View Full Version : Issues In The Criminal Trial
William Anthony
10-24-2007, 08:44 PM
Yes, please remind us as to how America 'launched a chemical warfare on Native Americans' when it came to taking the land.
I am surprised that you have not heard of this. As I am sure you are aware the colonists and the native Americans engaged in mercantilsm. You somewhat changed the wording of my post. However, the idea is that the English colonists were interested in acquiring land. The Indians were eager to trade with those colonists and the colonists were eager to supply them with blankets and other such items that had been infected with measels, small pox, diptheria and the like. The native Americans were not immunized to fight off such diseases, which resulted in the deaths of 90% of the native American population.
I am surprised that you have not heard of this. As I am sure you are aware the colonists and the native Americans engaged in mercantilsm. You somewhat changed the wording of my post. However, the idea is that the English colonists were interested in acquiring land. The Indians were eager to trade with those colonists and the colonists were eager to supply them with blankets and other such items that had been infected with measels, small pox, diptheria and the like. The native Americans were not immunized to fight off such diseases, which resulted in the deaths of 90% of the native American population.William, I believe that would be considered biological warfare as opposed to chemical.
tv
Furhman's wife called Geraldo and made statements as to where he was the night of the murders.He also testified about this issue.
martin IIIt's always been my understanding that Mark Fuhrman was asleep in his bed when he got the call to go to the crime scene. Please post a link to your information about what Mark Fuhrman's wife said to Geraldo and also to Fuhrman's testimony.
martin II
10-25-2007, 01:00 AM
--" Let us, therefore, continue to scrutinize Detective Fuhrman's alibi, as well as public statements he and his wife have made. On "Rivera Live," sometime after the preliminary hearings in 1994, someone accused Detective Fuhrman of having planted the Rockingham glove behind O.J.'s house. I didn't watch that particular program, but one of my sources have informed me that Mrs. Fuhrman, subsequently, called up Geraldo Rivera. Mr. Rivera, at that time, actually answered his phone, personally!
According to my source, Geraldo recounted the conversation on his program the next day. Allegedly, Mrs. Fuhrman sounded very nervous and had said (in essence):
----
Mark [Fuhrman] could not have planted the Rockingham glove behind O.J. Simpson's house – because he was in bed with me at the time of the murders!
----
Think about that for a second! First of all, the murders took place at 10:35-10:40 pm. According to Detective Fuhrman's sworn testimony (to Prosecutor Clark), Fuhrman got home at 10:30 pm and did not go to bed until "about 11:00 pm – maybe a little later"!
----
So Mark Fuhrman could not have been in bed with his wife at the time of the murders – if Fuhrman is telling the truth! Either Mr. Fuhrman, or Mrs. Fuhrman, was lying!
Christopher Springer
"Solving The Simpson Murder Mystry"
--" Let us, therefore, continue to scrutinize Detective Fuhrman's alibi, as well as public statements he and his wife have made. On "Rivera Live," sometime after the preliminary hearings in 1994, someone accused Detective Fuhrman of having planted the Rockingham glove behind O.J.'s house. I didn't watch that particular program, but one of my sources have informed me that Mrs. Fuhrman, subsequently, called up Geraldo Rivera. Mr. Rivera, at that time, actually answered his phone, personally!
According to my source, Geraldo recounted the conversation on his program the next day. Allegedly, Mrs. Fuhrman sounded very nervous and had said (in essence):
----
Mark [Fuhrman] could not have planted the Rockingham glove behind O.J. Simpson's house – because he was in bed with me at the time of the murders!
----
Think about that for a second! First of all, the murders took place at 10:35-10:40 pm. According to Detective Fuhrman's sworn testimony (to Prosecutor Clark), Fuhrman got home at 10:30 pm and did not go to bed until "about 11:00 pm – maybe a little later"!
----
So Mark Fuhrman could not have been in bed with his wife at the time of the murders – if Fuhrman is telling the truth! Either Mr. Fuhrman, or Mrs. Fuhrman, was lying!
Christopher Springer
"Solving The Simpson Murder Mystry"
You don't have direct quotes or a transcript from Geraldo's show. The author got second-hand information from a "source" and then repeated it in his book. That makes it hearsay. I think it's funny he uses the word "scrutinize". Usually, when you scrutinize something you have direct quotes, transcripts and all your facts together. You don't merely scrutinize the "essence" of a conversation.
If you think Mark Fuhrman was at the crime scene before the police were notified then you have to be saying he's the murderer. martin, certainly even you don't believe Mark Fuhrman killed Ron and Nicole.
William Anthony
10-25-2007, 05:07 AM
William, I believe that would be considered biological warfare as opposed to chemical.
That may very well be the fact and I stand corrected. However, IIRC, there were some antibodies to some of these diseases that were not offered to the Native Americans.
martin II
10-25-2007, 08:05 AM
You don't have direct quotes or a transcript from Geraldo's show. The author got second-hand information from a "source" and then repeated it in his book. That makes it hearsay. I think it's funny he uses the word "scrutinize". Usually, when you scrutinize something you have direct quotes, transcripts and all your facts together. You don't merely scrutinize the "essence" of a conversation.
If you think Mark Fuhrman was at the crime scene before the police were notified then you have to be saying he's the murderer. martin, certainly even you don't believe Mark Fuhrman killed Ron and Nicole.
tv
I guess you are saying using books as referances is not a good idea.
I think you may have to do your own research to understand the significance
of the information given.
Some that believe furhman was involved in planting have not said that he is the murdered. you are jumping the gun without much info.
imo
martin II
weezer
10-25-2007, 08:19 AM
I am surprised that you have not heard of this. As I am sure you are aware the colonists and the native Americans engaged in mercantilsm. You somewhat changed the wording of my post. However, the idea is that the English colonists were interested in acquiring land. The Indians were eager to trade with those colonists and the colonists were eager to supply them with blankets and other such items that had been infected with measels, small pox, diptheria and the like. The native Americans were not immunized to fight off such diseases, which resulted in the deaths of 90% of the native American population.
"Native populations of the Americas lacked immunity to the infectious diseases that had ravaged Europe and Asia for centuries. Sparse populations on the Plains, and in the pristine valleys of the Rocky Mountains, prevented a buildup of communicable diseases. The "white man" diseases…measles, chicken pox, typhus, typhoid fever, dysentery, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and after 1832, cholera…were devastating to the American Indian. Lumped together, these diseases did not equal the havoc of smallpox in terms of number of deaths, realignment of tribal alliances, and subsequent changes in Canadian and American Indian Cultures."
weezer
10-25-2007, 08:23 AM
--" Let us, therefore, continue to scrutinize Detective Fuhrman's alibi, as well as public statements he and his wife have made. On "Rivera Live," sometime after the preliminary hearings in 1994, someone accused Detective Fuhrman of having planted the Rockingham glove behind O.J.'s house. I didn't watch that particular program, but one of my sources have informed me that Mrs. Fuhrman, subsequently, called up Geraldo Rivera. Mr. Rivera, at that time, actually answered his phone, personally!
According to my source, Geraldo recounted the conversation on his program the next day. Allegedly, Mrs. Fuhrman sounded very nervous and had said (in essence):
----
Mark [Fuhrman] could not have planted the Rockingham glove behind O.J. Simpson's house – because he was in bed with me at the time of the murders!
----
Think about that for a second! First of all, the murders took place at 10:35-10:40 pm. According to Detective Fuhrman's sworn testimony (to Prosecutor Clark), Fuhrman got home at 10:30 pm and did not go to bed until "about 11:00 pm – maybe a little later"!
----
So Mark Fuhrman could not have been in bed with his wife at the time of the murders – if Fuhrman is telling the truth! Either Mr. Fuhrman, or Mrs. Fuhrman, was lying!
Christopher Springer
"Solving The Simpson Murder Mystry"
ok -- I give up -- who is Christopher Springer?
tv
I guess you are saying using books as referances is not a good idea.
I think you may have to do your own research to understand the significance
of the information given.
Some that believe furhman was involved in planting have not said that he is the murdered. you are jumping the gun without much info.
imo
martin IIIf this author really wanted to write a convincing book he would have researched and gotten transcrpts of what was said to Geraldo by Mark Fuhrman's wife. Just saying someone told him about it isn't good enough when it's so easily reserached is sloppy in my opinion.
If you say that Mark Fuhrman was planting evidence between 10:30 and 11:00 then you're saying he was involved in the murders because the bodies hadn't been discovered and the police hadn't been notified yet. I thought the theory of Mark Fuhrman planting the glove was that he did it when he went to the Bundy crime scene. This author is saying he lied about when he went to bed and was there much earlier. That means he would have had knowledge of the murders before the bodies were discovered. If I recall correctly the bodies were found shortly after midnight. How am I jumping the gun?
weezer
10-25-2007, 12:01 PM
If this author really wanted to write a convincing book he would have researched and gotten transcrpts of what was said to Geraldo by Mark Fuhrman's wife. Just saying someone told him about it isn't good enough when it's so easily reserached is sloppy in my opinion.
If you say that Mark Fuhrman was planting evidence between 10:30 and 11:00 then you're saying he was involved in the murders because the bodies hadn't been discovered and the police hadn't been notified yet. I thought the theory of Mark Fuhrman planting the glove was that he did it when he went to the Bundy crime scene. This author is saying he lied about when he went to bed and was there much earlier. That means he would have had knowledge of the murders before the bodies were discovered. If I recall correctly the bodies were found shortly after midnight. How am I jumping the gun?
tv -- I've looked all over -- do you know who this Christopher Springer is?
tv -- I've looked all over -- do you know who this Christopher Springer is?The only book I can find by Christopher Springer is a book about San Francisco written with a few other people. I'm not sure it's the same Christopher Springer. :shrug:
weezer
10-25-2007, 12:20 PM
The only book I can find by Christopher Springer is a book about San Francisco written with a few other people. I'm not sure it's the same Christopher Springer. :shrug:
LOL -- that's kind of what I figured -- he's probably one of martin's bloggers! :rolleyes: guess he thought if he used a name instead of blog site, it would lend credibility -- NOT! :no:
Okay, I found it on Amazon:
"When properly scrutinized, not a single piece of evidence implicates O.J". "Police investigators lied and covered up! Evidence was mishandled and contaminated"!... claims the author, Christopher Springer. Mr. Springer's background includes a history as a police sergeant, physical education teacher, and two years of physical therapy. He holds three U.S. patents on inventions, has won major poker tournaments, both in Europe and America. "A total of 75% believe O.J. murdered Nicole and Ron. This book is for "the other 25%" who can think, and, therefore, trust O.J. --more than they trust the perjuring Fuhrman and Vannatter"!
LOL, I wonder how two years of receiving physical therapy helped him write this book? By the way, it was published in 1997 and the Amazon price is $319.00. I wonder if they meant $3.19?
The publisher is Springer USA. Does any more need to be said? :D
weezer
10-25-2007, 12:29 PM
Okay, I found it on Amazon:
"When properly scrutinized, not a single piece of evidence implicates O.J". "Police investigators lied and covered up! Evidence was mishandled and contaminated"!... claims the author, Christopher Springer. Mr. Springer's background includes a history as a police sergeant, physical education teacher, and two years of physical therapy. He holds three U.S. patents on inventions, has won major poker tournaments, both in Europe and America. "A total of 75% believe O.J. murdered Nicole and Ron. This book is for "the other 25%" who can think, and, therefore, trust O.J. --more than they trust the perjuring Fuhrman and Vannatter"!
LOL, I wonder how two years of receiving physical therapy helped him write this book? By the way, it was published in 1997 and the Amazon price is $319.00. I wonder if they meant $3.19?
I still can't find him -- dadgummit!
Don't let orenthal know about the price of the book, he'll think it belongs to him and you know what that means!
I still can't find him -- dadgummit!
Don't let orenthal know about the price of the book, he'll think it belongs to him and you know what that means! I'm sure he knows more "friends" he can recruit!
Here's the Amazon link. It's all I could find.
http://www.amazon.com/Solving-the-Simpson-Mystery/dp/0964964961/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193328867&sr=1-1
martin II
10-25-2007, 03:08 PM
tv
The words of the author can be checked easily.
Mark Furhman testified to what time he arrived home and what time he went to bed. I have not googled Geraldo looking for that specific show where it is reported that his wife gave him a alibi. But i do remember reading that she did. If she did then there is a conflict between what she said and what he testified to.
http://www.guiltyofincompetence.com/bill-pavelic-book-quot-guilty-of-incompetence-quot-f1.html?sid=a3b3aef30d8863e188825c0bd2bd142e
This all comes out of a interesting discussion on the above site . Bill Pavelic.
It involves M Furhman Ton Nolan, Ron Phillips and Brad Roberts and their activities at rockingham at 6am.
If you are open to other opinions and facts, you may want to review it.
imo
martin II
martin II
10-25-2007, 03:43 PM
The publisher is Springer USA. Does any more need to be said? :D
tv
Are you suggesting that it is your belief that Mrs Furhman did not make the statement giving Frurhman that alibi and therefore Mr Springers statement is not correct?
martin II
William Anthony
10-25-2007, 05:20 PM
"Native populations of the Americas lacked immunity to the infectious diseases that had ravaged Europe and Asia for centuries. Sparse populations on the Plains, and in the pristine valleys of the Rocky Mountains, prevented a buildup of communicable diseases. The "white man" diseases…measles, chicken pox, typhus, typhoid fever, dysentery, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and after 1832, cholera…were devastating to the American Indian. Lumped together, these diseases did not equal the havoc of smallpox in terms of number of deaths, realignment of tribal alliances, and subsequent changes in Canadian and American Indian Cultures."
Yes, but your post does not mention that the colonists intentionally traded those blankets to the native Americans.
William Anthony
10-25-2007, 05:22 PM
That may very well be the fact and I stand corrected. However, IIRC, there were some antibodies to some of these diseases that were not offered to the Native Americans.
Correction-antibodies/vaccines
martin II
10-25-2007, 06:36 PM
Correction-antibodies/vaccines
well, in additon to the diseases they brought GUNS which were used to take the land of the native americans.
martin II
tv
Are you suggesting that it is your belief that Mrs Furhman did not make the statement giving Frurhman that alibi and therefore Mr Springers statement is not correct?
martin II
I have no idea when Mark Fuhrman went to bed. It's totally irrelevant to the murders and OJ Simpson's guilt or innocence. The bodies weren't discovered until 12:10 AM. If Mark Fuhrman was on the scene before then he was involved with the murders. That's the only possible significance that his bedtime could possibly have to this case. Are you suggesting that you believe he was there before 12:10?
martin II
10-25-2007, 10:29 PM
I have no idea when Mark Fuhrman went to bed. It's totally irrelevant to the murders and OJ Simpson's guilt or innocence. The bodies weren't discovered until 12:10 AM. If Mark Fuhrman was on the scene before then he was involved with the murders. That's the only possible significance that his bedtime could possibly have to this case. Are you suggesting that you believe he was there before 12:10?
I have not suggested that furhman was at bundy at 12.10. The fact that you ask this question indicates that you did not understand why the conflicting alibi given was important.
So i will let it stand as it is.
martin II
I have not suggested that furhman was at bundy at 12.10. The fact that you ask this question indicates that you did not understand why the conflicting alibi given was important.
So i will let it stand as it is.
martin IImartin, I'm really trying to understand what you're saying. What difference does it make when Mark Fuhrman went to bed? Please clue me in.
The only other thing I can think of is that you're saying because Mark Fuhrman and his wife didn't agree what time he went to bed that he's hiding something.
socaldiva
10-26-2007, 01:12 AM
martin, I'm really trying to understand what you're saying. What difference does it make when Mark Fuhrman went to bed? Please clue me in.
The only other thing I can think of is that you're saying because Mark Fuhrman and his wife didn't agree what time he went to bed that he's hiding something.
I can't figure out what he's trying to get at either :shrug:
I can't figure out what he's trying to get at either :shrug:
Thanks, diva. I'm glad I'm not alone. My next question is why martin won't tell me in plain language what he's getting at? If I don't understand it on my own he's going to leave me in the dark. I didn't know this was a test. :confused:
martin II
10-26-2007, 04:29 AM
tv
my initial post to william asked him a question. You then asked your question and i made a statement on the issue. You then asked for a link which i gave you along with quotes by C Springer.
What then happened is you and a couple of posters went on a attack of springer and his book instead of focusing on his claims which to my understand have been widly reported in the media and discussed here.
Furhmans testimony on his alibi is listed with all the other testimony imo. The abibi his wife gave him has been discussed by media as well.
Everything went down hill after that as Springer was atttacked as some unqualified nut that wrote the book while his claims were basically dismissed
or ignored not to mention the negative personal comments posted about me.
I gave you a link to a discussion group in case you were interested in reviewing the larger issues that make Springers comments relevant. I really don't feel like batteling you and the other posters on a non issue today.
If you or anyone else feel Springers claims are not accurate, so be it.
imo
martin II
tv
my initial post to william asked him a question. You then asked your question and i made a statement on the issue. You then asked for a link which i gave you along with quotes by C Springer.
What then happened is you and a couple of posters went on a attack of springer and his book instead of focusing on his claims which to my understand have been widly reported in the media and discussed here.
Furhmans testimony on his alibi is listed with all the other testimony imo. The abibi his wife gave him has been discussed by media as well.
Everything went down hill after that as Springer was atttacked as some unqualified nut that wrote the book while his claims were basically dismissed
or ignored not to mention the negative personal comments posted about me.
I gave you a link to a discussion group in case you were interested in reviewing the larger issues that make Springers comments relevant. I really don't feel like batteling you and the other posters on a non issue today.
If you or anyone else feel Springers claims are not accurate, so be it.
imo
martin IImartin, you still haven't told me why you think Mark Fuhrman needed an alibi. I'll just chalk this up to more of your nonsense.
martin II
10-26-2007, 03:11 PM
martin, you still haven't told me why you think Mark Fuhrman needed an alibi. I'll just chalk this up to more of your nonsense.
I never told you i would answer that silly baiting question.I have no interest in how you do your CHALKING.
Obviously M Clarke thought it was important for her to hear his alibi and he realized he had to give it, so he did.
imo
martin II
I never told you i would answer that silly baiting question.I have no interest in how you do your CHALKING.
Obviously M Clarke thought it was important for her to hear his alibi and he realized he had to give it, so he did.
imo
martin II
martin, I was sincerely trying to find out what the importance of Mark Fuhrman's bedtime is. If you don't want to answer that's fine but don't accuse me of baiting because you don't have an answer. I'm going to CHALK this up to you not understanding what baiting really is and using it as a reason to avoid the issue being discussed.
Why you have to get nasty when you don't want to answer a question is beyond me but I'm done with it. :shrug:
martin II
10-26-2007, 04:58 PM
martin, I was sincerely trying to find out what the importance of Mark Fuhrman's bedtime is. If you don't want to answer that's fine but don't accuse me of baiting because you don't have an answer. I'm going to CHALK this up to you not understanding what baiting really is and using it as a reason to avoid the issue being discussed.
Why you have to get nasty when you don't want to answer a question is beyond me but I'm done with it. :shrug:
tv
Instead of dealing with the issues (alibis) you choose to participate in a group atack on the source and myself.This did not seeme like you were interested in discussing the claims but more in making the kind of post that you made.
You have already stated that you would chalk it all up to more nonsense by me so that did not seem to indicate that you had any serious interest.
I see no reason to waste any more of my time with you on that issue as you have on other ocassions indicated that any other opinion than the one you hold (oj killed people) is all nonsesne.
imo
martin II
weezer
10-26-2007, 05:07 PM
tv
Instead of dealing with the issues (alibis) you choose choose to participate in a group atack on the source and myself.This did not seeme like you were interested in discussing the claims but more in making the kind of post that you made.
You have already stated that you would chalk it all up to more nonsense by me so that did not seem to indicate that you had any serious interest.
I see no reason to waste any more of my time with you on that issue as you have on other ocassions indicated that any other opinion than the one you hold (oj killed people) is all nonsesne.
imo
martin II
LOL -- in other words, "I don't know." LOL
tv
Instead of dealing with the issues (alibis) you choose choose to participate in a group atack on the source and myself.This did not seeme like you were interested in discussing the claims but more in making the kind of post that you made.
You have already stated that you would chalk it all up to more nonsense by me so that did not seem to indicate that you had any serious interest.
I see no reason to waste any more of my time with you on that issue as you have on other ocassions indicated that any other opinion than the one you hold (oj killed people) is all nonsesne.
imo
martin IIWhatever you say. :seeya:
LOL -- in other words, "I don't know." LOLAgreed. :beer:
I looked back and I see that I asked martin 5 times very nicely and in a non-baiting way what he was saying about Mark Fuhrman's bedtime. After the fifth time I decided he must not have an answer. He characterized my questions as not being serious so he wouldn't have to answer. That's the only conclusion I can come to.
martin II
10-26-2007, 05:53 PM
LOL -- in other words, "I don't know." LOL
weezer
Here you come with your penny and a half cent worth.
hahaha
martin II
martin II
10-26-2007, 06:11 PM
Agreed. :beer:
I looked back and I see that I asked martin 5 times very nicely and in a non-baiting way what he was saying about Mark Fuhrman's bedtime. After the fifth time I decided he must not have an answer. He characterized my questions as not being serious so he wouldn't have to answer. That's the only conclusion I can come to.
tv
The negative post you have just made towards me is exactly why i decided
it was useless to try to discuss the issue with you.:punch: :punch:
martin II
socaldiva
10-26-2007, 06:39 PM
tv
The negative post you have just made towards me is exactly why i decided
it was useless to try to discuss the issue with you.:punch: :punch:
martin II
Ah, so now you're guessing in advance what other posters will post? That's funny. :tongue:
btw: I didn't see anything negative in tv's post. She asked a simple question, multiple times. :shrug:
William Anthony
11-04-2007, 04:29 PM
martin, I'm really trying to understand what you're saying. What difference does it make when Mark Fuhrman went to bed? Please clue me in.
The only other thing I can think of is that you're saying because Mark Fuhrman and his wife didn't agree what time he went to bed that he's hiding something.
Tv,
I think the issue is what was MF doing before he went to bed and what time did he really arrive home. He may or may not have been home at the time he got the call. We all know that he is a convicted perjurer.
weezer
11-05-2007, 07:58 AM
Tv,
I think the issue is what was MF doing before he went to bed and what time did he really arrive home. He may or may not have been home at the time he got the call. We all know that he is a convicted perjurer.
and that would prove what? :shrug:
Kate Sachel
11-05-2007, 08:10 AM
Tv,
I think the issue is what was MF doing before he went to bed and what time did he really arrive home. He may or may not have been home at the time he got the call. We all know that he is a convicted perjurer.
I would say that unless you're;
1.) accusing him of murdering Nicole and Ron or
2.) accusing him of being at the crime scene long before it was called in to police
it doesn't matter what time he arrived home or when he went to bed.
Kate
socaldiva
11-05-2007, 09:56 AM
I would say that unless you're;
1.) accusing him of murdering Nicole and Ron or
2.) accusing him of being at the crime scene long before it was called in to police
it doesn't matter what time he arrived home or when he went to bed.
Kate
I agree. I think it's just more smoke & mirrors. :D
William Anthony
11-08-2007, 05:35 PM
I would say that unless you're;
1.) accusing him of murdering Nicole and Ron or
2.) accusing him of being at the crime scene long before it was called in to police
it doesn't matter what time he arrived home or when he went to bed.
Kate
I respectfully disagree, because the issue of a witness' credibility always matters.
martin II
11-09-2007, 12:18 AM
I respectfully disagree, because the issue of a witness' credibility always matters.
The issue on the other message board was about why did furhmans wife (as it was reported) think it was necessary for her to call a tv program and give what she thought was a alibi for her husband Which turned out to be different from what he testified to? Actually he was being accused of planting the glove, by the poster, at about 6:30 am at rockingham not 10:30. It was suggested that she, knowing furhmans HISTORY,felt that she should give him a alibi for the time of the murders.but her alibi was different than his.
martin II
weezer
11-09-2007, 08:10 AM
The issue on the other message board was about why did furhmans wife (as it was reported) think it was necessary for her to call a tv program and give what she thought was a alibi for her husband Which turned out to be different from what he testified to? Actually he was being accused of planting the glove, by the poster, at about 6:30 am at rockingham not 10:30. It was suggested that she, knowing furhmans HISTORY,felt that she should give him a alibi for the time of the murders.but her alibi was different than his.
martin II
Poppycock! you guys will go to any length -- no matter how ridiculous -- to vindicate orenthal. So far, everyone is either involved in the murder or the cover-up EXCEPT the one person who left his blood, hair, fiber, hat, glove and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the murder scene. The one person who spent years bullying, abusing and threatening Nicole and the only person Nicole was afraid would kill her: orenthal james simpson.
imo
Kate Sachel
11-09-2007, 08:30 AM
I respectfully disagree, because the issue of a witness' credibility always matters.
Then of course you would be happy to agree that OJ has no credibility whatsoever considering the list of things he was shown to have lied about regarding not only the evening of June 12th but numerous events leading up to that date.
Kate
martin II
11-09-2007, 09:22 AM
Poppycock! you guys will go to any length -- no matter how ridiculous -- to vindicate orenthal. So far, everyone is either involved in the murder or the cover-up EXCEPT the one person who left his blood, hair, fiber, hat, glove and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the murder scene. The one person who spent years bullying, abusing and threatening Nicole and the only person Nicole was afraid would kill her: orenthal james simpson.
imo
Poppycock.
The issue i posted about was from another poster not me. However, If one can look only at the issue presented and not what you think some of the evidence 'PROVED" the question still remains, why did furhmans wife's "alibi"
for him conflict with what he gave and why did she believe it was necessary for her to make this statement if she knew it was wrong? both statements could not be true, you would agree, right?
martin II
Triple poppycock!
Mark Furhman's whereabouts have nothing to do this case and neither does his wife's testimony about where he was. Some people are so gullible. Johnnie Cochran, God bless his soul, was the most brilliant defense attorney in the history of mankind. He has succeeded in feeding a bunch of hogwash to supposedly intelligent people and they fell for it hook, line and sinker. The very obvious question to anyone with half a brain is IF MARK FURHMAN PLANTED ONE OF OJ'S GLOVES AT THE CRIME SCENE, WHAT WERE OJ'S GLOVES DOING THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? Did Mark Furhman also break into Oj's house and steal the gloves? Did Mark Fuhrman also cut OJ's finger and make it drip blood from the left, the same side as the killer? Did Mark Fuhrman wear OJ's shoes to commit the crime? Did Mark Furhman stumble upon the crime scene before everyone else and immediately assume it must have been OJ without knowing if OJ himself had not been killed also?
All of this evidence planting happened before anyone knew whether or not OJ himself could have been a victim of a crime and yet stupid ole Mark Fuhrman took the chance and planted the evidence anyway?
I am a black person who has always believed OJ was guilty and I always believed he wasn't convicted because he was both famous and black. The justice system has proven to be a joke in many instances, not just in the case of OJ.
socaldiva
11-09-2007, 01:38 PM
*snip*
All of this evidence planting happened before anyone knew whether or not OJ himself could have been a victim of a crime and yet stupid ole Mark Fuhrman took the chance and planted the evidence anyway?
And Fuhrman would have been risking getting the death penalty before knowing what the labs would come up with so he could implicate an "innocent man" & let the "real killer" walk :rolleyes:
And Fuhrman would have been risking getting the death penalty before knowing what the labs would come up with so he could implicate an "innocent man" & let the "real killer" walk :rolleyes:
And Mark Fuhrman would have been walking around with swabs of Oj, Nicole and Ron Goldman's blood, all to frame a man who could have been either dead himself or had an air tight alibi. Or do the conspiracist believe Furhman started the planting AFTER it was known OJ was alive and didn't have a good alibi? Of course by then Nicole and Ron's blood would have dried up...:shrug:
Gosh Johnnie Cochran was good. :patriot:
William Anthony
11-10-2007, 09:05 AM
Then of course you would be happy to agree that OJ has no credibility whatsoever considering the list of things he was shown to have lied about regarding not only the evening of June 12th but numerous events leading up to that date.
Kate
What I will say is that I have not read all of Simpson's testimony. However, from the excepts that were posted on this board, I see his testimony as a bunch of uncertainties, such as I do not recall. I will say that Simpson could have been confused, made human error, or was mistaken.
Please, remember, it was not I that found MF to be a perjurer. It was a court of law that made that decision. Therefore, as with the other verdicts, I accept that one. I do not think Simpson was convicted of perjury.
William Anthony
11-10-2007, 09:07 AM
Triple poppycock!
Mark Furhman's whereabouts have nothing to do this case and neither does his wife's testimony about where he was. Some people are so gullible. Johnnie Cochran, God bless his soul, was the most brilliant defense attorney in the history of mankind. He has succeeded in feeding a bunch of hogwash to supposedly intelligent people and they fell for it hook, line and sinker. The very obvious question to anyone with half a brain is IF MARK FURHMAN PLANTED ONE OF OJ'S GLOVES AT THE CRIME SCENE, WHAT WERE OJ'S GLOVES DOING THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? Did Mark Furhman also break into Oj's house and steal the gloves? Did Mark Fuhrman also cut OJ's finger and make it drip blood from the left, the same side as the killer? Did Mark Fuhrman wear OJ's shoes to commit the crime? Did Mark Furhman stumble upon the crime scene before everyone else and immediately assume it must have been OJ without knowing if OJ himself had not been killed also?
All of this evidence planting happened before anyone knew whether or not OJ himself could have been a victim of a crime and yet stupid ole Mark Fuhrman took the chance and planted the evidence anyway?
I am a black person who has always believed OJ was guilty and I always believed he wasn't convicted because he was both famous and black. The justice system has proven to be a joke in many instances, not just in the case of OJ.
The question is, imho, not why the gloves (two) were at Bundy, but who brought them there, and who brought one back to Rockingham.
The question is, imho, not why the gloves (two) were at Bundy, but who brought them there, and who brought one back to Rockingham.There is no question there, William. The DNA evidence shows that it was OJ Simpson that dropped one glove at Bundy and the other at Rockingham.
William Anthony
11-11-2007, 05:28 PM
There is no question there, William. The DNA evidence shows that it was OJ Simpson that dropped one glove at Bundy and the other at Rockingham.
I am not sure of what evidence you speak. I know that the gloves did not fit and that MF found a glove behind the quarters, where no one placed Simpson. I know that the MF, when questioned about a glove, said the word them. I do not understand how it is that DNA said it was Simpson who placed the glove behind the quarters or how it said that it was Simpson who placed the evidence on the gloves, smile.
William Anthony
11-11-2007, 05:32 PM
And Mark Fuhrman would have been walking around with swabs of Oj, Nicole and Ron Goldman's blood, all to frame a man who could have been either dead himself or had an air tight alibi. Or do the conspiracist believe Furhman started the planting AFTER it was known OJ was alive and didn't have a good alibi? Of course by then Nicole and Ron's blood would have dried up...:shrug:
Gosh Johnnie Cochran was good. :patriot:
I think that there was evidence that plastic kept blood evidence fresh and there was evidence that Kato had seen Simpson after the murders and had left in the limo, which was known to MF before he allegedly found the glove at Rockingham.
martin II
11-11-2007, 07:57 PM
And Mark Fuhrman would have been walking around with swabs of Oj, Nicole and Ron Goldman's blood, all to frame a man who could have been either dead himself or had an air tight alibi. Or do the conspiracist believe Furhman started the planting AFTER it was known OJ was alive and didn't have a good alibi? Of course by then Nicole and Ron's blood would have dried up...:shrug:
Gosh Johnnie Cochran was good. :patriot:
Mr Baker in the civil trial asked the question 'How do we know that the blood found on the ground is the blood that was tested"
I am thinking that any evidence found on oj's property would drag him into the case whether he was in town or not.
Nicoles and Rons blood was available for used anytime after their bodies were found 6/13. OJ's was available anytime after about 12:00 noon on 6/13. I think it was about 2 cc of his blood that was not accounted for.
martin II
bobaugust
11-11-2007, 08:20 PM
I am not sure of what evidence you speak. I know that the gloves did not fit and that MF found a glove behind the quarters, where no one placed Simpson. I know that the MF, when questioned about a glove, said the word them. I do not understand how it is that DNA said it was Simpson who placed the glove behind the quarters or how it said that it was Simpson who placed the evidence on the gloves, smile.
Simpson's blood was found on the glove at Rockingham along with both victims blood. Blue black cotton fibers were found on the glove at Rockingham, the same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt and found on Simpson's socks. One unusual x-shaped fiber consistent with the Bronco carpeting was found on the glove at Rockingham. The killer's gloves fit Simpson's hands. Allan Park had unsuccessfully been trying to contact Simpson for over twenty minutes before he saw him for the first time walk up from his driveway and enter the house a couple of minutes or so after Kaelin heard the noises behind his room. Other evidence supports the opinion that Simpson scaled his fence and fell against the back wall of Kaelin's room to enter his estate after returning from Bundy.
There isn't one single shred of relevant evidence to support the unrealistic, illogical, false belief that Mark Fuhrman planted any evidence in this case. Fuhrman said the word them referring to the evidence he saw under the plant leaves at Bundy. A hat and a glove. Speculation about a plastic bag is completely meaningless.
bobaugust
Kate Sachel
11-12-2007, 08:45 AM
What I will say is that I have not read all of Simpson's testimony. However, from the excepts that were posted on this board, I see his testimony as a bunch of uncertainties, such as I do not recall. I will say that Simpson could have been confused, made human error, or was mistaken.
Please, remember, it was not I that found MF to be a perjurer. It was a court of law that made that decision. Therefore, as with the other verdicts, I accept that one. I do not think Simpson was convicted of perjury.
Please don't hide behind the games that you exchange with Bob when dealing with me; I'm too intellectual for that.
Kate
William Anthony
11-12-2007, 04:18 PM
Simpson's blood was found on the glove at Rockingham along with both victims blood. Blue black cotton fibers were found on the glove at Rockingham, the same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt and found on Simpson's socks. One unusual x-shaped fiber consistent with the Bronco carpeting was found on the glove at Rockingham. The killer's gloves fit Simpson's hands. Allan Park had unsuccessfully been trying to contact Simpson for over twenty minutes before he saw him for the first time walk up from his driveway and enter the house a couple of minutes or so after Kaelin heard the noises behind his room. Other evidence supports the opinion that Simpson scaled his fence and fell against the back wall of Kaelin's room to enter his estate after returning from Bundy.
There isn't one single shred of relevant evidence to support the unrealistic, illogical, false belief that Mark Fuhrman planted any evidence in this case. Fuhrman said the word them referring to the evidence he saw under the plant leaves at Bundy. A hat and a glove. Speculation about a plastic bag is completely meaningless.
bobaugust
I do not know whether or not the killer's or killers' gloves fit Simpson. I only know that the ones in evidence did not appear to fit, imho. The evidence is that only MF was alone behind the quarters, where the glove was found, and that he hated interracial couples. Anything other than that is pure speculation on your part and, as the jury indicated, meaningless.
bobaugust
11-12-2007, 04:57 PM
I do not know whether or not the killer's or killers' gloves fit Simpson. I only know that the ones in evidence did not appear to fit, imho. The evidence is that only MF was alone behind the quarters, where the glove was found, and that he hated interracial couples. Anything other than that is pure speculation on your part and, as the jury indicated, meaningless.
Some people were fooled by Simpson's act that his skin tight leather gloves did not fit him but most others were not. The evidence is that Mark Fuhrman was the first police officer to see the glove behind Kaelin's room. The blood and fiber evidence found on that glove points only to Simpson as the killer and the only person to have handled it before it was collected.
bobaugust
Kate Sachel
11-13-2007, 08:19 AM
Kate,
I will apologize for any misunderstanding that caused you to believe that I placed bobaugust's intellectual level on par with yours. I agree that you are far more intellectual. I do not know what games you think I am hiding behind. From the parts I read, I saw a lot of inablility to recall, not sure, and I think. Unlike MF. Simpson did not respond on any material issue with an unequivocal, no.
I am referring to the fact that you stated "I will say that Simpson could have been confused, made human error, or was mistaken" in your post to me, which is the same statement you use when mocking Bob in several of the exchanges that the two of you have had.
And yes, Simpson did respond on some material issues with an unequivocal no.
Kate
William Anthony
11-14-2007, 05:24 PM
I am referring to the fact that you stated "I will say that Simpson could have been confused, made human error, or was mistaken" in your post to me, which is the same statement you use when mocking Bob in several of the exchanges that the two of you have had.
And yes, Simpson did respond on some material issues with an unequivocal no.
Kate
Kate,
I was only giving Simpson, as the Black defendant, the same benefits that bobaugust offers to others. I was not mocking him but leveling the playing field. As I stated, I have not read Simpson's complete testimony and was only speaking to the parts that have been posted.
William Anthony
11-14-2007, 05:27 PM
Some people were fooled by Simpson's act that his skin tight leather gloves did not fit him but most others were not. The evidence is that Mark Fuhrman was the first police officer to see the glove behind Kaelin's room. The blood and fiber evidence found on that glove points only to Simpson as the killer and the only person to have handled it before it was collected.
bobaugust
The evidence is that MF said he saw two gloves (them) at Bundy and he allegedly located a glove behind Kato's quarters. How the glove that did not fit got behind the quarters and had evidence on it remains a reasonable doubt, imho.
bobaugust
11-14-2007, 06:57 PM
The evidence is that MF said he saw two gloves (them) at Bundy and he allegedly located a glove behind Kato's quarters. How the glove that did not fit got behind the quarters and had evidence on it remains a reasonable doubt, imho.
Mark Fuhrman never testified to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy. That claim is untrue. There is no evidence there was a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there. There is no reasonable doubt about this issue only fantasy doubt from some people who look for any excuse, no matter how irrational or ridiculous to deny the reality of the physical evidence that proves Simpson was the killer.
bobaugust.
weezer
11-14-2007, 08:54 PM
*SNIPPED* ". . .How the glove that did not fit got behind the quarters and had evidence on it remains a reasonable doubt, imho.
Guess the jury was right about everything but the glove -- according to you?
"The book plays down the importance of the now-infamous glove demonstration, however, in which prosecutor Christopher Darden had Simpson try on the evidence gloves found at his estate and at the crime scene. The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.
"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."
"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody."
Bess is madame foreman --
LOL
martin II
11-14-2007, 11:58 PM
Guess the jury was right about everything but the glove -- according to you?
"The book plays down the importance of the now-infamous glove demonstration, however, in which prosecutor Christopher Darden had Simpson try on the evidence gloves found at his estate and at the crime scene. The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.
"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."
"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody."
Bess is madame foreman --
LOL
How many more time do you intend to post those quotes.
So is it finally sinking in that the jury was not a bunch of ignorant,
biased, uneducatred black women as you have called them presiously?
The majority of the people in the world saw and knew those gloves were just too small for oj's hands. Sorry about that but that is the way it was.
martin II
bobaugust
11-15-2007, 01:02 AM
How many more time do you intend to post those quotes.
So is it finally sinking in that the jury was not a bunch of ignorant,
biased, uneducatred black women as you have called them presiously?
The majority of the people in the world saw and knew those gloves were just too small for oj's hands. Sorry about that but that is the way it was.
martin II
Some people who have no life experience with skin tight leather gloves may have been fooled by Simpson's act that his gloves didn't fit him but most people were not. If Simpson wasn't wearing latex gloves and he had stretched his gloves on his fingers they would have fit him as well as the same exact gloves he was shown wearing in photographs fit him. In the civil trial after Rubin stretched those gloves back to close to their original size Simpson wouldn't go near them.
bobaugust
Kate Sachel
11-15-2007, 08:20 AM
Kate,
I was only giving Simpson, as the Black defendant, the same benefits that bobaugust offers to others. I was not mocking him but leveling the playing field. As I stated, I have not read Simpson's complete testimony and was only speaking to the parts that have been posted.
I don't buy it, and the first place you lost credibility in this post was with your need to refer to OJ as the "Black defendant" rather than the Defendant. For someone who claims to want equal justice for all races regardless of wealth or color you certainly seem to go out of your way to remind us that he's black.
Personally, when I am drafting court documents or reading them I have never come across a pleading that references the race of the individual involved in the lawsuit. I have never seen "AABB, Plaintiff vs. Mary CCDD, White Defendant" or "AABB, Plaintiff vs. Mary CCDD, Black Defendant". Tell me, have they begun doing that in your jurisdiction?
Of course you have used it to mock him, I've read those postings in which the barbs you trade back and forth are unworthy to the intelligence that I believe both of you hold. Regardless, given that you are aware of my position I am surprised that you would hide behind those words with me.
Kate
weezer
11-15-2007, 03:16 PM
How many more time do you intend to post those quotes.
So is it finally sinking in that the jury was not a bunch of ignorant,
biased, uneducatred black women as you have called them presiously?
The majority of the people in the world saw and knew those gloves were just too small for oj's hands. Sorry about that but that is the way it was.
martin II
LOL -- I will continue to post the remarks of the jurors (or as you like to refer to them: the real tryors of fact) as long as posters on this board continue to post inaccuracies about what the jury thought of the gloves. The interviews after the trial only proves my point -- they were a group of uneducated and biased jurors. I never posted about anyone being black and I never limited my remarks to the only women jurors.
Sorry about that but that's the way it is.
William Anthony
11-28-2007, 05:40 PM
I don't buy it, and the first place you lost credibility in this post was with your need to refer to OJ as the "Black defendant" rather than the Defendant. For someone who claims to want equal justice for all races regardless of wealth or color you certainly seem to go out of your way to remind us that he's black.
Personally, when I am drafting court documents or reading them I have never come across a pleading that references the race of the individual involved in the lawsuit. I have never seen "AABB, Plaintiff vs. Mary CCDD, White Defendant" or "AABB, Plaintiff vs. Mary CCDD, Black Defendant". Tell me, have they begun doing that in your jurisdiction?
Of course you have used it to mock him, I've read those postings in which the barbs you trade back and forth are unworthy to the intelligence that I believe both of you hold. Regardless, given that you are aware of my position I am surprised that you would hide behind those words with me.
Kate
Kate,
In case you are unaware through your readings or others who may read these posts, some tend to reserve some adjectives, such as liar and ignorant, for members of the Black race. Hence, my referrence to Simpson as the Black defendant was to show that, in a system requiring equality, he should have beeen given the adjectives, such as mistaken, confused, and made human error, that some reserve for members of the White race.
I do not think any jurisdiction has gotten so bold as to list the race of the defendant or plaintiff as those facts will obviously become known throughout the trial process.
I deny that I used it to mock him and only used those adjectives to show that equality demands that we consider the use of those adjectives, irrespective of one's race. I do not want to misunderstand, so I will ask. Are you suggesting that the use of those adjectives to one race and not to the other should be mocked, or that it should not be mocked?
William Anthony
11-28-2007, 05:42 PM
Guess the jury was right about everything but the glove -- according to you?
"The book plays down the importance of the now-infamous glove demonstration, however, in which prosecutor Christopher Darden had Simpson try on the evidence gloves found at his estate and at the crime scene. The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.
"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."
"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody."
Bess is madame foreman --
LOL
What about the other nine?
bobaugust
11-28-2007, 08:09 PM
Kate,
In case you are unaware through your readings or others who may read these posts, some tend to reserve some adjectives, such as liar and ignorant, for members of the Black race. Hence, my referrence to Simpson as the Black defendant was to show that, in a system requiring equality, he should have beeen given the adjectives, such as mistaken, confused, and made human error, that some reserve for members of the White race.
I do not think any jurisdiction has gotten so bold as to list the race of the defendant or plaintiff as those facts will obviously become known throughout the trial process.
I deny that I used it to mock him and only used those adjectives to show that equality demands that we consider the use of those adjectives, irrespective of one's race. I do not want to misunderstand, so I will ask. Are you suggesting that the use of those adjectives to one race and not to the other should be mocked, or that it should not be mocked?
The adjectives mistaken, confused, and human error are not reserved to people based on their race but based on their testimony when they admit they were mistaken or confused. Simpson told outright lies under oath and when he was confronted with indisputable evidence that proved he was lying he didn't say he was mistaken or confused, he continued to lie.
Just like he's sticking with his current lie that there were no guns involved in his sting operation.
bobaugust
William Anthony
11-29-2007, 05:13 PM
The adjectives mistaken, confused, and human error are not reserved to people based on their race but based on their testimony when they admit they were mistaken or confused. Simpson told outright lies under oath and when he was confronted with indisputable evidence that proved he was lying he didn't say he was mistaken or confused, he continued to lie.
Just like he's sticking with his current lie that there were no guns involved in his sting operation.
bobaugust
This does not obviate the fact that you chose to use those adjectives for members of the White race and called members of the Black race liars. Some may say that those who claimed to have been mistaken, confused and made human error were liars and some may say that they do not know but have the opinion of who may be telling lies. I am of the latter group, except for the infamous MF, because he was convicted of such.
bobaugust
11-29-2007, 07:29 PM
This does not obviate the fact that you chose to use those adjectives for members of the White race and called members of the Black race liars. Some may say that those who claimed to have been mistaken, confused and made human error were liars and some may say that they do not know but have the opinion of who may be telling lies. I am of the latter group, except for the infamous MF, because he was convicted of such.
I don't distinguish between what witnesses testified to based on their race like you do. I base my opinions on what they said and what the evidence is. It just so happens that both the defendant and his lead attorney in this case were black men. It seems to me that's the main reason why you support them so vigorously since your argument always comes back to race
bobaugust
William Anthony
11-29-2007, 08:03 PM
I don't distinguish between what witnesses testified to based on their race like you do. I base my opinions on what they said and what the evidence is. It just so happens that both the defendant and his lead attorney in this case were black men. It seems to me that's the main reason why you support them so vigorously since your argument always comes back to race
bobaugust
As you are aware, I corrected you and you admitted that the Black attorney, JC, was not a liar as you called him. The only evidence from which I can judge is the fact that you have only called members of the Black race liars, while you use the other adjectives on members of the White race. The main reason I support them or more accurately go against your name calling is that you do not demonstrate the concept of equality but make excuses for members of the White race, imho.
bobaugust
11-30-2007, 06:32 AM
As you are aware, I corrected you and you admitted that the Black attorney, JC, was not a liar as you called him. The only evidence from which I can judge is the fact that you have only called members of the Black race liars, while you use the other adjectives on members of the White race. The main reason I support them or more accurately go against your name calling is that you do not demonstrate the concept of equality but make excuses for members of the White race, imho.
Yes I did correct my accusation that Cochran lied when he said that Simpson had a falling out with Paula on the day of the murders when in fact he was simply deceiving the criminal trial jury with false information. Simpson didn't have a falling out with Paula, Paula had a falling out with Simpson. Literally Cochran didn't tell a lie he just intentionally mislead the jury.
The fact that Cochran was black doesn't change what he said. The fact that some of Simpson's other attorneys were white doesn't change the false accusations they made while trying to deceive the criminal trial jury. I've have called Skip Taft a liar after he contradicted his deposition testimony with his civil trial testimony. Skip Taft is white. I also agree that Mark Fuhrman lied when he said he never said the "n" word in the last ten years. Mark Fuhrman is white. The fact is that the biggest liar in this case happens to be the black defendant and nothing you say changes that reality. Your comment that I only call members of the black race liars is factually wrong.
bobaugust
kjb19500
12-01-2007, 03:39 PM
Yes I did correct my accusation that Cochran lied when he said that Simpson had a falling out with Paula on the day of the murders when in fact he was simply deceiving the criminal trial jury with false information. Simpson didn't have a falling out with Paula, Paula had a falling out with Simpson. Literally Cochran didn't tell a lie he just intentionally mislead the jury.
The fact that Cochran was black doesn't change what he said. The fact that some of Simpson's other attorneys were white doesn't change the false accusations they made while trying to deceive the criminal trial jury. I've have called Skip Taft a liar after he contradicted his deposition testimony with his civil trial testimony. Skip Taft is white. I also agree that Mark Fuhrman lied when he said he never said the "n" word in the last ten years. Mark Fuhrman is white. The fact is that the biggest liar in this case happens to be the black defendant and nothing you say changes that reality. Your comment that I only call members of the black race liars is factually wrong.
bobaugust
Is that the only reason why MF was convicted of perjury? I never heard why but thought it was over something bigger than that.
bobaugust
12-01-2007, 03:52 PM
Is that the only reason why MF was convicted of perjury? I never heard why but thought it was over something bigger than that.
kjb19500, Mark Fuhrman was convicted of perjury for denying that he had ever used racial slurs as a witness in the Simpson criminal trial.
bobaugust
William Anthony
12-02-2007, 12:18 PM
Yes I did correct my accusation that Cochran lied when he said that Simpson had a falling out with Paula on the day of the murders when in fact he was simply deceiving the criminal trial jury with false information. Simpson didn't have a falling out with Paula, Paula had a falling out with Simpson. Literally Cochran didn't tell a lie he just intentionally mislead the jury.
The fact that Cochran was black doesn't change what he said. The fact that some of Simpson's other attorneys were white doesn't change the false accusations they made while trying to deceive the criminal trial jury. I've have called Skip Taft a liar after he contradicted his deposition testimony with his civil trial testimony. Skip Taft is white. I also agree that Mark Fuhrman lied when he said he never said the "n" word in the last ten years. Mark Fuhrman is white. The fact is that the biggest liar in this case happens to be the black defendant and nothing you say changes that reality. Your comment that I only call members of the black race liars is factually wrong.
bobaugust
I do not recall you calling Taft a liar until I pointed out the disparity of the way you used the word in regard to the race of the person it was directed. So, now you admit that you were wrong for calling JC a liar but I do not recall you apologizing for the remark. The need for you to apologize or not to is a personal decisions made for your own personal reasons.
You say that JC mislead the jury. However, I think it would be interesting to see if he was refuting what the prosecution said, i.e. that Simpson and Paula had a falling out or that Simpson had a falling out with Paula. Perhaps, the prosecution mislead the jury in the statement they made.
William Anthony
12-02-2007, 12:25 PM
Is that the only reason why MF was convicted of perjury? I never heard why but thought it was over something bigger than that.
yes, MF did lie but some on this board have chosen to minimize the effect of the lie he told. Some have even made the statement that a witness in a criminal trial, as with the circumstances in this case, could tell an irrelevant lie. Some think that agreeeing that a witness lied is the same as calling the witness a liar. When the evidence as it was presented in this case is placed into context of the denial of MF to admit to his racial animus, I think that we can understand that his lie can be seen as evidence, not proof, of something bigger.
SaberGal
12-02-2007, 03:56 PM
yes, MF did lie but some on this board have chosen to minimize the effect of the lie he told. Some have even made the statement that a witness in a criminal trial, as with the circumstances in this case, could tell an irrelevant lie. Some think that agreeeing that a witness lied is the same as calling the witness a liar. When the evidence as it was presented in this case is placed into context of the denial of MF to admit to his racial animus, I think that we can understand that his lie can be seen as evidence, not proof, of something bigger.
MF and any LE should be held to a higher standard than even ordinary citizens. Whenever corrupt actions by LE (whether it be perjury or something worse) are exposed and excuses are made for them, it undermines the entire system. It sickens me when I see people defending the likes of MF - he was a dirty cop long before the OJ case came along. And that makes the many honest cops jobs that much harder. There are many reasons that OJ was acquitted so I don't place the "blame" squarely on MF's shoulders. But in no way should the effect of his actions be minimized as some have tried to do by saying it was irrelevant. And when some people try to make him out as another "victim" of the OJ trial....to that I say, MF was a victim of his own actions, ego and hatred.
JMHO
bobaugust
12-02-2007, 04:42 PM
I do not recall you calling Taft a liar until I pointed out the disparity of the way you used the word in regard to the race of the person it was directed. So, now you admit that you were wrong for calling JC a liar but I do not recall you apologizing for the remark. The need for you to apologize or not to is a personal decisions made for your own personal reasons.
You say that JC mislead the jury. However, I think it would be interesting to see if he was refuting what the prosecution said, i.e. that Simpson and Paula had a falling out or that Simpson had a falling out with Paula. Perhaps, the prosecution mislead the jury in the statement they made.
Whether or not you recall that I called Skip Taft a liar is your problem not mine since in previous discussions I've told you this before. There is no need for me to apologize for calling Cochran a liar since I believe he deceived the criminal jury with intentional distortions of the facts several times besides this issue. If an intentional distortion of the facts is not a lie, what is it? His golf gloves story, his knit cap demonstration, and in his opening statement regarding what Rosa Lopez would testify to are some other examples.
When Cochran told the jury that Simpson didn't have a falling out with Paula on the morning of the murders he was saying something no one claimed. The fact is that it was Paula who broke off the relationship with Simpson in the telephone message she left for him that morning, not the other way around. On the day before that, September 26, 1995 Cochran told the criminal trial jury, "This idea of rejection by Paula, there is no evidence of rejection by Paula. There is testimony that Paula was at the mirage being paid for by Michael Bolton. There is no rejection by Paula."
The prosecution didn't mislead the jury about this, Cochran did.
bobaugust
William Anthony
12-02-2007, 04:48 PM
Whether or not you recall that I called Skip Taft a liar is your problem not mine since in previous discussions I've told you this before. There is no need for me to apologize for calling Cochran a liar since I believe he deceived the criminal jury with intentional distortions of the facts several times besides this issue. If an intentional distortion of the facts is not a lie, what is it? His golf gloves story, his knit cap demonstration, and in his opening statement regarding what Rosa Lopez would testify to are some other examples.
When Cochran told the jury that Simpson didn't have a falling out with Paula on the morning of the murders he was saying something no one claimed. The fact is that it was Paula who broke off the relationship with Simpson in the telephone message she left for him that morning, not the other way around. On the day before that, September 26, 1995 Cochran told the criminal trial jury, "This idea of rejection by Paula, there is no evidence of rejection by Paula. There is testimony that Paula was at the mirage being paid for by Michael Bolton. There is no rejection by Paula."
The prosecution didn't mislead the jury about this, Cochran did.
bobaugust
Again, you misunderstand. I said you had not called a member of the White race a liar and I pointed that out to you. IIRC, you then called Taft a liar and never apologized for calling JC a liar after I pointed out he had not lied. What you believe he did is irrelevant to the fact you called him and other Blacks liars. The sentence you now attribute to JC was not the one that promoted the discussion. The fact is that you have not apolgized for calling JC a liar and I believe I no why you have not.
bobaugust
12-02-2007, 05:18 PM
Again, you misunderstand. I said you had not called a member of the White race a liar and I pointed that out to you. IIRC, you then called Taft a liar and never apologized for calling JC a liar after I pointed out he had not lied. What you believe he did is irrelevant to the fact you called him and other Blacks liars. The sentence you now attribute to JC was not the one that promoted the discussion. The fact is that you have not apolgized for calling JC a liar and I believe I no why you have not.
No you misunderstand. This isn't a new claim by you William. You've made this false claim before and I've answered you the same way before.
As I just told you, there is no need for me to apologize for calling Cochran a liar, because I believe he did lie. What do you call an attorney who intentionally deceives a jury by distorting the facts, if not a liar?
bobaugust
weezer
12-03-2007, 07:59 AM
MF and any LE should be held to a higher standard than even ordinary citizens. Whenever corrupt actions by LE (whether it be perjury or something worse) are exposed and excuses are made for them, it undermines the entire system. It sickens me when I see people defending the likes of MF - he was a dirty cop long before the OJ case came along. And that makes the many honest cops jobs that much harder. There are many reasons that OJ was acquitted so I don't place the "blame" squarely on MF's shoulders. But in no way should the effect of his actions be minimized as some have tried to do by saying it was irrelevant. And when some people try to make him out as another "victim" of the OJ trial....to that I say, MF was a victim of his own actions, ego and hatred.
JMHO
I must have missed something. Where was it ever shown/proven that Fuhrman was a 'dirty copy'? And, yes, I too believe that his 'lie' had nothing to do with the facts of the case that proved orenthal james simpson butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.
I must have missed something. Where was it ever shown/proven that Fuhrman was a 'dirty copy'? And, yes, I too believe that his 'lie' had nothing to do with the facts of the case that proved orenthal james simpson butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.I agree that Mark Fuhrman's lie has zero to do with the facts of this case. IMO, if Mark Fuhrman hadn't been so convenient for Johnnie Cochran to use to cry racism in this case he would have found another person to throw to the jury. Mark Fuhrman lied when he said he hadn't used the N word in the last ten years. He was tried and found guilty of perjury. He was punished for it and continues to be punished to this day. Those are the facts about Mark Fuhrman but nowhere have I seen proof or even a persuasive argument that he was a dirty cop. Sorry if my viewpoint sickens anyone; it certainly is not my intention.
SaberGal
12-03-2007, 02:53 PM
I must have missed something. Where was it ever shown/proven that Fuhrman was a 'dirty copy'? And, yes, I too believe that his 'lie' had nothing to do with the facts of the case that proved orenthal james simpson butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.
Here's some information about "poor" Mark Fuhrman...
http://onepeoplesproject.com/site/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=83
Let me clarify one thing - I too believe that OJ committed the murders. I don't buy the official version handed to us by the State that he committed them alone...but yes, I believe he's guilty as sin. But no matter how anyone feels about OJ's guilt or innocence, patting a lying, intolerant cop on the back is not the best way to go about making sure this doesn't happen again.
JMHO
SaberGal
12-03-2007, 02:56 PM
I agree that Mark Fuhrman's lie has zero to do with the facts of this case. IMO, if Mark Fuhrman hadn't been so convenient for Johnnie Cochran to use to cry racism in this case he would have found another person to throw to the jury. Mark Fuhrman lied when he said he hadn't used the N word in the last ten years. He was tried and found guilty of perjury. He was punished for it and continues to be punished to this day. Those are the facts about Mark Fuhrman but nowhere have I seen proof or even a persuasive argument that he was a dirty cop. Sorry if my viewpoint sickens anyone; it certainly is not my intention.
Does the name Joseph Britton ring a bell?
weezer
12-03-2007, 03:11 PM
Does the name Joseph Britton ring a bell?
you mean this loser?
". . .Fuhrman had been part of the Britton case, which Deutsch and Pavelic had worked together. A black man armed with a knife had robbed and brutally beaten people at automatic teller machines on L.A.'s West Side in 1988. Fuhrman was part of a CRASH Unit stakeout team that spotted Joseph Britton threatening someone with a knife at an ATM. Britton ran. He claimed he tossed the knife over a hedge before the cops chased him down. The CRASH team said Britton waved the knife at them. . ."
SaberGal
12-03-2007, 03:41 PM
you mean this loser?
". . .Fuhrman had been part of the Britton case, which Deutsch and Pavelic had worked together. A black man armed with a knife had robbed and brutally beaten people at automatic teller machines on L.A.'s West Side in 1988. Fuhrman was part of a CRASH Unit stakeout team that spotted Joseph Britton threatening someone with a knife at an ATM. Britton ran. He claimed he tossed the knife over a hedge before the cops chased him down. The CRASH team said Britton waved the knife at them. . ."
Is it your position that Fuhrman was justified in shooting him as he was falling and shooting him after he was down on the ground? I'm not attempting to justify Britton's criminal acts. But cops using excessive, deadly force on a suspect should never be excused or tolerated IMO. And c'mon....his knife to their guns?
JMHO
weezer
12-03-2007, 03:53 PM
Is it your position that Fuhrman was justified in shooting him as he was falling and shooting him after he was down on the ground? I'm not attempting to justify Britton's criminal acts. But cops using excessive, deadly force on a suspect should never be excused or tolerated IMO. And c'mon....his knife to their guns?
JMHO
I wonder what your opinion on Britton would be if you had been one of the victims that he had robbed and brutally beaten while wielding that knife.
SaberGal
12-03-2007, 04:02 PM
I wonder what your opinion on Britton would be if you had been one of the victims that he had robbed and brutally beaten while wielding that knife.
And I wonder what YOUR opinion would be if you were the victim of police brutality. As I stated, I am in no way defending Britton's criminal activity. But the police are supposed to arrest criminals so that they can be brought to justice in a court of law. That's the way the system is supposed to work. What the cops are NOT supposed to do is use unreasonable, excessive force in detaining a suspect and carrying out their own perverted version of "justice."
Again, I ask....is it your position that Mark Fuhrman was justified in shooting this suspect while he was falling and after he was down on the ground?
weezer
12-03-2007, 04:21 PM
And I wonder what YOUR opinion would be if you were the victim of police brutality. As I stated, I am in no way defending Britton's criminal activity. But the police are supposed to arrest criminals so that they can be brought to justice in a court of law. That's the way the system is supposed to work. What the cops are NOT supposed to do is use unreasonable, excessive force in detaining a suspect and carrying out their own perverted version of "justice."
Again, I ask....is it your position that Mark Fuhrman was justified in shooting this suspect while he was falling and after he was down on the ground?
Since Fuhrman or any of the other officers involved were never brought up on charges and thus none of the facts were proven or disproven, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. You do of course understand that Fuhrman did not act alone don't you?
You evidently have decided that Britton was telling the truth. Since Britton had every reason to lie about the incident -- I have doubts.
Have you been a 'victim' of police brutality?
SaberGal
12-03-2007, 05:00 PM
Since Fuhrman or any of the other officers involved were never brought up on charges and thus none of the facts were proven or disproven, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. You do of course understand that Fuhrman did not act alone don't you?
You evidently have decided that Britton was telling the truth. Since Britton had every reason to lie about the incident -- I have doubts.
Have you been a 'victim' of police brutality?
The city of LA settled a law suit with Britton (coincidently while the OJ criminal case was going on). The 5 bullet wounds and serious injuries sustained by Britton speak for themselves - he was very lucky to be alive . Now, if Britton had been wielding a gun and the cops and/or MF felt that their lives or someone else's was in immediate danger, go ahead and shoot him to contain the situation. But what actually happened was clearly a much different scenario.
No...thankfully I have never been the victim of police brutality. I am just an ordinary citizen who believes that LE should not be held to a different standard than the rest of us. Criminals that carry a badge are much more dangerous than the Brittons of the world. There are many good, honest cops out there and it's the MF's that make their jobs much more difficult.
JMHO
weezer
12-03-2007, 05:06 PM
The city of LA settled a law suit with Britton (coincidently while the OJ criminal case was going on). The 5 bullet wounds and serious injuries sustained by Britton speak for themselves - he was very lucky to be alive . Now, if Britton had been wielding a gun and the cops and/or MF felt that their lives or someone else's was in immediate danger, go ahead and shoot him to contain the situation. But what actually happened was clearly a much different scenario.
No...thankfully I have never been the victim of police brutality. I am just an ordinary citizen who believes that LE should not be held to a different standard than the rest of us. Criminals that carry a badge are much more dangerous than the Brittons of the world. There are many good, honest cops out there and it's the MF's that make their jobs much more difficult.
JMHO
I believe that LE should be held to a higher standard but I also believe that the majority of LE are there because they believe in the greater good. Britton was a brutal and malicious felon who did harm citizens and his credibility is zero. imo
SaberGal
12-03-2007, 05:40 PM
I believe that LE should be held to a higher standard but I also believe that I would believe that the majority of LE are there because they believe in the greater good. Britton was a brutal and malicious felon who did harm citizens and his word means even less than someone who might or might not have used the 'n' word. imo
I believe that the majority of LE are decent, honest people. But if people are willing to defend the actions taken against Britton that night, perhaps we should just do away with the judicial system and let the cops "handle" it. That idea is absurd of course, but no more absurd than making excuses or turning a blind eye to police brutality and corruption just because it was the perceived "good guys" taking on a "criminal." The attitude that "well, he was a criminal and so he must have had it coming" is a dangerous one to adopt, IMO.
Cops are no more "saintly" than you, I, or the accused just because they carry a badge. Just because someone is a cop doesn't miraculously make them less human, less susceptible to their own biases, less tempted.....It is because of the power they hold, I believe their actions and motives should be questioned and scrutinized.
I have a hard time understanding why ordinary people find it necessary to make excuses for bad cops. I don't feel that it makes me a bad citizen or less patriotic to admit that not all cops are the good guys.
It seems that we have swayed O/T and for that I apologize to everyone. The Joseph Britton case is just one example of why I have such a low opinion of Mark Fuhrman.
JMHO
I don't defend or make excuses for Mark Fuhrman. I don't know enough about the Joseph Britton case to make a judgement about it. If people want to think that he committed all the acts that he described on the tapes that's fine with me. The problem I have with the whole subject of Mark Fuhrman as he relates to this case is that his use of a racial epithet had nothing to do with the murders that OJ Simpson committed. He was used by JC and the defense team to deflect attention off of what Simpson had done and make poor OJ out to be the victim of the LAPD...and it worked!
SaberGal
12-03-2007, 06:36 PM
I don't defend or make excuses for Mark Fuhrman. I don't know enough about the Joseph Britton case to make a judgement about it. If people want to think that he committed all the acts that he described on the tapes that's fine with me. The problem I have with the whole subject of Mark Fuhrman as he relates to this case is that his use of a racial epithet had nothing to do with the murders that OJ Simpson committed. He was used by JC and the defense team to deflect attention off of what Simpson had done and make poor OJ out to be the victim of the LAPD...and it worked!
I agree with you to a certain extent - his use of the word didn't change the fact that OJ committed the murders and I do not believe OJ to be a victim at all. However, by exposing MF for who he was, I think it opened the door for reasonable doubt in the jurors minds having experienced racial injustice in their communities for decades. This is why, IMO, cops like Mark Fuhrman are so dangerous and can undermine the entire process if they are allowed a free pass.
JMHO
weezer
12-03-2007, 10:17 PM
I agree with you to a certain extent - his use of the word didn't change the fact that OJ committed the murders and I do not believe OJ to be a victim at all. However, by exposing MF for who he was, I think it opened the door for reasonable doubt in the jurors minds having experienced racial injustice in their communities for decades. This is why, IMO, cops like Mark Fuhrman are so dangerous and can undermine the entire process if they are allowed a free pass.
JMHO
then is it also true that we must keep AA's off of juries that try LE since they get a 'free pass' to go into the process biased and prejudiced against LE? Seems to me no one would win except the criminals. imo
SaberGal
12-04-2007, 12:26 AM
then is it also true that we must keep AA's off of juries that try LE since they get a 'free pass' to go into the process biased and prejudiced against LE? Seems to me no one would win except the criminals. imo
I don't believe that further discrimination is the answer, so no. The victims of racial injustice at the hands of the "law" didn't ask for it any more than Nicole Simpson or Ron Goldman asked for what was done to them. Saying that AA's should not be allowed to serve on a jury is so ludicrous it's hardly worth a response. Acknowledging that a cop is capable of criminal and/or racist act does not necessarily mean that someone is automatically biased or prejudiced against LE.
I don't believe it was just Fuhrman's use of the "N" word that helped create RD in the jury's mind - in fact, I think his lying about using the word did more damage to the case in the mind of the jury than if he had just told the truth.
JMHO
martin II
12-04-2007, 06:04 AM
you mean this loser?
". . .Fuhrman had been part of the Britton case, which Deutsch and Pavelic had worked together. A black man armed with a knife had robbed and brutally beaten people at automatic teller machines on L.A.'s West Side in 1988. Fuhrman was part of a CRASH Unit stakeout team that spotted Joseph Britton threatening someone with a knife at an ATM. Britton ran. He claimed he tossed the knife over a hedge before the cops chased him down. The CRASH team said Britton waved the knife at them. . ."
This is the case that the city of la setteled for $100,000 just before the oj case was starting. right.
martin II
martin II
12-04-2007, 06:24 AM
then is it also true that we must keep AA's off of juries that try LE since they get a 'free pass' to go into the process biased and prejudiced against LE? Seems to me no one would win except the criminals. imo
I guess you do believe that AA should not be on juries when there is a lying cop at the center of the trial. Exactly how would that work.
Are you suggesting that it would be acceptable for white juries to consider bad behavior by le and not AA.
Chris Darden gave his opinion of furhman and held him responsible for his actions in the case when he stated that furhman was worse than oj.something close to that.
Are you suggesting that when a cop is caught lying on the stand about anything that the AA jury would be wrong to consider that fact.
Based on their actions in this case le deserved to be attacked.imo
martin II
martin II
12-04-2007, 07:04 AM
then is it also true that we must keep AA's off of juries that try LE since they get a 'free pass' to go into the process biased and prejudiced against LE? Seems to me no one would win except the criminals. imo
All juries enter a trial with their experiences as it relates to le.Some with little
le experiences may adopt the attitude that le is always right and are able to ignore bad behavior by le even when it is obvious. Those that have had or seen bad behavior in their communities may evaluate closely these accusations against bad cops as they should.
I am thinking of the Bell case where undercover cops pumped 50 shots into a car of three black men from a distance, killing one and claimed they thought one was reacing for a gun. One cop emptied his gun, reloaded and continued to shoot. No gun was found on anyone in or around the car.
Do you think the cops actions should not be attacked.
martin II
martin II
12-04-2007, 07:38 AM
I don't believe that further discrimination is the answer, so no. The victims of racial injustice at the hands of the "law" didn't ask for it any more than Nicole Simpson or Ron Goldman asked for what was done to them. Saying that AA's should not be allowed to serve on a jury is so ludicrous it's hardly worth a response. Acknowledging that a cop is capable of criminal and/or racist act does not necessarily mean that someone is automatically biased or prejudiced against LE.
I don't believe it was just Fuhrman's use of the "N" word that helped create RD in the jury's mind - in fact, I think his lying about using the word did more damage to the case in the mind of the jury than if he had just told the truth.
JMHO
The jury had a legal reason to reject all of Furhmans testimony based on the lie Bailey caught him in.
martin II
martin II
12-04-2007, 08:39 AM
I don't defend or make excuses for Mark Fuhrman. I don't know enough about the Joseph Britton case to make a judgement about it. If people want to think that he committed all the acts that he described on the tapes that's fine with me. The problem I have with the whole subject of Mark Fuhrman as he relates to this case is that his use of a racial epithet had nothing to do with the murders that OJ Simpson committed. He was used by JC and the defense team to deflect attention off of what Simpson had done and make poor OJ out to be the victim of the LAPD...and it worked!
The tapes was not the only time furhman had used the n word in front of people and talked that racist crap. He was accused of doing so at the marine recruting office and at that ladies apartment he was dating and visitring while on duty. When she saw him comming to her house for another visit she yelled out the window and told him not to come to her apartment.
So the tapes was not the only time.
JC had nothing to do with furhman talking like this before the trial.
martin ii
martin II
12-04-2007, 09:03 AM
Does anyone know if Furhman has lost his radio job recently?
martin II
weezer
12-04-2007, 09:45 AM
*Snipped* JC had nothing to do with furhman talking like this before the trial.martin ii
and fuhrman using the 'n' word had nothing to do with orenthal james simpson butchering Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.
socaldiva
12-04-2007, 11:38 AM
Does anyone know if Furhman has lost his radio job recently?
martin II
KGA radio is being purchased & Furhman's show wasn't bought as part of the package. You can still catch him on Greta's show though :D
SaberGal
12-04-2007, 02:39 PM
The tapes was not the only time furhman had used the n word in front of people and talked that racist crap. He was accused of doing so at the marine recruting office and at that ladies apartment he was dating and visitring while on duty. When she saw him comming to her house for another visit she yelled out the window and told him not to come to her apartment.
So the tapes was not the only time.
JC had nothing to do with furhman talking like this before the trial.
martin ii
That's exactly right - it blows my mind when people get angry at JC and the defense team for exposing Mark Fuhrman! The person that should be the recipient of their anger is Fuhrman - he's the one with the uh...."race issues" and responsible for his own actions.
ETA - JMHO
martin II
12-04-2007, 04:37 PM
*Snipped*
and fuhrman using the 'n' word had nothing to do with orenthal james simpson butchering Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.
Furhman had a habit of using that word and other bad language directed at blacks and mixed couples long before he said the same things on those tapes.
It is your option to support him knowing his history on this issue but you cannot errase his history or twist his words in a effort to make it appear that he meant something else. His words speak for themselves.
martin II
That's exactly right - it blows my mind when people get angry at JC and the defense team for exposing Mark Fuhrman! The person that should be the recipient of their anger is Fuhrman - he's the one with the uh...."race issues" and responsible for his own actions.
ETA - JMHOBy using the issue of Mark Fuhrman use of racial epithets Johnnie Cochran succeeded in creating a trial within a trial and making Mark Fuhrman out to the bad guy. OJ Simpson was on trial for killing Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. Mark Furhman was not on trial for using racially derogatory language. If JC hadn't had such a convenient person in Mark Fuhrman he would have found someone else to use. I'm not mad at JC for "exposing" Mark Fuhrman. I'm disgusted with the jury for buying his BS and allowing a double-murderer to walk among us.
SaberGal
12-04-2007, 07:26 PM
By using the issue of Mark Fuhrman use of racial epithets Johnnie Cochran succeeded in creating a trial within a trial and making Mark Fuhrman out to the bad guy. OJ Simpson was on trial for killing Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. Mark Furhman was not on trial for using racially derogatory language. If JC hadn't had such a convenient person in Mark Fuhrman he would have found someone else to use. I'm not mad at JC for "exposing" Mark Fuhrman. I'm disgusted with the jury for buying his BS and allowing a double-murderer to walk among us.
Just curious...what is your opinion of Mark Fuhrman?
martin II
12-05-2007, 08:34 AM
By using the issue of Mark Fuhrman use of racial epithets Johnnie Cochran succeeded in creating a trial within a trial and making Mark Fuhrman out to the bad guy. OJ Simpson was on trial for killing Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. Mark Furhman was not on trial for using racially derogatory language. If JC hadn't had such a convenient person in Mark Fuhrman he would have found someone else to use. I'm not mad at JC for "exposing" Mark Fuhrman. I'm disgusted with the jury for buying his BS and allowing a double-murderer to walk among us.
Chris Darden was angry with Furhman for concealing his history of using that word not only on the tapes but on other occassons as other witnesses testified to.He felt that Furhman had many opportunities to tell the prosecution about his history and that his refusal to do so had damaged their case.
It does not matter that Furhman was not on trial because he was a police officer sworn to tell the truth on the stand just like all the other officers and he took his seat and told a lie about the times he knew he had used that word and the world saw him do so.
Are you suggesting that the defense should have just ignored his performance on the stand because he was not specifically on trial. His frequent use of that word showed his biase against blacks and mixed couples
and this,for some, would have created a motive for wrong doing in that case.
Furhman made himself a central figure in the case and even said something to the effect that if he goes down the case goes down. He deserved to be
examined closely and his biase needed to be exposed for all to see. imo
martin II
Just curious...what is your opinion of Mark Fuhrman?My opinion of Mark Fuhrman is that he was a detective called to the crime scene who found incriminating evidence against OJ Simpson.
Chris Darden was angry with Furhman for concealing his history of using that word not only on the tapes but on other occassons as other witnesses testified to.He felt that Furhman had many opportunities to tell the prosecution about his history and that his refusal to do so had damaged their case.
It does not matter that Furhman was not on trial because he was a police officer sworn to tell the truth on the stand just like all the other officers and he took his seat and told a lie about the times he knew he had used that word and the world saw him do so.
Are you suggesting that the defense should have just ignored his performance on the stand because he was not specifically on trial. His frequent use of that word showed his biase against blacks and mixed couples
and this,for some, would have created a motive for wrong doing in that case.
Furhman made himself a central figure in the case and even said something to the effect that if he goes down the case goes down. He deserved to be
examined closely and his biase needed to be exposed for all to see. imo
martin II martin, I don't discuss race with you.
martin II
12-05-2007, 10:25 AM
By using the issue of Mark Fuhrman use of racial epithets Johnnie Cochran succeeded in creating a trial within a trial and making Mark Fuhrman out to the bad guy. OJ Simpson was on trial for killing Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. Mark Furhman was not on trial for using racially derogatory language. If JC hadn't had such a convenient person in Mark Fuhrman he would have found someone else to use. I'm not mad at JC for "exposing" Mark Fuhrman. I'm disgusted with the jury for buying his BS and allowing a double-murderer to walk among us.
Was the jury at fault when Furhmans history became known in the trial.Was the jury at fault when Furhman lied on the stand and then took the fifth?Was
the jury at fault when he did not return to testify. Was the jury suppose to ignore furhmans history and what happened to him in the trial? Was the jury suppose to just accept that he just lied on the stand on that issue and just believe all the rest of his testimony as if it was no big deal.
The Furhman issue was not why Simpson was found not guilty.The jury said that was not the central issue that caused them to vote not guilty. It was
a combination of many other issues that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was guilty. It was the reasonable doubt created by the defense cross examination of other witnesses and the attack on some of the prosecutions evidence that caused the prosecution the problems they had in proving their case beyone a reasonable doubt.
imo
martin II
martin II
12-05-2007, 10:33 AM
martin, I don't discuss race with you.
My post was intended to respond about the Furhman and what was contained in your post. Not specifically about race. But you have the option of not responding if that is your wish and it does not effect what i post at all.
martin II
socaldiva
12-05-2007, 11:12 AM
*snip*
Was the jury at fault when Furhman lied on the stand and then took the fifth?
Yes, they were at fault if they thought MF using a particular word meant something relative to the Simpson murder case. ;)
SaberGal
12-05-2007, 01:51 PM
My opinion of Mark Fuhrman is that he was a detective called to the crime scene who found incriminating evidence against OJ Simpson.
Interesting. Do you think he had any credibility issues at all? Or is he just a completely misunderstood individual?
Kate Sachel
12-05-2007, 02:01 PM
Interesting. Do you think he had any credibility issues at all? Or is he just a completely misunderstood individual?
While not directed to me, I'd like to add a response.
I don't believe that Mark Fuhrman is a completely misunderstood individual, but I do take issue with the idea of trying to create a scandal in present time based on a racial slur used so long ago.
I believe that it was Al Sharpton who openly admitted that he and several fellow members of the African American race have used the same slur in a derogatory manner and that he recognized that it needed to cease.
It has always struck me as odd that there are people who claim that just because OJ Simpson beat Nicole in 1989 does not mean that he murdered her in 1994 but then turn around and say that because Mark Fuhrman used a racial slur some years years prior must equate into him wanting to frame an African American for murder in 1994. Neither of those arguments are true.
Kate
Kate Sachel
12-05-2007, 02:05 PM
Was the jury at fault when Furhmans history became known in the trial.Was the jury at fault when Furhman lied on the stand and then took the fifth?Was
the jury at fault when he did not return to testify. Was the jury suppose to ignore furhmans history and what happened to him in the trial? Was the jury suppose to just accept that he just lied on the stand on that issue and just believe all the rest of his testimony as if it was no big deal.
imo
martin II
Not at all, which is in part why I agree with the criminal verdict.
The same thing occurred with a different player in the civil trial. You denounce that verdict, but was the jury at fault when OJ's history became known? Were they at fault when Simpson took the stand and was impeached time and again? Were they supposed to accept that he lied on the stand and just believe the rest of his testimony as if it was no big deal?
I think not, but that's the trouble with you as I see it. You don't condone a level playing field. In your eyes, the tables turn as soon it's OJ's credibility that's called into question.
Kate
SaberGal
12-05-2007, 03:46 PM
While not directed to me, I'd like to add a response.
I don't believe that Mark Fuhrman is a completely misunderstood individual, but I do take issue with the idea of trying to create a scandal in present time based on a racial slur used so long ago.
I believe that it was Al Sharpton who openly admitted that he and several fellow members of the African American race have used the same slur in a derogatory manner and that he recognized that it needed to cease.
It has always struck me as odd that there are people who claim that just because OJ Simpson beat Nicole in 1989 does not mean that he murdered her in 1994 but then turn around and say that because Mark Fuhrman used a racial slur some years years prior must equate into him wanting to frame an African American for murder in 1994. Neither of those arguments are true.
Kate
Hi Kate! I'm glad you responded....I do believe that OJ Simpson committed the Bundy murders. When the verdict was handed down, I had just turned 17 and was completely outraged at the time. I couldn't figure out for the life of me how the jury had arrived at their verdict. I was raised in a home where the very idea of a "dirty cop" was foreign - intellectually, I could admit it happened but emotionally, I believed the "spin." I never cared much for Mark Fuhrman but thought that his use of the "N" word was nothing more than bad judgment on his part. It's only been in the last few years that I have come to learn how wrong that assumption was. I believe that Fuhrman used the word out of hatred and that there were times he acted on that hatred while wearing a badge. However, I don't support the theory that OJ was completely framed for the murders by Mark Fuhrman or any one else. That said, I do believe that the questions raised about some of the evidence were valid questions. That coupled with Fuhrman's "credibility" issues.....I now have a very different outlook on the jury's verdict. It doesn't make OJ innocent....but I understand.
JMHO
Kate Sachel
12-05-2007, 04:03 PM
Hi Kate! I'm glad you responded....I do believe that OJ Simpson committed the Bundy murders. When the verdict was handed down, I had just turned 17 and was completely outraged at the time. I couldn't figure out for the life of me how the jury had arrived at their verdict. I was raised in a home where the very idea of a "dirty cop" was foreign - intellectually, I could admit it happened but emotionally, I believed the "spin." I never cared much for Mark Fuhrman but thought that his use of the "N" word was nothing more than bad judgment on his part. It's only been in the last few years that I have come to learn how wrong that assumption was. I believe that Fuhrman used the word out of hatred and that there were times he acted on that hatred while wearing a badge. However, I don't support the theory that OJ was completely framed for the murders by Mark Fuhrman or any one else. That said, I do believe that the questions raised about some of the evidence were valid questions. That coupled with Fuhrman's "credibility" issues.....I now have a very different outlook on the jury's verdict. It doesn't make OJ innocent....but I understand.
JMHO
I think it's fabulous that you're open minded in your philosophy, these are things necessary for us to question when we attempt to find grounds for our beliefs. I think it's a terrible injustice not to question that which is reasonably questionable.
I fully understand that dirty cops exist, and to an extent I believe that Fuhrman used his power to his advantage but I don't know that I agree that he used a slur out of hate in the most general sense.
To be honest, it surprised me how many African American members of the Los Angeles community stepped forward to comment on how respectfully they were treated by Fuhrman in their dealings with him because I assumed there would be a mass of individuals who would come out of the wood work to say the opposite.
I do agree with the criminal trial verdict, and I also believe in OJ's guilt.
Kate
My post was intended to respond about the Furhman and what was contained in your post. Not specifically about race. But you have the option of not responding if that is your wish and it does not effect what i post at all.
martin III'm glad we understand each other. We should be able to co-exist peacefully on this forum. :)
Interesting. Do you think he had any credibility issues at all? Or is he just a completely misunderstood individual?I don't think I can answer this any better than Kate already has. I can't think of anything to add to her response. :)
SaberGal
12-05-2007, 05:43 PM
I don't think I can answer this any better than Kate already has. I can't think of anything to add to her response. :)
Fair enough - :) Thanks - I think Kate's response was very well put also.
SaberGal
12-05-2007, 06:57 PM
I think it's fabulous that you're open minded in your philosophy, these are things necessary for us to question when we attempt to find grounds for our beliefs. I think it's a terrible injustice not to question that which is reasonably questionable.
I fully understand that dirty cops exist, and to an extent I believe that Fuhrman used his power to his advantage but I don't know that I agree that he used a slur out of hate in the most general sense.
To be honest, it surprised me how many African American members of the Los Angeles community stepped forward to comment on how respectfully they were treated by Fuhrman in their dealings with him because I assumed there would be a mass of individuals who would come out of the wood work to say the opposite.
I do agree with the criminal trial verdict, and I also believe in OJ's guilt.
Kate
I agree completely that it is best to keep an open mind about these things. I've learned that the truth usually falls somewhere in the middle of two "sides."
I must admit that it doesn't surprise me that there are AA's who had interactions with Fuhrman who were not treated badly by him. I believe Fuhrman has issues with AA's but he's not stupid. I don't think he treated every black person badly. Just the one's he thought he could get away with. I realize that my opinion of him is in the minority and that's OK. I believe and hope that the truth will come out one day about him and his "stellar" career.
I do respect your viewpoint, Kate, and appreciate your civil responses. :)
martin II
12-05-2007, 07:17 PM
I'm glad we understand each other. We should be able to co-exist peacefully on this forum. :)
Nothing in my post has changed.It was you that informed me as to what you will and will not do even though i never gave you any indication that it mattered to me.
I am not concerned with your issues. I post me opinions.
martin II
martin II
12-05-2007, 07:18 PM
I don't think I can answer this any better than Kate already has. I can't think of anything to add to her response. :)
ha ha ha ha
martin II
William Anthony
12-05-2007, 07:35 PM
MF and any LE should be held to a higher standard than even ordinary citizens. Whenever corrupt actions by LE (whether it be perjury or something worse) are exposed and excuses are made for them, it undermines the entire system. It sickens me when I see people defending the likes of MF - he was a dirty cop long before the OJ case came along. And that makes the many honest cops jobs that much harder. There are many reasons that OJ was acquitted so I don't place the "blame" squarely on MF's shoulders. But in no way should the effect of his actions be minimized as some have tried to do by saying it was irrelevant. And when some people try to make him out as another "victim" of the OJ trial....to that I say, MF was a victim of his own actions, ego and hatred.
JMHO
Very well articulated, imho.
William Anthony
12-05-2007, 07:38 PM
No you misunderstand. This isn't a new claim by you William. You've made this false claim before and I've answered you the same way before.
As I just told you, there is no need for me to apologize for calling Cochran a liar, because I believe he did lie. What do you call an attorney who intentionally deceives a jury by distorting the facts, if not a liar?
bobaugust
What reasoning causes you to admit he did not lie and still call him a liar? Because you may not be able to understand what he said and you think he deceived you, does not make him a liar, imho.
William Anthony
12-05-2007, 07:42 PM
I agree that Mark Fuhrman's lie has zero to do with the facts of this case. IMO, if Mark Fuhrman hadn't been so convenient for Johnnie Cochran to use to cry racism in this case he would have found another person to throw to the jury. Mark Fuhrman lied when he said he hadn't used the N word in the last ten years. He was tried and found guilty of perjury. He was punished for it and continues to be punished to this day. Those are the facts about Mark Fuhrman but nowhere have I seen proof or even a persuasive argument that he was a dirty cop. Sorry if my viewpoint sickens anyone; it certainly is not my intention.
I must disagree as a witness' credibility is always an issue and the fact that he was proven a liar shows that some may not believe any of his testimony.
William Anthony
12-05-2007, 07:44 PM
I believe that LE should be held to a higher standard but I also believe that the majority of LE are there because they believe in the greater good. Britton was a brutal and malicious felon who did harm citizens and his credibility is zero. imo
As is MF's, imho.
William Anthony
12-05-2007, 07:48 PM
My opinion of Mark Fuhrman is that he was a detective called to the crime scene who found incriminating evidence against OJ Simpson.
Or planted.
William Anthony
12-05-2007, 07:51 PM
I think it's fabulous that you're open minded in your philosophy, these are things necessary for us to question when we attempt to find grounds for our beliefs. I think it's a terrible injustice not to question that which is reasonably questionable.
I fully understand that dirty cops exist, and to an extent I believe that Fuhrman used his power to his advantage but I don't know that I agree that he used a slur out of hate in the most general sense.
To be honest, it surprised me how many African American members of the Los Angeles community stepped forward to comment on how respectfully they were treated by Fuhrman in their dealings with him because I assumed there would be a mass of individuals who would come out of the wood work to say the opposite.
I do agree with the criminal trial verdict, and I also believe in OJ's guilt.
Kate
Kate,
I do not know why you would be surprised, since there have always been those who were treated better by the master than others. Does this mean that a person who says an entire race should be burned is not a racist? I must ask you to explain how a person can use a racial slur and not show hatred in the most general sense.
martin II
12-05-2007, 07:59 PM
What reasoning causes you to admit he did not lie and still call him a liar? Because you may not be able to understand what he said and you think he deceived you, does not make him a liar, imho.
There are some that still do not understand what the defense did to the prosecutions case. Or maby i should say what the prosecution did to their own case.
martin II
socaldiva
12-05-2007, 08:04 PM
There are some that still do not understand what the defense did to the prosecutions case. Or maby i should say what the prosecution did to their own case.
martin II
More importantly, there are some that still do not understand that OJ Simpson is a double murderer.
bobaugust
12-05-2007, 08:15 PM
What reasoning causes you to admit he did not lie and still call him a liar? Because you may not be able to understand what he said and you think he deceived you, does not make him a liar, imho.
I repeat, "As I just told you, there is no need for me to apologize for calling Cochran a liar, because I believe he did lie. What do you call an attorney who intentionally deceives a jury by distorting the facts, if not a liar?"
bobaugust
martin II
12-05-2007, 08:35 PM
Kate,
I do not know why you would be surprised, since there have always been those who were treated better by the master than others. Does this mean that a person who says an entire race should be burned is not a racist? I must ask you to explain how a person can use a racial slur and not show hatred in the most general sense.
When furhman used those slurs in that marine recurting station and at that womans apartment, both white women, they believed he was being specific and they became freightened from his comments about blacks and mixed couples and told him not to come around anymore.
But some continue to make excuses for this guy.
martin II
socaldiva
12-05-2007, 08:51 PM
When furhman used those slurs in that marine recurting station and at that womans apartment, both white women, they believed he was being specific and they became freightened from his comments about blacks and mixed couples and told him not to come around anymore.
But some continue to make excuses for this guy.
martin II
Funny how you believe the two women that you mention, yet want to ignore greater numbers of people that said that Fuhrman treated them well. Many of them criminals & AA IIRC. Fuhrman's behavior speaks for itself, as does Simpson's ;)
Bottom line is that regardless of what those two women said Fuhrman said, it had NO BEARING on the Simpson murder case. NONE. imo
SaberGal
12-05-2007, 09:33 PM
Fuhrman's behavior speaks for itself, as does Simpson's ;)
Yes, for anyone "listening" objectively, their behavior speaks volumes. It's hard to judge which of these individuals is worse, IMO.
socaldiva
12-05-2007, 10:03 PM
Yes, for anyone "listening" objectively, their behavior speaks volumes. It's hard to judge which of these individuals is worse, IMO.
Oh, it's not hard for me to see which individual is worse. Simpson wins that one hands down. I've never heard that Fuhrman beat a woman, murderered two people, robbed anyone, stole cable, had his daughter call 911 crying due to verbal abuse or had to go to court due to a road rage incident, or threaten to kill his handyman. Fuhrman has a respectable job & is the reason that Martha Moxley's murderer was finally held accountable.
SaberGal
12-05-2007, 10:15 PM
Oh, it's not hard for me to see which individual is worse. Simpson wins that one hands down. I've never heard that Fuhrman beat a woman, murderered two people, robbed anyone, stole cable, had his daughter call 911 crying due to verbal abuse or had to go to court due to a road rage incident, or threaten to kill his handyman. Fuhrman has a respectable job & is the reason that Martha Moxley's murderer was finally held accountable.
You sound like me a few years ago! Fuhrman's badge afforded him protection from being held accountable for his actions that the average criminal does not have. As with Joseph Britton, I'm do not/have never condoned Simpson's (or anyones) criminal activity. But I must admit that a racist criminal with a badge ranks right up there with murderers and wife beaters in my book.
JMHO
Nothing in my post has changed.It was you that informed me as to what you will and will not do even though i never gave you any indication that it mattered to me.
I am not concerned with your issues. I post me opinions.
martin IImartin, I don't know why you're keeping this going. I don't expect you to change your opinions or the way you post to accomodate me. I was only letting you know that I will no longer have any discussion with you that even touches on race. Keep on commenting so you can have the last word because it doesn't make any difference to me. :shrug:
More importantly, there are some that still do not understand that OJ Simpson is a double murderer.I think they understand it but they just don't want to admit it. ;)
I must disagree as a witness' credibility is always an issue and the fact that he was proven a liar shows that some may not believe any of his testimony.Hello, William. That is fine if you apply the same criteria to all witnesses. I think they are more than Mark Fuhrman with credibility issues.
socaldiva
12-06-2007, 01:57 AM
You sound like me a few years ago! Fuhrman's badge afforded him protection from being held accountable for his actions that the average criminal does not have. As with Joseph Britton, I'm do not/have never condoned Simpson's (or anyones) criminal activity. But I must admit that a racist criminal with a badge ranks right up there with murderers and wife beaters in my book.
JMHO
Not true that a badge affords police officers from being held accountable. Have you ever heard of Internal Affairs?
You consider MF a "racist CRIMINAL with a badge? Based on what? You think his actions equal that of a double murderer & wife beater? That just boggles my mind.
SaberGal
12-06-2007, 02:24 AM
Not true that a badge affords police officers from being held accountable. Have you ever heard of Internal Affairs?
You consider MF a "racist CRIMINAL with a badge? Based on what? You think his actions equal that of a double murderer & wife beater? That just boggles my mind.
Yes, I have heard of IA. Have you heard of the "code of silence" - many cases of misconduct, corruption, brutality etc never make it to IA because of it. Do you honestly think that we would know Rodney King's name if his brutal beating hadn't been caught on videotape? And even then, those officers were acquitted and not held accountable. So, yes, I do believe that a badge does afford dirty cops protection from accountability.
Yes, I believe MF was a racist criminal with a badge based on his own admissions in those tapes which detailed racist, criminal activity. The link below details some more information about just what a great guy Fuhrman was/is.
http://onepeoplesproject.com/site/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=83
SaberGal
12-06-2007, 02:32 AM
I must disagree as a witness' credibility is always an issue and the fact that he was proven a liar shows that some may not believe any of his testimony.
Keeping in mind that any defendant has a right to impeach a witness who is biased and found most of the incriminating evidence that was never documented in any police reports.
To prove that Fuhrman was planting evidence, the defense had to start with his racial animus and prior bad acts. You will recall that the woman who accused him of being a racist was Kathleen Bell. Mr. Fuhrman claimed that he never spoke to her and his PI (Anthony Pellicano) was on TV intimidating her by inferring she was a prostitute and that he was going to blow her out of the water. Everything Fuhrman did was based on lies and misrepresentation and that is why he took the 5th. Fuhrman claimed that he physically picked up the Bundy glove to examine it and there isn't a single police officer who testified that he or she observed this examination. As Pavelic stated, I believe that glove was planted just like the knife in the shooting of Joseph Britton - in the interest of "helping" their case.
JMHO
Keeping in mind that any defendant has a right to impeach a witness who is biased and found most of the incriminating evidence that was never documented in any police reports.
To prove that Fuhrman was planting evidence, the defense had to start with his racial animus and prior bad acts. You will recall that the woman who accused him of being a racist was Kathleen Bell. Mr. Fuhrman claimed that he never spoke to her and his PI (Anthony Pellicano) was on TV intimidating her by inferring she was a prostitute and that he was going to blow her out of the water. Everything Fuhrman did was based on lies and misrepresentation and that is why he took the 5th. Fuhrman claimed that he physically picked up the Bundy glove to examine it and there isn't a single police officer who testified that he or she observed this examination. As Pavelic stated, I believe that glove was planted just like the knife in the shooting of Joseph Britton - in the interest of "helping" their case.
JMHOIt was never proven by the defense that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence. If you believe that he planted the glove (I'm assuming you mean the Rockingham glove) then what is your explanation for the forensic evidence found on it? Do you also believe Mark Fuhrman planted the blood in the Bronco?
SaberGal
12-06-2007, 04:54 AM
It was never proven by the defense that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence. If you believe that he planted the glove (I'm assuming you mean the Rockingham glove) then what is your explanation for the forensic evidence found on it? Do you also believe Mark Fuhrman planted the blood in the Bronco?
I believe that the glove was used during the commission of the murders but I believe the glove was moved to Rockingham much like the knife in the Britton case was moved to justify the shooting. As for the blood in the Bronco....I'm would say no at this point but keeping an open mind.
I believe that the glove was used during the commission of the murders but I believe the glove was moved to Rockingham much like the knife in the Britton case was moved to justify the shooting. As for the blood in the Bronco....I'm would say no at this point but keeping an open mind.Just curious...what do you think the noises were that Kato heard behind his room?
martin II
12-06-2007, 08:45 AM
Yes, I have heard of IA. Have you heard of the "code of silence" - many cases of misconduct, corruption, brutality etc never make it to IA because of it. Do you honestly think that we would know Rodney King's name if his brutal beating hadn't been caught on videotape? And even then, those officers were acquitted and not held accountable. So, yes, I do believe that a badge does afford dirty cops protection from accountability.
Yes, I believe MF was a racist criminal with a badge based on his own admissions in those tapes which detailed racist, criminal activity. The link below details some more information about just what a great guy Fuhrman was/is.
http://onepeoplesproject.com/site/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=83
Thanks for identifying C Bell by name.
I think that there may have been a few cops at lapd that played basketball with furhman but there was never any large amount of blacks that suppoprted furhman in any way. The black community knew who this racist was as they had history of him in their community. It is informative that many said that his 'TAPES' mirrowed what they knew of his actions in their community.
To only talk about him using the n word on the tapes is to try to cover up his
real history with minorities/mixed couples. Furhman did select the correct city to move to after his stint in la and i am sure he feels right at home
It woud not be that difficult for a seasoned bad cop such as furhman to move that glove to rockingham without leaving a trace of evidence of this deed or smears of blood in the bronco. The others world never come forward to break the BLUE WALL.Especially guys like Vanhatter and lang.Or Roberts and phillips.
martin II
Kate Sachel
12-06-2007, 08:54 AM
Kate,
I do not know why you would be surprised, since there have always been those who were treated better by the master than others. Does this mean that a person who says an entire race should be burned is not a racist? I must ask you to explain how a person can use a racial slur and not show hatred in the most general sense.
Why don't you direct this question to the black Al Sharpton? He did, after all, admit that he has used the same terminology in a negative way and that he was ashamed of such. By your standard then, the black Al Sharpton must hate his own race.
Kate
Kate Sachel
12-06-2007, 09:03 AM
Yes, I have heard of IA. Have you heard of the "code of silence" - many cases of misconduct, corruption, brutality etc never make it to IA because of it. Do you honestly think that we would know Rodney King's name if his brutal beating hadn't been caught on videotape? And even then, those officers were acquitted and not held accountable. So, yes, I do believe that a badge does afford dirty cops protection from accountability.
Yes, I believe MF was a racist criminal with a badge based on his own admissions in those tapes which detailed racist, criminal activity. The link below details some more information about just what a great guy Fuhrman was/is.
http://onepeoplesproject.com/site/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=83
It's along the lines of the brand new Peterson case, in which I fully believe that Drew Peterson was protected by his own and now one of his wives is dead and the other presumed such.
While Fuhrman's badge afforded him protection in many ways, OJ's wealth and celebrity afforded him the same and he learned that he never had to be held accountable for any of his actions. I am still in disbelief that, when faced with photos of a beaten Nicole, he would deny that he even slapped her that night.
Fuhrman being a racist, rogue detective has the right to be questioned and investigated all on it's own, and should be investigated upon a mere hint of inappropriate conduct on the job but unless someone can provide me with something that shows proof behind a reasonable doubt, or even just a preponderance of the evidence, that Fuhrman tampered with the OJ Simpson investigation in an effort to set him up for murder charges I won't allow myself to use him as a scapegoat on this one, regardless of my personal feelings about his character.
Kate
Kate Sachel
12-06-2007, 09:05 AM
I agree completely that it is best to keep an open mind about these things. I've learned that the truth usually falls somewhere in the middle of two "sides."
I must admit that it doesn't surprise me that there are AA's who had interactions with Fuhrman who were not treated badly by him. I believe Fuhrman has issues with AA's but he's not stupid. I don't think he treated every black person badly. Just the one's he thought he could get away with. I realize that my opinion of him is in the minority and that's OK. I believe and hope that the truth will come out one day about him and his "stellar" career.
I do respect your viewpoint, Kate, and appreciate your civil responses. :)
I respect yours as well, you are quite articulate, intelligent and kind.
Kate
martin II
12-06-2007, 09:05 AM
It was never proven by the defense that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence. If you believe that he planted the glove (I'm assuming you mean the Rockingham glove) then what is your explanation for the forensic evidence found on it? Do you also believe Mark Fuhrman planted the blood in the Bronco?
All of the evidence was eventually deposited into the lapd lab, even the blood that vanhatter carried on his person for a while, where it was determined by the lab , what blood was on which piece of evidence.
martin II
martin II
12-06-2007, 09:16 AM
william
A good way to try to deflect the attention from furhmans actions is to name others that have used that n word. It is like since some blacks have used the word, then it is not that bad since furhman did the same.
Al Sharpton was never involved in the simpson case and has never been a cop
charged to protect and serve behind a lapd badge.
There seems to be no limit as to what some try to use to protect Furhman and his actions.
martin II
All of the evidence was eventually deposited into the lapd lab, even the blood that vanhatter carried on his person for a while, where it was determined by the lab , what blood was on which piece of evidence.
martin IImartin, the idea of planting and/or tampering with evidence was offered by the defense but it was never proven.
william
A good way to try to deflect the attention from furhmans actions is to name others that have used that n word. It is like since some blacks have used the word, then it is not that bad since furhman did the same.
Al Sharpton was never involved in the simpson case and has never been a cop
charged to protect and serve behind a lapd badge.
There seems to be no limit as to what some try to use to protect Furhman and his actions.
martin IIAl Sharpton has never been a cop but he is a man of God and even he has said things that were ill-advised and that he regrets. I happen to like Rev. Sharpton so this isn't a critcism of him. I'm only pointing out that we're all flawed individuals no matter what our position in life.
martin II
12-06-2007, 09:53 AM
Al Sharpton has never been a cop but he is a man of God and even he has said things that were ill-advised and that he regrets. I happen to like Rev. Sharpton so this isn't a critcism of him. I'm only pointing out that we're all flawed individuals no matter what our position in life.
If you would like to drop the evaluation of Furhman and the criminal trial and switch it to Sharpton, or compare him to Furhman start a new thread.
To suggest that sharpton admits to using the word to FURHMAN using the words it utter nonsense.
martin II
Kate Sachel
12-06-2007, 09:56 AM
william
A good way to try to deflect the attention from furhmans actions is to name others that have used that n word. It is like since some blacks have used the word, then it is not that bad since furhman did the same.
Al Sharpton was never involved in the simpson case and has never been a cop
charged to protect and serve behind a lapd badge.
There seems to be no limit as to what some try to use to protect Furhman and his actions.
martin II
It does give me a good laugh that you're not quite man enough to respond directly to me, but that's okay.
I laugh harder at how clear it is that you really don't like a level playing field.
Kate
Kate Sachel
12-06-2007, 09:58 AM
If you would like to drop the evaluation of Furhman and the criminal trial and switch it to Sharpton, or compare him to Furhman start a new thread.
To suggest that sharpton admits to using the word to FURHMAN using the words it utter nonsense.
martin II
How long do you plan on living in denial? Both used the word in a negative manner, the only difference being that at least Sharpton admitted such and was ashamed of such. Regardless, the word/slur is what it is and you cannot condemn Fuhrman for using such and condone Shaprton's use.
That is what is real utter nonsense.
Kate
If you would like to drop the evaluation of Furhman and the criminal trial and switch it to Sharpton, or compare him to Furhman start a new thread.
To suggest that sharpton admits to using the word to FURHMAN using the words it utter nonsense.
martin IImartin, I'm sorry you didn't take my post in the way in which it was intended. You might try dropping the bitter attitude; it doesn't serve you well.
martin II
12-06-2007, 10:20 AM
martin, the idea of planting and/or tampering with evidence was offered by the defense but it was never proven.
The defense has no obligation to PROVE ANYTHING so i am puzzled as to why you continue to talk about the defense proving stuff. The defense did, with the cross examination of witnesse like Fung and Mazzalo (sp) and others show the jury that the prosecution witnesses could not be believed on some issues therefore reasonable doubt was all over the court room.
martin II
The defense has no obligation to PROVE ANYTHING so i am puzzled as to why you continue to talk about the defense proving stuff. The defense did, with the cross examination of witnesse like Fung and Mazzalo (sp) and others show the jury that the prosecution witnesses could not be believed on some issues therefore reasonable doubt was all over the court room.
martin III didn't say the DEFENSE never proved it; I said it was never proven. Please point out to me where I said the it was the job of the defense to prove anything.
socaldiva
12-06-2007, 10:58 AM
*snip*
The defense has no obligation to PROVE ANYTHING so i am puzzled as to why you continue to talk about the defense proving stuff.
Then why did the defense go through such efforts to 'prove' that MF used a racial slur? If they could have proved something was planted in the murder case, they most certainly would have done so. imo
socaldiva
12-06-2007, 11:03 AM
*snip*
Yes, I have heard of IA. Have you heard of the "code of silence" - many cases of misconduct, corruption, brutality etc never make it to IA because of it.
Of course I've heard of the "code of silence". My position is that it does not apply in the case we are talking about.
SaberGal
12-06-2007, 03:01 PM
Just curious...what do you think the noises were that Kato heard behind his room?
Since I don't support the prosecution's presented timeline, its hard to say what or who caused the noises.
SaberGal
12-06-2007, 03:18 PM
Of course I've heard of the "code of silence". My position is that it does not apply in the case we are talking about.
I was merely responding to your claim that police officers are not protected from consequences of wrong actions because they have to answer to Internal Affairs.
bobaugust
12-06-2007, 03:19 PM
Since I don't support the prosecution's presented timeline, its hard to say what or who caused the noises.
SaberGal, you don't have to support the prosecution time line to understand that Simpson caused the noises behind Kaelin's room The prosecution incorrectly argued the murders were committed before 10:30. Cochran argued the correct time of the murders as after 10:30. In the civil trial Petrocelli used criminal trial defense witness Robert Heidstra as a plaintiff witness to also argue the murders were committed after 10:30. Even though the prosecution argued an earlier time it doesn't change the reality that after the murders Simpson sped back home, scaled his fence to enter his property slamming into the back wall jumping from the top of his fence to the narrow south path and unknowingly dropping his right hand glove.
bobaugust
martin II
12-06-2007, 03:20 PM
I didn't say the DEFENSE never proved it; I said it was never proven. Please point out to me where I said the it was the job of the defense to prove anything.
If not the defense then the only other party involved would be the prosecution and i doubt you could expect them to prove their charges were false. But if you think so, it is ok with me.
martin II
SaberGal
12-06-2007, 03:32 PM
SaberGal, you don't have to support the prosecution time line to understand that Simpson caused the noises behind Kaelin's room The prosecution incorrectly argued the murders were committed before 10:30. Cochran argued the correct time of the murders as after 10:30. In the civil trial Petrocelli used criminal trial defense witness Robert Heidstra as a plaintiff witness to also argue the murders were committed after 10:30. Even though the prosecution argued an earlier time it doesn't change the reality that after the murders Simpson sped back home, scaled his fence to enter his property slamming into the back wall jumping from the top of his fence to the narrow south path and unknowingly dropping his right hand glove.
bobaugust
Actually, I don't support the defense's timeline either. The call to the Wilshire station a few minutes after 10pm is what gets me.
martin II
12-06-2007, 03:37 PM
SaberGal, you don't have to support the prosecution time line to understand that Simpson caused the noises behind Kaelin's room The prosecution incorrectly argued the murders were committed before 10:30. Cochran argued the correct time of the murders as after 10:30. In the civil trial Petrocelli used criminal trial defense witness Robert Heidstra as a plaintiff witness to also argue the murders were committed after 10:30. Even though the prosecution argued an earlier time it doesn't change the reality that after the murders Simpson sped back home, scaled his fence to enter his property slamming into the back wall jumping from the top of his fence to the narrow south path and unknowingly dropping his right hand glove.
bobaugust
nonsense bob
socaldiva
12-06-2007, 03:50 PM
I was merely responding to your claim that police officers are not protected from consequences of wrong actions because they have to answer to Internal Affairs.
Perhaps I should have been more specific in my post. IIRC Fuhrman was invesigated by Internal Affairs & came up clean.
socaldiva
12-06-2007, 03:53 PM
nonsense bob
Martin, just because you don't like something or agree with it, doesn't make it "nonsense". Bob's posted are typically based on actual testimony & facts from the trials, unlike some of the fantasies I see posted here by the Simpson supporters. jmo
SaberGal
12-06-2007, 03:54 PM
SaberGal, you don't have to support the prosecution time line to understand that Simpson caused the noises behind Kaelin's room The prosecution incorrectly argued the murders were committed before 10:30. Cochran argued the correct time of the murders as after 10:30. In the civil trial Petrocelli used criminal trial defense witness Robert Heidstra as a plaintiff witness to also argue the murders were committed after 10:30. Even though the prosecution argued an earlier time it doesn't change the reality that after the murders Simpson sped back home, scaled his fence to enter his property slamming into the back wall jumping from the top of his fence to the narrow south path and unknowingly dropping his right hand glove.
bobaugust
I question the glove because of where it was found and the fact that if Simpson had been the one to drop it there, it would have still been wet with blood and yet no leaves or dirt was stuck to it. I believe it was left at Bundy and moved to the Rockingham location after it had dried.
JMO
socaldiva
12-06-2007, 04:00 PM
I question the glove because of where it was found and the fact that if Simpson had been the one to drop it there, it would have still been wet with blood and yet no leaves or dirt was stuck to it. I believe it was left at Bundy and moved to the Rockingham location after it had dried.
JMO
My recollection was that the glove was still moist/damp with blood when found.
SaberGal
12-06-2007, 04:01 PM
Perhaps I should have been more specific in my post. IIRC Fuhrman was invesigated by Internal Affairs & came up clean.
"Police Watch, a non-profit citizen advocacy group in Los Angeles, had received five complaints against Fuhrman since 1988. 'I work with these files every day,' says Police Watch official Michael Salcido, 'and I personally handled over a thousand intakes a year and I know no other officer that has five counts against him.'"
I think that a citizen advocacy group that has no horse in the race carries a bit more weight with me than IA does. JMO
SaberGal
12-06-2007, 04:04 PM
My recollection was that the glove was still moist/damp with blood when found.
It's possible that it had not "dried" completely - but if it was dropped just after the murders (still soaked) by Simpson at the location it was "found" it would have had leaves that had dried to it.
JMHO
socaldiva
12-06-2007, 04:06 PM
"Police Watch, a non-profit citizen advocacy group in Los Angeles, had received five complaints against Fuhrman since 1988. 'I work with these files every day,' says Police Watch official Michael Salcido, 'and I personally handled over a thousand intakes a year and I know no other officer that has five counts against him.'"
I think that a citizen advocacy group that has no horse in the race carries a bit more weight with me than IA does. JMO
From 1988 to which year? What became of the complaints? I find it hard to fathom that Fuhrman would be the only officer with five complaints. At the time of the Simpson case, I would have thought that complainers would have crawled out of the woodwork, but I don't recall that happening.
Gotta run.....I'll check back later
SaberGal
12-06-2007, 04:28 PM
From 1988 to which year? What became of the complaints? I find it hard to fathom that Fuhrman would be the only officer with five complaints. At the time of the Simpson case, I would have thought that complainers would have crawled out of the woodwork, but I don't recall that happening.
Gotta run.....I'll check back later
The info did not contain a "to" date....but he was only a cop for another 7 years from 1988. And, IMO, just because we didn't hear about "complainers" doesn't mean they didn't come forward. However, it wouldn't be surprising to me to find out that alot of his victim's did not come forward - MF was the perceived "good guy."
I have provided the link (again) where I got the info about the Police Watch group, FYI
http://onepeoplesproject.com/site/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=83
JMHO
bobaugust
12-06-2007, 04:28 PM
Actually, I don't support the defense's timeline either. The call to the Wilshire station a few minutes after 10pm is what gets me.
SaberGal, I'm sorry but that's not correct. A call came into the Wilshire community police station sometime after 10:30 PM by a women representing to be somehow associated with Channel 4 asking if they were sitting on two bodies on the west side. The Wilshire patrol watch commander who took the call, Sergeant Merrin, testified that Wilshire had nothing to do with Brentwood and that it was not unusual for him to receive calls like that several times a day. Whether or not that call had anything to do with the Brentwood murders is still not known.
bobaugust
bobaugust
12-06-2007, 04:29 PM
I question the glove because of where it was found and the fact that if Simpson had been the one to drop it there, it would have still been wet with blood and yet no leaves or dirt was stuck to it. I believe it was left at Bundy and moved to the Rockingham location after it had dried.
JMO
SaberGal, the killer's right hand glove was dropped behind Kaelin's room by Simpson before 11:00 the night of the murders and wasn't seen until some seven hours later. There is no reason why the blood on that glove should have still been wet. There is also no reason why there should have leaves or dirt stuck to it.
There is no evidence that there was more than one glove at Bundy when the first patrol officers arrived there. There is no evidence found on the Rockingham glove that points to anyone handling that glove except Simpson.
The relevant evidence is what was found on that glove.
Ron Goldman's blood
Nicole Simpson's blood.
Orenthal James Simpson's blood.
Several hairs form Nicole Simpson.
Hairs form Ron Goldman.
Fibers consistent with Ron Goldman's shirt.
Fibers consistent with Ron Goldman's jeans.
One unusual x-shaped fiber consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpeting
Blue black cotton fibers. The same exact fibers that were also found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on Simpson's socks.
bobaugust
SaberGal
12-06-2007, 04:46 PM
SaberGal, the killer's right hand glove was dropped behind Kaelin's room by Simpson before 11:00 the night of the murders and wasn't seen until some seven hours later. There is no reason why the blood on that glove should have still been wet. There is also no reason why there should have leaves or dirt stuck to it.
There is no evidence that there was more than one glove at Bundy when the first patrol officers arrived there. There is no evidence found on the Rockingham glove that points to anyone handling that glove except Simpson.
The relevant evidence is what was found on that glove.
Ron Goldman's blood
Nicole Simpson's blood.
Orenthal James Simpson's blood.
Several hairs form Nicole Simpson.
Hairs form Ron Goldman.
Fibers consistent with Ron Goldman's shirt.
Fibers consistent with Ron Goldman's jeans.
One unusual x-shaped fiber consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpeting
Blue black cotton fibers. The same exact fibers that were also found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on Simpson's socks.
bobaugust
I don't dispute that the glove was used during the murders and that Simpson committed the murders. But, I believe that if it had been dropped by Simpson at the Rockingham location moments after the murders, the glove would have had leaves and/or dirt stuck to it because moments after the murders the glove would have been soaked in blood.
JMHO
martin II
12-06-2007, 04:48 PM
SaberGal, the killer's right hand glove was dropped behind Kaelin's room by Simpson before 11:00 the night of the murders and wasn't seen until some seven hours later. There is no reason why the blood on that glove should have still been wet. There is also no reason why there should have leaves or dirt stuck to it.
There is no evidence that there was more than one glove at Bundy when the first patrol officers arrived there. There is no evidence found on the Rockingham glove that points to anyone handling that glove except Simpson.
The relevant evidence is what was found on that glove.
Ron Goldman's blood
Nicole Simpson's blood.
Orenthal James Simpson's blood.
Several hairs form Nicole Simpson.
Hairs form Ron Goldman.
Fibers consistent with Ron Goldman's shirt.
Fibers consistent with Ron Goldman's jeans.
One unusual x-shaped fiber consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpeting
Blue black cotton fibers. The same exact fibers that were also found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on Simpson's socks.
bobaugust
This, accoridng to the lAPD lab techs.
martin ii
SaberGal
12-06-2007, 04:57 PM
SaberGal, I'm sorry but that's not correct. A call came into the Wilshire community police station sometime after 10:30 PM by a women representing to be somehow associated with Channel 4 asking if they were sitting on two bodies on the west side. The Wilshire patrol watch commander who took the call, Sergeant Merrin, testified that Wilshire had nothing to do with Brentwood and that it was not unusual for him to receive calls like that several times a day. Whether or not that call had anything to do with the Brentwood murders is still not known.
bobaugust
I respectfully disagree. I believe that evidence will be forthcoming about a 10:03 phone call to the Wilshire station. It was not unusual to have calls inquiring about two murders in Brentwood several times a day?
bobaugust
12-06-2007, 05:24 PM
I don't dispute that the glove was used during the murders and that Simpson committed the murders. But, I believe that if it had been dropped by Simpson at the Rockingham location moments after the murders, the glove would have had leaves and/or dirt stuck to it because moments after the murders the glove would have been soaked in blood.
JMHO
SaberGal, no one could have or did plant Simpson's right hand glove.
The simple fact is that there was only one glove at Bundy when the police arrived. There was no second glove there for anyone to have taken and planted. Simpson's left hand glove and hat were most likely pulled off by Ron Goldman while Ron fought for his life. Both dropped under some plant leaves in the small dark garden area. Simpson held the knife in his right hand and when he left Bundy he had it with him. When he drove back to Rockingham Simpson could have put the bloody glove and the knife on the Bronco's center console. That would account for how both victims blood was found on it.
Despite what you think about leaves and dirt the evidence is that there wasn't any on the glove. We don't know exactly how Simpson carried that glove when he scaled his fence. When he collided with the back wall of the guest house it may very wall have fallen out of the small knapsack we believe he was carrying. The blood and fiber evidence found on that glove ties Simpson directly to the murders.
There isn't one shred of evidence to support the claim that glove was planted.
bobaugust
bobaugust
12-06-2007, 05:34 PM
I respectfully disagree. I believe that evidence will be forthcoming about a 10:03 phone call to the Wilshire station. It was not unusual to have calls inquiring about two murders in Brentwood several times a day?
SaberGal, the only thing ion the record regarding the time 10:03 is that was the time of the telephone call Simpson made on his cell phone to Paula Barbieri supposedly from his driveway. Sergeant Merrin, the watch commander for the Wilshire community police station who received a call sometime after 10:30 asking about two dead bodies testified that Wilshire had nothing to do with Brentwood and it wasn't unusual for Wilshire to receive calls like that several times a day. Not Brentwood.
bobaugust
William Anthony
12-06-2007, 05:38 PM
It was never proven by the defense that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence. If you believe that he planted the glove (I'm assuming you mean the Rockingham glove) then what is your explanation for the forensic evidence found on it? Do you also believe Mark Fuhrman planted the blood in the Bronco?
The defense is under no obligation to prove that the glove was planted only that the evidence should not be trusted and the reasons it should not. The issue of the Bronco can be explained by MF's use of the word "in" when he claimed to have seen blood in the Bronco, when, according to his own testimony, he could not have seen blood in the Bronco. How can one trust anything he said?
William Anthony
12-06-2007, 05:43 PM
Why don't you direct this question to the black Al Sharpton? He did, after all, admit that he has used the same terminology in a negative way and that he was ashamed of such. By your standard then, the black Al Sharpton must hate his own race.
Kate
Kate,
I do not think that there is any mandate that a person should like and not hate members of his/her own race. I think he may have been ashamed that he used a word that disrespects a race of people in general when he was speaking of a particular person. I think he may have been ashamed at the specific choice of word he used and sought to elevate his vocabulary. Of course, I do not know and am speaking in generalities about what some Blacks have told me they felt when they used the word to address another Black.
William Anthony
12-06-2007, 05:47 PM
It's along the lines of the brand new Peterson case, in which I fully believe that Drew Peterson was protected by his own and now one of his wives is dead and the other presumed such.
While Fuhrman's badge afforded him protection in many ways, OJ's wealth and celebrity afforded him the same and he learned that he never had to be held accountable for any of his actions. I am still in disbelief that, when faced with photos of a beaten Nicole, he would deny that he even slapped her that night.
Fuhrman being a racist, rogue detective has the right to be questioned and investigated all on it's own, and should be investigated upon a mere hint of inappropriate conduct on the job but unless someone can provide me with something that shows proof behind a reasonable doubt, or even just a preponderance of the evidence, that Fuhrman tampered with the OJ Simpson investigation in an effort to set him up for murder charges I won't allow myself to use him as a scapegoat on this one, regardless of my personal feelings about his character.
Kate
I think that you are speaking from a personal viewpoint and not from the legal prospective, as the onus of proof is displaced. I continue to debate the issue of reasonable doubt in connection to the distasteful remarks made about the jury.
William Anthony
12-06-2007, 05:50 PM
I didn't say the DEFENSE never proved it; I said it was never proven. Please point out to me where I said the it was the job of the defense to prove anything.
If I might ask, who else desired or had motivation to prove it-the other members of LE?
William Anthony
12-06-2007, 05:54 PM
SaberGal, you don't have to support the prosecution time line to understand that Simpson caused the noises behind Kaelin's room The prosecution incorrectly argued the murders were committed before 10:30. Cochran argued the correct time of the murders as after 10:30. In the civil trial Petrocelli used criminal trial defense witness Robert Heidstra as a plaintiff witness to also argue the murders were committed after 10:30. Even though the prosecution argued an earlier time it doesn't change the reality that after the murders Simpson sped back home, scaled his fence to enter his property slamming into the back wall jumping from the top of his fence to the narrow south path and unknowingly dropping his right hand glove.
bobaugust
Who was seen behind the quarters, who allegedly found the glove and who used the word them when referring to gloves at Bundy? I do not think it matters who made the noises, as much as, how the glove got there.
William Anthony
12-06-2007, 05:55 PM
nonsense bob
Ditto, ditto, ditto, :)
William Anthony
12-06-2007, 05:58 PM
SaberGal, no one could have or did plant Simpson's right hand glove.
The simple fact is that there was only one glove at Bundy when the police arrived. There was no second glove there for anyone to have taken and planted. Simpson's left hand glove and hat were most likely pulled off by Ron Goldman while Ron fought for his life. Both dropped under some plant leaves in the small dark garden area. Simpson held the knife in his right hand and when he left Bundy he had it with him. When he drove back to Rockingham Simpson could have put the bloody glove and the knife on the Bronco's center console. That would account for how both victims blood was found on it.
Despite what you think about leaves and dirt the evidence is that there wasn't any on the glove. We don't know exactly how Simpson carried that glove when he scaled his fence. When he collided with the back wall of the guest house it may very wall have fallen out of the small knapsack we believe he was carrying. The blood and fiber evidence found on that glove ties Simpson directly to the murders.
There isn't one shred of evidence to support the claim that glove was planted.
bobaugust
Are we to discount evidence of motive, means and opportunity?
bobaugust
12-06-2007, 07:19 PM
Are we to discount evidence of motive, means and opportunity?
Fuhrman had neither the motive, means nor opportunity to plant that glove. The reality is there wasn't a second glove at Bundy for anyone to have planted.
bobaugust
SaberGal
12-06-2007, 07:33 PM
SaberGal, no one could have or did plant Simpson's right hand glove.
The simple fact is that there was only one glove at Bundy when the police arrived. There was no second glove there for anyone to have taken and planted. Simpson's left hand glove and hat were most likely pulled off by Ron Goldman while Ron fought for his life. Both dropped under some plant leaves in the small dark garden area. Simpson held the knife in his right hand and when he left Bundy he had it with him. When he drove back to Rockingham Simpson could have put the bloody glove and the knife on the Bronco's center console. That would account for how both victims blood was found on it.
Despite what you think about leaves and dirt the evidence is that there wasn't any on the glove. We don't know exactly how Simpson carried that glove when he scaled his fence. When he collided with the back wall of the guest house it may very wall have fallen out of the small knapsack we believe he was carrying. The blood and fiber evidence found on that glove ties Simpson directly to the murders.
There isn't one shred of evidence to support the claim that glove was planted.
bobaugust
My point is that a blood drenched glove that was discovered on a pile of leaves that had allegedly been dropped while still wet should have had leaves and/or dirt that stuck to it as it dried. The lack of this evidence on the glove leads me to the conclusion that it didn't happen as claimed in the "official" version. I don't believe Simpson was completely framed nor do I believe the entire case as presented to us by the prosecution. The truth is often somewhere in the middle.
JMHO
martin II
12-06-2007, 08:07 PM
Are we to discount evidence of motive, means and opportunity?
The opportunity to plant the glove could have been on the morning of 6/13 when there were several lapd at rockingham.
imo
martin II
martin II
12-06-2007, 08:18 PM
My point is that a blood drenched glove that was discovered on a pile of leaves that had allegedly been dropped while still wet should have had leaves and/or dirt that stuck to it as it dried. The lack of this evidence on the glove leads me to the conclusion that it didn't happen as claimed in the "official" version. I don't believe Simpson was completely framed nor do I believe the entire case as presented to us by the prosecution. The truth is often somewhere in the middle.
JMHO
Additionally if oj was supposed to have been bouncing around against that wall after falling from the fence, there should have been some evidence such as the leaves on the ground being disturbed and pushed around where his feet came in contact with them as he tried to gain his balance.
Just saying "he must have been back there" is not proof. If oj was running out of the walkway going towards the garage, did he stop to open that broken gate and then put it back in place before running out of the walkway.
imo
martin II
martin II
12-06-2007, 08:27 PM
SaberGal, the only thing ion the record regarding the time 10:03 is that was the time of the telephone call Simpson made on his cell phone to Paula Barbieri supposedly from his driveway. Sergeant Merrin, the watch commander for the Wilshire community police station who received a call sometime after 10:30 asking about two dead bodies testified that Wilshire had nothing to do with Brentwood and it wasn't unusual for Wilshire to receive calls like that several times a day. Not Brentwood.
bobaugust
BOB
So the caller called the wrong station. I bet there was never a call to that watch commander asking about two dead bodies That were actually found about a hour later.
martin II
martin II
12-06-2007, 08:31 PM
Fuhrman had neither the motive, means nor opportunity to plant that glove. The reality is there wasn't a second glove at Bundy for anyone to have planted.
bobaugust
His long standing racial attitudes and comments gave him the motive, his badge gave him the means and his travels between bundy and rockingham
gave him the perfect opportunity.imo
martin II
socaldiva
12-06-2007, 08:37 PM
The opportunity to plant the glove could have been on the morning of 6/13 when there were several lapd at rockingham.
imo
martin II
You are forgetting the 15 plus officers at Bundy that never saw a second glove. How do you tranport something that wasn't there? ;)
socaldiva
12-06-2007, 08:41 PM
His long standing racial attitudes and comments gave him the motive, his badge gave him the means and his travels between bundy and rockingham
gave him the perfect opportunity.imo
martin II
Nope. If his "long standing racial attitudes" had been a factor, he would have been more forcefull in his prior response to the domestic dispute call in 1989 ;)
Additionally if oj was supposed to have been bouncing around against that wall after falling from the fence, there should have been some evidence such as the leaves on the ground being disturbed and pushed around where his feet came in contact with them as he tried to gain his balance.
Just saying "he must have been back there" is not proof. If oj was running out of the walkway going towards the garage, did he stop to open that broken gate and then put it back in place before running out of the walkway.
imo
martin IIIf the leaves on the ground weren't disturbed that means that Mark Fuhrman being back there didn't disturb them either. What is the explanation for that?
SaberGal
12-07-2007, 01:37 AM
SaberGal, the only thing ion the record regarding the time 10:03 is that was the time of the telephone call Simpson made on his cell phone to Paula Barbieri supposedly from his driveway. Sergeant Merrin, the watch commander for the Wilshire community police station who received a call sometime after 10:30 asking about two dead bodies testified that Wilshire had nothing to do with Brentwood and it wasn't unusual for Wilshire to receive calls like that several times a day. Not Brentwood.
bobaugust
Again, I respectfully disagree. That's the only 10:03 call made available for public record, yes. I do believe that evidence of a call around 10:03 to the Wilshire police station will be forthcoming by someone who was on the "inside" of the investigation. If the evidence is not provided, I would concede that my belief is wrong. But at this point in time, I have absolutely no reason to doubt that it will be made available.
JMHO
martin II
12-07-2007, 07:20 AM
If the leaves on the ground weren't disturbed that means that Mark Fuhrman being back there didn't disturb them either. What is the explanation for that?
Nope
It would be very easy for someone to enter the walkway from the garage or the sallangers property at the fence and just toss the glove where it was 'FOUND" without having to walk all the way down that walkway way and disturbe the leaves. One would only have to go to the second gate to do this.
The problem with the prosecutions theory of oj falling against the wall three times and the glove dropping out of his pocket or bag is not possible without the leaves being disturbed and kicked around by his feet. He was not walking on air.imo
martin II
martin II
12-07-2007, 07:39 AM
When Furhman's racial history became known and some community people
compared his comments on the tapes to what their experiences with him had been, the F.B.I. decided that these charges should be investigated but by that time the statue had expired so furhman got a break on that non investigation.
I also agree that furhman saying the n word on the tapes was not the only reason that he took the 5th. If he had continued to testify i believe much more of his history in the case would have been exposed and that may have been the real reason why he decided to cop out.
I think that BP also helped in exposing furhman but what is odd is that some have such hatred for OJ that they continue to ignore everything about this guy and support him as if none of these charges and his actions ever happened. Some even go as far as to compare what furhman said and did to some established black leaders like Rev Al Sharpton and others.
imo
martin II
bobaugust
12-07-2007, 07:45 AM
My point is that a blood drenched glove that was discovered on a pile of leaves that had allegedly been dropped while still wet should have had leaves and/or dirt that stuck to it as it dried. The lack of this evidence on the glove leads me to the conclusion that it didn't happen as claimed in the "official" version. I don't believe Simpson was completely framed nor do I believe the entire case as presented to us by the prosecution. The truth is often somewhere in the middle.
JMHO
If the glove was dropped on the ground with the bloody side up there would be no reason for it to have leaves or dirt on it and that's exactly how it was found. Lack of dirt and leaves is not evidence either way, the point is that there isn't one shred of evidence that there was a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there for anyone to plant as well as the fact that the blood and fiber evidence found on the glove points to Simpson and only Simpson as having handled that glove
The official version was not clear as to how Simpson entered his estate since the police never fully investigated the reality of Simpson scaling his fence. They and the prosecution took the easy way out pointing to the blood found outside and inside Simpson's gate as evidence that Simpson probably entered using that gate. But they were wrong. We learned from the depositions exactly how the locked Rockingham gate worked and based on how it opened and closed the placement of the blood found outside and inside the gate actually proves Simpson didn't enter that gate when he returned from Bundy.
New evidence became available in the video tape Simpson made in 1996 "O.J. Simpson, The Interview" showing Simpson behind Kaelin's room. The heavy foliage that had been hanging over the top of the fence at the time of the murders had been trimmed back revealing the top of the fence and clearly showing exactly where Simpson scaled that fence. As well as revealing a bent tie wire on the top of the fence directly over where the glove was found and opposite the exact place on the back wall where Kaelin heard noises and felt the vibrations of someone slamming into it. Bent inwards, towards the wall consistent with someone scaling the fence from the Salingers property to Simpson's property by putting their foot on top of the fence and jumping to the narrow south path. The video shows how someone of Simpson's size compared to the narrow space between the gate and the wall could have easily slammed against the wall jumping from the top of the fence. A crime scene photograph showing the glove also shows fresh green leaves near it that could very well have fallen from the foliage hanging over the fence as Simpson pushed his way through that foliage.
If you wish to see these pictures for yourself and read the facts regarding the south path as well as the Rockingham gate I will be happy to send you the links to them in a private message since based on the rules of this discussion group I'm not able to post them in a forum message.
bobaugust.
bobaugust
12-07-2007, 07:46 AM
Again, I respectfully disagree. That's the only 10:03 call made available for public record, yes. I do believe that evidence of a call around 10:03 to the Wilshire police station will be forthcoming by someone who was on the "inside" of the investigation. If the evidence is not provided, I would concede that my belief is wrong. But at this point in time, I have absolutely no reason to doubt that it will be made available.
JMHO
We would all be interested if new legitimate evidence becomes available after 13 years but I see no relevance to the Bundy murders regarding a call to the Wilshire community police station. As far as I know Wilshire is not adjacent to or has anything to do with Brentwood.
bobaugust
martin II
12-07-2007, 08:19 AM
If the glove was dropped on the ground with the bloody side up there would be no reason for it to have leaves or dirt on it and that's exactly how it was found. Lack of dirt and leaves is not evidence either way, the point is that there isn't one shred of evidence that there was a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there for anyone to plant as well as the fact that the blood and fiber evidence found on the glove points to Simpson and only Simpson as having handled that glove
The official version was not clear as to how Simpson entered his estate since the police never fully investigated the reality of Simpson scaling his fence. They and the prosecution took the easy way out pointing to the blood found outside and inside Simpson's gate as evidence that Simpson probably entered using that gate. But they were wrong. We learned from the depositions exactly how the locked Rockingham gate worked and based on how it opened and closed the placement of the blood found outside and inside the gate actually proves Simpson didn't enter that gate when he returned from Bundy.
New evidence became available in the video tape Simpson made in 1996 "O.J. Simpson, The Interview" showing Simpson behind Kaelin's room. The heavy foliage that had been hanging over the top of the fence at the time of the murders had been trimmed back revealing the top of the fence and clearly showing exactly where Simpson scaled that fence. As well as revealing a bent tie wire on the top of the fence directly over where the glove was found and opposite the exact place on the back wall where Kaelin heard noises and felt the vibrations of someone slamming into it. Bent inwards, towards the wall consistent with someone scaling the fence from the Salingers property to Simpson's property by putting their foot on top of the fence and jumping to the narrow south path. The video shows how someone of Simpson's size compared to the narrow space between the gate and the wall could have easily slammed against the wall jumping from the top of the fence. A crime scene photograph showing the glove also shows fresh green leaves near it that could very well have fallen from the foliage hanging over the fence as Simpson pushed his way through that foliage.
If you wish to see these pictures for yourself and read the facts regarding the south path as well as the Rockingham gate I will be happy to send you the links to them in a private message since based on the rules of this discussion group I'm not able to post them in a forum message.
bobaugust.
Again
nonsense and opinions.
You don't know how the glove HIT THE GROUND as you were not standing next to it when it did and there was no evidence that oj caused all those leaves to be broken off of the trees and cover the walkway as to make it look as if no one had put a foot on the ground and disturbed the leaves.
martinii
martin II
Kate Sachel
12-07-2007, 08:24 AM
Kate,
I do not think that there is any mandate that a person should like and not hate members of his/her own race. I think he may have been ashamed that he used a word that disrespects a race of people in general when he was speaking of a particular person. I think he may have been ashamed at the specific choice of word he used and sought to elevate his vocabulary. Of course, I do not know and am speaking in generalities about what some Blacks have told me they felt when they used the word to address another Black.
I'm becoming accustomed to expecting nothing less than this type of dodging from you, in addition to the defense of an individual on what appears to be based soley on race.
Kate
Kate Sachel
12-07-2007, 08:26 AM
I think that you are speaking from a personal viewpoint and not from the legal prospective, as the onus of proof is displaced. I continue to debate the issue of reasonable doubt in connection to the distasteful remarks made about the jury.
I thought I made it quite clear that I was speaking from a personal viewpoint. In fact, I thought it crystal clear when I stated that "I" wouldn't allow "myself" to use him ...
Kate
Kate Sachel
12-07-2007, 08:29 AM
Are we to discount evidence of motive, means and opportunity?
Is the motive of which you speak your idea that a racist detective wanted to frame a black man?
Kate
martin II
12-07-2007, 08:29 AM
We would all be interested if new legitimate evidence becomes available after 13 years but I see no relevance to the Bundy murders regarding a call to the Wilshire community police station. As far as I know Wilshire is not adjacent to or has anything to do with Brentwood.
bobaugust
BOb
regardless of what station the caller called the fact is that the call was very accurate as two bodies were found dead so someone knew about those dead bodies at the time the call was made.
martin II
Nope
It would be very easy for someone to enter the walkway from the garage or the sallangers property at the fence and just toss the glove where it was 'FOUND" without having to walk all the way down that walkway way and disturbe the leaves. One would only have to go to the second gate to do this.
The problem with the prosecutions theory of oj falling against the wall three times and the glove dropping out of his pocket or bag is not possible without the leaves being disturbed and kicked around by his feet. He was not walking on air.imo
martin IImartin, it doesn't matter whether the glove was tossed on the walkway or it flew in on a stiff breeze, SOMEONE had to retrieve it from where it lay. If the leaves were not disturbed how did they move down the walkway without disturbing them? It would seem that you're not correct about there not being any disturbed leaves on the walkway. More erroneous information from Wagner.
socaldiva
12-07-2007, 11:08 AM
Again
nonsense and opinions.
You don't know how the glove HIT THE GROUND as you were not standing next to it when it did and there was no evidence that oj caused all those leaves to be broken off of the trees and cover the walkway as to make it look as if no one had put a foot on the ground and disturbed the leaves.
martinii
martin II
"Nonsense and opinions"? Which are yours? You were not standing next to the glove when it hit the ground either. At least Bob's account contains logic & common sense.
martin II
12-07-2007, 11:50 AM
martin, it doesn't matter whether the glove was tossed on the walkway or it flew in on a stiff breeze, SOMEONE had to retrieve it from where it lay. If the leaves were not disturbed how did they move down the walkway without disturbing them? It would seem that you're not correct about there not being any disturbed leaves on the walkway. More erroneous information from Wagner.
I assume that le took pictures of the glove before anyone actually walked down the path way to retreive the glove.Or did furhman just ignore the need for a picture of the scene where the glove was found and just walk there and pick it up on his own.
Wagners investigation and pictures cannot be ignored if one is seeking the truth. There are many other pictures taken of that site to show the glove and the leaves as they were found.
If you have pictures of the glove site showing the leaves distrubed as if someone had been
moving around or falling off of the wall back there, you can give a link to them so we can see the condition of the leaves immediately around the glove.
imo
martin II
SaberGal
12-07-2007, 03:42 PM
When Furhman's racial history became known and some community people
compared his comments on the tapes to what their experiences with him had been, the F.B.I. decided that these charges should be investigated but by that time the statue had expired so furhman got a break on that non investigation.
I also agree that furhman saying the n word on the tapes was not the only reason that he took the 5th. If he had continued to testify i believe much more of his history in the case would have been exposed and that may have been the real reason why he decided to cop out.
I think that BP also helped in exposing furhman but what is odd is that some have such hatred for OJ that they continue to ignore everything about this guy and support him as if none of these charges and his actions ever happened. Some even go as far as to compare what furhman said and did to some established black leaders like Rev Al Sharpton and others.
imo
martin II
I totally agree with you, Martin. While I don't like anyone using the "N" word, Fuhrman was not merely using bad judgment with his usage of it. And I also agree that those tapes were not "fiction" or "fantasy" on Fuhrman's part, but real live situations.
JMHO
SaberGal
12-07-2007, 03:54 PM
We would all be interested if new legitimate evidence becomes available after 13 years but I see no relevance to the Bundy murders regarding a call to the Wilshire community police station. As far as I know Wilshire is not adjacent to or has anything to do with Brentwood.
bobaugust
The relevance, as I see it, is that someone (representing themselves as media) called the Wilshire station at about 10:03 the night of the murders, two hours before the bodies were discovered, asking about a double homicide in Brentwood. Murders didn't generally happen in Brentwood...much less double murder. This implies that someone (an accomplice) was calling to find out what, if anything, the cops knew yet.
JMHO
bobaugust
12-07-2007, 05:11 PM
The relevance, as I see it, is that someone (representing themselves as media) called the Wilshire station at about 10:03 the night of the murders, two hours before the bodies were discovered, asking about a double homicide in Brentwood. Murders didn't generally happen in Brentwood...much less double murder. This implies that someone (an accomplice) was calling to find out what, if anything, the cops knew yet.
JMHO
SaberGal, the testimony was that telephone call came into the Wilshire community police station at about 10:30 to 10:45, not 10:03. The evidence is that the murders were committed shortly before 10:45. If there is some rumor there was a 10:03 call regarding a double homicide, even if true, it would have had absolutely nothing to do with the Bundy murders.
bobaugust
SaberGal
12-07-2007, 05:31 PM
SaberGal, the testimony was that telephone call came into the Wilshire community police station at about 10:30 to 10:45, not 10:03. The evidence is that the murders were committed shortly before 10:45. If there is some rumor there was a 10:03 call regarding a double homicide, even if true, it would have had absolutely nothing to do with the Bundy murders.
bobaugust
:) Again, I have to disagree. I believe that the murders happened earlier and that the 10:03 call had everything to do with the murders, IMO. I believe that the 10:03 call was never made public because it would discredit the official "story" that OJ acted completely alone that night.
JMHO
bobaugust
12-07-2007, 06:05 PM
:) Again, I have to disagree. I believe that the murders happened earlier and that the 10:03 call had everything to do with the murders, IMO. I believe that the 10:03 call was never made public because it would discredit the official "story" that OJ acted completely alone that night.
JMHO
SaberGal, what evidence do you know of that leads you to believe that the murders were committed earlier, before 10:03? And how do you reconcile that belief with your belief that Simpson was the killer? And how do you reconcile that belief with all the witnesses who testified to facts that established the time of the murders as after 10:30?
bobaugust
I assume that le took pictures of the glove before anyone actually walked down the path way to retreive the glove.Or did furhman just ignore the need for a picture of the scene where the glove was found and just walk there and pick it up on his own.
Wagners investigation and pictures cannot be ignored if one is seeking the truth. There are many other pictures taken of that site to show the glove and the leaves as they were found.
If you have pictures of the glove site showing the leaves disturbed as if someone had been
moving around or falling off of the wall back there, you can give a link to them so we can see the condition of the leaves immediately around the glove.
imo
martin IIMark Fuhrman took Lange and Van Natter down the path to look at the glove. The photographer also went back there to photograph the glove. I believe Phillps was there also. How did all those people walk down the path without disturbing the leaves?
If the photo shows the leaves unmoved as you say it does then it stands to reason that if all those people going back there to look at the glove didn't disturb the leaves then OJ Simpson could have been back there and not disturbed them as well.
socaldiva
12-07-2007, 07:49 PM
*snip*
If the photo shows the leaves unmoved as you say it does then it stands to reason that if all those people going back there to look at the glove didn't disturb the leaves then OJ Simpson could have been back there and not disturbed them as well.
I might be slow on the uptake today, but what do "undisturbed leaves" versus "disturbed leaves" look like? :confused: :tongue:
I might be slow on the uptake today, but what do "undisturbed leaves" versus "disturbed leaves" look like? :confused: :tongue:Good question. I'm hoping that someone who has seen a photo of the area around the glove will enlighten us.
bobaugust
12-07-2007, 08:25 PM
Good question. I'm hoping that someone who has seen a photo of the area around the glove will enlighten us.
It's virtually impossible to look at leaves on the ground in a photograph and tell if they have been disturbed or not unless you have a photograph taken earlier of the same area to compare with. The same applies to the ground Simpson walked over to reach his fence and the hanging foliage he pushed aside to scale it.
Here are two crime scene photographs of the glove on the south path. The second clearly shows a fresh green leaf near the glove that could have very well fallen from the hanging foliage over the fence.
http://bobaugust.com/bluepackage.jpg
http://bobaugust.com/r_glove.jpg
bobaugust
It's virtually impossible to look at leaves on the ground in a photograph and tell if they have been disturbed or not unless you have a photograph taken earlier of the same area to compare with. The same applies to the ground Simpson walked over to reach his fence and the hanging foliage he pushed aside to scale it.
Here are two crime scene photographs of the glove on the south path. The second clearly shows a fresh green leaf near the glove that could have very well fallen from the hanging foliage over the fence.
http://bobaugust.com/bluepackage.jpg
http://bobaugust.com/r_glove.jpg
bobaugustThanks, Bob. Exactly what I was looking for. :)
SaberGal
12-07-2007, 08:43 PM
SaberGal, what evidence do you know of that leads you to believe that the murders were committed earlier, before 10:03? And how do you reconcile that belief with your belief that Simpson was the killer? And how do you reconcile that belief with all the witnesses who testified to facts that established the time of the murders as after 10:30?
bobaugust
The phone call and Nicole's watch are the major indicators for me that the murders were committed earlier than the times presented by both sides. I believe that the murders were planned to a certain extent - how far in advance, I'm not sure but I believe that OJ went to Bundy that night with the intent to kill. I'm not sure I put much weight on the testimony of the witnesses as it relates to the dog barking and that establishing the time of the murders. I believe that many of the witnesses testified to what they believed happened and what "fit" with the official timeline - that is not to say that I believe they did this intentionally or maliciously. I realize that is a rather controversial view of the witnesses and I assure you, I'm really not a kook. If I'm wrong about something I will gladly admit it. I believe that alot of questions will be answered in Pavelic's book that will hopefully be out soon.
JMHO
martin II
12-08-2007, 07:33 AM
It's virtually impossible to look at leaves on the ground in a photograph and tell if they have been disturbed or not unless you have a photograph taken earlier of the same area to compare with. The same applies to the ground Simpson walked over to reach his fence and the hanging foliage he pushed aside to scale it.
Here are two crime scene photographs of the glove on the south path. The second clearly shows a fresh green leaf near the glove that could have very well fallen from the hanging foliage over the fence.
http://bobaugust.com/bluepackage.jpg
http://bobaugust.com/r_glove.jpg
bobaugust
This is the court tv picture used by many including wagner imo.It is obvious that there is no disturbance of leaves that one would expect to find if a person had been falling against that wall and moving his feet around to gain his balance. ONE SMALL green leaf on the ground does not indicate that a person would have waded through all the trees and bushes on the sallangers property to get to the top of that fence to jump over against that wall three times.Some have suggested that the glove fell out of a bag, if so the bag would have made additional leaf disturbance if it hit the ground.
This picture does not indicate that any person walked in that area over those leaves. imo
martin II
martin II
12-08-2007, 07:39 AM
The phone call and Nicole's watch are the major indicators for me that the murders were committed earlier than the times presented by both sides. I believe that the murders were planned to a certain extent - how far in advance, I'm not sure but I believe that OJ went to Bundy that night with the intent to kill. I'm not sure I put much weight on the testimony of the witnesses as it relates to the dog barking and that establishing the time of the murders. I believe that many of the witnesses testified to what they believed happened and what "fit" with the official timeline - that is not to say that I believe they did this intentionally or maliciously. I realize that is a rather controversial view of the witnesses and I assure you, I'm really not a kook. If I'm wrong about something I will gladly admit it. I believe that alot of questions will be answered in Pavelic's book that will hopefully be out soon.
JMHO
I believe it was Stein. Pablo Fenjves and another neighbor that the prosecution first used to say the murders took place at about 10:12 10:15.
What i believe is that some witnesses testified to times and events just to be a part of the trial.A example is that lady on Bundy that seems to have been looking at her watch almost every minute that night.
martin II
bobaugust
12-08-2007, 08:14 AM
The phone call and Nicole's watch are the major indicators for me that the murders were committed earlier than the times presented by both sides. I believe that the murders were planned to a certain extent - how far in advance, I'm not sure but I believe that OJ went to Bundy that night with the intent to kill. I'm not sure I put much weight on the testimony of the witnesses as it relates to the dog barking and that establishing the time of the murders. I believe that many of the witnesses testified to what they believed happened and what "fit" with the official timeline - that is not to say that I believe they did this intentionally or maliciously. I realize that is a rather controversial view of the witnesses and I assure you, I'm really not a kook. If I'm wrong about something I will gladly admit it. I believe that alot of questions will be answered in Pavelic's book that will hopefully be out soon.
JMHO
SaberGal, I don't think you're a kook, I just think you don't know very much about the evidence in this case. Nicole's watch had nothing to do with the time of the murders. Simpson's defense knew there was only one photo showing Nicole's watch, and that picture was taken the morning after the murders. There is no evidence that her watch had stopped at 10:03.
There was a conflict in time as to when Nicole's dog started it's non stop barking. Two prosecution witnesses who were in their houses testified they heard Nicole's dog barking before 10:30. There were four defense witnesses who were outside and closer to Nicole's condo who testified the dog didn't start it's non stop barking until after 10:30. One of these witnesses was Robert Heidstra who along with two other defense witnesses established the time of the murders as after 10:30. In the civil trial the plaintiffs used Heidstra as their witness and argued the murders were committed after 10:30. Based on all the known evidence in this case there is no way the murders could have been committed earlier.
bobaugust
SaberGal
12-08-2007, 08:31 AM
SaberGal, I don't think you're a kook, I just think you don't know very much about the evidence in this case. Nicole's watch had nothing to do with the time of the murders. Simpson's defense knew there was only one photo showing Nicole's watch, and that picture was taken the morning after the murders. There is no evidence that her watch had stopped at 10:03.
There was a conflict in time as to when Nicole's dog started it's non stop barking. Two prosecution witnesses who were in their houses testified they heard Nicole's dog barking before 10:30. There were four defense witnesses who were outside and closer to Nicole's condo who testified the dog didn't start it's non stop barking until after 10:30. One of these witnesses was Robert Heidstra who along with two other defense witnesses established the time of the murders as after 10:30. In the civil trial the plaintiffs used Heidstra as their witness and argued the murders were committed after 10:30. Based on all the known evidence in this case there is no way the murders could have been committed earlier.
bobaugust
I appreciate you not thinking I'm a kook. :) I am far from an "expert" on the case, you are correct, but I would not say that I'm a complete novice either. Since I believe that the prosecution tried their best to sell a cart full of BS regarding what actually transpired that night, it makes it hard for me to rely on the "official" evidence as presented. IIRC, I believe there was testimony that had the dog barking as early as 10:15 that evening.
martin II
12-08-2007, 08:44 AM
Mark Fuhrman took Lange and Van Natter down the path to look at the glove. The photographer also went back there to photograph the glove. I believe Phillps was there also. How did all those people walk down the path without disturbing the leaves?
If the photo shows the leaves unmoved as you say it does then it stands to reason that if all those people going back there to look at the glove didn't disturb the leaves then OJ Simpson could have been back there and not disturbed them as well.
I would think that le would have walked back there with extreme care not to distrube the scene as they said they did at Bundy. They would not have to walk all the way to the spot of the glove to see it was a glove. The photo could be easily be taken from a distance as it seems it was in that photo.
martin II
martin II
12-08-2007, 09:02 AM
I appreciate you not thinking I'm a kook. :) I am far from an "expert" on the case, you are correct, but I would not say that I'm a complete novice either. Since I believe that the prosecution tried their best to sell a cart full of BS regarding what actually transpired that night, it makes it hard for me to rely on the "official" evidence as presented. IIRC, I believe there was testimony that had the dog barking as early as 10:15 that evening.
I believe that would have been Stein who lived next door to Nicole on the north side and the couple that lived in the house on the corner of Bundy and Dorothy.
SaberGal
12-08-2007, 09:08 AM
I believe that would have been Stein who lived next door to Nicole on the north side and the couple that lived in the house on the corner of Bundy and Dorothy.
Yes, thank you Martin. I believe the "plaintive wail" testimony by Fenjves also placed the dog barking around the same time.
martin II
12-08-2007, 09:20 AM
I appreciate you not thinking I'm a kook. :) I am far from an "expert" on the case, you are correct, but I would not say that I'm a complete novice either. Since I believe that the prosecution tried their best to sell a cart full of BS regarding what actually transpired that night, it makes it hard for me to rely on the "official" evidence as presented. IIRC, I believe there was testimony that had the dog barking as early as 10:15 that evening.
The official version presented by the prosecution was successfully attacked on cross examination by the defense to the point that on some issues the prosecution failed to continue to pursue their original claims such as the time the murders happened. M Clarke initially offered the 10:20 time but ran into a problem when the defense put on R Heidstra.
I remember a talking head making the comment that "We are trying to solve a murder case based on when we think a dog started barking"
The prosecution leaked certain info to the media and they. the media. adopted the sound bite " THERE IS A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE AGAINST OJ"
and fed it to the public over and over again.
When B Schack and Neufeld (sp) finished with that DNA "evidence" Fung and the others, the mountain looked like a small pile of BS.
The prosecution never presented a comprehensive clear story line to the jury because the defense had done too much damage to their case.
imo
martin II
martin II
bobaugust
12-08-2007, 09:37 AM
I believe that would have been Stein who lived next door to Nicole on the north side and the couple that lived in the house on the corner of Bundy and Dorothy.
martin II, Eva Stein was asleep next door to Nicole' condo and testified she was awakened by dogs barking, not a dog, about 10:45. We know the time when more than one dog was barking from Robert Heidstra who said a little black dog in the house he was standing behind in the alley started to bark about 10:40 just before he heard the two male voices coming from Nicole's condo.
bobaugust
William Anthony
12-08-2007, 10:50 AM
Fuhrman had neither the motive, means nor opportunity to plant that glove. The reality is there wasn't a second glove at Bundy for anyone to have planted.
bobaugust
The motive was the evidence of his hatred of interracial couples. His means was the evidence of his marine training, as put forth magnificently by Bailey and the opportunity was when he was alone behind the quarters. Of couse this is all MHO.
William Anthony
12-08-2007, 11:05 AM
I'm becoming accustomed to expecting nothing less than this type of dodging from you, in addition to the defense of an individual on what appears to be based soley on race.
Kate
I do not understand why you call it dodging when my answer admitted that Sharpton used the word and, based upon what other Blacks have told me when they used the word at another Black, which could have been spoken in anger or in jest. The fact is that, if one loves the conduct of or excuses the conduct of all members of his own race irrespective of a member's character, I would call that person a racists. This is not to say that those here who excuse MF's conduct are racists as I am speaking in generalities.
I was responding to your questions or remarks about Sharpton and was only giving an answer in a general sense. I do not believe that Sharpton has ever made a comment that an entire race should be burned while using racial slurs. I think that all of a person's remarks should be taken into consideration before making a general statement about the possibility that the person was speaking in a general sense, imho.
William Anthony
12-08-2007, 11:10 AM
Is the motive of which you speak your idea that a racist detective wanted to frame a black man?
Kate
Kate,
I sense some degree of aggitation in your comment. It was not my idea at all. The evidence presented was that MF harbored racial animus toward interracial couples and, whether one considers it bostering or not, admitted to planting/fabricating/manufactuing evidence on those infamous tapes. There are those here who rely heavily on circumstantial evidence as it relates to proving Simpson a murderer. I think that the same reliance should be given to the circumstantial evidence showing MF's motive, means and opportunity.
William Anthony
12-08-2007, 11:14 AM
This is the court tv picture used by many including wagner imo.It is obvious that there is no disturbance of leaves that one would expect to find if a person had been falling against that wall and moving his feet around to gain his balance. ONE SMALL green leaf on the ground does not indicate that a person would have waded through all the trees and bushes on the sallangers property to get to the top of that fence to jump over against that wall three times.Some have suggested that the glove fell out of a bag, if so the bag would have made additional leaf disturbance if it hit the ground.
This picture does not indicate that any person walked in that area over those leaves. imo
martin II
Are we to believe that Simpson left blood in the Bronco (an alleged shoe impression) but left no blood on the leaves?
William Anthony
12-08-2007, 11:18 AM
I appreciate you not thinking I'm a kook. :) I am far from an "expert" on the case, you are correct, but I would not say that I'm a complete novice either. Since I believe that the prosecution tried their best to sell a cart full of BS regarding what actually transpired that night, it makes it hard for me to rely on the "official" evidence as presented. IIRC, I believe there was testimony that had the dog barking as early as 10:15 that evening.
I enjoy reading your well thought out posts and the debate over the time of the deaths only goes to show that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof on the issue they presented and that JC did a marvelous job of destroying that evidence. This is another manisfestation of his ingenious theme, "If it does not fit, you must acquit."
I would think that le would have walked back there with extreme care not to distrube the scene as they said they did at Bundy. They would not have to walk all the way to the spot of the glove to see it was a glove. The photo could be easily be taken from a distance as it seems it was in that photo.
martin IIMark Fuhrman said he took the others back to the glove and that hasn't been disputed.
William Anthony
12-08-2007, 02:04 PM
Mark Fuhrman said he took the others back to the glove and that hasn't been disputed.
MF said-enough said, :). Seriously, I find the testimony about the cobwebs to be questionable.
bobaugust
12-08-2007, 02:49 PM
Are we to believe that Simpson left blood in the Bronco (an alleged shoe impression) but left no blood on the leaves?
If your opinions are based on reality you would. What do you think happens to traces of blood on someone's shoe after they walk across grass and dirt to reach a location well over a hundred feet away?
bobaugust
bobaugust
12-08-2007, 03:57 PM
The motive was the evidence of his hatred of interracial couples. His means was the evidence of his marine training, as put forth magnificently by Bailey and the opportunity was when he was alone behind the quarters. Of couse this is all MHO.
That's funny. The same general far reaching interpretation of motive, means and opportunity you apply to Fuhrman can be also applied to Simpson as the killer. Good one William.
The reality is there was no second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there shortly after midnight. Simpson's right hand glove was already lying on the south path behind Kaelin's room where Simpson unknowingly dropped it when he returned to Rockingham a little more than an hour earlier after killing both Ron and Nicole.
bobaugust
martin II
12-08-2007, 04:43 PM
Mark Fuhrman said he took the others back to the glove and that hasn't been disputed.
Again
He could very well have taken they back there but i would think that they would not try to distrube the leaves and and thing else in the crime scene by kicking up the leaves.They would as they did at bundy enter the crime scene
being very careful not to change the scene.So i don't know what you are trying to say in your post.
martin II
martin II
12-08-2007, 04:49 PM
Are we to believe that Simpson left blood in the Bronco (an alleged shoe impression) but left no blood on the leaves?
There was no blood found at any point of the sallangers walkway ,lawn or the area next to the fence either.
There is no evidence that Simpson was in that walkway. This idea is put forward by people that have no evidence or proof that he was there so they just say HE MUST HAVE BEEN THERE.IMO
MARTIN ii
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.