to discuss the subject with you anymore. The simple truth is that Ms. Moore was called to provide circumstantial testimonial evidence that, judging from her 16 year experience with direct observations of his hair, he would have had more dandruff during the months between February and August and especially on those occasions when he played golf.

[William Anthony]

Good for you William. You looked at her side for once. Put yourself in her place in that small, small walkway with ? (for your benefit) coming at her with a knife. He did abuse her and good for you accepting that.

Mr. Bell, I said that years ago. ;) :cool:

[martin II]

They did not do a thorough forensic examination of the sweat suit because when they went back to collect it they couldn't find it. The fact that it was never seen again means to me that it would have been of great importance to the investigation. I can think of only one reason for Simpson to get rid of the sweat suit.

There was no evidence that Simpson got rid of any sweat suite that was last known to be in the possession of D FUNG and other le.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=Joseph Bell;9110632 (for your benefit) coming at her with a knife. [/QUOTE]

I do not remember any knife alleged to be the murder weapon that was introduced into evidence.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=limakey;9110614]Mr. Bell,
You can not compare the civil trial jury to that of the criminal trial jury because of the burden of proof and the different jury instructions.

Also, the two juries were not presented the same case. The civil trial was all about money and maybes.

Limakey I disagree with you. The burden of proof is not the same in a criminal case but the different jury instructions?

You are referring to a different Asian American judge who knew how to manage his court properly. Without TV cameras.

Are you suggesting that "Asian American" had something to do with either case?

[Kate Sachel]

**snipped**

As for the comments about JC and his comments regarding black jurors who were taken out of the jury selection process, what is your issue with that? Perhaps you do not know that it has not been that long ago where jurors were not being selected simply because of their race, their gender and perhaps even age.

The jurors' education has what bearing on this trial? How much of an education do you need to know that when a judge sites a lead detective in this case for reckless disregard of the truth on a material matter, is not a good sign?

How much of an education do you need to know when another lead detective in this case, the one who found the glove, commited perjury on a material issue in this case? How much of an education did you need to understand that Mark Fuhrman said in open court if anyone came into the courtroom and testified about this issue, they all would be lying but him?

There are many more examples but you get the gist.

Where is your proof that all white jury would have convicted Simpson? For the last time, the jury all white, all black, all asian, all women, all men, they all would have gotten the same jury instructions---the race and the gender of the jury would not change these.

As for Denise Brown, the video tape of her kissing Simpson hurt her testimony. Her testimony regarding the incident in the bar only proved that Simpson was a loud mouth drunk---not a killer.

What also hurt her were the comments she made early on in the media. Also, her demeanor on the stand didn't help her all that much either. She was waging her own war against her demon---drink. She did not come across all that well, in fact, some of the journalists reported that she came across as cold and uncaring about her sister as well it being obvious that Denise and Nicole were not all that close over the last few years. Denise knew the only way she would or could conquer her demon was for her to focus on her recovery---I understand that, but I don't think many others did.

It was because Denise's testimony fall on its face, is why the DA's dropped their domestic violence motive. They did not call any more witnesses on this subject. IMO, if Denise was their best witness on this subject, then they were wise to drop it with her. IMO.

First, whether or not Fuhrman's use of the "n" word was a "material fact" in the case is up in the air for quite alot of people and this includes seasoned attorneys. For every lawyer at my firm who believes it was a material fact there is another lawyer who believes that it wasn't.

My goodness, I was only fifteen minutes earlier listening to the scandal surrounding Jesse Jackson, who was caught on tape the other day referring to African Americans as the "n" word. Perhaps it was he who planted the glove at Rockingham.

OJ's actions at the bar on that occassion certianly do not prove him a killer, but what his statements do tell us is that he was of the mind set that Nicole, and her body, were his property. Perhaps if that were a one time occassion I may be more inclined to believe that he was simply drunk and loud, but instances such as this happened frequently as revealed by his and her friends throughout the course of the criminal and civil proceedings.

Moving on, can you tell me who on the prosecution team said that because Denise's testimony fell on its face is the reason they dropped their DV motive? Quite the contrary, they didn't drop it. In fact they spoke about it all the way up through closing arguments.

Kate

[martin II]

[QUOTE=limakey;9110614]Mr. Bell,
You can not compare the civil trial jury to that of the criminal trial jury because of the burden of proof and the different jury instructions.

Also, the two juries were not presented the same case. The civil trial was all about money and maybes.

Limakey I disagree with you. The burden of proof is not the same in a criminal case but the different jury instructions?

You are referring to a different Asian American judge who knew how to manage his court properly. Without TV cameras.

I suggest you read about the case.:read:

[William Anthony]

First, whether or not Fuhrman's use of the "n" word was a "material fact" in the case is up in the air for quite alot of people and this includes seasoned attorneys. For every lawyer at my firm who believes it was a material fact there is another lawyer who believes that it wasn't.

My goodness, I was only fifteen minutes earlier listening to the scandal surrounding Jesse Jackson, who was caught on tape the other day referring to African Americans as the "n" word. Perhaps it was he who planted the glove at Rockingham.

OJ's actions at the bar on that occassion certianly do not prove him a killer, but what his statements do tell us is that he was of the mind set that Nicole, and her body, were his property. Perhaps if that were a one time occassion I may be more inclined to believe that he was simply drunk and loud, but instances such as this happened frequently as revealed by his and her friends throughout the course of the criminal and civil proceedings.

Moving on, can you tell me who on the prosecution team said that because Denise's testimony fell on its face is the reason they dropped their DV motive? Quite the contrary, they didn't drop it. In fact they spoke about it all the way up through closing arguments.

Kate

I have not heard the remark about Jessie using the N word that MF used. He did use a N word in connection to a lower part of the body that involves castration, which is what I heard. The link from domestic violence to murder was never established, imho, because the evidence of something that caused him to become so enraged was never provided, imho.

[William Anthony]

William, you said it a few moments ago. :)

Yes, when posters bring up older discussions, I sometimes reiterate what I have previously said.

[Kate Sachel]

I have not heard the remark about Jessie using the N word that MF used. He did use a N word in connection to a lower part of the body that involves castration, which is what I heard. The link from domestic violence to murder was never established, imho, because the evidence of something that caused him to become so enraged was never provided, imho.

It's all over the news right now. Yes, he did say that he wanted to cut Obama's lower regions off, but he also said that Obama is trying to tell "n-'s" how to behave.

I have to add on here that I'm curious as to whether FOX will decide to release the transcripts.

Kate

[tv]

It's all over the news right now. Yes, he did say that he wanted to cut Obama's lower regions off, but he also said that Obama is trying to tell "n-'s" how to behave.

I have to add on here that I'm curious as to whether FOX will decide to release the transcripts.

KateYes, Jesse Jackson did use the N word. I have to admit I don't get it.

[martin II]

I have not heard the remark about Jessie using the N word that MF used. He did use a N word in connection to a lower part of the body that involves castration, which is what I heard. The link from domestic violence to murder was never established, imho, because the evidence of something that caused him to become so enraged was never provided, imho.

JJackson is ot for this thread as many would say.
As Jotun and others would say. "get it off of this thread." hahaha

[Kate Sachel]

JJackson is ot for this thread as many would say.
As Jotun and others would say. "get it off of this thread." hahaha

This coming from the man who is posting issues from the criminal trial all over the civil trial thread? Please.

I think facing the truth might be helpful, which is that you're more than likely upset to realize that an African American icon has been outed using the same derogatory slurs as the Mark Fuhrman that you hate so passionately.

Kate

[William Anthony]

It's all over the news right now. Yes, he did say that he wanted to cut Obama's lower regions off, but he also said that Obama is trying to tell "n-'s" how to behave.

I have to add on here that I'm curious as to whether FOX will decide to release the transcripts.

Kate

I had not heard his other remark. However, there are a couple of major differences between Jackson and MF. Jackson was not using them in a context of depriving a race of their Constitutional rights, illegal stops and seizures based on race, harassment based on race or use of excessive force based on race.

[William Anthony]

This coming from the man who is posting issues from the criminal trial all over the civil trial thread? Please.

I think facing the truth might be helpful, which is that you're more than likely upset to realize that an African American icon has been outed using the same derogatory slurs as the Mark Fuhrman that you hate so passionately.

Kate

Who is this icon of which you speak? I think Blacks are grateful for Jackson's participation in the struggle for civil rights and realize his flaws. I have not promoted him to the status of MLK.

[William Anthony]

MF's use of the word was an issue in determining his credibility. The simple truth is that he lied under oath. In regard to the degree of offensiveness of the word spoken by JJ or MF, I think that would require another historical discussion. In regard to the difference in the context of the word's use, I have already stated what the difference is. Yes, the word is derogatory, regardless of who speaks it.

[Kate Sachel]

MF's use of the word was an issue in determining his credibility. The simple truth is that he lied under oath. In regard to the degree of offensiveness of the word spoken by JJ or MF, I think that would require another historical discussion. In regard to the difference in the context of the word's use, I have already stated what the difference is. Yes, the word is derogatory, regardless of who speaks it.

I understand that he lied other oath, about what I do not personally deem a material fact in the case, but many people put an emphasis not so much on that he lied about using that word but on the fact that he used it at all.

It has further been claimed that a white who uses that word should be deemed a racist against the black population and deemed a "bad" human being. But apparently if you are black and use that word it holds a different meaning. Context says it all apparently. What a joke.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Who is this icon of which you speak? I think Blacks are grateful for Jackson's participation in the struggle for civil rights and realize his flaws. I have not promoted him to the status of MLK.

Jesse Jackson would be the icon of whom I speak.

In the seminar I attended on Black History month, the speaker claimed that Jesse Jackson is considered a black icon. As did the program on the history channel that I watched.

Are you saying he is not considered such? Or that he is not considered such by you?

Kate

[bobaugust]

The community knows the truth.

Yes, they do.

[bobaugust]

It is statement's like this that cause me not to want to discuss the subject with you anymore. The simple truth is that Ms. Moore was called to provide circumstantial testimonial evidence that, judging from her 16 year experience with direct observations of his hair, he would have had more dandruff during the months between February and August and especially on those occasions when he played golf.

And it's incorrect statements like yours that you do not even acknowledge are incorrect let along admit that you were mistaken that shows this community that you fail to meet the the standards you seem to want everyone else to adhere to. Everyone else except you.

You were incorrect when you said Moore testified that Simpson would have dandruff in the month of June. You were incorrect when you said that the defense called Moore only to explain about Simpson's dandruff. You are also incorrect when you claim an inference based on "sometimes" is a reasonable inference. Your inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 is pure speculation supported by nothing except your imagination.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I understand that he lied other oath, about what I do not personally deem a material fact in the case, but many people put an emphasis not so much on that he lied about using that word but on the fact that he used it at all.

It has further been claimed that a white who uses that word should be deemed a racist against the black population and deemed a "bad" human being. But apparently if you are black and use that word it holds a different meaning. Context says it all apparently. What a joke.

Kate

I really do not think that posters here want to discuss the historical underpinnings and the degree to which Blacks are offended, depending on the race of the individual using it. I would be happy to discuss that with you privately. The context I meant was between JJ talking on tv in a manner that would not deprive Blacks of their Constitutional or lawful rights as opposed to MF's. I don't think either of them should be using it. However, given MF's position and some of the instances in which he used the word it would lead to a reasonable inference that his racial animus allowed him to act unlawfully.

[Kate Sachel]

I really do not think that posters here want to discuss the historical underpinnings and the degree to which Blacks are offended, depending on the race of the individual using it. I would be happy to discuss that with you privately. The context I meant was between JJ talking on tv in a manner that would not deprive Blacks of their Constitutional or lawful rights as opposed to MF's. I don't think either of them should be using it. However, given MF's position and some of the instances in which he used the word it would lead to a reasonable inference that his racial animus allowed him to act unlawfully.

What people wish to talk about has never been an issue for you before, but I can tell you that Mark Fuhrman's use of the "n" word alone is not what deprived anyone of their constitutional rights. Actions that he performed on duty may have, but just saying the word doesn't and that is what we are discussing here.

Kate

[William Anthony]

And it's incorrect statements like yours that you do not even acknowledge are incorrect let along admit that you were mistaken that shows this community that you fail to meet the the standards you seem to want everyone else to adhere to. Everyone else except you.

You were incorrect when you said Moore testified that Simpson would have dandruff in the month of June. You were incorrect when you said that the defense called Moore only to explain about Simpson's dandruff. You are also incorrect when you claim an inference based on "sometimes" is a reasonable inference. Your inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 is pure speculation supported by nothing except your imagination.

bobaugust

We are trying to raise the level of posting, which includes personal attacks. With that said, I never said the inference was based on sometimes. With that said, :seeya: ;) :seeya: :cool:

[William Anthony]

What people wish to talk about has never been an issue for you before, but I can tell you that Mark Fuhrman's use of the "n" word alone is not what deprived anyone of their constitutional rights. Actions that he performed on duty may have, but just saying the word doesn't and that is what we are discussing here.

Kate

Perhaps, we have a misunderstanding. MF did not Just simply say N 41 or more times. He spoke of instances in which N's were beaten, unlawfully stopping, especially those riding with a White woman, and arresting N's and beating N's. I don't think anyone would have had a suspicion that he planted evidence, if he had just said he hated N's or there were no N's in the town in which he grew up, other than the issue of his credibility.

[William Anthony]

Jesse Jackson would be the icon of whom I speak.

In the seminar I attended on Black History month, the speaker claimed that Jesse Jackson is considered a black icon. As did the program on the history channel that I watched.

Are you saying he is not considered such? Or that he is not considered such by you?

Kate

With those I have discussed JJ with, there are some feelings about him that I do not think should be shared on this board. While he is respected for his contribution to the struggle for civil rights, suffice it say, that with most Blacks I have talked his status is less than iconic.

[martin II]

Some young people in the youth culture have taken to use the n word as a term of friendship and love stating that it is ok for them to use it in this context but not for some whites that use as a demeaning comment to blacks.
I dissagree with their position and have voiced my opinion to many as the word has too much of a nagative historical conatation for anyone to use it.

If J Jackson used it then he was just as wrong as some of the youth.

Furhman used this word in a mean and hateful expression of how he felt about black people. He used it on the tapes and in conversation with some that testified in court. It was a word that he used to express his r*****
sickness against blacks.

There are some that create all kinds of excuses for what he was/is and how he spoke about mixed couples and other minorities to various people but the excuses do not change what he said and who he is.imo

martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Some young people in the youth culture have taken to use the n word as a term of friendship and love stating that it is ok for them to use it in this context but not for some whites that use as a demeaning comment to blacks.
I dissagree with their position and have voiced my opinion to many as the word has too much of a nagative historical conatation for anyone to use it.

If J Jackson used it then he was just as wrong as some of the youth.

Furhman used this word in a mean and hateful expression of how he felt about black people. He used it on the tapes and in conversation with some that testified in court. It was a word that he used to express his r*****
sickness against blacks.

There are some that create all kinds of excuses for what he was/is and how he spoke about mixed couples and other minorities to various people but the excuses do not change what he said and who he is.imo

martin II

I never thought I would live to say this, but excellent post!

Kate

[William Anthony]

I have seen Blacks call other Blacks a N and there was no offense taken. I have seen some Blacks call another Black a N in a harsh tone and fights break out and I saw a shooting when a light skinned Black called a dark skinned Black a Black N. Recently, Blacks embrace each other when one says "my N***a". I have never seen a Black embrace or not take offense when a White calls a Black a N. I have seen several fights break out when a White calls a Black a N, because of the history and racial events connected to the use of that word. Recently, I have seen Whites call Blacks "my N***a" and saw them shake hands, or give them dap, if you will. I have seen Whites call other whites a N and fights break out.

[martin II]

I have seen Blacks call other Blacks a N and there was no offense taken. I have seen some Blacks call another Black a N in a harsh tone and fights break out and I saw a shooting when a light skinned Black called a dark skinned Black a Black N. Recently, Blacks embrace each other when one says "my N***a". I have never seen a Black embrace or not take offense when a White calls a Black a N. I have seen several fights break out when a White calls a Black a N, because of the history and racial events connected to the use of that word. Recently, I have seen Whites call Blacks "my N***a" and saw them shake hands, or give them dap, if you will. I have seen Whites call other whites a N and fights break out.

It seems that some whites try to make the arguments that Hell i have heard blacks use the word directed at other blacks so why the hell do they become angry when i or some white use it.

This sounds like someone looking for a excuse to use the word themselves or to justify other whites using the word.

[Kate Sachel]

It seems that some whites try to make the arguments that Hell i have heard blacks use the word directed at other blacks so why the hell do they become angry when i or some white use it.

This sounds like someone looking for a excuse to use the word themselves or to justify other whites using the word.

It's not trying to make justification for anything martin. It's a resentment at the suggestion that a word is less derogatory as long as a black person uses it. It's called unfair, and I don't want to hear anyone ranting about unfairness when they aren't being fair themselves.

It's a little something known as personal responsibility, which far too many people lack nowadays.

Kate

[weezer]

I have seen Blacks call other Blacks a N and there was no offense taken. I have seen some Blacks call another Black a N in a harsh tone and fights break out and I saw a shooting when a light skinned Black called a dark skinned Black a Black N. Recently, Blacks embrace each other when one says "my N***a". I have never seen a Black embrace or not take offense when a White calls a Black a N. I have seen several fights break out when a White calls a Black a N, because of the history and racial events connected to the use of that word. Recently, I have seen Whites call Blacks "my N***a" and saw them shake hands, or give them dap, if you will. I have seen Whites call other whites a N and fights break out.

it seems the good reverand wasn't referring to a person. . .

"The racial epithet was not directed at Obama. Jackson used it to refer to African-Americans, according to the website TVNewser."

[SlowHandSam]

it seems the good reverand wasn't referring to a person. . .

"The racial epithet was not directed at Obama. Jackson used it to refer to African-Americans, according to the website TVNewser."

this is his quote

Barack...he's talking down to black people...telling n—s how to behave.

It sounds to me that he's using the term in a derogatory if not disparaging way.

[William Anthony]

It's not trying to make justification for anything martin. It's a resentment at the suggestion that a word is less derogatory as long as a black person uses it. It's called unfair, and I don't want to hear anyone ranting about unfairness when they aren't being fair themselves.

It's a little something known as personal responsibility, which far too many people lack nowadays.

Kate

I thought we had a misunderstanding. I never said that the word was not derogatory. I said the degree of offensiveness. What I meant was that, even though, the word is derogatory, there are situations in which it appears to be less offensive than others.

[William Anthony]

it seems the good reverand wasn't referring to a person. . .

"The racial epithet was not directed at Obama. Jackson used it to refer to African-Americans, according to the website TVNewser."

I have not denied that he used it to refer to Blacks. I have only spoke of different reactions I have seen based on who said it, how and in what context. I think that range of reactions holds true for whether the word is used to address and individual or a group.

[William Anthony]

this is his quote



It sounds to me that he's using the term in a derogatory if not disparaging way.

I have tried to explain that the word is derogatory. I think JJ's use of the word was used in a disparaging manner. I was not offended as much as I believe some will be, because of some of the things I have spoken with other people about JJ. I guess what I am saying is that I am not as offended, because I realized the possibility that he would make such a remark. I tend to think that anger, jealousy and a resentment over his past political campaigns contributed to the derogatory remarks against both Obama and Blacks.

[weezer]

I have tried to explain that the word is derogatory. I think JJ's use of the word was used in a disparaging manner. I was not offended as much as I believe some will be, because of some of the things I have spoken with other people about JJ. I guess what I am saying is that I am not as offended, because I realized the possibility that he would make such a remark. I tend to think that anger, jealousy and a resentment over his past political campaigns contributed to the derogatory remarks against both Obama and Blacks.

so the good reverend gets a pass because he's an angry black man but anyone white doesn't because they're white?

[bobaugust]

We are trying to raise the level of posting, which includes personal attacks. With that said, I never said the inference was based on sometimes. With that said, :seeya: ;) :seeya: :cool:

Let me get this straight. If you William. make some mistaken claims while defending your position and your mistakes are then brought to your attention you feel there is no need for you to acknowledge you made those mistakes? Is that what you think? And if other posters on this community continue to remind you of your unacknowledged mistakes you then find that a personal attack? Is that what you think?

You say your inference is based on Moore's testimony that Simpson, and I quote you, "would have more dandruff during the months between February and August and especially on those occasions when he played golf."

That's not quite correct. Moore did not say that. She said, "it seemed that he would have dandruff more in the off season, when he was playing golf and in the sun a lot." And later under cross examination Moore clarified that comment by agreeing that "sometimes in the summer when (she) saw him to take care of his hair, he would have dandruff and sometimes he would not."

The difference William is that your comment sounds like you think Simpson had dandruff all the time but in the summers he had more dandruff. That's not true and if that's what you based your inference on then you are clearly wrong. If you based your inference on what Moore actually said that sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't have dandruff in the summers then your inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 without any other evidence to support that claim is not a reasonable inference at all, it's unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Let me get this straight. If you William. make some mistaken claims while defending your position and your mistakes are then brought to your attention you feel there is no need for you to acknowledge you made those mistakes? Is that what you think? And if other posters on this community continue to remind you of your unacknowledged mistakes you then find that a personal attack? Is that what you think?

You say your inference is based on Moore's testimony that Simpson, and I quote you, "would have more dandruff during the months between February and August and especially on those occasions when he played golf."

That's not quite correct. Moore did not say that. She said, "it seemed that he would have dandruff more in the off season, when he was playing golf and in the sun a lot." And later under cross examination Moore clarified that comment by agreeing that "sometimes in the summer when (she) saw him to take care of his hair, he would have dandruff and sometimes he would not."

The difference William is that your comment sounds like you think Simpson had dandruff all the time but in the summers he had more dandruff. That's not true and if that's what you based your inference on then you are clearly wrong. If you based your inference on what Moore actually said that sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't have dandruff in the summers then your inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 without any other evidence to support that claim is not a reasonable inference at all, it's unsupported speculation.

bobaugust


The cap had nothing to do with the murders. The prosecution was reaching for straws AGAIN.

[martin II]

so the good reverend gets a pass because he's an angry black man but anyone white doesn't because they're white?

No one gets a PASS.
Weezer. when you use it, you do not get a pass.

[William Anthony]

Let me get this straight. If you William. make some mistaken claims while defending your position and your mistakes are then brought to your attention you feel there is no need for you to acknowledge you made those mistakes? Is that what you think? And if other posters on this community continue to remind you of your unacknowledged mistakes you then find that a personal attack? Is that what you think?

You say your inference is based on Moore's testimony that Simpson, and I quote you, "would have more dandruff during the months between February and August and especially on those occasions when he played golf."

That's not quite correct. Moore did not say that. She said, "it seemed that he would have dandruff more in the off season, when he was playing golf and in the sun a lot." And later under cross examination Moore clarified that comment by agreeing that "sometimes in the summer when (she) saw him to take care of his hair, he would have dandruff and sometimes he would not."

The difference William is that your comment sounds like you think Simpson had dandruff all the time but in the summers he had more dandruff. That's not true and if that's what you based your inference on then you are clearly wrong. If you based your inference on what Moore actually said that sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't have dandruff in the summers then your inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 without any other evidence to support that claim is not a reasonable inference at all, it's unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

Sounds like and said are two different things. :seeya: ;) :seeya: :cool:

[William Anthony]

so the good reverend gets a pass because he's an angry black man but anyone white doesn't because they're white?

No, and as a matter of fact I hold him to a higher standard than others. I said that I did not find his remarks as offensive as I believe some will, because of some discussion I have had with Blacks about JJ.

[William Anthony]

Let me get this straight. If you William. make some mistaken claims while defending your position and your mistakes are then brought to your attention you feel there is no need for you to acknowledge you made those mistakes? Is that what you think? And if other posters on this community continue to remind you of your unacknowledged mistakes you then find that a personal attack? Is that what you think?

You say your inference is based on Moore's testimony that Simpson, and I quote you, "would have more dandruff during the months between February and August and especially on those occasions when he played golf."

That's not quite correct. Moore did not say that. She said, "it seemed that he would have dandruff more in the off season, when he was playing golf and in the sun a lot." And later under cross examination Moore clarified that comment by agreeing that "sometimes in the summer when (she) saw him to take care of his hair, he would have dandruff and sometimes he would not."

The difference William is that your comment sounds like you think Simpson had dandruff all the time but in the summers he had more dandruff. That's not true and if that's what you based your inference on then you are clearly wrong. If you based your inference on what Moore actually said that sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't have dandruff in the summers then your inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 without any other evidence to support that claim is not a reasonable inference at all, it's unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

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

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

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

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

MR. COCHRAN: All right, ma'am. Now, with regard to the so-called off season, you were saying that this condition of dandruff would be perhaps worse at times during the--I think you said off season when he's playing golf; is that correct?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what, if anything, would attribute to that, that he would have more dandruff in the off season?

MS. MOORE: Well, it would happen mostly if he didn't put oil on his hair. If he put oil on his hair, he wouldn't have dandruff like he did. It would be in--when he played golf, he was in the sun, you know, and with the lack of oil that would create the dry scalp.

Clark never asked about oil. Whose responsibility was it to produce evidence that Simpson took care of his hair on June 12th and where is that evidence?
It is a circular argument that it is Simpson's hair, even though there is dandruff in the exemplar and none in our sample, because it is Simpson's hair. Stated another way, We provided evidence that Simpson's hair had dandruff, but we failed to provided evidence that his hair did not have dandruff on June 12th. We failed to provide evidence on an inference based on an inference, because we did not take samples of his hair or ask anyone if they observed dandruff when he was arrested and examined. We failed to produce evidence that Simpson did not take care of his hair, while he was in jail or that he did take care of it on June 12th. We failed to provide evidence that Simpson did not have his regular shampoo while in jail or that his water was different from jail water. We failed to show any evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn from another reasonable inference, which we ask you to disregard our failure, because, although the exemplar contradicts our findings, it is Simpson's hair, because we say it is Simpson's hair.

[martin II]

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

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

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

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

MR. COCHRAN: All right, ma'am. Now, with regard to the so-called off season, you were saying that this condition of dandruff would be perhaps worse at times during the--I think you said off season when he's playing golf; is that correct?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what, if anything, would attribute to that, that he would have more dandruff in the off season?

MS. MOORE: Well, it would happen mostly if he didn't put oil on his hair. If he put oil on his hair, he wouldn't have dandruff like he did. It would be in--when he played golf, he was in the sun, you know, and with the lack of oil that would create the dry scalp.

Clark never asked about oil. Whose responsibility was it to produce evidence that Simpson took care of his hair on June 12th and where is that evidence?
It is a circular argument that it is Simpson's hair, even though there is dandruff in the exemplar and none in our sample, because it is Simpson's hair. Stated another way, We provided evidence that Simpson's hair had dandruff, but we failed to provided evidence that his hair did not have dandruff on June 12th. We failed to provide evidence on an inference based on an inference, because we did not take samples of his hair or ask anyone if they observed dandruff when he was arrested and examined. We failed to produce evidence that Simpson did not take care of his hair, while he was in jail or that he did take care of it on June 12th. We failed to provide evidence that Simpson did not have his regular shampoo while in jail or that his water was different from jail water. We failed to show any evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn from another reasonable inference, which we ask you to disregard our failure, because, although the exemplar contradicts our findings, it is Simpson's hair, because we say it is Simpson's hair.

Thank you SIR:beer: :beer: :beer:

[William Anthony]

This is from a previous link I supplied.

"In other words, "the chance of error or speculation increases in proportion to the width of the gap between underlying fact and ultimate conclusion where the gap is bridged by a succession of inferences, each based upon the preceding one." United States v. Shahane, 517 F.2d 1173, 1178 (8th Cir. 1975)."

The defense present testimony of a underlying fact that only required one inference to be drawn to reach the conclusion. The prosecution provided no evidence, imho, allowing a reasonable inference to be drawn to the conclusion. However, the prosecution provided a weak association about shampoos, jail and hygiene and the likes.

[weezer]

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

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

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

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

MR. COCHRAN: All right, ma'am. Now, with regard to the so-called off season, you were saying that this condition of dandruff would be perhaps worse at times during the--I think you said off season when he's playing golf; is that correct?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what, if anything, would attribute to that, that he would have more dandruff in the off season?

MS. MOORE: Well, it would happen mostly if he didn't put oil on his hair. If he put oil on his hair, he wouldn't have dandruff like he did. It would be in--when he played golf, he was in the sun, you know, and with the lack of oil that would create the dry scalp.

Clark never asked about oil. Whose responsibility was it to produce evidence that Simpson took care of his hair on June 12th and where is that evidence?
It is a circular argument that it is Simpson's hair, even though there is dandruff in the exemplar and none in our sample, because it is Simpson's hair. Stated another way, We provided evidence that Simpson's hair had dandruff, but we failed to provided evidence that his hair did not have dandruff on June 12th. We failed to provide evidence on an inference based on an inference, because we did not take samples of his hair or ask anyone if they observed dandruff when he was arrested and examined. We failed to produce evidence that Simpson did not take care of his hair, while he was in jail or that he did take care of it on June 12th. We failed to provide evidence that Simpson did not have his regular shampoo while in jail or that his water was different from jail water. We failed to show any evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn from another reasonable inference, which we ask you to disregard our failure, because, although the exemplar contradicts our findings, it is Simpson's hair, because we say it is Simpson's hair.

Oh, so now you accept 'maybe', 'probably', 'could be', 'it seemed'? LOL

[William Anthony]

Oh, so now you accept 'maybe', 'probably', 'could be', 'it seemed'? LOL

Yes, because they were based on personal observation of the accused, not others, as opposed to the ifs, wouldas, couldas and maybes that were based on unsupported assumptions. There was no testimony and it only makes common sense why not that the expert examined any of the inmates before they were incarcerated, i.e. how was he to know whether or not they had dandruff when they entered the jail/prison.;) :cool: Anticipation and preparation.:)

[weezer]

Yes, because they were based on personal observation of the accused, not others, as opposed to the ifs, wouldas, couldas and maybes that were based on unsupported assumptions. There was no testimony and it only makes common sense why not that the expert examined any of the inmates before they were incarcerated, i.e. how was he to know whether or not they had dandruff when they entered the jail/prison.;) :cool: Anticipation and preparation.:)

that's right william -- personal observation. the personal observation of the witness was that orenthal DID NOT have dandruff just prior to the murders and there was no evidence that he had dandruff the night of the murders. Now, unless YOU were there to observe orenthal on the night he murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, your inference that he must have had dandruff is not a valid argument.

[William Anthony]

that's right william -- personal observation. the personal observation of the witness was that orenthal DID NOT have dandruff just prior to the murders and there was no evidence that he had dandruff the night of the murders. Now, unless YOU were there to observe orenthal on the night he murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, your inference that he must have had dandruff is not a valid argument.

Quite to the contrary. The witness with the personal observations of his hair was not asked about the dandruff condition of his hair on the last date she cut it, May 23. She did testify that he would have more dandruff during the off season, the months between February and August, and when he played golf. The only arguments that are not valid are the ones that use circular reasoning and ignore the allocation of the burden of proof, imho.

[weezer]

Quite to the contrary. The witness with the personal observations of his hair was not asked about the dandruff condition of his hair on the last date she cut it, May 23. She did testify that he would have more dandruff during the off season, the months between February and August, and when he played golf. The only arguments that are not valid are the ones that use circular reasoning and ignore the allocation of the burden of proof, imho.

if she wasn't asked about dandruff then why is there testimony about it? if orenthal had had dandruff on the night she cut his hair, you can bet that would have been said. it wasn't.

[William Anthony]

if she wasn't asked about dandruff then why is there testimony about it? if orenthal had had dandruff on the night she cut his hair, you can bet that would have been said. it wasn't.

You made the statement that the witnesses' personal observation was that Simpson did not have dandruff on May 23rd. Since she did not make that statement, I must ask you, where you there. :) This is what I mean about misplacing the burden of proof. It was not the defense's obligation to show that he did have dandruff, it was the prosecution's to show he did not. That is why such arguments are invalid, imho. You can bet that, if the prosecution had evidence to show that he did not have dandruff between May 23rd and June 12th, they would have produced it. They did not. They lacked anticipation and participation, imho.

[weezer]

You made the statement that the witnesses' personal observation was that Simpson did not have dandruff on May 23rd. Since she did not make that statement, I must ask you, where you there. :) This is what I mean about misplacing the burden of proof. It was not the defense's obligation to show that he did have dandruff, it was the prosecution's to show he did not. That is why such arguments are invalid, imho. You can bet that, if the prosecution had evidence to show that he did not have dandruff between May 23rd and June 12th, they would have produced it. They did not. They lacked anticipation and participation, imho.

'maybe', 'probably', 'could be', 'it seemed' -- no misplacing of proof. you simply do not hold the bar as high for the defense. I wonder if you would feel the same if you or someone you love is the victim.

[William Anthony]

'maybe', 'probably', 'could be', 'it seemed' -- no misplacing of proof. you simply do not hold the bar as high for the defense. I wonder if you would feel the same when you or someone you love is the victim.

It is not I who set the bar or how that bar should be reached. She responded to the questions she was asked based on her observations. The prosecution expert did not. He asked the jury to assume this based on if's, maybe's could haves and assumptions and on know observations. The prosecution did not provide any evidence to support his assumptions, maybe, ifs and could haves. Her testimony was quite compelling and completely different from the assumptions of the expert, imho. Her testimony allowed for a reasonable inference derived from observable conditions. The prosecution's did not allow for any inference, since the whole portion of the relevant testimony was based on an assumption.

I would truly not be happy, if I thought the prosecution had accused the right person and then offered this evidence. Yes, that is the legal bar for the prosecution set long before my birth, I believe, and the defense only has to provide evidence to show that the prosecution failed to meet that bar. I would be up in arms, asking how many drinks the prosecution had at the bar, when they decided to offer this type of evidence to try to convict the person they accused of murdering my loved one.

[bobaugust]

Clark never asked about oil. Whose responsibility was it to produce evidence that Simpson took care of his hair on June 12th and where is that evidence?
It is a circular argument that it is Simpson's hair, even though there is dandruff in the exemplar and none in our sample, because it is Simpson's hair. Stated another way, We provided evidence that Simpson's hair had dandruff, but we failed to provided evidence that his hair did not have dandruff on June 12th. We failed to provide evidence on an inference based on an inference, because we did not take samples of his hair or ask anyone if they observed dandruff when he was arrested and examined. We failed to produce evidence that Simpson did not take care of his hair, while he was in jail or that he did take care of it on June 12th. We failed to provide evidence that Simpson did not have his regular shampoo while in jail or that his water was different from jail water. We failed to show any evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn from another reasonable inference, which we ask you to disregard our failure, because, although the exemplar contradicts our findings, it is Simpson's hair, because we say it is Simpson's hair.

There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on May 23. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff in the days following the murders. There is only evidence that Simpson had dandruff in July after being in incarcerated for over a month. The prosecution did not have to provide evidence to prove Simpson did not have dandruff on June 12 because there was no evidence or claim that he had dandruff on June 12. The prosecution called an expert witness who provided a reasonable credible explanation why Simpson had dandruff in July over a month after the murders.

We also know that Dr. Huizenga examined Simpson on June 15 and again on June 17. We know from Lawrence Schiller's book American Tragedy that Dr. Huizenga was assisted by a nurse and accompanied by Dr. Baden, Dr. Faerstein, and Henry Lee who was taking photographs. "Skin samples, urine samples, hair and blood samples" were taken. Dr. Huizenga was the witness who was called by the defense right before Juanita Moore was called. If Simpson had dandruff in the days after the murders before he was incarcerated his hair samples would have documented it, yet Simpson's defense never asked Dr. Huizenga anything about that. Why? The answer is obvious, Simpson didn't have dandruff then.

Your inference William, that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 based only on the testimony from one witness who did not know Simpson's hair condition on June 12 is illogical and unsupported speculation. Ten naturally shed hairs found inside the knit cap at Bundy all mirror matched the hair samples Simpson provided for comparison. That evidence tells us that Simpson had worn the knit cap found at Bundy.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on May 23. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff in the days following the murders. There is only evidence that Simpson had dandruff in July after being in incarcerated for over a month. The prosecution did not have to provide evidence to prove Simpson did not have dandruff on June 12 because there was no evidence or claim that he had dandruff on June 12. The prosecution called an expert witness who provided a reasonable credible explanation why Simpson had dandruff in July over a month after the murders.

We also know that Dr. Huizenga examined Simpson on June 15 and again on June 17. We know from Lawrence Schiller's book American Tragedy that Dr. Huizenga was assisted by a nurse and accompanied by Dr. Baden, Dr. Faerstein, and Henry Lee who was taking photographs. "Skin samples, urine samples, hair and blood samples" were taken. Dr. Huizenga was the witness who was called by the defense right before Juanita Moore was called. If Simpson had dandruff in the days after the murders before he was incarcerated his hair samples would have documented it, yet Simpson's defense never asked Dr. Huizenga anything about that. Why? The answer is obvious, Simpson didn't have dandruff then.

Your inference William, that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 based only on the testimony from one witness who did not know Simpson's hair condition on June 12 is illogical and unsupported speculation. Ten naturally shed hairs found inside the knit cap at Bundy all mirror matched the hair samples Simpson provided for comparison. That evidence tells us that Simpson had worn the knit cap found at Bundy.

bobaugust

Your entire argument completely destroys the burden of proof. The prosecution's burden was to show that the exemplar hair sample with dandruff (not contested) and the hairs found in the cap without dandruff belonged to Simpson (contested). They failed, just like your argument does, imho.

[bobaugust]

Your entire argument completely destroys the burden of proof. The prosecution's burden was to show that the exemplar hair sample with dandruff (not contested) and the hairs found in the cap without dandruff belonged to Simpson (contested). They failed, just like your argument does, imho.

The defense never made the claim that Simpson had dandruff on June 12, you did. The prosecution has no burden to disprove something the defense never claimed. The fact that ten naturally shed hairs found inside the knit cap mirror matched the sample hairs Simpson provided for comparison is evidence that Simpson wore the knit cap. The fact that another naturally shed hair found on Ron's shirt also matched the hairs Simpson provided for comparison ties Simpson to the murders.

bobaugust

[weezer]

Your entire argument completely destroys the burden of proof. The prosecution's burden was to show that the exemplar hair sample with dandruff (not contested) and the hairs found in the cap without dandruff belonged to Simpson (contested). They failed, just like your argument does, imho.

DNA showed that blood found at the scene of Brown's murder was likely O.J. Simpson's. The odds it could have come from anyone but Simpson were about one in 170 million.

DNA analysis of blood found on one of Simpson's socks identified it as Nicole Brown's. The blood had DNA characteristics matched by approximately only one in 9.7 billion Caucasians, meaning she was likely the only person in the world with that match.

DNA analysis of the blood found in, on, and near Simpson’s Bronco revealed traces of Simpson’s, Brown's, and Goldman’s blood.

DNA analysis of bloody socks found in Simpson's bedroom proved this was Brown's blood.

Simpson’s hair was found on Goldman’s shirt.

DNA analysis of blood on the left-hand glove, found outside Brown's home, was proven to be a mixture of Simpson’s, Brown's, and Goldman’s.

The gloves contained particles of Goldman’s hair and carpet fibers from Simpson’s Bronco.

The left-hand glove found at Nicole Brown’s home and the right-hand glove found at Simpson’s home proved to be a match.

The gloves were proven to be Simpson’s size. Although Simpson testified under oath that he did not own a pair of Aris Isotoner gloves, several media pictures emerged showing Simpson wearing the exact gloves.

Police discovered the dome light in the Bronco had been removed. A search of the vehicle revealed the light was carefully placed under the passenger seat and was in good working condition. Puzzling blood smears on the passenger floorboard suggested Simpson may have removed the light and placed it under the seat before the murders. Then, after the murders, he may have tried to find it to put it back in the socket.

Nicole Brown had told family and friends that one set of keys to her home was missing. She had indicated to several family members and friends that she feared Simpson had stolen them to gain entry. The keys were later found in Simpson’s posession.

Paula Barbieri indicated that she had broken up with Simpson the day of the murders. She said he seemed very disturbed at the news. Phone records demonstrated that Simpson attempted to contact her shortly before the murders from his Bronco’s cellular phone.

The bloody footprints were identified as made from a pair of Bruno Magli shoes. These shoes were quite expensive and relatively rare. The large size 12 prints matched Simpson’s shoe size. Simpson swore under oath that "I never would have owned those ugly-ass shoes!" However, three weeks later, a reporter came forward with multiple exposures of Simpson wearing the shoes at Arrowhead Stadium a few years earlier.

Friends and family indicated that Nicole Brown had consistently said that Simpson had been stalking her. She claimed that everywhere she went, she noticed Simpson would be there, watching her. She said she was afraid because Simpson had told her he would kill her if he ever found her with another man.

[William Anthony]

DNA showed that blood found at the scene of Brown's murder was likely O.J. Simpson's. The odds it could have come from anyone but Simpson were about one in 170 million.

DNA analysis of blood found on one of Simpson's socks identified it as Nicole Brown's. The blood had DNA characteristics matched by approximately only one in 9.7 billion Caucasians, meaning she was likely the only person in the world with that match.

DNA analysis of the blood found in, on, and near Simpson’s Bronco revealed traces of Simpson’s, Brown's, and Goldman’s blood.

DNA analysis of bloody socks found in Simpson's bedroom proved this was Brown's blood.

Simpson’s hair was found on Goldman’s shirt.

DNA analysis of blood on the left-hand glove, found outside Brown's home, was proven to be a mixture of Simpson’s, Brown's, and Goldman’s.

The gloves contained particles of Goldman’s hair and carpet fibers from Simpson’s Bronco.

The left-hand glove found at Nicole Brown’s home and the right-hand glove found at Simpson’s home proved to be a match.

The gloves were proven to be Simpson’s size. Although Simpson testified under oath that he did not own a pair of Aris Isotoner gloves, several media pictures emerged showing Simpson wearing the exact gloves.

Police discovered the dome light in the Bronco had been removed. A search of the vehicle revealed the light was carefully placed under the passenger seat and was in good working condition. Puzzling blood smears on the passenger floorboard suggested Simpson may have removed the light and placed it under the seat before the murders. Then, after the murders, he may have tried to find it to put it back in the socket.

Nicole Brown had told family and friends that one set of keys to her home was missing. She had indicated to several family members and friends that she feared Simpson had stolen them to gain entry. The keys were later found in Simpson’s posession.

Paula Barbieri indicated that she had broken up with Simpson the day of the murders. She said he seemed very disturbed at the news. Phone records demonstrated that Simpson attempted to contact her shortly before the murders from his Bronco’s cellular phone.

The bloody footprints were identified as made from a pair of Bruno Magli shoes. These shoes were quite expensive and relatively rare. The large size 12 prints matched Simpson’s shoe size. Simpson swore under oath that "I never would have owned those ugly-ass shoes!" However, three weeks later, a reporter came forward with multiple exposures of Simpson wearing the shoes at Arrowhead Stadium a few years earlier.

Friends and family indicated that Nicole Brown had consistently said that Simpson had been stalking her. She claimed that everywhere she went, she noticed Simpson would be there, watching her. She said she was afraid because Simpson had told her he would kill her if he ever found her with another man.

We were discussing dandruff and your reply to Ms. Floyd tells me what you think about the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence. I think there are some members of this community who share you sentiments by their posts.

With all due respect, you are beginning to mix the two trials and that is not what the jury in the criminal trial heard nor considered. We can begin a discussion on the shoes. There were no shoes taken into evidence and, as, IIRC, you told me that the ugly-a** comment was not made during the criminal trial. The only shoes of which I am aware that were seized were a pair of Reebok sneakers. Let me ask why the sneakers were seized, and did they ever find any BM shoes Simpson had, and didn't MF have size 12 feet?

[William Anthony]

MR. BAILEY: Yes. For the record, your Honor, I'm standing with my legs crossed, my right foot on the left side and vice versa.

MR. BAILEY: Which is consistent with what we're looking at there; is it not?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, yes, with regard to L and m.

MR. BAILEY: If those two were made by the same person at the same time, his legs are crossed, right?

MR. BODZIAK: Describe "The same time."

MR. BAILEY: Two feet attached to the same body.

MR. BODZIAK: If they were, yes, you would have to be standing like you are.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, if they weren't, then you're assuming somebody with the same shoes walking twice, having gotten a fresh supply of blood to lay on the--

MR. BODZIAK: Not necessarily.

MR. BAILEY: No? I'm sorry.

MR. BODZIAK: Would you like me to explain?

MR. BAILEY: Yes, please.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. In this particular area (Indicating)--

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh.

MR. BODZIAK: --very possibly, because it's out of the line of sight of the front gate area, the person could have stepped back into the soil area to get out of the line of sight. They could have stepped forward and looked. They could have stepped back. They could have stepped forward, the left foot on the opposite side and gone down the sidewalk. So there's a very logical explanation for that. There's no way to absolutely reconstruct it.

MR. BAILEY: Was there soft soil at the time of the crime in that area?

MR. BODZIAK: Was there soft soil?

MR. BAILEY: Yes. Just north of the--

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. I don't have photographs of the soil at that time nor would I be able to tell the hardness or softness of the soil from photographs. When I was there in February, it was full of vegetation.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did you see in L and m--

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't think he finished his answer.

THE COURT: Have you finished your answer?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I was just going to say, if it's very low vegetation, you would have no problem standing in it or walking back in it.

MR. BAILEY: When you photographed or looked at the photographs of L and m--you didn't take any of these, did you?

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MR. BAILEY: When you examined those photographs, did you see any evidence of any soil in them?

MR. BODZIAK: In the photograph--of the impressions? No.

MR. BAILEY: All right. So when you speculate that the author of L and M may have stepped backward into the soil, that is just that, isn't it, speculation?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, it's speculation as much as I can't say that's absolutely what happened. But I would not necessarily expect there to be soil from stepping back in that area. If the soil was very hard or if it was covered with low-growing vegetation, there may be nothing on the shoe and they would still be depositing blood impressions.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, you have said--and again, you're assuming that someone wants to get out of the line of sight. Line of sight of what?

MR. BODZIAK: Whatever they're trying to avoid. A person coming to the gate, a noise out on the front, a noise in the back, anything.

MR. BAILEY: Did you attempt to do that yourself and see if you removed yourself at all from the line of sight of either end?

MR. BODZIAK: Just by standing on the edge of the sidewalk, you're out of the line of sight of the front. Yes, I did observe that, because when I was reconstructing the position of these, I was surprised to see them in this configuration and I was looking for an explanation of why these would be in this direction. And the one that I have given you is one of the better ones that I thought of.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Well, where does it lead us?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BAILEY: Generally speaking, light travels in straight lines; does it not?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Assuming that a person is standing on those footprints, can you see in a straight line to the front gate?

MR. BODZIAK: You can with L. but as I had explained to you, this could be simply a stepping out and looking and coming back real quick. So in that case, under that hypothetical, which I hate to get into because they're not factual, the person would want to extend out far enough just to get into the line of sight (Demonstrating). So again, that's--we can't say if that's what happened or did happen, but it's certainly logical in my opinion.

MR. GOLDBERG: And for the record, your Honor, when Mr. Bodziak was answering that, he stepped forward with his right foot and he turned to his left as if he were looking in the direction of a line parallel with his shoulders.

THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.

MR. BAILEY: Are you seeing any obstruction between the gate and those footprints?

MR. BODZIAK: Which gate, sir?

MR. BAILEY: Front gate.

MR. BODZIAK: Front gate? With l?

MR. BAILEY: Yeah.

MR. BODZIAK: You can see the front gate if your head is centered over L. remember, your head is over l.

MR. BAILEY: Right.

MR. BODZIAK: With M, you're starting to interfere with the corner there, but I believe you can see over that, at least part of it.

MR. BAILEY: Have you got a straight edge up there like a pointer?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Would you connect L and the front gate, please?

MR. BODZIAK: Parallel to the--okay (Indicating).

MR. BAILEY: No. I don't mean just that edge. Go right to the middle of the front gate and see if you can draw a straight lane from both L and M to it.

MR. BODZIAK: I'm not sure what you're asking. Like this (Indicating)?

MR. BAILEY: Can you see a straight line from M to that point without obstruction?

MR. BODZIAK: Oh, yes.

MR. BAILEY: In l.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: The same is true for the rear gate?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. It appears to be.

MR. BAILEY: But your theory is that somebody was trying to hide from someone; is that right?

MR. BODZIAK: That's--as I represented that as a hypothetical, that might be one plausible explanation of why L and M were heading out of that soil area.

[William Anthony]

Sometimes a person can admire another person because of the other's ability to speak and to ask questions, giving an insight into the workings of a magnificent mind, as with Mr. Bailey. It is only fitting that a person should try to emulate such a person. To hold such a person in the highest regard, even if you do not always agree with their positions, I think is befitting a type of respect that has been earned above that which is or should be automatically given.

[martin II]

that's right william -- personal observation. the personal observation of the witness was that orenthal DID NOT have dandruff just prior to the murders and there was no evidence that he had dandruff the night of the murders. Now, unless YOU were there to observe orenthal on the night he murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, your inference that he must have had dandruff is not a valid argument.

Weezer

What witness testified that oj DID NOT HAVE DANDRUFF JUST PRIOR TO THE MURDERS??

[martin II]

'maybe', 'probably', 'could be', 'it seemed' -- no misplacing of proof. you simply do not hold the bar as high for the defense. I wonder if you would feel the same if you or someone you love is the victim.

There is no bar of proof for the defense.The defense had no obligation of proof.That was what the prosecution had to do. The issue of who the victim was has absolutly nothing to do with it. I believe Fred may have thought that because the victim was his son, The jury should have given the prosecution the benefit of the doubt.Not true.

[William Anthony]

The defense never made the claim that Simpson had dandruff on June 12, you did. The prosecution has no burden to disprove something the defense never claimed. The fact that ten naturally shed hairs found inside the knit cap mirror matched the sample hairs Simpson provided for comparison is evidence that Simpson wore the knit cap. The fact that another naturally shed hair found on Ron's shirt also matched the hairs Simpson provided for comparison ties Simpson to the murders.

bobaugust

Please, do not think that I ignored your previous use of the "phrase mirror matched". I think the members of this community are learned enough to know that was not what the testimony was. You have said that you post on the evidence but yet you post this. Please, provide that testimony and, also, the obvious difference is that the exemplar hair had dandruff and the hairs alleged to be consistent with did not, which negates any chance of a mirror match.

I am not disputing the fact that Simpson may have worn that cap at sometime in the past in the months between September and January when the climate was cooler. The question is did he wear it on June 12th. That is where the prosecution's evidence failed. Having chosen to say he wore it on that night, the burden of proof belonged to them and they failed. Terms, such as mirror matched when incorrectly used, only serve to highlight their failure, imho.

With all due respect, Ms. Moore was not called to testify that Simpson had his hair cut for 16 years and would probably continue so doing. She was called to rebut the accusation that it was his hair found in the cap but, more specifically, that he wore in on the night of the murders. This never shifted the prosecution's burden to show that he wore it on the night of the murders.
The trial would have been shorter and stronger for the prosecution, if they did not make this claim and they would not have been in the preposterous position of showing that the unidentified dyed hairs could have belonged to Arnelle or the first Ms. Simpson. They had the opportunity to ask Arnelle if she dyed her hair. This failure illuminated the prosecution's failure. There was no evidence that Simpson had any type of association with his first wife that would allowed her hair to be in the cap years later. This was an absurd line of questioning by the prosecution showcasing how weak their case was.

The hair on the shirt could have been put there when LE was traveling back and forth to the two crime scenes or when they decided to drag Ronald's body through the crime scene, or when they injected the blanket into the crime scene. There is no doubt that Simpson was tied to the murder, because the victim was his ex-wife. There was no evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the murders and he was tied to it when the prosecution decided to bring charges against him, without having evidence sufficient in quality to prove the charges, imho.

[William Anthony]

Kato seems to have some memory problems.

Preliminary hearing

Q WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT WEARING AT THAT TIME?
10 A I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT CLOTHING. I THOUGHT IT
WAS A SWEAT OUTFIT.
11 Q SWEAT OUTFIT, LIKE SWEATSHIRT OR NYLON-TYPE?
A A WARMUP, I BELIEVE. I MEAN, I AM NOT POSITIVE
12 ON THAT, BUT I THINK IT WAS A WARMUP OUTFIT.
Q COULD YOU -- CAN YOU REMEMBER WHAT KIND OF
13 MATERIAL IT WAS, OR COULD YOU TELL AT THE TIME?
A NO, I COULD NOT.

Grand Jury

Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT HE WAS WEARING.
18 A. TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, I BELIEVE IT
19 WAS A DARK OUTFIT, LIKE A SWEAT OUTFIT, A SWEAT SUIT TYPE
20 OUTFIT.
21 Q. DO YOU RECALL IF IT HAD LONG SLEEVES?
22 A. YES.
23 Q. LONG PANTS?
24 A. YES.
25 Q. DO YOU REMEMBER HOW THE MATERIAL LOOKED?
26 A. MY BEST RECOLLECTION IS LIKE COTTON.
27 Q. LIKE A SWEAT SHIRT?
28 A. YEAH.

[martin II]

Kato seems to have some memory problems.

Preliminary hearing

Q WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT WEARING AT THAT TIME?
10 A I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT CLOTHING. I THOUGHT IT
WAS A SWEAT OUTFIT.
11 Q SWEAT OUTFIT, LIKE SWEATSHIRT OR NYLON-TYPE?
A A WARMUP, I BELIEVE. I MEAN, I AM NOT POSITIVE
12 ON THAT, BUT I THINK IT WAS A WARMUP OUTFIT.
Q COULD YOU -- CAN YOU REMEMBER WHAT KIND OF
13 MATERIAL IT WAS, OR COULD YOU TELL AT THE TIME?
A NO, I COULD NOT.

Grand Jury

Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT HE WAS WEARING.
18 A. TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, I BELIEVE IT
19 WAS A DARK OUTFIT, LIKE A SWEAT OUTFIT, A SWEAT SUIT TYPE
20 OUTFIT.
21 Q. DO YOU RECALL IF IT HAD LONG SLEEVES?
22 A. YES.
23 Q. LONG PANTS?
24 A. YES.
25 Q. DO YOU REMEMBER HOW THE MATERIAL LOOKED?
26 A. MY BEST RECOLLECTION IS LIKE COTTON.
27 Q. LIKE A SWEAT SHIRT?
28 A. YEAH.

Thanks william

At another time he said he thought the top had a white zipper down the front But the lady that baught the exercise outfit, looked at the picture of the item she baught and testified there was no white zipper on her item.

Maby Kato had been far to prepared by the prosecution and became confused as to what he was supposed to say. imo

[martin II]

MR. BAILEY: Yes. For the record, your Honor, I'm standing with my legs crossed, my right foot on the left side and vice versa.

MR. BAILEY: Which is consistent with what we're looking at there; is it not?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, yes, with regard to L and m.

MR. BAILEY: If those two were made by the same person at the same time, his legs are crossed, right?

MR. BODZIAK: Describe "The same time."

MR. BAILEY: Two feet attached to the same body.

MR. BODZIAK: If they were, yes, you would have to be standing like you are.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, if they weren't, then you're assuming somebody with the same shoes walking twice, having gotten a fresh supply of blood to lay on the--

MR. BODZIAK: Not necessarily.

MR. BAILEY: No? I'm sorry.

MR. BODZIAK: Would you like me to explain?

MR. BAILEY: Yes, please.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. In this particular area (Indicating)--

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh.

MR. BODZIAK: --very possibly, because it's out of the line of sight of the front gate area, the person could have stepped back into the soil area to get out of the line of sight. They could have stepped forward and looked. They could have stepped back. They could have stepped forward, the left foot on the opposite side and gone down the sidewalk. So there's a very logical explanation for that. There's no way to absolutely reconstruct it.

MR. BAILEY: Was there soft soil at the time of the crime in that area?

MR. BODZIAK: Was there soft soil?

MR. BAILEY: Yes. Just north of the--

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. I don't have photographs of the soil at that time nor would I be able to tell the hardness or softness of the soil from photographs. When I was there in February, it was full of vegetation.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did you see in L and m--

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't think he finished his answer.

THE COURT: Have you finished your answer?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I was just going to say, if it's very low vegetation, you would have no problem standing in it or walking back in it.

MR. BAILEY: When you photographed or looked at the photographs of L and m--you didn't take any of these, did you?

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MR. BAILEY: When you examined those photographs, did you see any evidence of any soil in them?

MR. BODZIAK: In the photograph--of the impressions? No.

MR. BAILEY: All right. So when you speculate that the author of L and M may have stepped backward into the soil, that is just that, isn't it, speculation?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, it's speculation as much as I can't say that's absolutely what happened. But I would not necessarily expect there to be soil from stepping back in that area. If the soil was very hard or if it was covered with low-growing vegetation, there may be nothing on the shoe and they would still be depositing blood impressions.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, you have said--and again, you're assuming that someone wants to get out of the line of sight. Line of sight of what?

MR. BODZIAK: Whatever they're trying to avoid. A person coming to the gate, a noise out on the front, a noise in the back, anything.

MR. BAILEY: Did you attempt to do that yourself and see if you removed yourself at all from the line of sight of either end?

MR. BODZIAK: Just by standing on the edge of the sidewalk, you're out of the line of sight of the front. Yes, I did observe that, because when I was reconstructing the position of these, I was surprised to see them in this configuration and I was looking for an explanation of why these would be in this direction. And the one that I have given you is one of the better ones that I thought of.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Well, where does it lead us?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BAILEY: Generally speaking, light travels in straight lines; does it not?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Assuming that a person is standing on those footprints, can you see in a straight line to the front gate?

MR. BODZIAK: You can with L. but as I had explained to you, this could be simply a stepping out and looking and coming back real quick. So in that case, under that hypothetical, which I hate to get into because they're not factual, the person would want to extend out far enough just to get into the line of sight (Demonstrating). So again, that's--we can't say if that's what happened or did happen, but it's certainly logical in my opinion.

MR. GOLDBERG: And for the record, your Honor, when Mr. Bodziak was answering that, he stepped forward with his right foot and he turned to his left as if he were looking in the direction of a line parallel with his shoulders.

THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.

MR. BAILEY: Are you seeing any obstruction between the gate and those footprints?

MR. BODZIAK: Which gate, sir?

MR. BAILEY: Front gate.

MR. BODZIAK: Front gate? With l?

MR. BAILEY: Yeah.

MR. BODZIAK: You can see the front gate if your head is centered over L. remember, your head is over l.

MR. BAILEY: Right.

MR. BODZIAK: With M, you're starting to interfere with the corner there, but I believe you can see over that, at least part of it.

MR. BAILEY: Have you got a straight edge up there like a pointer?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Would you connect L and the front gate, please?

MR. BODZIAK: Parallel to the--okay (Indicating).

MR. BAILEY: No. I don't mean just that edge. Go right to the middle of the front gate and see if you can draw a straight lane from both L and M to it.

MR. BODZIAK: I'm not sure what you're asking. Like this (Indicating)?

MR. BAILEY: Can you see a straight line from M to that point without obstruction?

MR. BODZIAK: Oh, yes.

MR. BAILEY: In l.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: The same is true for the rear gate?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. It appears to be.

MR. BAILEY: But your theory is that somebody was trying to hide from someone; is that right?

MR. BODZIAK: That's--as I represented that as a hypothetical, that might be one plausible explanation of why L and M were heading out of that soil area.

Bodziak pulls a assumption out of the air backed by no proof to try to explain
the cross-over foot prints. Then he tries to build his answer based on this assumption that the killer was trying to evade being in a line of sight by some one at the front gate.Who does he know was at the front gate?What evidence was there that someone was at he front gate when the killer was leaving bundy. This is another example of a prosecution expert trying to explain what he could not explain for the benefit of the prosecutions claims.
imo
martinII

[William Anthony]

Thanks william

At another time he said he thought the top had a white zipper down the front But the lady that baught the exercise outfit, looked at the picture of the item she baught and testified there was no white zipper on her item.

Maby Kato had been far to prepared by the prosecution and became confused as to what he was supposed to say. imo

Martin,

That is my point. If we believe the prosecution that Simpson had on a sweat suit with a white zipper down the front and, if we are to believe the prosecution's theory, then he would have had to change into one sweat suit from another, put on dress socks and dress shoes to go commit murder. I think it is more likely that he was dressing to go to Chicago, if we are to believe he did this, and something caused him to become upset while changing. He then changed his mind and put on the sweat suit but was mindful of how sneakers would fit, so he put on dress shoes. Then after committing the murders and deciding to get rid of the clothes, for some reason decided that he liked this rather common sweat suit and dress socks but decided that he would get rid of his expensive shoes. This just does not fit.

[William Anthony]

Bodziak pulls a assumption out of the air backed by no proof to try to explain
the cross-over foot prints. Then he tries to build his answer based on this assumption that the killer was trying to evade being in a line of sight by some one at the front gate.Who does he know was at the front gate?What evidence was there that someone was at he front gate when the killer was leaving bundy. This is another example of a prosecution expert trying to explain what he could not explain for the benefit of the prosecutions claims.
imo
martinII

Exactly and then was caught by a pointer and had to admit his testimony was a hypothetical speculation.

[weezer]

Sometimes a person can admire another person because of the other's ability to speak and to ask questions, giving an insight into the workings of a magnificent mind, as with Mr. Bailey. It is only fitting that a person should try to emulate such a person. To hold such a person in the highest regard, even if you do not always agree with their positions, I think is befitting a type of respect that has been earned above that which is or should be automatically given.

I'm not sure what you're posting here. are you saying that you admire flee and that you would like to emulate him?

[weezer]

Weezer

What witness testified that oj DID NOT HAVE DANDRUFF JUST PRIOR TO THE MURDERS??

martin, this is a silly question. we've been discussing the fact that NO ONE -- not even his personal barber who visited his home just prior to the murders to cut his hair -- said he had dandruff.

[weezer]

There is no bar of proof for the defense.The defense had no obligation of proof.That was what the prosecution had to do. The issue of who the victim was has absolutly nothing to do with it. I believe Fred may have thought that because the victim was his son, The jury should have given the prosecution the benefit of the doubt.Not true.

you've missed the point martin. you guys have stated that you would NEVER accept 'maybe', 'probably', 'could be', 'it seemed' -- what you didn't make clear was UNLESS it was the defense uttering the phrases.

Mr. Goldman looked to the system for justice for his son -- he was denied that by a jury with an agenda of their own.

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure what you're posting here. are you saying that you admire flee and that you would like to emulate him?

His ability should be admired and to emulate that would be a good accomplishment. However, there are others, both lawyers and non that one could do well to hold in highest regard, such as MLK, JFk, BO and Hilary.

[William Anthony]

you've missed the point martin. you guys have stated that you would NEVER accept 'maybe', 'probably', 'could be', 'it seemed' -- what you didn't make clear was UNLESS it was the defense uttering the phrases.

Mr. Goldman looked to the system for justice for his son -- he was denied that by a jury with an agenda of their own.

I think you missed the point. Ms. Moore responded to questions based on her observations, which made her it seemed, a reasonable answer. The expert responded with ifs, maybes, could have been made upon his assumption without the benefit of personal observation. I really think that you understood this and you were simply trying to make an association not based on fact, sort of like the prosecution did. :) He received justice, although the degree of justice he received may be questioned due to the prosecution's agenda, imho, which did not allow them to focus on proving the case, imho. Just as the prosecution misplaced their focus, Mr. Goldman misplaced the focus of his anger, imho.

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure what you're posting here. are you saying that you admire flee and that you would like to emulate him?

An excellent follow up question!:)

[martin II]

I'm not sure what you're posting here. are you saying that you admire flee and that you would like to emulate him?

The way he jammed old silly furhman up on the stand, was a work of art.Furhman never saw it comming.

[martin II]

you've missed the point martin. you guys have stated that you would NEVER accept 'maybe', 'probably', 'could be', 'it seemed' -- what you didn't make clear was UNLESS it was the defense uttering the phrases.

Mr. Goldman looked to the system for justice for his son -- he was denied that by a jury with an agenda of their own.

The prosecution should not have told him the case was a slam dunk.They should have told him that the Detective in the middle of the case had serious problems. His expectations were set too high. It seems that he did not understand how the defense was deflating the prosecutions case or did not want to understand based on his anger. He may have also thought that since it was his son, he was entitled to get the verdict he wanted.imo

[weezer]

His ability should be admired and to emulate that would be a good accomplishment. However, there are others, both lawyers and non that one could do well to hold in highest regard, such as MLK, JFk, BO and Hilary.

LOL -- oh william you can be just like him -- all you have to do is be a drunk, steal from your clients, and be disbarred.

[William Anthony]

LOL -- oh william you can be just like him -- all you have to do is be a drunk, steal from your clients, and be disbarred.

That is why I said his ability. I think the others show his inabilities. Anticipation and preparation. ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

Having decided to keep this rather common sweat suit, Simpson called his daughter, telling her I just committed double murder and I need you to wash the sweat suit, wash it twice or three times. Don't worry about the police; they will be standing at the crime scene doing nothing until after 4am. Don't worry about them finding it. They will not collect it, just photograph it. Don't worry about them finding blood in the washing machine or in the drains. He must have kept that cap with him to avoid being seen, while using the pay phone, because his cell phone records would have indicated a call to her. He must have taken the cap off and told her where to get it and take it back to the crime scene, because he was noticed by many at the airport and no one placed him in a phone booth. Maybe, he was invisible when in phone booths. A new definition for The Invisible Man. It just does not fit.

[martin II]

Having decided to keep this rather common sweat suit, Simpson called his daughter, telling her I just committed double murder and I need you to wash the sweat suit, wash it twice or three times. Don't worry about the police; they will be standing at the crime scene doing nothing until after 4am. Don't worry about them finding it. They will not collect it, just photograph it. Don't worry about them finding blood in the washing machine or in the drains. He must have kept that cap with him to avoid being seen, while using the pay phone, because his cell phone records would have indicated a call to her. He must have taken the cap off and told her where to get it and take it back to the crime scene, because he was noticed by many at the airport and no one placed him in a phone booth. Maybe, he was invisible when in phone booths. A new definition for The Invisible Man. It just does not fit.

Don't worry about the shoes and knife. i ate them on the way back to the house.imo

[martin II]

Who were the men talking on ojs rockingham property that Rose lopez head at about 12:30 am on 6/12.

[martin II]

LOL -- oh william you can be just like him -- all you have to do is be a drunk, steal from your clients, and be disbarred.

You will admit that he did a job on old furhman right?

[William Anthony]

Don't worry about the shoes and knife. i ate them on the way back to the house.imo

I now understand the questions about Arnelle dyeing her hair. They were because Arnelle became invisible while wearing that magical cap and taking it back to the crime scene. How could I have not understood this? :)

[martin II]

I now understand the questions about Arnelle dyeing her hair. They were because Arnelle became invisible while wearing that magical cap and taking it back to the crime scene. How could I have not understood this? :)

What i don't understand was Clarke thinking ojs mother wore the cap.This lady was in a wheel chair. I guess with nothing in hand Clarke was reaching and reaching until her arm must have been out of socket.

[bobaugust]

Please, do not think that I ignored your previous use of the "phrase mirror matched". I think the members of this community are learned enough to know that was not what the testimony was. You have said that you post on the evidence but yet you post this. Please, provide that testimony and, also, the obvious difference is that the exemplar hair had dandruff and the hairs alleged to be consistent with did not, which negates any chance of a mirror match.

I am not disputing the fact that Simpson may have worn that cap at sometime in the past in the months between September and January when the climate was cooler. The question is did he wear it on June 12th. That is where the prosecution's evidence failed. Having chosen to say he wore it on that night, the burden of proof belonged to them and they failed. Terms, such as mirror matched when incorrectly used, only serve to highlight their failure, imho.

With all due respect, Ms. Moore was not called to testify that Simpson had his hair cut for 16 years and would probably continue so doing. She was called to rebut the accusation that it was his hair found in the cap but, more specifically, that he wore in on the night of the murders. This never shifted the prosecution's burden to show that he wore it on the night of the murders.
The trial would have been shorter and stronger for the prosecution, if they did not make this claim and they would not have been in the preposterous position of showing that the unidentified dyed hairs could have belonged to Arnelle or the first Ms. Simpson. They had the opportunity to ask Arnelle if she dyed her hair. This failure illuminated the prosecution's failure. There was no evidence that Simpson had any type of association with his first wife that would allowed her hair to be in the cap years later. This was an absurd line of questioning by the prosecution showcasing how weak their case was.

The hair on the shirt could have been put there when LE was traveling back and forth to the two crime scenes or when they decided to drag Ronald's body through the crime scene, or when they injected the blanket into the crime scene. There is no doubt that Simpson was tied to the murder, because the victim was his ex-wife. There was no evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the murders and he was tied to it when the prosecution decided to bring charges against him, without having evidence sufficient in quality to prove the charges, imho.

I think most members of this community are learned enough to know that Simpson's defense never made the claim that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. That's your unsupported speculative claim William.

I don't believe there was any testimony by Deedrick that dandruff had any effect on the hair comparisons he made using a comparison microscope looking for a mirror image.

Ms. Moore could not and did not testify to anything regarding Simpson's hair condition on June 12 or about Simpson's naturally shed hairs found inside the knit cap, on the knit cap and on Ron's shirt. Blood and fiber evidence tell us Simpson was at Bundy the night of the murders.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Martin,

IMO, Fuhrman did know what was coming and he didn't care. However, I will give Baily his props for getting Fuhrman to say that if anybody came into the court and testified about him, they all would be lying.

And his theory of hiding stuff in his sock is valid. Anyone who has been in the military knows that is one of, if not the best place to keep something hidden. BTW, don't many cops carry an ankle holster?

[William Anthony]

I think most members of this community are learned enough to know that Simpson's defense never made the claim that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. That's your unsupported speculative claim William.

I don't believe there was any testimony by Deedrick that dandruff had any effect on the hair comparisons he made using a comparison microscope looking for a mirror image.

Ms. Moore could not and did not testify to anything regarding Simpson's hair condition on June 12 or about Simpson's naturally shed hairs found inside the knit cap, on the knit cap and on Ron's shirt. Blood and fiber evidence tell us Simpson was at Bundy the night of the murders.

bobaugust

I don't know why you continue this other than your claim that your posts are backed up by the evidence, which we have shown has been inaccurate. I think the community is wise and astute enough to know why Ms. Moore was called. That is why there was so much testimony on dandruff. The testimony allowed for the reasonable inference. I think the community also knows that the defense did not have to make any claim, only show why the evidence of the prosecution was untrustworthy.

Of course Deedrick would not discredit his findings. That is what the reasonable inference drawn from Ms. Moore's testimony did, along with the cross eliciting his ifs, maybes, could haves and assumptions and his admission that he could not say when the hairs got deposited in the cap.

Of course, Ms. Moore (thank you for the respect) could not specifically testify to Simpson's hair condition on June 12th. However, that was the prosecution's duty and they could not. They failed. Ms. Moore testified to, due to her 16 years of observations of Simpson's hair, how it appeared ("seemed") during the summer months when he played golf (which he did on June 12th) as opposed to other times. You now want to change you post to blood and fiber evidence but here is your original post.

The defense never made the claim that Simpson had dandruff on June 12, you did. The prosecution has no burden to disprove something the defense never claimed. The fact that ten naturally shed hairs found inside the knit cap mirror matched the sample hairs Simpson provided for comparison is evidence that Simpson wore the knit cap. The fact that another naturally shed hair found on Ron's shirt also matched the hairs Simpson provided for comparison ties Simpson to the murders.

bobaugust

[limakey]

William,

There is something about the hair "evidence" that I always wondered about. How can it be that all of the African-American was naturally shed but all of Nicole's and Ron's wasn't? Wouldn't you think that if the person wearing that cap was involved in a violent struggle with at least one of his victims and had his hat ripped off, that there would be a few ripped hairs of that person?

IMO, if the hat was worn by the killer, then that person took the hat off and left it there---on purpose. Perhaps that person knew that hair evidence is guess work at best?

[bobaugust]

I don't know why you continue this other than your claim that your posts are backed up by the evidence, which we have shown has been inaccurate. I think the community is wise and astute enough to know why Ms. Moore was called. That is why there was so much testimony on dandruff. The testimony allowed for the reasonable inference. I think the community also knows that the defense did not have to make any claim, only show why the evidence of the prosecution was untrustworthy.

Of course Deedrick would not discredit his findings. That is what the reasonable inference drawn from Ms. Moore's testimony did, along with the cross eliciting his ifs, maybes, could haves and assumptions and his admission that he could not say when the hairs got deposited in the cap.

Of course, Ms. Moore (thank you for the respect) could not specifically testify to Simpson's hair condition on June 12th. However, that was the prosecution's duty and they could not. They failed. Ms. Moore testified to, due to her 16 years of observations of Simpson's hair, how it appeared ("seemed") during the summer months when he played golf (which he did on June 12th) as opposed to other times. You now want to change you post to blood and fiber evidence but here is your original post.

I don't know why you continue to think that a reasonable inference can be based on "sometimes" without any other credible evidence to support it. But then again you have made other inferences you call reasonable that are based on your imagination with no evidence to support them. No I didn't change my post I responded to your post claiming there was no evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson committed the murders. Blood and fiber evidence tie Simpson to the murders, as well as a long list of circumstantial evidence.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

William,

There is something about the hair "evidence" that I always wondered about. How can it be that all of the African-American was naturally shed but all of Nicole's and Ron's wasn't? Wouldn't you think that if the person wearing that cap was involved in a violent struggle with at least one of his victims and had his hat ripped off, that there would be a few ripped hairs of that person?

IMO, if the hat was worn by the killer, then that person took the hat off and left it there---on purpose. Perhaps that person knew that hair evidence is guess work at best?

Yes, the hair evidence is not consistent with a struggle and the hat being pulled off during said struggle, imho. The evidence does support a reasonable inference that the cap was placed there as opposed to being pulled off there, imho.

[bobaugust]

William,

There is something about the hair "evidence" that I always wondered about. How can it be that all of the African-American was naturally shed but all of Nicole's and Ron's wasn't? Wouldn't you think that if the person wearing that cap was involved in a violent struggle with at least one of his victims and had his hat ripped off, that there would be a few ripped hairs of that person?

IMO, if the hat was worn by the killer, then that person took the hat off and left it there---on purpose. Perhaps that person knew that hair evidence is guess work at best?

Nicole and Ron both had long hair. Simpson, had very short hair covered some of the time by a knit cap.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I don't know why you continue to think that a reasonable inference can be based on "sometimes" without any other credible evidence to support it. But then again you have made other inferences you call reasonable that are based on your imagination with no evidence to support them. No I didn't change my post I responded to your post claiming there was no evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson committed the murders. Blood and fiber evidence tie Simpson to the murders, as well as a long list of circumstantial evidence.

bobaugust

If you are going to persist in quoting me, then can you do so correctly, please? What I said was there was no evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt or tie Simpson to the murders, imho. The sometimes you refer to was in response to a question as to Ms. Moore's observations and she stated he would have more dandruff in the summer months when he played golf. We know that June is a summer month and he played golf on the 12th. With all due respect, the only one that has been recently shown to post statements that directly contradict the evidence was you. The question is not whether the prosecution set forth a prima facia case (preliminary hearing and grand jury). The question is whether they had evidence with which they could persuade the jury beyond a reasonable doubt (trial).

[William Anthony]

Nicole and Ron both had long hair. Simpson, had very short hair covered some of the time by a knit cap.

bobaugust

What times was it covered by the cap? Testimony please, since you stated it as a fact?

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

IIRC, you have the picture of the cap and glove. Can you post it please? If not I will look for it. Thanks, in advance.

[limakey]

Kate,

Fuhrman using the n-word really had little bearing on Judge Ito's ruling on this. Judge Ito was contacted by several private citzens (as well as the DA's and defense were) about Mark Fuhrman regarding his comments about bi-racial couples. Judge Ito also had to take into account what the defense was going be. From very early on, there were questions surrounding that glove---there was not other evidence supporting that anyone jumped the fence or banged into the wall---he had to question how the glove could have gotten there as well as what possible motive would the detective have to not tell the truth about when and where the glove was found. Also, we don't know if Judge Ito knew about the Joseph Britton case, it was another case involving Fuhrman and it was about planting evidence.

As we have discussed before, even if you changed the n-word to African-Amercian, the words that came out of Fuhrman's mouth were vile, hateful and racist. It was not the n-word that convinced me that Fuhrman is race challenged---it was the words that surrounded them.

Kate, I would like your opinon about what Fuhrman said on the tapes regarding the glove. Why did Judge Ito not allow the jury to hear that? IMO, had they heard that, that would have been more powerful and even more damaging to the DA's case. IMO, every DA involved the Simpson case were loving Judge Ito---he actually never played the most damning part of the tape. I really would have loved to hear the media's spin on why his bragging about the glove and what would happen to the case if he goes down and how that statement was inmaterial to the case.

I am sure G's will forever trash and bash Judge Ito over this inmaterial issue, however, I would hope some of you would be greatful for his exlcusion of a very material issue to this case. IMO, of course!

[bobaugust]

If you are going to persist in quoting me, then can you do so correctly, please? What I said was there was no evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt or tie Simpson to the murders, imho. The sometimes you refer to was in response to a question as to Ms. Moore's observations and she stated he would have more dandruff in the summer months when he played golf. We know that June is a summer month and he played golf on the 12th. With all due respect, the only one that has been recently shown to post statements that directly contradict the evidence was you. The question is not whether the prosecution set forth a prima facia case (preliminary hearing and grand jury). The question is whether they had evidence with which they could persuade the jury beyond a reasonable doubt (trial).

I didn't quote your complete statement but the portion I did quote was exactly what you said.

The portion of Moore's testimony you refer to was clarified on cross examination when Moore agreed that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. That's the reason why your inference is flawed. One question you should be asking yourself is why Cochran never asked Moore if Simpson had dandruff when she last saw him on May 23? The only reasonable answer would be because Simpson didn't have dandruff then. Cochran had documentation as to Simpson's hair condition three days after the murders and if Simpson had dandruff then do you not think Cochran would have presented that documentation if he actually believed Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders? The other question you should ask yourself is if this was a credible claim then why didn't any of Simpson's attorneys ever make it? I'll tell you why because there was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. Cochran and Scheck were trying to deceive the jury with innuendo not facts. I don't know if the jurors fell for it but obviously you did.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

What times was it covered by the cap? Testimony please, since you stated it as a fact?

I will revise what I said. Nicole and Ron both had long hair. Simpson, had very short hair.

Tell me William what evidence do you know of that supports a reasonable inference that the cap was placed there as opposed to being pulled off there?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I didn't quote your complete statement but the portion I did quote was exactly what you said.

The portion of Moore's testimony you refer to was clarified on cross examination when Moore agreed that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. That's the reason why your inference is flawed. One question you should be asking yourself is why Cochran never asked Moore if Simpson had dandruff when she last saw him on May 23? The only reasonable answer would be because Simpson didn't have dandruff then. Cochran had documentation as to Simpson's hair condition three days after the murders and if Simpson had dandruff then do you not think Cochran would have presented that documentation if he actually believed Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders? The other question you should ask yourself is if this was a credible claim then why didn't any of Simpson's attorneys ever make it? I'll tell you why because there was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. Cochran and Scheck were trying to deceive the jury with innuendo not facts. I don't know if the jurors fell for it but obviously you did.

bobaugust

Yes, you took my opinion not statement out of context.

That portion of Ms. Moore's testimony as to Simpson's hair having dandruff when he was playing golf in the sun was never clarified or rebutted. The only possible and reasonable inference to be drawn from the testimony is that he would have had dandruff on June 12, which was consistent with her testimony of his hair over a 16 year period. The fact that you do not understand or are unwilling to accept the testimony does not make my logic flawed-read my recent addition to my signature. Don't get it twisted. It was not specifically meant for you.

I would waste time asking myself a question for which I knew the answer. The defense had nothing to prove. The defense does not make claims. The prosecution makes the claims/charges/theories. The defense provides evidence to rebut those claims/charges/theories. The defense offered evidence to allow the jury to draw reasonable inferences to conclude that the prosecution had not proven their case/claims/charges/theories beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to provide evidence that Simpson did not have dandruff on the night of the murders, imho.

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

Okay, you have your dream jury for the Simpson case, they are all non-black, all are college educated. All of them read the newspapers, nothing but the best. They watch no tabloid TV, nothing but CNN for your jury.

How long would it take a non-black jury of college graduates it realize that Dennis Fung, a seasoned professional in his job, did not know that collecting samples, still wet or damp into a plastic evidence bag and placing it in a truck that the A/C Unit was broke, for over six hours would make these sample worthless when it came to DNA tests?

How long would it have taken your jury to realize that Fung's collection of the evidence and storing it was like he took all the samples from both scenes, through into a blender and bagged and tagged it as it flew out of the container?

How long would it have taken your jury to take into account, that over two weeks later, the very same person was sent out to collect blood samples and that the DNA count was way to high after the scene was washed down as well as being exposed to the elements? How long would it have taken your jury to question why Fung wasn't fired after he got grilled on the stand by the defense?

How long would it have taken your jury to realize that the defense never, ever even gave the impression they believed that contamination of the samples meant that the person's DNA changed?

How long would it have taken your jury to wonder why the most damning blood evidence had a habit of showing up and being collected much later and not only was the DNA in tip top shape---but it had EDTA in it? Now I'm sure they would have listened about how EDTA is everybody's blood, the false positives, can be found in laundry soap--well if that is true, then why didn't all the blood samples had EDTA in them?

How long would it have taken your jury to realize that the fiber evidence was based on what a witness thought he was wearing and that even using this "thought", the DA's never once produced any clothing item where these fibers could have been source? How long would it take them to quickly realize that blue-black cotton like fibers are so common, it would even be impossible to guess how many clothes are made with them.

How long would it take your jury to realize that the hair found on the hat and at the scene not only could not identify a person, perhaps just a race, but that dragging Goldman's body through the scene was the worst thing they could have done. Well, maybe they would have thought the blanket was even worse then that, but again, I'm sure your jury would balance it out.

How long would it have taken your jury to realize that the DA's were totally embarrassed when they presented their "Tag, Bag and Bury Theory" and that their timeline based on a dog was just plain foolish?

How long would it have taken your jury to realize that judge's very rarely cite detectives or police for their reckless disregard of the truth, but when they do, it is only because they absolutely had to.

Now, as for the race issue in this case, your white jury would have been more shocked and more appalled by hearing those tapes and the other witnesses because you could not shock or surprise an African-American with those tapes. While it would be a shock to your jury, it would prove a reality to the African-American.

I do not believe your non-black jury would have fallen for the DA's "Because I Told You So!" case. As educated people, they would have listened to both sides of the case and they would have followed the law and voted not guilty because that was the only legal verdict they would have been able to render.

IMO, I do not believe your jury ever would have gotten trashed or bashed for their not guilty vote, simply because of the color of their skin. Again, IMO.

[William Anthony]

I will revise what I said. Nicole and Ron both had long hair. Simpson, had very short hair.

Tell me William what evidence do you know of that supports a reasonable inference that the cap was placed there as opposed to being pulled off there?

bobaugust

I will take your revision as a statement that you made a mistake. Why do you think I asked you for a picture? However, I did find a link but I think that I copied something else afterward. Let me see? Yes, I did. IIRC, that cap was not wrinkled and lay out as if waiting for collection. However, the link I found was by Walraven, who I am sure you are aware of, and his experiment tossing, flinging and dropping the hat taking account of the position it was located.

[martin II]

Mr. Bell,

Okay, you have your dream jury for the Simpson case, they are all non-black, all are college educated. All of them read the newspapers, nothing but the best. They watch no tabloid TV, nothing but CNN for your jury.

How long would it take a non-black jury of college graduates it realize that Dennis Fung, a seasoned professional in his job, did not know that collecting samples, still wet or damp into a plastic evidence bag and placing it in a truck that the A/C Unit was broke, for over six hours would make these sample worthless when it came to DNA tests?

How long would it have taken your jury to realize that Fung's collection of the evidence and storing it was like he took all the samples from both scenes, through into a blender and bagged and tagged it as it flew out of the container?

How long would it have taken your jury to take into account, that over two weeks later, the very same person was sent out to collect blood samples and that the DNA count was way to high after the scene was washed down as well as being exposed to the elements? How long would it have taken your jury to question why Fung wasn't fired after he got grilled on the stand by the defense?

How long would it have taken your jury to realize that the defense never, ever even gave the impression they believed that contamination of the samples meant that the person's DNA changed?

How long would it have taken your jury to wonder why the most damning blood evidence had a habit of showing up and being collected much later and not only was the DNA in tip top shape---but it had EDTA in it? Now I'm sure they would have listened about how EDTA is everybody's blood, the false positives, can be found in laundry soap--well if that is true, then why didn't all the blood samples had EDTA in them?

How long would it have taken your jury to realize that the fiber evidence was based on what a witness thought he was wearing and that even using this "thought", the DA's never once produced any clothing item where these fibers could have been source? How long would it take them to quickly realize that blue-black cotton like fibers are so common, it would even be impossible to guess how many clothes are made with them.

How long would it take your jury to realize that the hair found on the hat and at the scene not only could not identify a person, perhaps just a race, but that dragging Goldman's body through the scene was the worst thing they could have done. Well, maybe they would have thought the blanket was even worse then that, but again, I'm sure your jury would balance it out.

How long would it have taken your jury to realize that the DA's were totally embarrassed when they presented their "Tag, Bag and Bury Theory" and that their timeline based on a dog was just plain foolish?

How long would it have taken your jury to realize that judge's very rarely cite detectives or police for their reckless disregard of the truth, but when they do, it is only because they absolutely had to.

Now, as for the race issue in this case, your white jury would have been more shocked and more appalled by hearing those tapes and the other witnesses because you could not shock or surprise an African-American with those tapes. While it would be a shock to your jury, it would prove a reality to the African-American.

I do not believe your non-black jury would have fallen for the DA's "Because I Told You So!" case. As educated people, they would have listened to both sides of the case and they would have followed the law and voted not guilty because that was the only legal verdict they would have been able to render.

IMO, I do not believe your jury ever would have gotten trashed or bashed for their not guilty vote, simply because of the color of their skin. Again, IMO.


Very well stated.:beer: :beer: :beer:

[William Anthony]

Mr. Bell,

Okay, you have your dream jury for the Simpson case, they are all non-black, all are college educated. All of them read the newspapers, nothing but the best. They watch no tabloid TV, nothing but CNN for your jury.

How long would it take a non-black jury of college graduates it realize that Dennis Fung, a seasoned professional in his job, did not know that collecting samples, still wet or damp into a plastic evidence bag and placing it in a truck that the A/C Unit was broke, for over six hours would make these sample worthless when it came to DNA tests?

How long would it have taken your jury to realize that Fung's collection of the evidence and storing it was like he took all the samples from both scenes, through into a blender and bagged and tagged it as it flew out of the container?

How long would it have taken your jury to take into account, that over two weeks later, the very same person was sent out to collect blood samples and that the DNA count was way to high after the scene was washed down as well as being exposed to the elements? How long would it have taken your jury to question why Fung wasn't fired after he got grilled on the stand by the defense?

How long would it have taken your jury to realize that the defense never, ever even gave the impression they believed that contamination of the samples meant that the person's DNA changed?

How long would it have taken your jury to wonder why the most damning blood evidence had a habit of showing up and being collected much later and not only was the DNA in tip top shape---but it had EDTA in it? Now I'm sure they would have listened about how EDTA is everybody's blood, the false positives, can be found in laundry soap--well if that is true, then why didn't all the blood samples had EDTA in them?

How long would it have taken your jury to realize that the fiber evidence was based on what a witness thought he was wearing and that even using this "thought", the DA's never once produced any clothing item where these fibers could have been source? How long would it take them to quickly realize that blue-black cotton like fibers are so common, it would even be impossible to guess how many clothes are made with them.

How long would it take your jury to realize that the hair found on the hat and at the scene not only could not identify a person, perhaps just a race, but that dragging Goldman's body through the scene was the worst thing they could have done. Well, maybe they would have thought the blanket was even worse then that, but again, I'm sure your jury would balance it out.

How long would it have taken your jury to realize that the DA's were totally embarrassed when they presented their "Tag, Bag and Bury Theory" and that their timeline based on a dog was just plain foolish?

How long would it have taken your jury to realize that judge's very rarely cite detectives or police for their reckless disregard of the truth, but when they do, it is only because they absolutely had to.

Now, as for the race issue in this case, your white jury would have been more shocked and more appalled by hearing those tapes and the other witnesses because you could not shock or surprise an African-American with those tapes. While it would be a shock to your jury, it would prove a reality to the African-American.

I do not believe your non-black jury would have fallen for the DA's "Because I Told You So!" case. As educated people, they would have listened to both sides of the case and they would have followed the law and voted not guilty because that was the only legal verdict they would have been able to render.

IMO, I do not believe your jury ever would have gotten trashed or bashed for their not guilty vote, simply because of the color of their skin. Again, IMO.

A very well articulated and thought provoking post, imho.

[martin II]

I will take your revision as a statement that you made a mistake. Why do you think I asked you for a picture? However, I did find a link but I think that I copied something else afterward. Let me see? Yes, I did. IIRC, that cap was not wrinkled and lay out as if waiting for collection. However, the link I found was by Walraven, who I am sure you are aware of, and his experiment tossing, flinging and dropping the hat taking account of the position it was located.

In this big time fight the glove was pulled off and the cap was pulled off and they both landed in the same spot. hahaha

[limakey]

Martin,

I agree with you about the hat and glove coming off in the same location and apparently not only flew off but did a side ways landing! The leaves on the plant were not bent nor, as far as I remember, there was no blood spatter on them either.

I would think had the hat just "landed", the leaves would have would have held at least some of it up, it would have been more like "hanging" rather then fitting nice and neat under the plants. IMO.

[limakey]

Kate,

In regards to the N-Word, were you raised not to say that word? Were you told it was "bad" word or a "swear" word? And from your upbring, how did you feel when ever you heard a white person say that word. Do you feel the same way when you heard a black person using the same word?

I was raised that words like the "n-word" and other slurs for other races were just plain "bad" words and that I was not allowed to say them. However, I realized very quickly that not everybody was raised the same way I was on this issue, but I do get the same feeling when I hear someone use the n-word and it doesn't matter what the race of the person is. IMO.

In regards to Denise and the DA's dropping their motive, I believe the DA's called Denise with the hope she would re-establish their motive. The DA's knew that they had problems because the jury was expecting to hear from more police witness on this issue. Also, they had to deal with Nicole saying that it only happend once---to a police officer. However, Denise did hurt the motive because again, another incident was fueled by drink.

I also think that the DA's knew that the tape of Denise saying goodbye to the Brown family also really, really hurt their motive. The DA's also knew the defense had a witness who apparently had a different version of events that night.

One more incident that just plain hurt the DA's motive was Darden sneaking in that one picture that was not from the 1989 incident. Judge Ito explain why he had to strike that photo from the record, made the DA's look even weaker and desperate on this issue.

IMO, I think the DA's used the domestic violence motive because they did not want to go into Nicole's or Ron's personal lives. They did not want the true nature of their friendship to be known to the jury and the public. And no, I am not saying that it was a romantic relationship--just they were much better friends then we have been lead to believe. IMO.

[William Anthony]

In this big time fight the glove was pulled off and the cap was pulled off and they both landed in the same spot. hahaha

Thanks martin,

I incorrectly typed in Walraven when I meant to type Wagner as the person who did the experiment with the cap.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=limakey;9111353]Mr. Bell,

Okay, you have your dream jury for the Simpson case, they are all non-black, all are college educated. All of them read the newspapers, nothing but the best. They watch no tabloid TV, nothing but CNN for your jury.
Limakey, this is a good debating tactic, not to answer with proof but with accusations. I didn't ask you to provide me with a 'dream jury'. I have been making the point that Cochran played the race game with this jury and this was a leading contributor to Simpson being found not guilty.

Where is your proof that all white jury would have convicted Simpson? For the last time, the jury all white, all black, all asian, all women, all men, they all would have gotten the same jury instructions---the race and the gender of the jury would not change these. This is your post a few pages back.
I haven't mentioned anything about how an all white jury would have reacted.

Same jury instructions, probably. But how they would be interpreted is something that you can't tell me.

The media loved to say that the magnificent one played the race card and this was the cause of Simpson being found not guilty, when that simply is not true. He simply played the cards, produced evidence, he was dealt. He produced evidence that has allowed far too many, even one, innocent person to be convicted, because of the racial attitudes and actions of corrupt policemen.

[William Anthony]

Limakey, I'll post this again for you. I don't know if you read it the 1st time but you posted immediately after it. I'll also point out to you that the 2 different locations for the criminal and civil trials had a lot to do with the people chosen for the jury.

Originally Posted by Joseph Bell View Post

Johnnie Cochran's summation for the defense added controversy to an already very controversial trial. His co-counsel, Robert Shapiro, was later to condemn his closing for "not only playing the race card, but playing it from the bottom of the deck." Cochran compared the prosecution case to Hitler's campaign against the Jews:

I have already addressed this part of your prior post and will only add that Simpson was wise in not making Shapiro the lead attorney. Now, for the remainder.

The jury spent only three hours deliberating the case that had produced 150 witnesses over 133 days and had cost $15 million to try. As America watched at 10 a.m. PST on October 3, 1995, Ito's clerk, Deidre Robertson, announced the jury's verdict: "We the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, not guilty of the crime of murder." Simpson sighed in relief, Cochran pumped his fist and slapped Simpson on the back. The Dream Team gathered in a victory huddle.
Simpson announced after the verdict that he would devote the rest of his life to tracking down the real killer of his ex-wife, but he would soon be preoccupied with a civil trial. The trial, held in Santa Monica, would take just three months and would produce a very different result. [b]Simpson was forced to testify, clumsily trying to explain the unexplainable. Photos showing Simpson wearing the size 12 Bruno Magli shoes that he claimed not to own turned up first in one newspaper, then in others. The judge in the civil trial, Hiroshi Fujisaki, proved he was no Lance Ito, and prevented the Simpson defense from introducing fanciful theories of a top-to-bottom conspiracy.
After seventeen hours of deliberation, the jury concluded--using the preponderance of the evidence test applicable in civil cases--that O. J. Simpson had wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.
The Simpson trial demonstrated the polarization of racial attitudes on issues such as law enforcement that still exists in our country
Douglas Linder
University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law

I am surprised to hear the comments coming from someone affiliated with a law school, absent the remarks of the presiding officer that "Basically, this is a civil murder trial." It would appear that this in not an unbiased article. I said article, because I do not believe that any scholarly law journal would allow such a biased rendition. Not only did he preclude evidence of a conspiracy but also of a rush to judgment and evidence planting. The author was correct about the lower standard of proof, preponderance of the evidence.

The author was incorrect that the jury found that Simpson was found liable for causing the wrongful deaths of Mr. Ronald Goldman and Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson. Simpson was only found liable for causing the death of Mr. Ronald Goldman. Any law professor or instructor or learned student will so advise you. Was the author of the article you posted, a cook or janitor at the school, if you know?

The author is incorrect that the trial demonstrated the polarization of racial attitudes on law enforcement, imho. I think it was reaction to the verdict that exposed the aforementioned polarization not only to law enforcement but to the entirety of the judicial process. Ergo, enter the hop-skipping rulings of the presiding officer in the socio-political event, imho.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9111455]

No William. I haven't mentioned the 'media'. Nor has the Dean of Law I am quoting. The racial makeup of the criminal trial jurors and the geographical area they were chosen from had a major effect on the 'innocent' result in the criminal trial. The criminal jury, after a year of testimony, took only 3 hours to find Simpson innocent. I have already posted on their racial composition and level of education. The civil jury took 17 hours for a lower level of proof. Not only did they take longer, their racial makeup was different and they had a judge who wouldn't allow the rubbish that Ito allowed in his courtroom.

You act as though an alleged Dean cannot be influenced by the media accounts. I do not know that an alleged Dean has any training in the law but may have training in education. The difference in the lenght of deliberation could be attributed to the presentation of the evidence and the evidence that was excluded an included. Yes, I agree the rulings severely hampered the defense in presenting a proper defense in a trial where there was a lower standard of proof.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=Joseph Bell;9111457][QUOTE=William Anthony;9111455]

DOUGLAS O. LINDER, (Professor and Elmer N. Powell Senior Faculty Scholar), born Mankato, Minnesota, March 5, 1952; admitted to bar, 1976, Minnesota. Education: Gustavus Adolphus College (B.A., 1973); Stanford Law School (J.D., 1976). COURSES: Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Famous Trials, Communications Law. Email: linderd@umkc.edu

There seems to be a professor with the name Douglas O. Linder and I am not certain that this is the author of your article, because the O. is noticeably missing. However, if it is, it appears to be from his website, where the rules applicable to scholarly treatises may be relaxed. The one thing that he is not iis a Dean.

[William Anthony]

I found Douglas O. Linder's website and see that he does sign his name absent the O.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Simpsonaccount.htm

I could not help but notice that he displayed the mugshot picture of Simpson.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/simpson.htm

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

I did answer your post, I have you your dream jury. I assumed that your dream jury would be also be in your dream location.

Your Dean of Law does not have his facts straight on certain issues. However, your Dean of Law does not address the key dates in this trial:
1. Blood collected on back gate two weeks after the crime scene was already washed down.

2. Blood not found on socks until around August 2.

3. Ron's blood was not found in the Bronco until around August 27.

This Dean of Law is nothing more then another member of the legal community who is pissed off because Mr. Simpson had the gall to be able to afford a defense team, private investigators as well as top notch experts to challenge each and every piece of evidence.

Nor does your Dean of Law address the fact that while Mr. Simpson did have the resources to mount a defense, the state even had more resources and could not counter the defense's case.

Don't forget Mr. Bell, for the first time in our history, the public was able to see a fair trial--it was a level playing field. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Mr. Bell,

I did answer your post, I have you your dream jury. I assumed that your dream jury would be also be in your dream location.

Your Dean of Law does not have his facts straight on certain issues. However, your Dean of Law does not address the key dates in this trial:
1. Blood collected on back gate two weeks after the crime scene was already washed down.

2. Blood not found on socks until around August 2.

3. Ron's blood was not found in the Bronco until around August 27.

This Dean of Law is nothing more then another member of the legal community who is pissed off because Mr. Simpson had the gall to be able to afford a defense team, private investigators as well as top notch experts to challenge each and every piece of evidence.

Nor does your Dean of Law address the fact that while Mr. Simpson did have the resources to mount a defense, the state even had more resources and could not counter the defense's case.

Don't forget Mr. Bell, for the first time in our history, the public was able to see a fair trial--it was a level playing field. IMO.

I agree with the facts that you have posted. However, Mr. Bell's Dean is no Dean. ;) :)

[William Anthony]

Why didn't professor Linder mention any exculpatory evidence on his website?

[limakey]

William,

Perhaps this "Dean" of law should go back to school or should have paid closer attention to the Simpson trial---which taught many painful but very real lessons.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=Joseph Bell;9111457]

You act as though an alleged Dean cannot be influenced by the media accounts. I do not know that an alleged Dean has any training in the law but may have training in education. The difference in the lenght of deliberation could be attributed to the presentation of the evidence and the evidence that was excluded an included. Yes, I agree the rulings severely hampered the defense in presenting a proper defense in a trial where there was a lower standard of proof.

Correction-length of deliberations.

[William Anthony]

William,

Perhaps this "Dean" of law should go back to school or should have paid closer attention to the Simpson trial---which taught many painful but very real lessons.

Perhaps, posters should check credentials before they try to deceive members of this community and post the facts, rather than trying to make it seem like it was a scholarly expose as opposed to an opinion of someone they elevated to a status undeserved. ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

William I read your ranting posts and I sigh. No matter how many posters tell you the truth about Simpson you just refuse to listen. I read a few hours ago your post about 'all posters being civil to each other'. On another Simpson thread but I assumed you meant it for all threads. I posted a few hours ago I was glad to read it but let's see how long you meant to keep your wish.

Didn't last long. As usual. Your land of 'peace and love everlasting' or wherever it is that you live is obviously planet William. Population one.

I do not apologize for correcting you on you undeserved promotion of one on whose opinion you rely. Did you read my addition to my signature. That is a ticket to join me in that land. You simply need a receptive mind to others that may disagree with you, not a closed mind and a self-given right to promote those that do agree with you. There is nothing uncivil in the way I have responded to your undeserved promotion of one with whom you agree. A simple I thought that he was a Dean would have sufficed, as opposed to a personal attack. It is a rather common emotion to become angry when one you think is something is proven to be something less. However, if you try to make your mind focus on the proper place to place your anger, in this case your own assumption, your heart will be unburdened and you may step up to the ticket booth. The sales person works for me and I am not quite sure to offer you a ticket to join me yet. I reserve the right to refuse. Let me stop before you call this a rant. ;) :cool:

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

I did answer your post. Perhaps I did forget one of your issues. Just like a "Not Guilty" verdict does not mean innocent. More Likely Then Not does not mean that the person is guilty. It goes both ways, IMO.

There were two civil jurors who stated they do not know what their verdict would have been had they been on the criminal trial jury. You can't escape the fact that a civil trial is about money and that the jurors are given the right to pick and choose which theory they like the best. Which parts of witness testimony they can disregard. They can give the cops the benefit of the doubt--criminal trial jurors don't have that right.

[William Anthony]

Limakey you really should stop hiding behind William (shudder) and answer my posts to you yourself.

Now, Mr. Bell that really wasn't nice. I could say that she could pick worse places, like behind you and your Dean but I will not say that, because I am trying to raise the level of posting. I think that Limakey is intelligent enough to make her own decisions and form her own opinions. ;) :cool:

[martin II]

Limakey, I'll post this again for you. I don't know if you read it the 1st time but you posted immediately after it. I'll also point out to you that the 2 different locations for the criminal and civil trials had a lot to do with the people chosen for the jury.

Bell
You seem to be of the opinion that the CJS sets a required time for jury deliberations in cases.There are many cases where the jury has deliberated less than 4 hours.There is no required time to do so ut i guess you would not have any way to know that.

[martin II]

Limakey, I'll post this again for you. I don't know if you read it the 1st time but you posted immediately after it. I'll also point out to you that the 2 different locations for the criminal and civil trials had a lot to do with the people chosen for the jury.

bell

No cigar for what you posted.