Issues In The Criminal Trial

[William Anthony]

I watched and taped the entire criminal trial. I got a chance to see a trial with a lot of complicated issues to be decided and a judge that was interested in fairness in balancing the peoples right to a fair trial with that of a defendant's right. I did not watch or follow the civil trial. I have learned about it through posts and searching information. What I have learned is that the rulings on motions in limine appeared to be slanted to hamper the defense. Whether or not this is rotten or not, I have not completely decided. I did not buy into the media portrayal of a dancing Ito. I saw a judge hesitant to impose sanctions, which gave the appearance that he was not in control. I think that his hesitancy was caused by a desire to let the lawyers try their cases.

[martin II]

Mr. Bell,

I did answer your post. Perhaps I did forget one of your issues. Just like a "Not Guilty" verdict does not mean innocent. More Likely Then Not does not mean that the person is guilty. It goes both ways, IMO.

There were two civil jurors who stated they do not know what their verdict would have been had they been on the criminal trial jury. You can't escape the fact that a civil trial is about money and that the jurors are given the right to pick and choose which theory they like the best. Which parts of witness testimony they can disregard. They can give the cops the benefit of the doubt--criminal trial jurors don't have that right.


It seems that Bell may in desperation, be trying to apply CJS rules from another locaton to The U.S. LA court system and this may be causing the confusion.imo

[martin II]

Martin, I've never said that there is a set time for jury deliberations. The criminal jury in downtown LA, in the criminal trial, took 3 hours. The civil jury, in Santa Monica, took 17 hours. My point is the makeup of the juries and the areas that they came from. Also, I point out the 2 different judges. One in the criminal trial who let the circus into town. The 2nd who stopped the rot.

You talk about a white jury from Santa Monica as opposed to a much larger and more DIVERSE jury pool in LA.Are you suggesting that there were no ignorant, uneducated biased white people in Santa Monica and that these type people can only be found in LA?

The tryers of fact determine the time of deliberation they need to come to a verdict. NO one else. Opinions on deliberation time are useless from those not on the jury.

One judge gave both side as many bites of the apple they required and he allow the tryers of fact to determine what was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The other judge limited what was presented to the tryers of face and acted as if he was a tryer of fact. WHICH HE WAS NOT. I believe the first Judge acted in a more proper manner.imo

[William Anthony]

You talk about a white jury from Santa Monica as opposed to a much larger and more DIVERSE jury pool in LA.Are you suggesting that there were no ignorant, uneducated biased white people in Santa Monica and that these type people can only be found in LA?

The tryers of fact determine the time of deliberation they need to come to a verdict. NO one else. Opinions on deliberation time are useless from those not on the jury.

One judge gave both side as many bites of the apple they required and he allow the tryers of fact to determine what was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The other judge limited what was presented to the tryers of face and acted as if he was a tryer of fact. WHICH HE WAS NOT. I believe the first Judge acted in a more proper manner.imo

I can't call verbatim the statement of the judge to the jury but it was close to this. Even though Simpson was acquitted for the murders, you can STILL FIND HIM LIABLE FOR THE WRONGFUL DEATHS OF RONALD GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN. That statement was not true. There was no wrongful death suit for Nicole. It showed the judge's motivation, imho. Notice, he didn't say, after you listen to all the evidence, you can conclude that Simpson is liable for the wrongful death of Ronald Goldman or you can conclude that Simpson was not liable for Ronald Goldman's death. The civil jury may have been considering for 16 hours, if they were forced to follow the judge's instruction.

[martin II]

Martin, I've never said that there is a set time for jury deliberations. The criminal jury in downtown LA, in the criminal trial, took 3 hours. The civil jury, in Santa Monica, took 17 hours. My point is the makeup of the juries and the areas that they came from. Also, I point out the 2 different judges. One in the criminal trial who let the circus into town. The 2nd who stopped the rot.

I don't think you understand the differance in the trials.The criminal trial was about taking ones freedom. A very serious issue and one that required a more wider review of the charges and the defense arguments.A higher stand of proof is also required because of the seriousness of the issue. FREEDOM.

The civil trial was about making a defendant pay money and therefore to much lower standard of proof. The issue is Money.

The media, and others, dissapointed with the criminal trial verdict has attacked the jury for deliberation time. It is only a issue by the uninformed
that was not a jury member.
It may be that the civil jury had great difficulty comming to the liable verdict
as some may have believe Simpson was not liable and it took 17 hours to convence the not liable ones to cave in.imo

[martin II]

I can't call verbatim the statement of the judge to the jury but it was close to this. Even though Simpson was acquitted for the murders, you can STILL FIND HIM LIABLE FOR THE WRONGFUL DEATHS OF RONALD GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN. That statement was not true. There was no wrongful death suit for Nicole. It showed the judge's motivation, imho. Notice, he didn't say, after you listen to all the evidence, you can conclude that Simpson is liable for the wrongful death of Ronald Goldman or you can conclude that Simpson was not liable for Ronald Goldman's death. The civil jury may have been considering for 16 hours, if they were forced to follow the judge's instruction.

The civil trial judges agenda was obvious and many agreed with how he handeled the jury because of their biased aganda.imo

[bobaugust]

Yes, you took my opinion not statement out of context.

That portion of Ms. Moore's testimony as to Simpson's hair having dandruff when he was playing golf in the sun was never clarified or rebutted. The only possible and reasonable inference to be drawn from the testimony is that he would have had dandruff on June 12, which was consistent with her testimony of his hair over a 16 year period. The fact that you do not understand or are unwilling to accept the testimony does not make my logic flawed-read my recent addition to my signature. Don't get it twisted. It was not specifically meant for you.

I would waste time asking myself a question for which I knew the answer. The defense had nothing to prove. The defense does not make claims. The prosecution makes the claims/charges/theories. The defense provides evidence to rebut those claims/charges/theories. The defense offered evidence to allow the jury to draw reasonable inferences to conclude that the prosecution had not proven their case/claims/charges/theories beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to provide evidence that Simpson did not have dandruff on the night of the murders, imho.

You were mistaken, I quoted you correctly.

Your inference is not consistent with Moore's testimony. She said Simpson periodically had dandruff and that sometimes he had it in the summer and sometimes he didn't. Your inference is not based a specific fact, it's not based on direct evidence, and it's not based on physical evidence. It's based on Moore's speculative opinion and that makes the conclusion you draw from it nothing more than unsupported speculation.

You would have wasted less time if you had asked yourself those reasonable questions I suggested before you spent so much time trying to unsuccessfully defend your unsupported speculation as a reasonable inference. Of course the defense does and did make many claims in this case but they never claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. So there was no reason for the prosecution to waste time on this non issue other then offering a logical reasonable explanation as to why Simpson's hair samples taken well over a month after the murders had dandruff. An explanation that I do not believe was ever contradicted or challenged by Simpson's defense.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I will take your revision as a statement that you made a mistake. Why do you think I asked you for a picture? However, I did find a link but I think that I copied something else afterward. Let me see? Yes, I did. IIRC, that cap was not wrinkled and lay out as if waiting for collection. However, the link I found was by Walraven, who I am sure you are aware of, and his experiment tossing, flinging and dropping the hat taking account of the position it was located.

My mistake was adding my opinion after stating some facts so I eliminated my opinion. The only picture I have is the one I posted a while ago showing the glove next to the knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron's feet.

You mistakenly used the name Walraven when you were referring to Wagner. Walraven would probably be insulted. Yes I'm aware of Wagner's home experiments and I do not find them credible or relevant to the actual evidence in this case. Are you saying Wagner wrote the cap was not wrinkled and lay as if waiting for collection?

I always find it funny when someone who argues that Simpson wasn't even at Bundy the night of the murders refers to Wagner's writings that are based on the fact that Simpson was there.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You were mistaken, I quoted you correctly.

Your inference is not consistent with Moore's testimony. She said Simpson periodically had dandruff and that sometimes he had it in the summer and sometimes he didn't. Your inference is not based a specific fact, it's not based on direct evidence, and it's not based on physical evidence. It's based on Moore's speculative opinion and that makes the conclusion you draw from it nothing more than unsupported speculation.

You would have wasted less time if you had asked yourself those reasonable questions I suggested before you spent so much time trying to unsuccessfully defend your unsupported speculation as a reasonable inference. Of course the defense does and did make many claims in this case but they never claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. So there was no reason for the prosecution to waste time on this non issue other then offering a logical reasonable explanation as to why Simpson's hair samples taken well over a month after the murders had dandruff. An explanation that I do not believe was ever contradicted or challenged by Simpson's defense.

bobaugust

You took my statement out of context by not including all of it.

As for the rest of your post, I see no need to discuss this any further. I think the community knows the truth. However, I will respond to one point, which is the defense asked a couple of questions, which, imho, could have been there whole cross. The question was that Deedrick could not say when the hairs were deposited in the cap, to which he agreed, showing they had no evidence that Simpson wore the cap on June 12th and that was the challenge to the prosecution's theory. ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

My mistake

You mistakenly used the name Walraven when you were referring to Wagner. Walraven would probably be insulted. Yes I'm aware of Wagner's home experiments and I do not find them credible or relevant to the actual evidence in this case. Are you saying Wagner wrote the cap was not wrinkled and lay as if waiting for collection?

I always find it funny when someone who argues that Simpson wasn't even at Bundy the night of the murders refers to Wagner's writings that are based on the fact that Simpson was there.

bobaugust

No, did you not see that I said, IIRC, the cap was not wrinkled. I have never argued the Simpson was not at Bundy on the night of the murders. I have argued that the prosecution failed to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he was there on that night.

[William Anthony]

You took my statement out of context by not including all of it.

As for the rest of your post, I see no need to discuss this any further. I think the community knows the truth. However, I will respond to one point, which is the defense asked a couple of questions, which, imho, could have been there whole cross. The question was that Deedrick could not say when the hairs were deposited in the cap, to which he agreed, showing they had no evidence that Simpson wore the cap on June 12th and that was the challenge to the prosecution's theory. ;) :cool:

Correction-which, imho, could have been their whole cross.

[martin II]

Martin, I've never said that there is a set time for jury deliberations. The criminal jury in downtown LA, in the criminal trial, took 3 hours. The civil jury, in Santa Monica, took 17 hours. My point is the makeup of the juries and the areas that they came from. Also, I point out the 2 different judges. One in the criminal trial who let the circus into town. The 2nd who stopped the rot.

I guess what you are trying to say is that, you would expect the all white jury would have automatically found Simpson guilty because of the racial makeup of that jury and Simpsons color.

La county is 47% white. 11 % black.
Santa monica is 74% white 3 % black.

[martin II]

My mistake was adding my opinion after stating some facts so I eliminated my opinion. The only picture I have is the one I posted a while ago showing the glove next to the knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron's feet.

You mistakenly used the name Walraven when you were referring to Wagner. Walraven would probably be insulted. Yes I'm aware of Wagner's home experiments and I do not find them credible or relevant to the actual evidence in this case. Are you saying Wagner wrote the cap was not wrinkled and lay as if waiting for collection?

I always find it funny when someone who argues that Simpson wasn't even at Bundy the night of the murders refers to Wagner's writings that are based on the fact that Simpson was there.

bobaugust

Wrong bob

One does not have to agree with all of wagner to believe some of his positions and experaments and proof that he presented.

[martin II]

I have never talked about a white jury from Santa Monica. Sigh. With the best of intentions I reply to posters who don't read what is being posted and continue on with their own agendas.

Downtown LA: mostly African American jury in criminal trial. Deliberate for 3 hours after a year of evidence.

Santa Monica: mostly non African American jurors responding to a far less rigorous burden of proof deliberate for 17 hours in a civil trial after 3 months of evidence.

bell

The criminal trial jury was not chosen from people that live in DOWNTOWN LA.
The jury is choosen from COUNTY VOTER/TAX ROLLS.IMO

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .I can't call verbatim the statement of the judge to the jury but it was close to this. Even though Simpson was acquitted for the murders, you can STILL FIND HIM LIABLE FOR THE WRONGFUL DEATHS OF RONALD GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN. . ."

shame on you william for this -- how about you actually post what was said by the judge to the jury?

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

shame on you william for this -- how about you actually post what was said by the judge to the jury?

With all due respect, that is essentially what bobaugust posted as to what the judge's comments were. However, I will look to see if I can find it and post it verbatim.

[martin II]

Bell
this is the original county jury pool.
Under CA law it was illegal for the prosecution to dissmiss black jurors because of race issues.

These jurors were from the county NOT FROM DOWNTOWN LA only.

Both sides accepted a disproportionate number of female jurors. From an original jury pool of 40% white, 28% black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian, the final jury for the trial had 10 women and 2 men, of which there were 8 blacks, 2 Hispanics, 1 Native American half-white, and 1 white female.

[William Anthony]

bell

The criminal trial jury was not chosen from people that live in DOWNTOWN LA.
The jury is choosen from COUNTY VOTER/TAX ROLLS.IMO

Mr. Bell may enjoy reading this.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1438/Jury-Legal-Aspects-Selecting-jury-from-venire.html

[William Anthony]

THE COURT: Given. Plaintiffs' requested instruction reads as
follows: As I have told you, this is a civil case. You may know that
defendant Simpson was already tried in a criminal case for the
murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman and that
defendant Simpson was acquitted in that criminal trial. You must not
consider anything that occurred at the criminal trial in deciding
this civil case. Therefore, you should understand the following
rules: The acquittal in the criminal case has no effect on this
case. Even though defendant Simpson was acquitted in the criminal
case, you can still find him liable for killing Ronald Goldman and
Nicole Brown Simpson in this civil case. The burden of proof in the
criminal case was materially different than the burden of proof is
here. In the criminal case, the prosecution had the burden of
proving that defendant Simpson murdered Ronald Goldman and Nicole
Brown Simpson beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, as I have
told you, the parties need only prove the facts that they have the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence. Three; this is
a separate civil action brought by plaintiffs. It is not an
extension or retrial of the criminal case. The District Attorney's
office is not involved in any way in this case. The Los Angeles
Police Department is only involved because its officers investigated
the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson and collected
evidence and, therefore, some of them were necessarily witnesses in
this case. Four; the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution does
not prohibit a civil case brought by victims of the crime even after
an acquittal in an earlier criminal trial. His acquittal means that
he cannot be prosecuted in a criminal case again or go to jail for
the deaths of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. However, the
plaintiffs have a right to pursue this civil action even though
defendant Simpson was acquitted at the criminal trial. Five; if you
rule in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, you will be asked to
determine what amount of money defendant Simpson must pay to the
plaintiffs as compensation for killing Nicole Brown Simpson and
Ronald Goldman. No matter what your verdict is in this case,
defendant Simpson will not be punished by imprisonment. Objections?
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, that's a speech. And when he -- the language
contained therein is exceptionally pro plaintiff. And it is
essentially, as I view it, a summary of the jury instructions, and
it's without precedence to give a summary of the jury instructions
that are going to be given. And to say that the burden of proof is
materially different, you only have to prove by a preponderance,
seems to negate, and is indeed argument. When they try to distance
themselves, the plaintiffs, from the D.A.'s office and the LAPD's
office, they're trying to instruct away -- have you instruct away
the bias that the LAPD has in favor of the plaintiffs. It takes away
a lot of our case. I don't think that's appropriate to give them any
such instruction whatsoever. They were voir dired on this issue. We
spent approximately six weeks in voir dire. These people are all
well aware of the double jeopardy. They're all well aware that this
is a civil case. They're all well aware there is a separate burden
of proof. This is argument. The plaintiffs can argue the law, but
they can't summarize what they believe the law is, and tell them
that the LAPD and the D.A.'s office, for example, are not involved,
and you only have to prove by a preponderance, and the burden of
proof is materially different. I think it's improper to give this
kind of -- of instruction to these jurors after all we've gone
through in voir dire. These jurors should be instructed pursuant to
BAJI, as in every other wrongful death case.

[William Anthony]

Continuation

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, to deal with Mr. Baker's point about the
D.A.'s office and LAPD, we will -- although we certainly don't agree
with what he said, we will withdraw everything following the second
sentence in paragraph 3; the references to the D.A.'s office and the
LAPD. We would agree to withdraw those sentences. So in paragraph 3,
it would be the first sentence only. In regard to the balance of
what Mr. Baker said, he made a continual point of referring to the
criminal trial throughout his examination of witnesses. He even
elicited from Mr. Simpson how many days he spent in jail, and he
talked about how Mr. Simpson was agreeable to hiring experts in the
criminal case, and let the chips fall where they may. He didn't go
one witness, I don't think, without his bringing up this criminal
trial. And the reason was he wanted this jury to somehow believe
that the acquittal in the criminal case has some application or
effect on them. And we need to make this crystal clear. Now, we did
some of this in voir dire. I wasn't permitted to get involved in
this area in opening statements. I certainly want to make it very,
very clear to the jury in closing argument that this is not the
criminal case, we're dealing with different burdens of proof, and
that the criminal case has no application whatsoever to this case.
And many of the jurors were absolutely confused about this. And this
case is, in some sense, virtually unprecedented in the sense that we
have this civil case following a criminal acquittal. And I think
that given the tenor of Mr. Baker's examination of witnesses, and
the theme that I know we're going to hear in argument, this kind of
instruction is necessary. It simply states the law. There's nothing
argumentative about any of this, especially if you remove those
paragraphs or those sentences that I described.
THE COURT: You ready to submit it?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.
MR. BAKER: Just one more thing, Your Honor. For him to say in here
that there is a material difference in the burden of proof, then we
have to instruct this jury on what is the difference. I think we
have to instruct on the issue of the beyond a reasonable doubt
standard. They can determine for themselves whether or not it's
materially different, whether it's not materially different. I don't
think it's appropriate to put before a jury, No. 1. And No. 2, the
assertion that this case is sui generis is preposterous. This
happens -- has happened in my career more than once, that you try a
civil case after a criminal acquittal.
THE COURT: Not --
MR. PETROCELLI: Not with this publicity, as we saw in jury
selection.
MR. BAKER: The publicity --
THE COURT: Excuse me. I don't need cross argument. If you just state
your argument to perfect your record, then submit it, I'll rule and
go on.
MR. BAKER: Paragraph 4 has plaintiffs received compensation for
killing Nicole and Ron. What the plaintiffs want you to do is, they
want to put the imprimatur of the Court in their argument. He can
argue any of this, but the imprimatur of the Court ought not to be
put upon it. Submit it.

[William Anthony]

Finality

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. The Court is going to strike the second
paragraph, that is the second paragraph from the top of the
instruction. I'm striking the number 1 in the following paragraph,
leaving the rest of the paragraph intact.

I think it is clear what the judge instructed the jury.

[tv]

I have already addressed this part of your prior post and will only add that Simpson was wise in not making Shapiro the lead attorney. Now, for the remainder.



I am surprised to hear the comments coming from someone affiliated with a law school, absent the remarks of the presiding officer that "Basically, this is a civil murder trial." It would appear that this in not an unbiased article. I said article, because I do not believe that any scholarly law journal would allow such a biased rendition. Not only did he preclude evidence of a conspiracy but also of a rush to judgment and evidence planting. The author was correct about the lower standard of proof, preponderance of the evidence.

The author was incorrect that the jury found that Simpson was found liable for causing the wrongful deaths of Mr. Ronald Goldman and Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson. Simpson was only found liable for causing the death of Mr. Ronald Goldman. Any law professor or instructor or learned student will so advise you. Was the author of the article you posted, a cook or janitor at the school, if you know?

The author is incorrect that the trial demonstrated the polarization of racial attitudes on law enforcement, imho. I think it was reaction to the verdict that exposed the aforementioned polarization not only to law enforcement but to the entirety of the judicial process. Ergo, enter the hop-skipping rulings of the presiding officer in the socio-political event, imho.

WA, I will remind you that Simpson's own defense attorney said the same thing. Even though, perhaps he also cooked for Johnnie Cochran or emptied his trash can. My, my, the unlearned riff-raff that Johnnie Cochran had for an associate. Shocking.

[William Anthony]

WA, I will remind you that Simpson's own defense attorney said the same thing. Even though, perhaps he also cooked for Johnnie Cochran or emptied his trash can. My, my, the unlearned riff-raff that Johnnie Cochran had for an associate. Shocking.

Yes, because two or more say it does not make it right. It is extremely more troubling when the remark comes from the person supposedly in place to ensure a fair trial based on the cause of action presented as opposed to a remark, indicating the Simpson would not receive a fair trial based on the plaintiffs' claims, because of the criminal trial and verdict, by one associated with the criminal trial. I think the magnificent one's learned associate was pointing out the prejudicial effect. Context is everything. Thanks, for pointing that out.

[weezer]

Yes, because two or more say it does not make it right. It is extremely more troubling when the remark comes from the person supposedly in place to ensure a fair trial based on the cause of action presented as opposed to a remark, indicating the Simpson would not receive a fair trial based on the plaintiffs' claims, because of the criminal trial and verdict, by one associated with the criminal trial. I think the magnificent one's learned associate was pointing out the prejudicial effect. Context is everything. Thanks, for pointing that out.

". . .In regard to the balance of what Mr. Baker said, he made a continual point of referring to the criminal trial throughout his examination of witnesses. He even elicited from Mr. Simpson how many days he spent in jail, and he talked about how Mr. Simpson was agreeable to hiring experts in the criminal case, and let the chips fall where they may. He didn't go one witness, I don't think, without his bringing up this criminal trial. And the reason was he wanted this jury to somehow believe that the acquittal in the criminal case has some application or effect on them. . ."

[William Anthony]

". . .In regard to the balance of what Mr. Baker said, he made a continual point of referring to the criminal trial throughout his examination of witnesses. He even elicited from Mr. Simpson how many days he spent in jail, and he talked about how Mr. Simpson was agreeable to hiring experts in the criminal case, and let the chips fall where they may. He didn't go one witness, I don't think, without his bringing up this criminal trial. And the reason was he wanted this jury to somehow believe that the acquittal in the criminal case has some application or effect on them. . ."

Which in no way excuses what the judge said, to include this part,
"Five; if you
rule in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, you will be asked to
determine what amount of money defendant Simpson must pay to the
plaintiffs as compensation for killing Nicole Brown Simpson and
Ronald Goldman. No matter what your verdict is in this case,
defendant Simpson will not be punished by imprisonment. ."

You know that the estate of Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson did not bring a wrongful death suit but a suit of survival ship based on the beating. That is why they were not asked to decide if Simpson caused her wrongful death. His comments only show his bias, imho.

In fact here are the liability questions and the jury was not asked to find compensatory damages for Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson on the issue of battery.

[weezer]

Which in no way excuses what the judge said, to include this part,
"Five; if you
rule in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, you will be asked to
determine what amount of money defendant Simpson must pay to the
plaintiffs as compensation for killing Nicole Brown Simpson and
Ronald Goldman. No matter what your verdict is in this case,
defendant Simpson will not be punished by imprisonment. ."

You know that the estate of Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson did not bring a wrongful death suit but a suit of survival ship based on the beating. That is why they were not asked to decide if Simpson caused her wrongful death. His comments only show his bias, imho.

In fact here are the liability questions and the jury was not asked to find compensatory damages for Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson on the issue of battery.

william, this discussion should be taking place on the civil trial thread. :o

[martin II]

WA, I will remind you that Simpson's own defense attorney said the same thing. Even though, perhaps he also cooked for Johnnie Cochran or emptied his trash can. My, my, the unlearned riff-raff that Johnnie Cochran had for an associate. Shocking.

I think it was Clarke that was trying out for a position to cook for Cochran as she had been seen already carrying out the garbage of her case he had left on the floor of the court roon.
:)

[William Anthony]

william, this discussion should be taking place on the civil trial thread. :o

Why? This is not testimony. It is what the jury heard and it's responsive to issues brought up by Mr. Bell. With that said, we can move it.

[William Anthony]

Which in no way excuses what the judge said, to include this part,
"Five; if you
rule in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, you will be asked to
determine what amount of money defendant Simpson must pay to the
plaintiffs as compensation for killing Nicole Brown Simpson and
Ronald Goldman. No matter what your verdict is in this case,
defendant Simpson will not be punished by imprisonment. ."

You know that the estate of Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson did not bring a wrongful death suit but a suit of survival ship based on the beating. That is why they were not asked to decide if Simpson caused her wrongful death. His comments only show his bias, imho.

In fact here are the liability questions and the jury was not asked to find compensatory damages for Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson on the issue of battery.

Don't get happy, I am not losing my mind. I forgot to include the link with the questions. It seems I must have other things on my mind. ;) :cool: :)

http://walraven.org/simpson/ver_form.html

[weezer]

Why? This is not testimony. It is what the jury heard and it's responsive to issues brought up by Mr. Bell. With that said, we can move it.

the criminal jury did not hear the civil trial judge's instructions and discussion of this does need to be on the civil trial thread.

[William Anthony]

the criminal jury did not hear the civil trial judge's instructions and discussion of this does need to be on the civil trial thread.

We recently had a discussion on what Simpson allegedly claimed and what the magnificent one said. I thought that was off topic but I was overruled, because it may be something others want to discuss. With that said, I have already agreed we can move it, even though it is not key testimony.

[weezer]

We recently had a discussion on what Simpson allegedly claimed and what the magnificent one said. I thought that was off topic but I was overruled, because it may be something others want to discuss. With that said, I have already agreed we can move it, even though it is not key testimony.

I'm not sure how you are relating the two discussions since orenthal's statement and cockroach's opening argument did happen in the criminal trial (this thread) and the civil trial judge's instructions to the civil trial jury didn't but oh well. . .

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure how you are relating the two discussions since orenthal's statement and cockroach's opening argument did happen in the criminal trial (this thread) and the civil trial judge's instructions to the civil trial jury didn't but oh well. . .

Not quite true, since the statement attributed to Simpson as to taking a nap has not been found to my knowledge.

[weezer]

Not quite true, since the statement attributed to Simpson as to taking a nap has not been found to my knowledge.

now this issue does belong on this thread. you go for it.

[William Anthony]

now this issue does belong on this thread. you go for it.

Okay, moderator in training. :)

[bobaugust]

You took my statement out of context by not including all of it.

As for the rest of your post, I see no need to discuss this any further. I think the community knows the truth. However, I will respond to one point, which is the defense asked a couple of questions, which, imho, could have been there whole cross. The question was that Deedrick could not say when the hairs were deposited in the cap, to which he agreed, showing they had no evidence that Simpson wore the cap on June 12th and that was the challenge to the prosecution's theory. ;) :cool:

Yes, anyone following this discussion does know the truth that you made an inference William that the defense never made. An inference based only on a witness's testimony saying sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer. The fact is that there is absolutely no credible evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders, just unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

No, did you not see that I said, IIRC, the cap was not wrinkled. I have never argued the Simpson was not at Bundy on the night of the murders. I have argued that the prosecution failed to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he was there on that night.

IIRC can mean different things. What is your source for your comment that the knit cap was not wrinkled and lay as if waiting for collection?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Yes, anyone following this discussion does know the truth that you made an inference William that the defense never made. An inference based only on a witness's testimony saying sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer. The fact is that there is absolutely no credible evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders, just unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

I mean this in a most civil and polite way. Can you please find something different to say or, at least, a different way of saying it. Yes, we have posted on this enough and showed our knowledge of evidence and the law for the community to make their own respective informed opinions.

[William Anthony]

IIRC can mean different things. What is your source for your comment that the knit cap was not wrinkled and lay as if waiting for collection?

bobaugust

IIRC, when I use it means if I can recall correctly. The source was my memory of the picture you posted.

[tv]

I think it was Clarke that was trying out for a position to cook for Cochran as she had been seen already carrying out the garbage of her case he had left on the floor of the court roon.
:)Very clever but this is the civil trial thread.

[William Anthony]

Very clever but this is the civil trial thread.

Why, my dear young lady, was it not you that mentioned the remark of the magnificent one's associate?

[tv]

Why, my dear young lady, was it not you that mentioned the remark of the magnificent one's associate?Why, WA, you forgot to point out to me that I'm in the wrong thread. I said civil trial thread and this is the criminal trial thread...please forgive me and carry on about the magnificent one and how magnificent he was.

[William Anthony]

Why, WA, you forgot to point out to me that I'm in the wrong thread. I said civil trial thread and this is the criminal trial thread...please forgive me and carry on about the magnificent one and how magnificent he was.

Why, my dear young lady, we all make mistakes. Take a gander at my signature.

[bobaugust]

I mean this in a most civil and polite way. Can you please find something different to say or, at least, a different way of saying it. Yes, we have posted on this enough and showed our knowledge of evidence and the law for the community to make their own respective informed opinions.

I'm sorry but I know of no other way to say that what you call a reasonable inference based only on Ms. Moore saying sometimes Simpson had dandruff and sometimes he didn't is illogical and unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I'm sorry but I know of no other way to say that what you call a reasonable inference based only on Ms. Moore saying sometimes Simpson had dandruff and sometimes he didn't is illogical and unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

I understand what you claim the first time you said it and becoming progressively more angry in the next 20 times you say it is not going to make it true, imho. It just becomes redundant and boring to me.

[bobaugust]

IIRC, when I use it means if I can recall correctly. The source was my memory of the picture you posted.

The photograph I posted only shows a partial portion of the knit cap and even that doesn't show much detail. If you thought by looking at that photograph that the knit cap was not wrinkled and lay as if waiting for collection you sure do have an active imagination, but we already know that from some of your so called "reasonable inferences." that are based only on your imagination.

http://bobaugust.com/glove.jpg

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The photograph I posted only shows a partial portion of the knit cap and even that doesn't show much detail. If you thought by looking at that photograph that the knit cap was not wrinkled and lay as if waiting for collection you sure do have an active imagination, but we already know that from some of your so called "reasonable inferences." that are based only on your imagination.

http://bobaugust.com/glove.jpg

bobaugust

IIRC, the defense also made the suggestion that the cap had been placed in that position. In the portion of your picture, the cap seems to be flat and neatly laying there, not as if it were pulled off during a struggle, imho. I would take offense at some of your statements in this post but for the fact that you have already demonstrated that you do not understand evidence or what the evidence was and, consequently, you cannot, imho, understand a reasonable inference. Remember civility, Remember respect, by bob, remember the Alamo.:)

[William Anthony]

Sometimes (pun intended) the simplest explanation is the best, instead of forming hypothetical explanations. The simplest explanation of the footprints, L and M, is that there were from two different people, imho.

[bobaugust]

IIRC, the defense also made the suggestion that the cap had been placed in that position. In the portion of your picture, the cap seems to be flat and neatly laying there, not as if it were pulled off during a struggle, imho. I would take offense at some of your statements in this post but for the fact that you have already demonstrated that you do not understand evidence or what the evidence was and, consequently, you cannot, imho, understand a reasonable inference. Remember civility, Remember respect, by bob, remember the Alamo.:)

I'm sorry William but but if you think your inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 is reasonable based on Moore saying that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summers and sometimes he didn't when there isn't one shred of evidence that Simpson had dandruff on that night then you're the one who doesn't know what a reasonable inference is.

The photograph I posted shows only a small portion of the knit cap and if you look at it closely you will see small white specs of debris on the cap as well as on the ground near the cap. We don't know how that cap ended up under the plant leaves, It may very well have been pulled off, fallen to the ground, and then kicked under the the plant leaves during Ron's struggle with his killer. But one think is clear it's impossible to tell the condition of the cap or how it got there from that photograph.

Post the testimony please where the defense suggested the cap was placed in that position, please include the date.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I'm sorry William but but if you think your inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 is reasonable based on Moore saying that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summers and sometimes he didn't when there isn't one shred of evidence that Simpson had dandruff on that night then you're the one who doesn't know what a reasonable inference is.

The photograph I posted shows only a small portion of the knit cap and if you look at it closely you will see small white specs of debris on the cap as well as on the ground near the cap. We don't know how that cap ended up under the plant leaves, It may very well have been pulled off, fallen to the ground, and then kicked under the the plant leaves during Ron's struggle with his killer. But one think is clear it's impossible to tell the condition of the cap or how it got there from that photograph.

Post the testimony please where the defense suggested the cap was placed in that position, please include the date.

bobaugust

September 29

"Why is he down there pointing at this glove where he is walking all in the blood and everything when he wants you to believe it is seven o'clock? Now, we know it is not seven o'clock. You see that photograph up there? That is Mark Fuhrman pointing. You see the envelope. Pointing under this neatly arranged cap. "

You really should respect the law. There is not one shred of evidence that he did not have dandruff on that night. That is the prosecution's burden to produce evidence showing he did not. This is why your and the prosecution's argument fails, circular reasoning based upon a flawed assumption, imho. The more you post this people with a basic understanding of the burden of proof see that you have misplaced the burden. Respect the law, respect yourself, by bob, respect the Alamo.

"It may very well have been pulled off, fallen to the ground, and then kicked under the the plant leaves during Ron's struggle with his killer. But one think is clear it's impossible to tell the condition of the cap or how it got there from that photograph." That is true, which means the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof.

[William Anthony]

I apologize to the community, because the date of the quote in my post was September 28th and this is from that same defense argument where the magnificent one magnificently ties up the evidence.

"He is intelligent enough to come and lie to you. So that picture, that photograph there, that seals their doom. That seals their doom. This man who in `85 in his mind started this, this man who is asked to go over and help O.J. Simpson and notify him and take care of the kids, this man, this perjurer, this racist, this genocidal racist, this is the man. And he says then inferentially he didn't plant the glove and now we know about these photographs, when they were taken, and you will have that contact sheet and you will see a photograph of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson and the last two on the roll taken at nighttime with the flash at 4:30 or so in the morning. Why else is this important? Because they are going to tell you, well, he didn't have an opportunity to get the glove or get access to anything. Remember they brought all these police officers in here, including Lieutenant Spangler, to say, well, you know, we were just watching Fuhrman the whole time. First of all, you knew that was a lie at the beginning. Why would they necessarily be watching him. They were always covering for him anyway. But we know that wasn't true because remember Rokahr got there shortly after three o'clock. Rokahr goes to that back alley and he sees Riske who is back there then. Remember Rokahr sees Riske in the back alley. Rokahr doesn't even see Fuhrman for like a half hour after he gets there, he says, and all of a sudden Fuhrman shows up. Where has he been? What has he been doing? And then Riske is out in the front of Bundy there and Riske testifies about the taking of this photograph. He wants to place the time later, but he said it is before the sun comes up, before daylight. That has to be because we've stipulated to it before 5:41. So inadvertently he corroborates Rokahr, but Rokahr knows because he took these photographs."

[William Anthony]

In anticipation of the argument that a witness testified that the photographer sat in her car for, IIRC, two to three hours waiting for MF to direct him, I would remind the community that cross examination is inherently more trustworthy, because a witness inadvertently speaks the truth and that the issue of credibility belonged to the jury.

[Redmama]

I apologize to the community, because the date of the quote in my post was September 28th and this is from that same defense argument where the magnificent one magnificently ties up the evidence.

"He is intelligent enough to come and lie to you. So that picture, that photograph there, that seals their doom. That seals their doom. This man who in `85 in his mind started this, this man who is asked to go over and help O.J. Simpson and notify him and take care of the kids, this man, this perjurer, this racist, this genocidal racist, this is the man. And he says then inferentially he didn't plant the glove and now we know about these photographs, when they were taken, and you will have that contact sheet and you will see a photograph of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson and the last two on the roll taken at nighttime with the flash at 4:30 or so in the morning. Why else is this important? Because they are going to tell you, well, he didn't have an opportunity to get the glove or get access to anything. Remember they brought all these police officers in here, including Lieutenant Spangler, to say, well, you know, we were just watching Fuhrman the whole time. First of all, you knew that was a lie at the beginning. Why would they necessarily be watching him. They were always covering for him anyway. But we know that wasn't true because remember Rokahr got there shortly after three o'clock. Rokahr goes to that back alley and he sees Riske who is back there then. Remember Rokahr sees Riske in the back alley. Rokahr doesn't even see Fuhrman for like a half hour after he gets there, he says, and all of a sudden Fuhrman shows up. Where has he been? What has he been doing? And then Riske is out in the front of Bundy there and Riske testifies about the taking of this photograph. He wants to place the time later, but he said it is before the sun comes up, before daylight. That has to be because we've stipulated to it before 5:41. So inadvertently he corroborates Rokahr, but Rokahr knows because he took these photographs."

I have been a lurker for a very long time - and have posted a bit. There are a couple of things here that bug me, William. I can't understand when you say you want to better this message board and then turn right around and use words like "the magnificent one." It seems to me that you want to incite people when you do that. I believe the only magnificent one is God. Just want to understand (truly I do!) why you add adjectives to peoples names while trying to raise the levels of this board. You have to understand that from an OJ guilty side, it is not a good thing that he got off - and using the magnificent ones makes it hard to think that person is the one that got OJ off is magnificent. We all have reactions to words..I'm not sure that it is avoidable. But I do believe we are all intelligent enough not to add that little extra jab - of course this is all my opinion. The guy was good, not doubt, but I'm truly trying to understand why you add that to his name. I think these discussions can happen without the added word.

It is also really difficult for me to think anyone who believes that OJ is innocent, has literally nothing negative to say about him. I'm an overall good person, imo, but it is impossible for me to be perfect. Oh yeah - put me on the stand and people would come out of the woodwork to say something negative. It truly would be comical. The guy has done some pretty weird things. Some really wrong things, imo. If I was put on the witness stand, and questioned about what happened to me yesterday…in every detail…there is no doubt I would not be able to recall every single detail. Actually, I’m not sure I could say what happened this morning!

This is all my opinion, of course.

[martin II]

I have been a lurker for a very long time - and have posted a bit. There are a couple of things here that bug me, William. I can't understand when you say you want to better this message board and then turn right around and use words like "the magnificent one." It seems to me that you want to incite people when you do that. I believe the only magnificent one is God. Just want to understand (truly I do!) why you add adjectives to peoples names while trying to raise the levels of this board. You have to understand that from an OJ guilty side, it is not a good thing that he got off - and using the magnificent ones makes it hard to think that person is the one that got OJ off is magnificent. We all have reactions to words..I'm not sure that it is avoidable. But I do believe we are all intelligent enough not to add that little extra jab - of course this is all my opinion. The guy was good, not doubt, but I'm truly trying to understand why you add that to his name. I think these discussions can happen without the added word.

It is also really difficult for me to think anyone who believes that OJ is innocent, has literally nothing negative to say about him. I'm an overall good person, imo, but it is impossible for me to be perfect. Oh yeah - put me on the stand and people would come out of the woodwork to say something negative. It truly would be comical. The guy has done some pretty weird things. Some really wrong things, imo. If I was put on the witness stand, and questioned about what happened to me yesterday…in every detail…there is no doubt I would not be able to recall every single detail. Actually, I’m not sure I could say what happened this morning!

This is all my opinion, of course.


I think Cochran deserves some props especiallty since he is often called "cockroach" and other negative adjectives by those that don't agree with the verdict.
But considering how Cocrhran performed his craft in the court room,
"the magnificent one." seems very appropreate.
The defense team 'GOT OJ OFF' because the prosecution did not meet their burden of proving their claims beyond a reasonable doubt.
And that is my opinion.:cool:

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

You have to remember that while the trial almost lasted 10 months, there were many interuptions, due to illnesses, funerals, jury revolt, juror investigations, plus a gillizon side bars, not to mention the motions and witnesses heard when the jury was sent back to wait it out. Also, if there were any holidays, they did not hear evidence. I think there was a time when Judge Ito said that there would be no court on Friday to handle all the motions and/or stopping court at 3:00 p.m.

IMO, I think if you added up the time the jurors actually heard evidence, you would be surprised.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Why did the DA's say the hair on and in the hat was OJ Simpson's? Because it was determined that these hairs came from a African-American.

The defense countered that arguement with the dandruff and Ms. Moore.'s testimony. She explained when Simpson seemed to have more dandruff then not, when he was out in the sun, playing golf. Well, Simpson played golf that day, didn't he play golf almost every day?

Neither side could neither prove or disprove who's hair it was, however, the defense presentation of this evidence challenged the DA's assertion the hair was Simpson's. Again, the defense provided a reasonable doubt on this evidence.

PS--just to be fair, didn't OJ go to a black tie affair the night before--I wonder if anyone thought to check his tux for dandruff or if Paula was ever asked about this question.

[bobaugust]

IIRC, the defense also made the suggestion that the cap had been placed in that position. In the portion of your picture, the cap seems to be flat and neatly laying there, not as if it were pulled off during a struggle, imho. I would take offense at some of your statements in this post but for the fact that you have already demonstrated that you do not understand evidence or what the evidence was and, consequently, you cannot, imho, understand a reasonable inference. Remember civility, Remember respect, by bob, remember the Alamo.:)

I'm not the one who makes inferences based on my imagination and then call them reasonable, you're the one who does that William.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Sometimes (pun intended) the simplest explanation is the best, instead of forming hypothetical explanations. The simplest explanation of the footprints, L and M, is that there were from two different people, imho.

Right and these two different people were both wearing the exact same shoes. That sure sounds like a simple explanation that a simpleminded person might make.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

September 29

"Why is he down there pointing at this glove where he is walking all in the blood and everything when he wants you to believe it is seven o'clock? Now, we know it is not seven o'clock. You see that photograph up there? That is Mark Fuhrman pointing. You see the envelope. Pointing under this neatly arranged cap. "

You really should respect the law. There is not one shred of evidence that he did not have dandruff on that night. That is the prosecution's burden to produce evidence showing he did not. This is why your and the prosecution's argument fails, circular reasoning based upon a flawed assumption, imho. The more you post this people with a basic understanding of the burden of proof see that you have misplaced the burden. Respect the law, respect yourself, by bob, respect the Alamo.

"It may very well have been pulled off, fallen to the ground, and then kicked under the the plant leaves during Ron's struggle with his killer. But one think is clear it's impossible to tell the condition of the cap or how it got there from that photograph." That is true, which means the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof.

It was not the prosecution's burden to provide evidence that Simpson didn't have dandruff the night of the murders since there was no evidence that he had dandruff on June 12 and no claim that he had dandruff on June 12. You keep trying to avoid that fact.

The fact that the knit cap was found under the plant leaves at Ron's feet next to one of the killer's gloves, and without evidence to the contrary it is not unreasonable to infer that the knit cap was worn by the killer. The fact that hair and fiber evidence found in and on the knit cap points to Simpson is incriminating evidence against Simpson.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I apologize to the community, because the date of the quote in my post was September 28th and this is from that same defense argument where the magnificent one magnificently ties up the evidence.

"He is intelligent enough to come and lie to you. So that picture, that photograph there, that seals their doom. That seals their doom. This man who in `85 in his mind started this, this man who is asked to go over and help O.J. Simpson and notify him and take care of the kids, this man, this perjurer, this racist, this genocidal racist, this is the man. And he says then inferentially he didn't plant the glove and now we know about these photographs, when they were taken, and you will have that contact sheet and you will see a photograph of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson and the last two on the roll taken at nighttime with the flash at 4:30 or so in the morning. Why else is this important? Because they are going to tell you, well, he didn't have an opportunity to get the glove or get access to anything. Remember they brought all these police officers in here, including Lieutenant Spangler, to say, well, you know, we were just watching Fuhrman the whole time. First of all, you knew that was a lie at the beginning. Why would they necessarily be watching him. They were always covering for him anyway. But we know that wasn't true because remember Rokahr got there shortly after three o'clock. Rokahr goes to that back alley and he sees Riske who is back there then. Remember Rokahr sees Riske in the back alley. Rokahr doesn't even see Fuhrman for like a half hour after he gets there, he says, and all of a sudden Fuhrman shows up. Where has he been? What has he been doing? And then Riske is out in the front of Bundy there and Riske testifies about the taking of this photograph. He wants to place the time later, but he said it is before the sun comes up, before daylight. That has to be because we've stipulated to it before 5:41. So inadvertently he corroborates Rokahr, but Rokahr knows because he took these photographs."

The fact is that Riske testified that he saw Rokahr take the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove after Fuhrman and Phillips returned from Rockingham. Riske estimated the time at about 6:30 or 6:40. As far as I know Riske never said that it was before the sun came up. In the civil trial he said it was becoming dawn, just started to get light.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

In anticipation of the argument that a witness testified that the photographer sat in her car for, IIRC, two to three hours waiting for MF to direct him, I would remind the community that cross examination is inherently more trustworthy, because a witness inadvertently speaks the truth and that the issue of credibility belonged to the jury.

The witness you are referring to was Sandra Clairborne and she did not testify in the criminal trial, only in the civil trial.

bobaugust

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

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

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

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

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

limakey,

No, I am never grateful for evidence that is excluded that should be included in a proceeding if it is pertinent and falls within the rules of evidence.

I will forever wish that you would cease assuming that all individuals who share the belief that OJ is guilty arrived at that conclusion in the same ways, and that our thought processes are all the same. I am quite capable of believing in his guilt while agreeing with the criminal trial verdict and finding fault with things prosecution related. I do not live in a bubble, nor am I naive or stubborn enough to believe that just because I find him guilty means that shady things did not occur or that the procescution did not have fault. It would be nice if you could realize that.

Moving on, I believe that the reasons judge Ito did not include all of that information can be found in the California Evidence Code.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

In regards to the N-Word, were you raised not to say that word? Were you told it was "bad" word or a "swear" word? And from your upbring, how did you feel when ever you heard a white person say that word. Do you feel the same way when you heard a black person using the same word?

I was raised that words like the "n-word" and other slurs for other races were just plain "bad" words and that I was not allowed to say them. However, I realized very quickly that not everybody was raised the same way I was on this issue, but I do get the same feeling when I hear someone use the n-word and it doesn't matter what the race of the person is. IMO.

In regards to Denise and the DA's dropping their motive, I believe the DA's called Denise with the hope she would re-establish their motive. The DA's knew that they had problems because the jury was expecting to hear from more police witness on this issue. Also, they had to deal with Nicole saying that it only happend once---to a police officer. However, Denise did hurt the motive because again, another incident was fueled by drink.

I also think that the DA's knew that the tape of Denise saying goodbye to the Brown family also really, really hurt their motive. The DA's also knew the defense had a witness who apparently had a different version of events that night.

One more incident that just plain hurt the DA's motive was Darden sneaking in that one picture that was not from the 1989 incident. Judge Ito explain why he had to strike that photo from the record, made the DA's look even weaker and desperate on this issue.

IMO, I think the DA's used the domestic violence motive because they did not want to go into Nicole's or Ron's personal lives. They did not want the true nature of their friendship to be known to the jury and the public. And no, I am not saying that it was a romantic relationship--just they were much better friends then we have been lead to believe. IMO.

I was raised to practice tolerance, kindness, and respect. Above all else, I was raised to believe that people are people regardless of the color of their skin. That particular word was one not ever brought up by my parents, it was assumed that I would understand what is and is not appropriate. Frankly, I feel equal parts disgust when I hear anyone using the term and it matters not the color. Am I to assume you have a point on wanting this information?

What part of Ron and Nicole's lives do you think the prosecutors did not want to dive into? Why do you believe they did not want the "true nature" of their friendship to be known to the public and the jury? What, exactly, do you think it is that the two of them were involved in that is so ugly it couldn't be shared?

Kate

[SlowHandSam]

Thanks Kate for your moment of tranquility. Agreed absolutely that we who find Simpson guilty arrive there in the same way. Within the truth. Shady things did occur and the prosecution screwed up. I have posted the latter, it seems for ever but..... I'm breathing deeply now and taking time to ponder the truth of your post.

I'll bet that you aren't posted to. I'll bet that I'm attacked for what..?

Let's see.


Tranquility Kate. Thank you. Much appreciated.

Joseph, I would hope that neither would be the case since a few posters have been harping on improving the quality of this community.

[William Anthony]

The witness you are referring to was Sandra Clairborne and she did not testify in the criminal trial, only in the civil trial.

bobaugust

I never said she did. I anticipated a fruitless argument. ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

The fact is that Riske testified that he saw Rokahr take the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove after Fuhrman and Phillips returned from Rockingham. Riske estimated the time at about 6:30 or 6:40. As far as I know Riske never said that it was before the sun came up. In the civil trial he said it was becoming dawn, just started to get light.

bobaugust

He testified it was just starting to get light in the criminal trial, i.e. it was still dark. The sun rose at 5:41.

[William Anthony]

It was not the prosecution's burden to provide evidence that Simpson didn't have dandruff the night of the murders since there was no evidence that he had dandruff on June 12 and no claim that he had dandruff on June 12. You keep trying to avoid that fact.

The fact that the knit cap was found under the plant leaves at Ron's feet next to one of the killer's gloves, and without evidence to the contrary it is not unreasonable to infer that the knit cap was worn by the killer. The fact that hair and fiber evidence found in and on the knit cap points to Simpson is incriminating evidence against Simpson.

bobaugust

You keep avoiding the fact that the prosecution must provide evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the evidence can be trusted beyond a reasonable doubt to fit their theories and claims. The evidence of no dandruff was rebutted and they failed to rebut that evidence. According to the jury instructions when the evidence is of a caliber to allow two reasonable inferences, one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence, the jury must accept the one pointing to innocence. That neatly arranged cap and the lack of evidence that he did not have dandruff combined with the dragging of the body through the crime scenes and police traveling from one crime scene to the other is exculpatory evidence leading to a finding of not guilty, imho.

[SlowHandSam]

He testified it was just starting to get light in the criminal trial, i.e. it was still dark. The sun rose at 5:41.

so is it your claim that the sun was completely up at 5:41AM?

"it was just starting to get light" would make sense if the sun was on the horizon at 5:41AM - in some places it's a tad darker than others given shadows from the environment etc -

to say that it was full daylight at 5:41AM seems a bit of a stretch to me.

[William Anthony]

I have been a lurker for a very long time - and have posted a bit. There are a couple of things here that bug me, William. I can't understand when you say you want to better this message board and then turn right around and use words like "the magnificent one." It seems to me that you want to incite people when you do that. I believe the only magnificent one is God. Just want to understand (truly I do!) why you add adjectives to peoples names while trying to raise the levels of this board. You have to understand that from an OJ guilty side, it is not a good thing that he got off - and using the magnificent ones makes it hard to think that person is the one that got OJ off is magnificent. We all have reactions to words..I'm not sure that it is avoidable. But I do believe we are all intelligent enough not to add that little extra jab - of course this is all my opinion. The guy was good, not doubt, but I'm truly trying to understand why you add that to his name. I think these discussions can happen without the added word.

It is also really difficult for me to think anyone who believes that OJ is innocent, has literally nothing negative to say about him. I'm an overall good person, imo, but it is impossible for me to be perfect. Oh yeah - put me on the stand and people would come out of the woodwork to say something negative. It truly would be comical. The guy has done some pretty weird things. Some really wrong things, imo. If I was put on the witness stand, and questioned about what happened to me yesterday…in every detail…there is no doubt I would not be able to recall every single detail. Actually, I’m not sure I could say what happened this morning!

This is all my opinion, of course.

To admire a person's skill in a courtroom should not incite anyone, imho. God is above all accolades that the human voice can speak, imho. Those who do not want to recognize his skill, because they think he got a guilty person off are the ones that are allowing their anger to cloud their judgment as to his ability, imho. They are the ones that have the problem and their anger speaks praise to his magnificence, imho.

[William Anthony]

so is it your claim that the sun was completely up at 5:41AM?

"it was just starting to get light" would make sense if the sun was on the horizon at 5:41AM - in some places it's a tad darker than others given shadows from the environment etc -

to say that it was full daylight at 5:41AM seems a bit of a stretch to me.

It is not my claim. It was stipulated to in the courtroom. The fact is that the evidence is that the photograph would have been taken before the sun rose.

[SlowHandSam]

It is not my claim. It was stipulated to in the courtroom. The fact is that the evidence is that the photograph would have been taken before the sun rose.

William, I have done a search on the testimony and I do not find where this is stipulated. Will you please provide a date or link?

Thanks,

[William Anthony]

Right and these two different people were both wearing the exact same shoes. That sure sounds like a simple explanation that a simpleminded person might make.

bobaugust

To assume that two people are wearing the same shoes would be an assumption made by a simpleminded person, imho. To assume that two people bought the same style of shoes and wore them on the same day at the same place is plausible, unless they are females who think that such a thing is unreasonable. ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

William, I have done a search on the testimony and I do not find where this is stipulated. Will you please provide a date or link?

Thanks,

I do not have the date but it is rather common knowledge that it was stipulated to and the magnificent one stated it in his closing. It was also stipulated that there was a waxing moon.

[SlowHandSam]

I do not have the date but it is rather common knowledge that it was stipulated to and the magnificent one stated it in his closing. It was also stipulated that there was a waxing moon.

William, thank you for the extra phrase to search ... it was a "waxing crescent moon" for those who want to keyword search on it.

This testimony only supports that it was a dark night - not that there was a stipulation that the sun was in its full glory at 5:41AM.

That is where I am trying to direct testimony or evidence to support this claim.

[William Anthony]

William, thank you for the extra phrase to search ... it was a "waxing crescent moon" for those who want to keyword search on it.

This testimony only supports that it was a dark night - not that there was a stipulation that the sun was in its full glory at 5:41AM.

That is where I am trying to direct testimony or evidence to support this claim.

There would be not testimony on it because it was uncontested. Here is what the magnificent one said.

"He wants to place the time later, but he said it is before the sun comes up, before daylight. That has to be because we've stipulated to it before 5:41. So inadvertently he corroborates Rokahr, but Rokahr knows because he took these photographs."

[SlowHandSam]

There would be not testimony on it because it was uncontested. Here is what the magnificent one said.

"He wants to place the time later, but he said it is before the sun comes up, before daylight. That has to be because we've stipulated to it before 5:41. So inadvertently he corroborates Rokahr, but Rokahr knows because he took these photographs."

Here is my problem with JC closing statement. The stipulation was not that it was "before" 5:41 but that it was at 5:41. Well the first stip was that it was at 5:42 and then 5:41.

Not once in the arguments was it stated it was "before" 5:41. That was JC taking some license with his ability to make his story fit.

[William Anthony]

Here is my problem with JC closing statement. The stipulation was not that it was "before" 5:41 but that it was at 5:41. Well the first stip was that it was at 5:42 and then 5:41.

Not once in the arguments was it stated it was "before" 5:41. That was JC taking some license with his ability to make his story fit.

I think it was just a missing comma. That has to be because we've stipulated to it before, 5:41. he was simply stating that they had previously stipulated to the time, imho

[SlowHandSam]

I think it was just a missing comma. That has to be because we've stipulated to it before, 5:41. he was simply stating that they had previously stipulated to the time, imho

I don't interpret it that way.

[William Anthony]

I don't interpret it that way.

The point of his argument is that the photo was taken before 5:41 when the sun rose, imho. The time was previously stipulated to.

[bobaugust]

He testified it was just starting to get light in the criminal trial, i.e. it was still dark. The sun rose at 5:41.

Just starting to get light is not as dark as at night. This is how Riske described it in the civil trial.

October 28, 1996

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now at the time that picture was taken with Mark Fuhrman pointing at the glove, it was daylight; wasn't it?
A. No.
Q. How dark was it?
A. It was like dawn, just becoming dawn. Just started to get light.
Q. Did you still need to use flashlights?
A. Kind of subjective. I mean, to stand on the street to look for evidence, probably.
Q. You could see clearly, Detective Fuhrman from your advantage point out in front, you could see Detective Fuhrman clearly pointing at the glove and the picture being taken, correct?
A. Um-hum.
Q. You didn't need a flashlight for that?
A. No.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You keep avoiding the fact that the prosecution must provide evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the evidence can be trusted beyond a reasonable doubt to fit their theories and claims. The evidence of no dandruff was rebutted and they failed to rebut that evidence. According to the jury instructions when the evidence is of a caliber to allow two reasonable inferences, one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence, the jury must accept the one pointing to innocence. That neatly arranged cap and the lack of evidence that he did not have dandruff combined with the dragging of the body through the crime scenes and police traveling from one crime scene to the other is exculpatory evidence leading to a finding of not guilty, imho.

You say the evidence of no dandruff was rebutted? Post the testimony and include the date please.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

It is not my claim. It was stipulated to in the courtroom. The fact is that the evidence is that the photograph would have been taken before the sun rose.

What evidence is there that the photograph was taken before the sun rose?

bobaugust
.

[bobaugust]

To assume that two people are wearing the same shoes would be an assumption made by a simpleminded person, imho. To assume that two people bought the same style of shoes and wore them on the same day at the same place is plausible, unless they are females who think that such a thing is unreasonable. ;) :cool:

Funny. I assume you are joking.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

There would be not testimony on it because it was uncontested. Here is what the magnificent one said.

"He wants to place the time later, but he said it is before the sun comes up, before daylight. That has to be because we've stipulated to it before 5:41. So inadvertently he corroborates Rokahr, but Rokahr knows because he took these photographs."

Rokahr testified in the criminal trial that he didn't know what time he took that photograph.

September 5, 1995

MR. DARDEN: The bottom line, sir, is that you can't tell this jury at what time you took photos 34 and 35; is that correct?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: You don't know?
MR. ROKAHR: The only time recorded on my paperwork is when we leave the scene.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You say the evidence of no dandruff was rebutted? Post the testimony and include the date please.

bobaugust

I already did.

[William Anthony]

Just starting to get light is not as dark as at night. This is how Riske described it in the civil trial.

October 28, 1996

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now at the time that picture was taken with Mark Fuhrman pointing at the glove, it was daylight; wasn't it?
A. No.
Q. How dark was it?
A. It was like dawn, just becoming dawn. Just started to get light.
Q. Did you still need to use flashlights?
A. Kind of subjective. I mean, to stand on the street to look for evidence, probably.
Q. You could see clearly, Detective Fuhrman from your advantage point out in front, you could see Detective Fuhrman clearly pointing at the glove and the picture being taken, correct?
A. Um-hum.
Q. You didn't need a flashlight for that?
A. No.

bobaugust

Just what I said. It was dark.

[William Anthony]

Rokahr testified in the criminal trial that he didn't know what time he took that photograph.

September 5, 1995

MR. DARDEN: The bottom line, sir, is that you can't tell this jury at what time you took photos 34 and 35; is that correct?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: You don't know?
MR. ROKAHR: The only time recorded on my paperwork is when we leave the scene.

bobaugust

We all know that he told Nufield 4:30 and then tried to change his story with the testimony you posted.

[William Anthony]

Funny. I assume you are joking.

bobaugust

Are you calling a hypothetical speculation a joke? ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

"MR. NEUFELD: And the first 33 frames on that roll, those would be those overall shots you talked about that you took between approximately, oh, 3:25 and say 3:55 in the morning?

MR. ROKAHR: Whatever the time was, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And the last two shots that appear on there, those would be the two shots that you took sometime between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning; is that correct?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, didn't you--didn't you say just before the break that the time that the photographs were taken of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, given the times that you gave for the other events that evening, would be somewhere between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning?

MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony.

MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you say that, sir?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ROKAHR: I probably did. I have frankly no recollection as to the actual times involved.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, yesterday, when you were interviewed by me, were you interviewed by me for approximately an hour and a half?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And would it be fair to say that the majority of that time, you were giving a narrative of what happened, the order it happened and the times it happened on June 13th of 1994? Isn't that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: May I publish it to the jury, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. Why don't you ask him--you want to ask him a question about the frame numbers?

MR. NEUFELD: That appears in each picture? Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: Aside from the number in the lower right-hand corner of the actual print, is there also a number beneath the print which indicates which frame it was or which shot it was in the roll?

MR. ROKAHR: There's only one imprint on the negative. There are no other numbers.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, no. Are there numbers below each print there that would show you it is the third frame or the fourth frame or the sixth frame?

MR. ROKAHR: You mean the ones that are put on by Kodak?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes. The one put on by Kodak.

MR. ROKAHR: Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And do those also appear on those sheets?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, before I publish it, I would like to use the elmo, and I think we have to cut the feed.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Just a couple questions first. Sir, in the--those establishment, location, overall shots, whatever you want to call it, those first 33 shots, in those 33 shots, you used the flash?

MR. ROKAHR: I use a flash on every photograph I take.

MR. NEUFELD: And the--and in addition to the flash, there were streetlights that to some extent or other artificial lights that were there that illuminated the scene as well; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you can see the illumination given off by those other lights in these various prints; can you not?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And when you shot the two photographs of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, as to those two shots, you shot those with a flash; did you not?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm now going to show you what is frame 34 and 35 on your first roll of film.

MR. NEUFELD: Is the feed cut?

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, first of all, let me show you one at a time. Do you see those two?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And by the way, all the other photographs on that first roll, 1 through 33, those were all shot at nighttime; isn't that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: They were shot what?

MR. NEUFELD: At nighttime.

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: And as to 34, the 34th picture, do you see that on the screen?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: That is Detective Fuhrman.

MR. NEUFELD: And in 35, is that also Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: That is also Detective Fuhrman.

MR. NEUFELD: And those were the last two pictures you took on that first roll of film during the night at Bundy on June 13th--in the early morning hours of June 13th, 1994?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: At night?

THE COURT: Overruled."

[martin II]

"MR. NEUFELD: And the first 33 frames on that roll, those would be those overall shots you talked about that you took between approximately, oh, 3:25 and say 3:55 in the morning?

MR. ROKAHR: Whatever the time was, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And the last two shots that appear on there, those would be the two shots that you took sometime between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning; is that correct?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, didn't you--didn't you say just before the break that the time that the photographs were taken of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, given the times that you gave for the other events that evening, would be somewhere between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning?

MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony.

MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you say that, sir?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ROKAHR: I probably did. I have frankly no recollection as to the actual times involved.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, yesterday, when you were interviewed by me, were you interviewed by me for approximately an hour and a half?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And would it be fair to say that the majority of that time, you were giving a narrative of what happened, the order it happened and the times it happened on June 13th of 1994? Isn't that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: May I publish it to the jury, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. Why don't you ask him--you want to ask him a question about the frame numbers?

MR. NEUFELD: That appears in each picture? Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: Aside from the number in the lower right-hand corner of the actual print, is there also a number beneath the print which indicates which frame it was or which shot it was in the roll?

MR. ROKAHR: There's only one imprint on the negative. There are no other numbers.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, no. Are there numbers below each print there that would show you it is the third frame or the fourth frame or the sixth frame?

MR. ROKAHR: You mean the ones that are put on by Kodak?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes. The one put on by Kodak.

MR. ROKAHR: Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And do those also appear on those sheets?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, before I publish it, I would like to use the elmo, and I think we have to cut the feed.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Just a couple questions first. Sir, in the--those establishment, location, overall shots, whatever you want to call it, those first 33 shots, in those 33 shots, you used the flash?

MR. ROKAHR: I use a flash on every photograph I take.

MR. NEUFELD: And the--and in addition to the flash, there were streetlights that to some extent or other artificial lights that were there that illuminated the scene as well; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you can see the illumination given off by those other lights in these various prints; can you not?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And when you shot the two photographs of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, as to those two shots, you shot those with a flash; did you not?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm now going to show you what is frame 34 and 35 on your first roll of film.

MR. NEUFELD: Is the feed cut?

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, first of all, let me show you one at a time. Do you see those two?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And by the way, all the other photographs on that first roll, 1 through 33, those were all shot at nighttime; isn't that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: They were shot what?

MR. NEUFELD: At nighttime.

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: And as to 34, the 34th picture, do you see that on the screen?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: That is Detective Fuhrman.

MR. NEUFELD: And in 35, is that also Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: That is also Detective Fuhrman.

MR. NEUFELD: And those were the last two pictures you took on that first roll of film during the night at Bundy on June 13th--in the early morning hours of June 13th, 1994?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: At night?

THE COURT: Overruled."

Neufeld is good.

[limakey]

Kate,

I was asking your opinon on why Judge Ito left that part out about Fuhrman's bragging about the gun. However, I did go about it the long way, didn't I?

I know how you feel about the case and the verdict. In all fairness, I do believe that each poster here, regardless of side, do think they are being fair and truly believe what they believe. However, it would be kind of nice if every once in awhile, one side could make a positive comment about another's post in regards to something like, "I never thought about that." Not that it would change minds, but just open up the debate more.

I think you are the only G that does not have a problem the criminal trial verdict but do believe Simpson is guilty. Now that takes guts!!!!

I reference to the N-word on how you were raised, it seemed to me that during the trial, the majority of the media said that it was just a word, that it was only a word---totally ignoring the words surround that word.

Then you have these people that try to justify (I'm not sure if that is the right word) Fuhrman using that word when some African Americans use it, perfect example, Jesse Jackson. My point was that IMO, most people who hear others use racial slurs or other slurs, such as slurs about gay people, know exactly what they are hearing and they know how they react and feel when they hear these words, regardless of the race or gender or age of the person. I also believe that anyone who uses these slurs know they are "bad" words and they don't care. I believe they know the discomfort, the pain and hurt these words cause. However, what I do find to be a popular belief is one that many people will say, "I can say whatever I want about my family or ethic backround---but nobody else better say the exact same words in regards to my family or ethnic backround." I no longer share this belief.

[limakey]

Okay, lets get to the point about the pictures:

1. DA's tried to hide ROKAHR--the defense never got the contact sheets until late in the trial and Judge Ito had to force the DA's to hand them over.

2. Wasn't Rokahr also the guy who took the video film at Rockingham? Did the DA's try to bury this because they said it was just an insurance video and they did not have to turn it over?

3. Last but not least, doesn't anyone notice or think it is odd is that there is only one photo of a detective pointing at an evidence item? And that detective happens to be Mark Fuhrman?

4. If Fuhrman was sent to have his picture taken of the glove---why didn't Fuhrman take the photographer over the bloody finger print on the back gate?

5. I believe the DA's tried to imply that Rokahr was sick, was on some heavy duty medications at the time, that made his testimony about times shakey? Well, how come the DA's didn't apply that same logic to the nurse?

[limakey]

Kate,

IMO, I think it is very fair to say that a majority of murder victims lives are investigated. While this causes great pain to the family and friends of the victims, the police are obligated to find out what was going on in that person's life and what could have led to these murders. I have no problem with this.

However, in this case, it didn't happen. If Dr. Ameli is telling the truth, then why was Ron's folder taken? Did something come out in the group sessions that Ron and Nicole attended together that someone went to great lengths to protect? Is this why the DA's did not use Dr. Ameli and would not provide her with protection?

Why when she was attacked from behind, did they even mention Ron Goldman, if Nicole was the target and her ex-husband was already in jail for the murders?

Ron had torture or control wounds---Nicole did not. Ron could have called out, yet he remained silent---was it because he was watching Nicole be held a knife point? Did they threaten with the children if he called out?

Was Nicole at the wrong place at the wrong time? As you know, I think the crime of passion motive should have been used, but the DA's didn't, it made no sense. IMO.

[tv]

Kate,

IMO, I think it is very fair to say that a majority of murder victims lives are investigated. While this causes great pain to the family and friends of the victims, the police are obligated to find out what was going on in that person's life and what could have led to these murders. I have no problem with this.

However, in this case, it didn't happen. If Dr. Ameli is telling the truth, then why was Ron's folder taken? Did something come out in the group sessions that Ron and Nicole attended together that someone went to great lengths to protect? Is this why the DA's did not use Dr. Ameli and would not provide her with protection?

Why when she was attacked from behind, did they even mention Ron Goldman, if Nicole was the target and her ex-husband was already in jail for the murders?

Ron had torture or control wounds---Nicole did not. Ron could have called out, yet he remained silent---was it because he was watching Nicole be held a knife point? Did they threaten with the children if he called out?

Was Nicole at the wrong place at the wrong time? As you know, I think the crime of passion motive should have been used, but the DA's didn't, it made no sense. IMO.Ron did call out. Robert Heidstra testified to hearing a young male voice yell "Hey, hey, hey" and then an older, deeper male voice after that.

[limakey]

TV,

It can't be proven who said the "hey, hey, hey". There is no proof that it was Ron Goldman who said these words. Now if the words were, "help, help, help"---then I think you have a strong arguement for it being Ron. IMO.

[martin II]

You say TV's post can't be proven. Go ahead. Prove that she's wrong.

Actually there was no proof by the prosecution that the hey hey hey was ron.
The Prosecutions time of the murders was actually at 10:20. So according to them ron was there at 10:20. Heidstra testified that he heard the yel at 1o:40 and there was no eye witnesses that it was ron that yelled.So if you use the prosecution timeline it was not ron.
There is another theory that the hey hey hey was made by a man in a car on bundy yelling at the dog in the street.

It was the prosecution duty to prove their claims. If they say it was ron then they must prove that. Otherwise who it was is speculation.

Did you ever decide how Australians and blacks there were effected by the oj verdict?? That is what i am waiting on you to explain since you made the claim.:cool:

[William Anthony]

I hope martin sees your above post. Can't be proven means can't be proven right or wrong, imho.

[martin II]

You say TV's post can't be proven. Go ahead. Prove that she's wrong.

Bell
At some point maby you will understand how the CJS works on the issue of proof.

[tv]

TV,

It can't be proven who said the "hey, hey, hey". There is no proof that it was Ron Goldman who said these words. Now if the words were, "help, help, help"---then I think you have a strong arguement for it being Ron. IMO.The fact that it was a young male voice followed by a older deeper male voice sounds very much to me like Ron and Simpson. OJ Simpson is well-known for his very deep voice. Daniel Petrocelli even remarked that all during the civil trial he could hear him talking to his attorneys and his voice was deep and rumbling. BTW, please be aware that I'm paraphrasing what DP said. There is no proof that Ron said these words because he's dead and can't say but I think most people believe it was him.

[martin II]

The fact that it was a young male voice followed by a older deeper male voice sounds very much to me like Ron and Simpson. OJ Simpson is well-known for his very deep voice. Daniel Petrocelli even remarked that all during the civil trial he could hear him talking to his attorneys and his voice was deep and rumbling. BTW, please be aware that I'm paraphrasing what DP said. There is no proof that Ron said these words because he's dead and can't say but I think most people believe it was him.

TV

The hey hey hey was another instance where the prosecution found themselves 'OUT OF POCKET' having claimed that the murders happened at 10:20 but having to remain kinda silent on that timeline after the defense called Heidstra to testify. Heidstra interpretation of a voice he heard from a alley behind a house and a large tree that was across the street from Nicoles house may be questionable especially since he testified that two Dogs were barking very loud nonstop at the same time. :shrug:

[tv]

TV

The hey hey hey was another instance where the prosecution found themselves 'OUT OF POCKET' having claimed that the murders happened at 10:20 but having to remain kinda silent on that timeline after the defense called Heidstra to testify. Heidstra interpretation of a voice he heard from a alley behind a house and a large tree that was across the street from Nicoles house may be questionable especially since he testified that two Dogs were barking very loud nonstop at the same time. :shrug:If you find his testimony about the voices questionable why do you believe what he said about the dogs barking?

[William Anthony]

The race card.

"MR. DARDEN: Okay. So the second voice was deeper than the first one?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yeah, a little deeper. I couldn't hardly hear it. It was just very short.

MR. DARDEN: And the second voice that you heard, did it sound to you as if the person with the second voice was older than the person with the first voice?

MR. COCHRAN: Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

THE COURT: Foundational.

MR. DARDEN: Can you tell us whether or not the second voice sounded more mature than the first voice?

MR. COCHRAN: Same objection.

MR. HEIDSTRA: I couldn't say that.

THE COURT: Hold on.

MR. DARDEN: The second voice that you heard sounded like the voice of a black man; is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Objected to, your Honor. I object.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained."

[martin II]

If you find his testimony about the voices questionable why do you believe what he said about the dogs barking?

tv
my point is that he heard the hey hey hey from where he was in the alley with the physical obstacles between himself and nicoles front gate with a small black dog where he was and a big dog in the street barking loudly. look at a overview of the distance from the alley and Nicoles gate.

[martin II]

The race card.

"MR. DARDEN: Okay. So the second voice was deeper than the first one?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yeah, a little deeper. I couldn't hardly hear it. It was just very short.

MR. DARDEN: And the second voice that you heard, did it sound to you as if the person with the second voice was older than the person with the first voice?

MR. COCHRAN: Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

THE COURT: Foundational.

MR. DARDEN: Can you tell us whether or not the second voice sounded more mature than the first voice?

MR. COCHRAN: Same objection.

MR. HEIDSTRA: I couldn't say that.

THE COURT: Hold on.

MR. DARDEN: The second voice that you heard sounded like the voice of a black man; is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Objected to, your Honor. I object.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained."

William
I remember when darden tried to pull that off. Some people still believe heidstra agreed with what Darden asked. But he didn't imo

[William Anthony]

The fact that it was a young male voice followed by a older deeper male voice sounds very much to me like Ron and Simpson. OJ Simpson is well-known for his very deep voice. Daniel Petrocelli even remarked that all during the civil trial he could hear him talking to his attorneys and his voice was deep and rumbling. BTW, please be aware that I'm paraphrasing what DP said. There is no proof that Ron said these words because he's dead and can't say but I think most people believe it was him.

You think it could have been Ossie Douglas or Larry King? :) My voice is low but it does not carry. People say that I am mumbling. I have never been to California, smile.

[martin II]

The fact that it was a young male voice followed by a older deeper male voice sounds very much to me like Ron and Simpson. OJ Simpson is well-known for his very deep voice. Daniel Petrocelli even remarked that all during the civil trial he could hear him talking to his attorneys and his voice was deep and rumbling. BTW, please be aware that I'm paraphrasing what DP said. There is no proof that Ron said these words because he's dead and can't say but I think most people believe it was him.

tv
what you think Heidstra terstified to is not what he testified to.
See willianms post of Heidstras testimony.What you posted is what darden asked.

[William Anthony]

"THE COURT: Wait, WAIT.

MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, would you step into the jury room, please.

(The jury was excused and the following proceedings were held in open court, out of their presence:)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Heidstra, you can step down. Mr. Darden, where are you going with this?

MR. DARDEN: Can we have Mr. Heidstra step outside?

THE COURT: Mr. Heidstra, why don't you step outside.

(Mr. Heidstra exits the courtroom.)

MR. DARDEN: Thank you for the opportunity to explain my position, your Honor. Your Honor, in the discovery we just provided the Defense, and in a statement Patricia Baret gave to Detective Tom Lange, she told Detective Lange that Heidstra told her that he heard what sounded to him to be a young man hollering, "Hey, hey, hey." Heidstra had then stated that he heard the very angry screaming of an older man who sounded black. And that is a good faith basis upon which I am asking these questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: First of all, we have never seen that statement and I resent--the reason I stood before--I resent that statement. You can't tell by somebody's voice whether they sounded black. I don't know who made that statement, Baret or Lange, and I resent that is a racist statement. I don't think you can tell whether somebody is a young--you can tell if it is a child or not--but I resent that entire area and I think it is entirely inappropriate. And we have never seen any statement in that regard. He walked over and handed Mr. Douglas a purported report from Miss Baret, but this statement about whether he sounds black or white is racist and I resent it and that is why I stood and objected. And I think it is totally improper in America at this time in 1995 we have to hear this and endure this.

MR. DARDEN: I didn't make the statement, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, the Court--may I say one thing, your Honor? When I had a question about how Mr. Darden conducted himself on that morning, I approached the bench before I asked it in front of the jury because I think dignity and integrity require that, but to ask that question in front of the jury I think is totally, totally improper. And we have said back in chambers when this case started, when there was a questionable area we had promised you that we would approach the bench on those things. Didn't we not do that?

THE COURT: We did.

MR. COCHRAN: We have kept that word and they violated it again, so I resent that.

MR. DARDEN: I have always considered the question of race in this case, your Honor, to be questionable. If this is the witness' statement, then he is the racist and not me, but that is what you are suggesting.

MR. COCHRAN: I didn't say that.

THE COURT: Wait, wait.

MR. DARDEN: That is what has created a lot of problems for myself and my family, statements that you make about me and race, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. I'm going to take a recess right now because I am so mad at both of you guys I'm about to hold both of you in contempt. We will take 15. If I see this conduct again from either of you two--

MR. DARDEN: I apologize, your Honor.

THE COURT: It will take more than that.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All counsel are present. Mr. Simpson is present. The jury is not present. Counsel, I have warned counsel for both sides previously that the Court will not tolerate the personal attacks that have been exchanged and that started again this morning. All counsel are on notice that the next time that happens there will be severe sanctions. The issue before the Court is whether or not the Prosecution can attempt to impeach Mr. Heidstra. Mr. Heidstra, would you step outside, please.

(Mr. Heidstra exits the courtroom.)

THE COURT: The issue before the Court is whether or not the Prosecution can attempt to impeach Mr. Heidstra's testimony with statements alleged to have been made to other persons that are inconsistent with his statement to the jury here in court. Under 1235 of the evidence code there is a required compliance with evidence code section 770, that the person be confronted with or challenged or not released, one or the other, and that appears to be the process that I have seen here. To wave the racism flag at this point I think is not germane to the topic. The issue is was this statement made. The content of the statement, however repugnant, depending upon what your interpretation of the statement may be, is not particularly relevant. I have allowed the same type of impeachment for Detective Fuhrman. All right. Let's have Mr. Heidstra.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Heidstra, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Good morning again, Mr. Heidstra.

MR. HEIDSTRA: Good morning, Judge.

THE COURT: I want you to understand that I'm not mad at you, but I have several things on my mind. Would you please let the attorneys answer the question. Take a breath.

MR. HEIDSTRA: "Sustained" is no talking, shut up?

[William Anthony]

THE COURT: Correct. Let's have the jurors, please.

MR. HEIDSTRA: Could I have some water?

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, agua.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, while the jury is coming out can we approach briefly off the record?

THE COURT: No. Let's finish the morning.

MS. CLARK: Okay. I just--

THE COURT: Let's finish the morning.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, I wanted to lay a foundation by placing Miss Baret's statement on the elmo.

THE COURT: I don't think so.

MR. DARDEN: No? Okay.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Ladies and gentlemen, from time to time things occur that make it necessary for me to immediately discuss things with the attorneys. I want you to understand that you should ignore any such actions taken by the Court. You should not interpret that as an indication that the Court has an opinion as to the conduct of the attorneys or as to any of the witnesses who are testifying. Ignore any actions that the Court takes. You are to form your own opinions based upon the evidence and the law as it is presented to you here in court. Mr. Darden, you may continue with your cross-examination.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor. May I have People's next in order?

THE CLERK: 500.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, I have here a one-page statement. May it be marked People's 500?

THE COURT: People's 500.

(Peo's 500 for id = 1-page document)

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Heidstra, let me show you a statement, a single-page document which has been marked People's 500. For the record, your Honor, I have blackened out the address and phone number of the--

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. DARDEN: --the person indicated in the statement.

MR. DARDEN: Please.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Heidstra, you have already testified that you know Patricia Baret, correct?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: You have discussed with her in the past your observations and perceptions the night of June 12th, correct?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Heidstra, did you tell--strike that. You have told us that you left your house at 10:15?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Right.

MR. DARDEN: Did you tell Miss Baret that you left your house a little after 10:00?

MR. HEIDSTRA: No, 10:15.

MR. DARDEN: You never told Miss Baret that you left your house a little after 10:00?

MR. HEIDSTRA: No, never.

MR. DARDEN: And you have told us that--well, strike that. Did you tell Miss Baret that the first voice that you heard, the voice that yelled, "Hey, hey, hey," did you tell Miss Baret that that voice seemed to be the voice of a young man?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yeah, a clear young man, sound like a young adult.

MR. DARDEN: And in response to "Hey, hey, hey," you heard another voice; is that correct?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Very short, yeah.

MR. DARDEN: And that second voice, was that voice loud?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Not loud, not very loud.

MR. DARDEN: But you could hear it?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yeah, over the dogs, the commotion of the dogs.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Could you determine whether or not the second voice that you heard sounded angry?

MR. HEIDSTRA: I couldn't say that for sure. It was like an argument or something.

MR. DARDEN: Well, didn't you tell Miss Baret that the second voice that you heard sounded very angry?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Not very angry. I said it was an argument, like an argument, fast talking.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Like everyone, I'm sure you've heard a number of different people speak; is that correct?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Older people, correct?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Sure.

MR. DARDEN: Young people?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Children.

MR. DARDEN: Caucasian people?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Black people, Chinese, you name it.

MR. DARDEN: The second voice that you heard, could you tell whether or not that second voice sounded like the voice of an older man?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Maybe what--what do you mean by "Older man"? Maybe older than the other person maybe, yes, could be.

MR. DARDEN: Well, was it your opinion that the voice of the second man belonged to a man older than the voice of the first man?

MR. HEIDSTRA: It could be an older man, yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you told Miss Baret that the second voice was the voice of an older man, didn't you?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yeah.

MR. DARDEN: You did tell her that?

MR. HEIDSTRA: (No audible response.)"

I think the record is unclear if he ever said it out of court but in court he denied it was the voice of an older man, imho.

[bobaugust]

"MR. NEUFELD: And the first 33 frames on that roll, those would be those overall shots you talked about that you took between approximately, oh, 3:25 and say 3:55 in the morning?

MR. ROKAHR: Whatever the time was, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And the last two shots that appear on there, those would be the two shots that you took sometime between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning; is that correct?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, didn't you--didn't you say just before the break that the time that the photographs were taken of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, given the times that you gave for the other events that evening, would be somewhere between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning?

MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony.

MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you say that, sir?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ROKAHR: I probably did. I have frankly no recollection as to the actual times involved.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, yesterday, when you were interviewed by me, were you interviewed by me for approximately an hour and a half?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And would it be fair to say that the majority of that time, you were giving a narrative of what happened, the order it happened and the times it happened on June 13th of 1994? Isn't that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: May I publish it to the jury, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. Why don't you ask him--you want to ask him a question about the frame numbers?

MR. NEUFELD: That appears in each picture? Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: Aside from the number in the lower right-hand corner of the actual print, is there also a number beneath the print which indicates which frame it was or which shot it was in the roll?

MR. ROKAHR: There's only one imprint on the negative. There are no other numbers.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, no. Are there numbers below each print there that would show you it is the third frame or the fourth frame or the sixth frame?

MR. ROKAHR: You mean the ones that are put on by Kodak?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes. The one put on by Kodak.

MR. ROKAHR: Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And do those also appear on those sheets?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, before I publish it, I would like to use the elmo, and I think we have to cut the feed.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Just a couple questions first. Sir, in the--those establishment, location, overall shots, whatever you want to call it, those first 33 shots, in those 33 shots, you used the flash?

MR. ROKAHR: I use a flash on every photograph I take.

MR. NEUFELD: And the--and in addition to the flash, there were streetlights that to some extent or other artificial lights that were there that illuminated the scene as well; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you can see the illumination given off by those other lights in these various prints; can you not?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And when you shot the two photographs of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, as to those two shots, you shot those with a flash; did you not?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm now going to show you what is frame 34 and 35 on your first roll of film.

MR. NEUFELD: Is the feed cut?

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, first of all, let me show you one at a time. Do you see those two?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And by the way, all the other photographs on that first roll, 1 through 33, those were all shot at nighttime; isn't that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: They were shot what?

MR. NEUFELD: At nighttime.

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: And as to 34, the 34th picture, do you see that on the screen?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: That is Detective Fuhrman.

MR. NEUFELD: And in 35, is that also Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: That is also Detective Fuhrman.

MR. NEUFELD: And those were the last two pictures you took on that first roll of film during the night at Bundy on June 13th--in the early morning hours of June 13th, 1994?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: At night?

THE COURT: Overruled."

When Rokahr was interviewed by the defense he was on off duty status because of his poor health and was under heavy medication. He was a visibly sick and confused witness of whom the defense team took full advantage of. Rokahr was mistaken when he told the defense the 4:30 time and on cross examination he admitted that he didn't know when he took that photograph. Rokahr was also mistaken that it was night when he took the photograph. It was dawn, not night. Both Robbery Homicide detectives were at Bundy at 4:30 a.m. and in charge of the case, not Fuhrman. Neither testified that any photographs of the evidence or the victims were taken before they went to Rockingham at about 5:00 a.m.

The evidence is that photograph was taken about two hours later. Vannatter testified he asked Phillips and Fuhrman to return to Bundy to specifically look at the Bundy glove.

Fuhrman testified that after the glove at Rockingham was found Vannatter asked Phillips and him to return to Bundy to see if the glove found at Rockingham was a match to the glove at Bundy. When they arrived at back at Bundy about 6:30 Fuhrman testified that Phillips told him to have the glove photographed and that's when the photograph was taken of Fuhrman pointing to the glove.

Phillips testified that when they arrived back at Bundy he told Fuhrman to photograph the glove. Riske testified that he saw the photographer take the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove after Fuhrman returned from Rockingham.

Riske testified the he saw Rokahr take the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to glove at dawn after Fuhrman had returned from Rockingham.

September 5, 1995

MR. DARDEN: Were you having health problems last year?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I did.
MR. DARDEN: Congestive heart failure?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: You also have a painful nerve disease?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: You take--strike that. You have been prescribed approximately 13 medications that you take on a daily basis; is that right?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: Do they include Vicodin?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: What is that?
MR. ROKAHR: Vicodin is a pain killer.
MR. DARDEN: You take one tablet or capsule every four hours?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: Did you take Vicodin yesterday when you spoke to Mr. Neufeld?
MR. ROKAHR: I carry about eight pills on me when I go to work.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And were you feeling well yesterday when you spoke to Mr. Neufeld?
MR. ROKAHR: I haven't really felt well for a long time.
*
MR. DARDEN: The bottom line, sir, is that you can't tell this jury at what time you took photos 34 and 35; is that correct?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: You don't know?
MR. ROKAHR: The only time recorded on my paperwork is when we leave the scene.
*
MR. DARDEN: Okay. But you can't tell by looking at the contact sheet how much time elapsed between each photograph; is that right?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct. I could not tell.
MR. DARDEN: And you can't tell by looking at that contact sheet the exact time it was when you took the last photograph on that particular roll, correct?
MR. ROKAHR: No, I could not.
MR. DARDEN: And even though you have a counter, a photo counter built into your camera, right?
MR. ROKAHR: Right.
MR. DARDEN: That counter doesn't indicate the time in which you take a particular photograph either?
MR. ROKAHR: No. That's correct. It does not.

bobaugust

[martin II]

When Rokahr was interviewed by the defense he was on off duty status because of his poor health and was under heavy medication. He was a visibly sick and confused witness of whom the defense team took full advantage of. Rokahr was mistaken when he told the defense the 4:30 time and on cross examination he admitted that he didn't know when he took that photograph. Rokahr was also mistaken that it was night when he took the photograph. It was dawn, not night. Both Robbery Homicide detectives were at Bundy at 4:30 a.m. and in charge of the case, not Fuhrman. Neither testified that any photographs of the evidence or the victims were taken before they went to Rockingham at about 5:00 a.m.

The evidence is that photograph was taken about two hours later. Vannatter testified he asked Phillips and Fuhrman to return to Bundy to specifically look at the Bundy glove.

Fuhrman testified that after the glove at Rockingham was found Vannatter asked Phillips and him to return to Bundy to see if the glove found at Rockingham was a match to the glove at Bundy. When they arrived at back at Bundy about 6:30 Fuhrman testified that Phillips told him to have the glove photographed and that's when the photograph was taken of Fuhrman pointing to the glove.

Phillips testified that when they arrived back at Bundy he told Fuhrman to photograph the glove. Riske testified that he saw the photographer take the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove after Fuhrman returned from Rockingham.

Riske testified the he saw Rokahr take the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to glove at dawn after Fuhrman had returned from Rockingham.

September 5, 1995

MR. DARDEN: Were you having health problems last year?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I did.
MR. DARDEN: Congestive heart failure?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: You also have a painful nerve disease?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: You take--strike that. You have been prescribed approximately 13 medications that you take on a daily basis; is that right?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: Do they include Vicodin?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: What is that?
MR. ROKAHR: Vicodin is a pain killer.
MR. DARDEN: You take one tablet or capsule every four hours?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: Did you take Vicodin yesterday when you spoke to Mr. Neufeld?
MR. ROKAHR: I carry about eight pills on me when I go to work.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And were you feeling well yesterday when you spoke to Mr. Neufeld?
MR. ROKAHR: I haven't really felt well for a long time.
*
MR. DARDEN: The bottom line, sir, is that you can't tell this jury at what time you took photos 34 and 35; is that correct?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: You don't know?
MR. ROKAHR: The only time recorded on my paperwork is when we leave the scene.
*
MR. DARDEN: Okay. But you can't tell by looking at the contact sheet how much time elapsed between each photograph; is that right?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct. I could not tell.
MR. DARDEN: And you can't tell by looking at that contact sheet the exact time it was when you took the last photograph on that particular roll, correct?
MR. ROKAHR: No, I could not.
MR. DARDEN: And even though you have a counter, a photo counter built into your camera, right?
MR. ROKAHR: Right.
MR. DARDEN: That counter doesn't indicate the time in which you take a particular photograph either?
MR. ROKAHR: No. That's correct. It does not.

bobaugust

bob
If you say Rokahr was sick and did not know what he was saying in his testimony and that he made a mistake then would you agree that when the prosecution took a video camerman to Peratis house at night to get him to change his testimony, that he was sick and did not know what he was saying when he changed his testimony about how much blood he drew. He was at home taking chemo for his severe case of cancer.
imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

When Rokahr was interviewed by the defense he was on off duty status because of his poor health and was under heavy medication. He was a visibly sick and confused witness of whom the defense team took full advantage of. Rokahr was mistaken when he told the defense the 4:30 time and on cross examination he admitted that he didn't know when he took that photograph. Rokahr was also mistaken that it was night when he took the photograph. It was dawn, not night. Both Robbery Homicide detectives were at Bundy at 4:30 a.m. and in charge of the case, not Fuhrman. Neither testified that any photographs of the evidence or the victims were taken before they went to Rockingham at about 5:00 a.m.

The evidence is that photograph was taken about two hours later. Vannatter testified he asked Phillips and Fuhrman to return to Bundy to specifically look at the Bundy glove.

Fuhrman testified that after the glove at Rockingham was found Vannatter asked Phillips and him to return to Bundy to see if the glove found at Rockingham was a match to the glove at Bundy. When they arrived at back at Bundy about 6:30 Fuhrman testified that Phillips told him to have the glove photographed and that's when the photograph was taken of Fuhrman pointing to the glove.

Phillips testified that when they arrived back at Bundy he told Fuhrman to photograph the glove. Riske testified that he saw the photographer take the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove after Fuhrman returned from Rockingham.

Riske testified the he saw Rokahr take the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to glove at dawn after Fuhrman had returned from Rockingham.

September 5, 1995

MR. DARDEN: Were you having health problems last year?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I did.
MR. DARDEN: Congestive heart failure?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: You also have a painful nerve disease?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: You take--strike that. You have been prescribed approximately 13 medications that you take on a daily basis; is that right?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: Do they include Vicodin?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: What is that?
MR. ROKAHR: Vicodin is a pain killer.
MR. DARDEN: You take one tablet or capsule every four hours?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: Did you take Vicodin yesterday when you spoke to Mr. Neufeld?
MR. ROKAHR: I carry about eight pills on me when I go to work.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And were you feeling well yesterday when you spoke to Mr. Neufeld?
MR. ROKAHR: I haven't really felt well for a long time.
*
MR. DARDEN: The bottom line, sir, is that you can't tell this jury at what time you took photos 34 and 35; is that correct?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: You don't know?
MR. ROKAHR: The only time recorded on my paperwork is when we leave the scene.
*
MR. DARDEN: Okay. But you can't tell by looking at the contact sheet how much time elapsed between each photograph; is that right?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct. I could not tell.
MR. DARDEN: And you can't tell by looking at that contact sheet the exact time it was when you took the last photograph on that particular roll, correct?
MR. ROKAHR: No, I could not.
MR. DARDEN: And even though you have a counter, a photo counter built into your camera, right?
MR. ROKAHR: Right.
MR. DARDEN: That counter doesn't indicate the time in which you take a particular photograph either?
MR. ROKAHR: No. That's correct. It does not.

bobaugust

He was well enough to testify and the Riske said it was at dawn, i.e. before daybreak. You may choose to find the direct or redirect testimony credible. I choose the inadvertent admissions of the cross.

[weezer]

He was well enough to testify and the Riske said it was at dawn, i.e. before daybreak. You may choose to find the direct or redirect testimony credible. I choose the inadvertent admissions of the cross.

dawn — –noun 1. the first appearance of daylight in the morning: Dawn broke over the valley.
Synonyms 1. daybreak, sunrise.

daybreak - noun - the first appearance of daylight in the morning; dawn. n. The beginning of day; dawn.

[William Anthony]

dawn — –noun 1. the first appearance of daylight in the morning: Dawn broke over the valley.
Synonyms 1. daybreak, sunrise.

daybreak - noun - the first appearance of daylight in the morning; dawn. n. The beginning of day; dawn.

Yes, the first appearance before the sun fully rose, which was at 5:41. However, we do not need to debate that point, because here is Riske's testimony on direct.

"Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU HAVE CONTACT WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER IN THE FRONT OF THE LOCATION?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WAS IT DAYLIGHT BY THEN?

A: I HAD TALKED TO HIM EARLIER, BUT HE HADN'T TAKEN ANY PICTURES OF THE FRONT WHILE I WAS THERE. THEN HE CAME -- IT WAS JUST STARTING TO GET DAYLIGHT, AND HE CAME AND HE TOOK A COUPLE PICTURES.

Q: NOW, WAS THIS THE SAME PHOTOGRAPHER YOU HAD CONTACTED EARLIER AT THE REAR OF THE LOCATION, THE REAR ALLEY?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: WHEN HE CAME TO THE FRONT OF THE LOCATION AND IT WAS LIGHTER, DID YOU POINT ANYTHING OUT TO HIM?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: DID YOU SEE HIM TAKING PICTURES IN THAT FRONT AREA?

A: I SAW DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. HE WAS SHOWING HIM THE GLOVE AND HE TOOK A PICTURE OF THE GLOVE.

Q: OKAY. HE WAS POINTING TO IT?

We know now that it was still dark, because it was just starting to get daylight, which means before 5:41. Luckily, according to this link dawn is 25-27 minutes before the sunrise and, luckily, this was in reference to LA. This means that the pictures would have been taken at approximately 5:16-5:18 am. I guess even a cockroach can be magnificent.

http://www.43things.com/entries/view/2751184

[weezer]

Yes, the first appearance before the sun fully rose, which was at 5:41. However, we do not need to debate that point, because here is Riske's testimony on direct.

"Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU HAVE CONTACT WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER IN THE FRONT OF THE LOCATION?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WAS IT DAYLIGHT BY THEN?

A: I HAD TALKED TO HIM EARLIER, BUT HE HADN'T TAKEN ANY PICTURES OF THE FRONT WHILE I WAS THERE. THEN HE CAME -- IT WAS JUST STARTING TO GET DAYLIGHT, AND HE CAME AND HE TOOK A COUPLE PICTURES.

Q: NOW, WAS THIS THE SAME PHOTOGRAPHER YOU HAD CONTACTED EARLIER AT THE REAR OF THE LOCATION, THE REAR ALLEY?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: WHEN HE CAME TO THE FRONT OF THE LOCATION AND IT WAS LIGHTER, DID YOU POINT ANYTHING OUT TO HIM?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: DID YOU SEE HIM TAKING PICTURES IN THAT FRONT AREA?

A: I SAW DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. HE WAS SHOWING HIM THE GLOVE AND HE TOOK A PICTURE OF THE GLOVE.

Q: OKAY. HE WAS POINTING TO IT?

We know now that it was still dark, because it was just starting to get daylight, which means before 5:41. Luckily, according to this link dawn is 25-27 minutes before the sunrise and, luckily, this was in reference to LA. This means that the pictures would have been taken at approximately 5:16-5:18 am. I guess even a cockroach can be magnificent.

http://www.43things.com/entries/view/2751184

what part of 'it was starting to get daylight' did you not understand? 'starting to get daylight' does not equate to 'it was still dark'.

[William Anthony]

what part of 'it was starting to get daylight' did you not understand? 'starting to get daylight' does not equate to 'it was still dark'.

Is the glass half empty or half full? We do not need to debate philosophical questions or semantics. If it was starting to get daylight it was still dark. However, the most important point was Riske said it was dawn, 25-27 minutes before 5:41. The photographer said it was during the night at about 4:30.

[bobaugust]

Okay, lets get to the point about the pictures:

1. DA's tried to hide ROKAHR--the defense never got the contact sheets until late in the trial and Judge Ito had to force the DA's to hand them over.

2. Wasn't Rokahr also the guy who took the video film at Rockingham? Did the DA's try to bury this because they said it was just an insurance video and they did not have to turn it over?

3. Last but not least, doesn't anyone notice or think it is odd is that there is only one photo of a detective pointing at an evidence item? And that detective happens to be Mark Fuhrman?

4. If Fuhrman was sent to have his picture taken of the glove---why didn't Fuhrman take the photographer over the bloody finger print on the back gate?

5. I believe the DA's tried to imply that Rokahr was sick, was on some heavy duty medications at the time, that made his testimony about times shakey? Well, how come the DA's didn't apply that same logic to the nurse?

Limakey, what makes you believe the defense had to force the prosecutors to turn over the contact sheets?

No, Rokahr did not take any videos, those were taken by Willie Ford. Fuhrman didn't ask to have his picture taken. Rokahr testified in the civil trial that he asked Fuhrman to point to the glove. After the glove was found at Rockingham Vannatter asked Phillips and Fuhrman to return to Bundy and look at the glove there to see if it was a match. When they arrived at Bundy Phillips testified that he told Fuhrman to get the photographer and have the glove photographed. Peratis was not sick when he testified in the grand jury or the preliminary hearing. At the time of the criminal trial Peratis was at home recuperating from heart surgery and his doctor would not let him testify. Rokahr was not prohibited from testifying but he also had acute heart problems, under heavy medication, and not able to remember exactly when he took some photographs over a year earlier.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Is the glass half empty or half full? We do not need to debate philosophical questions or semantics. If it was starting to get daylight it was still dark. However, the most important point was Riske said it was dawn, 25-27 minutes before 5:41. The photographer said it was during the night at about 4:30.

The photographer was wrong and admitted he didn't remember when he took that photograph. At 4:30 both Robbery Homicide detectives were at Bundy and Lange was finishing his tour of the crime scene having arrived at 4:25. At that time Rokahr was limited to talking only panoramic or establishing shots. Riske did not say anything about what time sunrise was. Riske saw Rokahr take th photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove and testified as well as Fuhrman, Vannatter, and Phillips did that it was taken when Phillips and Fuhrman had returned to Bundy from Rockingham about two hours later. About 6:30.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

I remember Barry Scheck's motion on this subject in open court. Also, American Tragedy by L. Schiller goes into the much more detail. There were many items that the DA's never turned over the defense---however, we both know that both sides love to play and hide and seek!

However, you don't wonder why Fuhrman never brought the bloody fingerprint to the attention of the photographer or even Lange and Vanatter and don't even attempt to say that they had his notes. Didn't Fuhrman and/or Roberts give Clark a walk through at both scenes or was it just Rockingham?

[William Anthony]

The photographer was wrong and admitted he didn't remember when he took that photograph. At 4:30 both Robbery Homicide detectives were at Bundy and Lange was finishing his tour of the crime scene having arrived at 4:25. At that time Rokahr was limited to talking only panoramic or establishing shots. Riske did not say anything about what time sunrise was. Riske saw Rokahr take th photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove and testified as well as Fuhrman, Vannatter, and Phillips did that it was taken when Phillips and Fuhrman had returned to Bundy from Rockingham about two hours later. About 6:30.

bobaugust

Why Mr. bobaugust,

I gave you credit for understanding what a stipulation was. It was stipulated that the sun rose at 5:41. Of course, Riske didn't testify to that. There is no testimony when facts are stipulated. Remember you discussed the stipulation, concerning the phone records. Riske told what time he saw MF pointing at the glove when the picture was taken. It was dawn, just getting light, still dark, before the sun rose and the photographer said it was during the night in the early morning hours of the 13th. That testimony contradicts MF's, Vannatter's and Phillip's. Like I said, I believe the inadvertent admissions rather than the rehearsed testimony of LE members, who we know were trained to testify in the academy.

[William Anthony]

Limakey, what makes you believe the defense had to force the prosecutors to turn over the contact sheets?

No, Rokahr did not take any videos, those were taken by Willie Ford. Fuhrman didn't ask to have his picture taken. Rokahr testified in the civil trial that he asked Fuhrman to point to the glove. After the glove was found at Rockingham Vannatter asked Phillips and Fuhrman to return to Bundy and look at the glove there to see if it was a match. When they arrived at Bundy Phillips testified that he told Fuhrman to get the photographer and have the glove photographed. Peratis was not sick when he testified in the grand jury or the preliminary hearing. At the time of the criminal trial Peratis was at home recuperating from heart surgery and his doctor would not let him testify. Rokahr was not prohibited from testifying but he also had acute heart problems, under heavy medication, and not able to remember exactly when he took some photographs over a year earlier.

bobaugust

I have 80,000 acres of ocean front property for sale in Nevada, 40, 000 acres of which are on top of a loaded gold mine, so plentiful that the nuggets push themselves to the top and the other 40, 000 is an oil field, which only requires you to stick a pin in the ground to open a gusher. All of this can be yours Mr. bobaugust with a small deposit.

[limakey]

TV,

I do agree with that most people do think it was Ron and the "hey, hey, hey". However, why do they believe that? It came Ron's youngest step brother---he said that it sounded like Ron as he was rushing in to help Nicole. The DA's just took these comments by his brother and ran with it. IMO.

However, there is no proof that Ron arrived at Nicole's and that Nicole was already being attacked and he rushed in to help. Ron did have torture or control wounds on him, indicating that at least one of the killers held him from behind. Is that why he never called out for help?

And before Mr. August posts, I believe the DA's tried to give the impression that these control or torture wounds were inflicted after death--the killer wanted to make sure Ron was dead before they left. Again, no proof of this. However, it makes no sense that Ron had these wounds and Nicole didn't, IMO.

It is pretty interesting how many "facts" people believe about this case when in fact, they weren't. IMO.

[bobaugust]

Why Mr. bobaugust,

I gave you credit for understanding what a stipulation was. It was stipulated that the sun rose at 5:41. Of course, Riske didn't testify to that. There is no testimony when facts are stipulated. Remember you discussed the stipulation, concerning the phone records. Riske told what time he saw MF pointing at the glove when the picture was taken. It was dawn, just getting light, still dark, before the sun rose and the photographer said it was during the night in the early morning hours of the 13th. That testimony contradicts MF's, Vannatter's and Phillip's. Like I said, I believe the inadvertent admissions rather than the rehearsed testimony of LE members, who we know were trained to testify in the academy.

I do not dispute that sunrise was at 5:41. The problem here is what ever Rokahr told the defense attorneys when they interviewed him can not be relied on. Rokahr continually said through out his testimony that he had no recollection as to the actual times involved. I don't believe that by looking at the photograph it was possible to tell if it was taken when it was dark outside, getting light outside, or day light outside. Rokahr testified that he used a flash with ever photo even if the sun was shining.

There are five witnesses who testified regarding this issue.
Vannatter testified that after the Rockingham glove was found he asked Phillips and Fuhrman to go back to Bundy to see if the glove there was a match to the glove found at Rockingham.

Fuhrman testified that when they got back to Bundy that Phillips told him to find the photographer and have the glove photographed. After Rokahr photographed Fuhrman pointing to the glove Fuhrman had Rokahr follow him back to Rockingham.

Riske testified that he saw Fuhrman and Rokahr approaching the crime scene and then Fuhrman was pointing to the glove and cap and the photographer took a picture. Riske testified that happened about 40, 45 minutes before he was relieved from his post at 7:15 a.m. He said it was starting to get light outside.

Phillips testified that after the glove was found at Rockingham Vannatter asked him and Fuhrman to return to Bundy to look at the glove there to see if it was a match. He testified that they arrived at Bundy at 6::30 and he met with Lt. Spangler and Lt. Rodgers. Phillips said Fuhrman was going over to look at the glove and he told him to take a photographer with him and make sure he photographed it. Phillips testified he didn't actually see the photograph taken he only saw Fuhrman and the photographer walk in that direction. When Phillips was asked if it was broad daylight when the photograph was taken, he said yes.

Sandra Clairborne testified that she had waited in a police car with Rokahr for nearly three and a half hours waiting for detectives to give them directions. She testified that about 6:40 a detective came to the car and asked Rokahr to come into the crime scene. She testified that when they went into crime scene it was light outside.

One thing is very clear, the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was not taken at 4:30 a.m. The evidence is that it was taken when Phillips and Fuhrman returned to Bundy after the Rockingham glove was found and it was light outside. This entire issue was raised by the defense to try and support their story that Fuhrman stepped in Nicole's blood before he went to Rockingham and while there somehow got into Simpson's Bronco leaving his bloody shoe print on the Bronco carpet. A claim that was contradicted not only by common sense but the fact that the bloody shoe print in the Bronco had distinguishable characteristics consistent with the Silga sole and not with any of the shoes from any of the officers including those of Mark Fuhrman.

bobaugust

[martin II]

what part of 'it was starting to get daylight' did you not understand? 'starting to get daylight' does not equate to 'it was still dark'.

Dark enough that he used a flash to take the pictures.Do you understand that?

[martin II]

You're the one doing that. Don't start the glass half empty schtick. Cochran and his team got Simpson off because of an inept prosecution, a joke of a judge and a jury that should have been back at high school. 3 hours to find Simpson not guilty!!! 17 hours for the civil jury, with a lesser degree of proof, to find him liable for 2 deaths!!!

How would you know?

[martin II]

I know tv had some concern about thr Paula picture in ojs house.

Lets talk about the other pictures. OJ had a picture of Paula in his bedroom and there was discussion about its removal.

There is testimony that nicole had all the pictures of the men she was dating on her living room coffee table in plain sight. who removed those?

[limakey]

William and Martin,

Have you noticed that the G's, have never asked why the time matters so much in regards to the finger pointing picture?

Care to post your opinons on why it appears that at least two the lead detectives again, covered for Fuhrman?

[William Anthony]

I do not dispute that sunrise was at 5:41. The problem here is what ever Rokahr told the defense attorneys when they interviewed him can not be relied on. Rokahr continually said through out his testimony that he had no recollection as to the actual times involved. I don't believe that by looking at the photograph it was possible to tell if it was taken when it was dark outside, getting light outside, or day light outside. Rokahr testified that he used a flash with ever photo even if the sun was shining.

There are five witnesses who testified regarding this issue.
Vannatter testified that after the Rockingham glove was found he asked Phillips and Fuhrman to go back to Bundy to see if the glove there was a match to the glove found at Rockingham.

Fuhrman testified that when they got back to Bundy that Phillips told him to find the photographer and have the glove photographed. After Rokahr photographed Fuhrman pointing to the glove Fuhrman had Rokahr follow him back to Rockingham.

Riske testified that he saw Fuhrman and Rokahr approaching the crime scene and then Fuhrman was pointing to the glove and cap and the photographer took a picture. Riske testified that happened about 40, 45 minutes before he was relieved from his post at 7:15 a.m. He said it was starting to get light outside.

Phillips testified that after the glove was found at Rockingham Vannatter asked him and Fuhrman to return to Bundy to look at the glove there to see if it was a match. He testified that they arrived at Bundy at 6::30 and he met with Lt. Spangler and Lt. Rodgers. Phillips said Fuhrman was going over to look at the glove and he told him to take a photographer with him and make sure he photographed it. Phillips testified he didn't actually see the photograph taken he only saw Fuhrman and the photographer walk in that direction. When Phillips was asked if it was broad daylight when the photograph was taken, he said yes.

Sandra Clairborne testified that she had waited in a police car with Rokahr for nearly three and a half hours waiting for detectives to give them directions. She testified that about 6:40 a detective came to the car and asked Rokahr to come into the crime scene. She testified that when they went into crime scene it was light outside.

One thing is very clear, the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was not taken at 4:30 a.m. The evidence is that it was taken when Phillips and Fuhrman returned to Bundy after the Rockingham glove was found and it was light outside. This entire issue was raised by the defense to try and support their story that Fuhrman stepped in Nicole's blood before he went to Rockingham and while there somehow got into Simpson's Bronco leaving his bloody shoe print on the Bronco carpet. A claim that was contradicted not only by common sense but the fact that the bloody shoe print in the Bronco had distinguishable characteristics consistent with the Silga sole and not with any of the shoes from any of the officers including those of Mark Fuhrman.

bobaugust

I see so you think you get to determine what is reliable.

As you correctly stated Ms. Clairborne was not part of the criminal trial.

Riske contradicts Phillips.

One thing is very clear the photo was taken before 5:41. Please post the date and the quote where the defense made the claims you claim they made.

[William Anthony]

You're the one doing that. Don't start the glass half empty schtick. Cochran and his team got Simpson off because of an inept prosecution, a joke of a judge and a jury that should have been back at high school. 3 hours to find Simpson not guilty!!! 17 hours for the civil jury, with a lesser degree of proof, to find him liable for 2 deaths!!!

Mr. Bell,

He was only found liable for the wrongful death of Mr. Ronald Goldman. I told the poster he/she did not need to answer the question. I think all of us have observed that time of the morning when it is not quite fully light or still a little dark. Mr. Simpson was found not guilty because the prosecution's evidence was not sufficient to convict and the magnificent one and his dream team exposed that fact. There was no need for prolonged deliberations when the evidence had been so thoroughly destroyed, imho.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

Have you noticed that the G's, have never asked why the time matters so much in regards to the finger pointing picture?

Care to post your opinons on why it appears that at least two the lead detectives again, covered for Fuhrman?

I think the evidence shows they were in a catch twenty two situation, they believed it was Simpson and did not want MF to mess up what the investigation.

[William Anthony]

I think the evidence shows they were in a catch twenty two situation, they believed it was Simpson and did not want MF to mess up what the investigation.

Correction-they believed it was Simpson and did not want MF to mess up the investigation.

[William Anthony]

One thing becomes increasingly clear. We must use patience and tolerance when we attempt to get others to understand our views. We must consider what others have experienced or may be experiencing that cause them not to readily understand. We must consider that anger and frustration may be a part of seeing the light.

[William Anthony]

Mr. Bell,

IMHO, it was not so nice that we needed to see it twice. As a matter of fact, imho, not even once, smile.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

Have you noticed that the G's, have never asked why the time matters so much in regards to the finger pointing picture?

Care to post your opinons on why it appears that at least two the lead detectives again, covered for Fuhrman?

"Why then, ladies and gentlemen, is he pointing at this glove when he hasn't even been over there? Why then would they try to tell you he doesn't have time at Bundy when he is by himself for this period of time? He is not with Spangler; he is walking around by him. Why then is he walking in that crime scene and why does he lie to you and said he didn't have access to the crime scene? These are the facts. These are the facts. I haven't made them up. This is what you heard in this case. This is what we have proved. Some of it came in late; some of it came in early, but our job here is to piece this together so that you can then see this, so when he refers to the gloves as "Them," that has never been cleared up for you and he can't. That is a Freudian slip when he talks about "In the Bronco." And there was a dispute. Well, did he really say that? Remember the tape was played at the preliminary hearing and his voice was heard saying "In the Bronco." You can see all these things. He is strolling down to Rockingham, the big man, figuring a way to do this, to carry out this plan, this spot he has in his mind since 1985, to make the big score, and so Rokahr severely impeaches Fuhrman about these photographs, and once again, these photographs speak a thousand words. Concluding about Riske, he said on cross-examination that the photograph pointing at the glove was taken at least forty minutes before daylight, the sun rose at 5:41, maybe a little bit late, but it was before daylight and so we know that. That is now clear. Why did they then all try to cover for this man Fuhrman? Why would this man who is not only Los Angeles' worst nightmare, but America's worse nightmare, why would they all turn their heads and try to cover for them? Why would you do that if you are sworn to uphold the law? There is something about corruption. There is something about a rotten apple that will ultimately infect the entire barrel, because if the others don't have the courage that we have asked you to have in this case, people sit sadly by. We live in a society where many people are apathetic, they don't want to get involved, and that is why all of us, to a person, in this courtroom, have thanked you from the bottom of our hearts. Because you know what? You haven't been apathetic. You are the ones who made a commitment, a commitment toward justice, and it is a painful commitment, but you've got to see it through. Your commitment, your courage, is much greater than these police officers. This man could have been off the force long ago if they had done their job, but they didn't do their job. People looked the other way. People didn't have the courage. One of the things that has made this country so great is people's willingness to stand up and say that is wrong. I'm not going to be part of it. I'm not going to be part of the cover-up. That is what I'm asking you to do. Stop this cover-up. Stop this cover-up. If you don't stop it, then who? Do you think the police department is going to stop it? Do you think the D.A.'s office is going to stop it? Do you think we can stop it by ourselves? It has to be stopped by you. And you know, they talked about Fuhrman, they talked about him in derisive tones now, and that is very fashionable now, isn't it? Everybody wants to beat up on Fuhrman, the favored whipping boy in America. I told you I don't take any delight in that because you know before this trial started, if you grow up in this country, you know there are Fuhrmans out there. You learn early on in your life that you are not going to be naive, that you love your country, but you know it is not perfect, so you understand that, so it is no surprise to me, but I don't take any pride in it. But for some of you, you are finding out the other side of life. You are finding out--that is why this case is so instructive. You are finding out about the other side of life, but things aren't always as they seem. It is not just rhetoric, it is the actions of people, it is the lack of courage and it is a lack of integrity at high places. That is what we are talking about here. Credibility doesn't attach to a title or position; it attaches to the person, so the person who may have a job where he makes two dollars an hour can have more integrity than the highest person. It is something from within. It is in your heart. It is what the lord has put there. That is what we are talking about in this case. And so why don't they speak out? Why do they take him to their breast? Compare how our prosecutors treat Fuhrman as opposed to Kato Kaelin. Look at how they treated mark partridge as opposed to Kato Kaelin. Look at how they embraced him. And now they want to distance themselves. These same people say, oh, he is not important, but the Rokahr photograph puts the lie to that. He is very important. And what becomes so important when we talk about these two twin demons of evil, Vannatter and Fuhrman, is the jury instruction which you know about now and it says essentially that a witness willfully false--I think Mr. Douglas is going to put that up for us

[martin II]

You're the one doing that. Don't start the glass half empty schtick. Cochran and his team got Simpson off because of an inept prosecution, a joke of a judge and a jury that should have been back at high school. 3 hours to find Simpson not guilty!!! 17 hours for the civil jury, with a lesser degree of proof, to find him liable for 2 deaths!!!

Bell
Again. i think you should at least try to get your info correct before posting inaccurate information.

[William Anthony]

I tried my best to delete it but my computer is not being friendly at the moment.

Don't post to me if you are going to use the phrase 'the magnificent one'.

I have made my opinion on that quite clear.. If you choose not to reply to me that's your choice. But I will not reply to posts where the initials JC and 'the magnificent one' are used to refer to Cochran.

Eureka!!!! I think I have found the cure. The magnificent one, JC, Jonnie C, showed his magnificence when he first entered the courtroom.

[William Anthony]

Bell
Again. i think you should at least try to get your info correct before posting inaccurate information.

Martin,

You are praying for miracles, imho.

[William Anthony]

I tried my best to delete it but my computer is not being friendly at the moment.

Don't post to me if you are going to use the phrase 'the magnificent one'.

I have made my opinion on that quite clear.. If you choose not to reply to me that's your choice. But I will not reply to posts where the initials JC and 'the magnificent one' are used to refer to Cochran.

Why Mr. Bell,

"Does this mean we can't be friends? I can hardly bear it."-Doc laughs, "Tombstone".

[martin II]

"Why then, ladies and gentlemen, is he pointing at this glove when he hasn't even been over there? Why then would they try to tell you he doesn't have time at Bundy when he is by himself for this period of time? He is not with Spangler; he is walking around by him. Why then is he walking in that crime scene and why does he lie to you and said he didn't have access to the crime scene? These are the facts. These are the facts. I haven't made them up. This is what you heard in this case. This is what we have proved. Some of it came in late; some of it came in early, but our job here is to piece this together so that you can then see this, so when he refers to the gloves as "Them," that has never been cleared up for you and he can't. That is a Freudian slip when he talks about "In the Bronco." And there was a dispute. Well, did he really say that? Remember the tape was played at the preliminary hearing and his voice was heard saying "In the Bronco." You can see all these things. He is strolling down to Rockingham, the big man, figuring a way to do this, to carry out this plan, this spot he has in his mind since 1985, to make the big score, and so Rokahr severely impeaches Fuhrman about these photographs, and once again, these photographs speak a thousand words. Concluding about Riske, he said on cross-examination that the photograph pointing at the glove was taken at least forty minutes before daylight, the sun rose at 5:41, maybe a little bit late, but it was before daylight and so we know that. That is now clear. Why did they then all try to cover for this man Fuhrman? Why would this man who is not only Los Angeles' worst nightmare, but America's worse nightmare, why would they all turn their heads and try to cover for them? Why would you do that if you are sworn to uphold the law? There is something about corruption. There is something about a rotten apple that will ultimately infect the entire barrel, because if the others don't have the courage that we have asked you to have in this case, people sit sadly by. We live in a society where many people are apathetic, they don't want to get involved, and that is why all of us, to a person, in this courtroom, have thanked you from the bottom of our hearts. Because you know what? You haven't been apathetic. You are the ones who made a commitment, a commitment toward justice, and it is a painful commitment, but you've got to see it through. Your commitment, your courage, is much greater than these police officers. This man could have been off the force long ago if they had done their job, but they didn't do their job. People looked the other way. People didn't have the courage. One of the things that has made this country so great is people's willingness to stand up and say that is wrong. I'm not going to be part of it. I'm not going to be part of the cover-up. That is what I'm asking you to do. Stop this cover-up. Stop this cover-up. If you don't stop it, then who? Do you think the police department is going to stop it? Do you think the D.A.'s office is going to stop it? Do you think we can stop it by ourselves? It has to be stopped by you. And you know, they talked about Fuhrman, they talked about him in derisive tones now, and that is very fashionable now, isn't it? Everybody wants to beat up on Fuhrman, the favored whipping boy in America. I told you I don't take any delight in that because you know before this trial started, if you grow up in this country, you know there are Fuhrmans out there. You learn early on in your life that you are not going to be naive, that you love your country, but you know it is not perfect, so you understand that, so it is no surprise to me, but I don't take any pride in it. But for some of you, you are finding out the other side of life. You are finding out--that is why this case is so instructive. You are finding out about the other side of life, but things aren't always as they seem. It is not just rhetoric, it is the actions of people, it is the lack of courage and it is a lack of integrity at high places. That is what we are talking about here. Credibility doesn't attach to a title or position; it attaches to the person, so the person who may have a job where he makes two dollars an hour can have more integrity than the highest person. It is something from within. It is in your heart. It is what the lord has put there. That is what we are talking about in this case. And so why don't they speak out? Why do they take him to their breast? Compare how our prosecutors treat Fuhrman as opposed to Kato Kaelin. Look at how they treated mark partridge as opposed to Kato Kaelin. Look at how they embraced him. And now they want to distance themselves. These same people say, oh, he is not important, but the Rokahr photograph puts the lie to that. He is very important. And what becomes so important when we talk about these two twin demons of evil, Vannatter and Fuhrman, is the jury instruction which you know about now and it says essentially that a witness willfully false--I think Mr. Douglas is going to put that up for us

Great
He hit all the points.

[William Anthony]

Great
He hit all the points.

His common sense explanation of the evidence shows his magnificence, imho.

[William Anthony]

"In a courtroom you are supposed to speak the truth. A witness who walks through those doors, who raises his or her hand, swears to tell the truth. You've heard lie after lie after lie that has been exposed and when a witness lies in a material part of his testimony, you can wipe out all of his testimony as a judge of the facts. That is your decision again. Nobody can tell you about that. Lest you feel that a greater probability of truth lies in something else, they said wipe it out. This applies not only to Fuhrman, it applies to Vannatter and then you see what trouble their case is in, because they lied to get in there to do these things when Vannatter carries that blood. They can't explain to you why he did that, because they were setting this man up, and that glove, anybody among you think that glove was just sitting there, just placed there, moist and sticky after six and a half hours? The testimony is it will be dried in three or four hours, according to MacDonell. We are not naive. You understand there is no blood on anything else. There is no blood trail. There is no hair and fiber. And you get the ridiculous explanation that Mr. Simpson was running into air conditioners on his own province."

[Kate Sachel]

TV,

I do agree with that most people do think it was Ron and the "hey, hey, hey". However, why do they believe that? It came Ron's youngest step brother---he said that it sounded like Ron as he was rushing in to help Nicole. The DA's just took these comments by his brother and ran with it. IMO.

However, there is no proof that Ron arrived at Nicole's and that Nicole was already being attacked and he rushed in to help. Ron did have torture or control wounds on him, indicating that at least one of the killers held him from behind. Is that why he never called out for help?

And before Mr. August posts, I believe the DA's tried to give the impression that these control or torture wounds were inflicted after death--the killer wanted to make sure Ron was dead before they left. Again, no proof of this. However, it makes no sense that Ron had these wounds and Nicole didn't, IMO.

It is pretty interesting how many "facts" people believe about this case when in fact, they weren't. IMO.

It is medically possible to determine if a wound was inflicted prior to, or after, death of a human being. I'll have to read through the autopsy report and testimony to see what was noted.

Contrary to your opinion, it makes perfect sense to me why Ron Goldman had these wounds and Nicole didn't. OJ Simpson was quite a jealous man. If already angry while attacking Nicole I can only imagine his reaction on seeing a young man on the scene at her home.

It is also pretty interesting to me how many things are deemed to "make no sense" that really are quite logical.

Kate

[SlowHandSam]

Dark enough that he used a flash to take the pictures.Do you understand that?

He explained that he always used the flash.

[William Anthony]

He explained that he always used the flash.

"MR. NEUFELD: And the--and in addition to the flash, there were streetlights that to some extent or other artificial lights that were there that illuminated the scene as well; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you can see the illumination given off by those other lights in these various prints; can you not?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

[martin II]

I tried my best to delete it but my computer is not being friendly at the moment.

Don't post to me if you are going to use the phrase 'the magnificent one'.

I have made my opinion on that quite clear.. If you choose not to reply to me that's your choice. But I will not reply to posts where the initials JC and 'the magnificent one' are used to refer to Cochran.

bell

thanks for the heads up.Now i have the solution.
The Magnificant one was magnificant.

[martin II]

He explained that he always used the flash.

i know but he did not have to because of the illumination he said was present from other light sources, street,house etc.
it was dark as he testified.

[William Anthony]

bell

thanks for the heads up.Now i have the solution.
The Magnificant one was magnificant.

If only he had let us know sooner. ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

One thing that has always puzzled me and the prosecution did not answer, IIRC, is why MF was being watched so closely. It is my belief that under those circumstances there has been a break down in trust. I would think and that might explain why MF wanted to retire, due to the fact that the trust issue had been broken long before.

[Kate Sachel]

So much for raising the level of posting on the forum.

Kate

[SlowHandSam]

i know but he did not have to because of the illumination he said was present from other light sources, street,house etc.
it was dark as he testified.

For those who are not as familiar with light sources and boot flashes for cameras ... we use boot (shoe) flashes often even when there is other light available. The purpose of the flash is to illuminate the specific target of the photo to provide a clearer and crisper result.

We would not use a boot if we wanted to take a photo that is more indicative of the light or if we were attempting to do something with the composition of the photo for some artistic reason.

However, IMO, it is completely appropriate to use a boot if there is not full-on direct sunlight to an object that is part of a brutal murder scene.

[martin II]

For those who are not as familiar with light sources and boot flashes for cameras ... we use boot (shoe) flashes often even when there is other light available. The purpose of the flash is to illuminate the specific target of the photo to provide a clearer and crisper result.

We would not use a boot if we wanted to take a photo that is more indicative of the light or if we were attempting to do something with the composition of the photo for some artistic reason.

However, IMO, it is completely appropriate to use a boot if there is not full-on direct sunlight to an object that is part of a brutal murder scene.

What i am thinking is a flash illuminates everything in the field of view. The other/additional/ illumination can be seen if the photos.

Rokars testimony posted by william indicated when he took the pictures.

[William Anthony]

So much for raising the level of posting on the forum.

Kate

Care to explain?

[William Anthony]

For those who are not as familiar with light sources and boot flashes for cameras ... we use boot (shoe) flashes often even when there is other light available. The purpose of the flash is to illuminate the specific target of the photo to provide a clearer and crisper result.

We would not use a boot if we wanted to take a photo that is more indicative of the light or if we were attempting to do something with the composition of the photo for some artistic reason.

However, IMO, it is completely appropriate to use a boot if there is not full-on direct sunlight to an object that is part of a brutal murder scene.

I, for one, am not suggesting there was anything improper or unusual in his use of the flash. The point is that he testified he could see the effect of the streetlights being on in the photo.

[Kate Sachel]

Care to explain?

I believe the explanation can be found within the last two pages of this particular thread and further lingers in the Civil Testimony thread, where my own particular jab at martin lies nested within the postings.

Generally speaking, we as a whole simply aren't doing well.

Kate

[weezer]

I believe the explanation can be found within the last two pages of this particular thread and further lingers in the Civil Testimony thread, where my own particular jab at martin lies nested within the postings.

Generally speaking, we as a whole simply aren't doing well.

Kate

:beer: :beer:

[William Anthony]

I believe the explanation can be found within the last two pages of this particular thread and further lingers in the Civil Testimony thread, where my own particular jab at martin lies nested within the postings.

Generally speaking, we as a whole simply aren't doing well.

Kate

I do not think it proper that some want to claim that my use of the term magnificent or magnificent one or JC incites them, when they know full well to whom it applies. I am not trying to put anyone on the spot and think that we have agreed to the level of his skills.

There is one particular poster that does not seem to want to play his own piano and wants to jump on the bandwagon of others, while making racial, sexual and threatening remarks/insinuations. If the use of the word magnificent and the initials JC so incite him to not want to post to me, then I am pleased and just wished he had said it sooner, so that I could have taken the appropriate steps. Is there room for improvement, yes? Thanks for clarifying. I just did not want other posters to misunderstand what I was saying or that it was just meant for Mr. Bell.

[Kate Sachel]

I do not think it proper that some want to claim that my use of the term magnificent or magnificent one or JC incites them, when they know full well to whom it applies. I am not trying to put anyone on the spot and think that we have agreed to the level of his skills.

There is one particular poster that does not seem to want to play his own piano and wants to jump on the bandwagon of others, while making racial, sexual and threatening remarks/insinuations. If the use of the word magnificent and the initials JC so incite him to not want to post to me, then I am pleased and just wished he had said it sooner, so that I could have taken the appropriate steps. Is there room for improvement, yes? Thanks for clarifying. I just did not want other posters to misunderstand what I was saying or that it was just meant for Mr. Bell.

I think it is fair to say that the majority of us can point to various things that we think are not proper. Some may be justified and others not, but opinion lies in the mind of the individual. The point is that there are better ways to handle our approach than what we have been participating in.

For example, I will certainly continue to point out martin's hypocrisy but will try to find less combative ways to do so. And if I cannot, then it is best to simply ignore his thought process.

Kate

[SlowHandSam]

I do not think it proper that some want to claim that my use of the term magnificent or magnificent one or JC incites them, when they know full well to whom it applies. I am not trying to put anyone on the spot and think that we have agreed to the level of his skills.

There is one particular poster that does not seem to want to play his own piano and wants to jump on the bandwagon of others, while making racial, sexual and threatening remarks/insinuations. If the use of the word magnificent and the initials JC so incite him to not want to post to me, then I am pleased and just wished he had said it sooner, so that I could have taken the appropriate steps. Is there room for improvement, yes? Thanks for clarifying. I just did not want other posters to misunderstand what I was saying or that it was just meant for Mr. Bell.

See, herein lies the problem, William. You didn't need to slam JBell in this post. And your assumptions and wild conclusions about his intended meaning are just that, IMO, your assumptions and conclusions. You can take anything and make it mean anything -- (not just *you*, it's a generally speaking type 'you'). People do this so that it fits their individual agenda.

You have been told that the term incites.
You and martin both call JBell "bella" and "belle" and so forth so as to create an air of tension. It's a two way street that y'all are on. That isn't to say either is right or that either is wrong ... it's just pointing out that y'all are on the same road - where neither of you (IMO) is correct. He slams, you slam, Martin slams ... it's a slamfest. You chide him for agreeing with others yet you and Martin are constantly agreeing with each other and any other poster who buys into the NGs theories. I don't see the difference with his agreeing with other posters as opposed to you and Martin always agreeing with each other.

It is not up to you to tell me what is proper. I find the term used for JC is done to inflame the board as you know how some posters feel about JC and his lawyer ability, tactics and overall ethic. For me, it has absolutely nothing to do from a Christian level - but from a completely different place.

I believe you added the term(s) in a way to get a jab at some posters who had been negative about JC, so to speak. You made your point. I do still, however, believe that the superfluous remarks are unnecessary and meant to inflame when put to use with every single mention of Cochran.

Not every shares your belief that he was that great. He was successful at ensuring a murderer went free. I will give him that. But from my perspective, that does not make him magnificent as I believe he compromised the very core of his ethics and soul in order to do so.

[William Anthony]

I think it is fair to say that the majority of us can point to various things that we think are not proper. Some may be justified and others not, but opinion lies in the mind of the individual. The point is that there are better ways to handle our approach than what we have been participating in.

For example, I will certainly continue to point out martin's hypocrisy but will try to find less combative ways to do so. And if I cannot, then it is best to simply ignore his thought process.

Kate

I said there was room for improvement and Mr. Bell's not posting to me is one of the ways, imho.

[martin II]

If only he had let us know sooner. ;) :cool:

Maby someone said something like "mark is on the case so keep an eye on him.":cool:

[Kate Sachel]

I said there was room for improvement and Mr. Bell's not posting to me is one of the ways, imho.

I shouldn't have even bothered to explain myself.

You cannot put everything on Joseph Bell, you are responsible for the manner in which you conduct yourself and if Joseph Bell not posting to you is an answer then let it be at that, but you won't allow that. Instead you would rather exchange snide remarks with martin about it.

It's called leading by example. And if you don't want to lead the parade of posting improvement then I suggest you bench the idea that all others should adhere to the standard you claim you'd like to see.

Kate

[William Anthony]

See, herein lies the problem, William. You didn't need to slam JBell in this post. And your assumptions and wild conclusions about his intended meaning are just that, IMO, your assumptions and conclusions. You can take anything and make it mean anything -- (not just *you*, it's a generally speaking type 'you'). People do this so that it fits their individual agenda.

You have been told that the term incites.
You and martin both call JBell "bella" and "belle" and so forth so as to create an air of tension. It's a two way street that y'all are on. That isn't to say either is right or that either is wrong ... it's just pointing out that y'all are on the same road - where neither of you (IMO) is correct. He slams, you slam, Martin slams ... it's a slamfest. You chide him for agreeing with others yet you and Martin are constantly agreeing with each other and any other poster who buys into the NGs theories. I don't see the difference with his agreeing with other posters as opposed to you and Martin always agreeing with each other.

It is not up to you to tell me what is proper. I find the term used for JC is done to inflame the board as you know how some posters feel about JC and his lawyer ability, tactics and overall ethic. For me, it has absolutely nothing to do from a Christian level - but from a completely different place.

I believe you added the term(s) in a way to get a jab at some posters who had been negative about JC, so to speak. You made your point. I do still, however, believe that the superfluous remarks are unnecessary and meant to inflame when put to use with every single mention of Cochran.

Not every shares your belief that he was that great. He was successful at ensuring a murderer went free. I will give him that. But from my perspective, that does not make him magnificent as I believe he compromised the very core of his ethics and soul in order to do so.

First, I have never heard you speak up when I have been slammed by Mr. Bell and others. Therefore, I do not think it proper for you to speak now on the issue of slamming. You have never spoken on the calling of Mr. Bailey flee or the magnificent one cockroach. You have defended the use of the words boy directed to me an martin, and, IIRC, you defended the fried chicken remark. You have said you had no respect for me and I have posted to you in a civil manner afterward. You seem to want to jump on the bandwagon of anyone who takes umbrage with what I say and you have made false statements about me.

There is nothing wrong with anyone agreeing with anyone else, unless that is all you do aside from insulting posters. Martin and I have added information to the discussion, whether or not you agree with the information we posted. I cannot say the same for Mr. Bell.

I cannot help the feelings that others have about the magnificent one and I do not apologize for my feelings about him. I have not let their negative comments incite me as they should not let my praise incite them, or claim that it does.

I think he did what he was sworn to do, which was to give his client the best defense possible, despite his own personal feelings as to guilt or non guilt. He made the prosecution prove their charge, in this case showed why they could not. I personally believe that he was able to do so, because of his magnificent lawyering skills. In light of what I have seen in regard to your posts defending those who have slammed me, I can honestly say that, imho, it appears that you have an agenda.

[SlowHandSam]

First, I have never heard you speak up when I have been slammed by Mr. Bell and others. Therefore, I do not think it proper for you to speak now on the issue of slamming. You have never spoken on the calling of Mr. Bailey flee or the magnificent one cockroach. You have defended the use of the words boy directed to me an martin, and, IIRC, you defended the fried chicken remark. You have said you had no respect for me and I have posted to you in a civil manner afterward. You seem to want to jump on the bandwagon of anyone who takes umbrage with what I say and you have made false statements about me.

There is nothing wrong with anyone agreeing with anyone else, unless that is all you do aside from insulting posters. Martin and I have added information to the discussion, whether or not you agree with the information we posted. I cannot say the same for Mr. Bell.

I cannot help the feelings that others have about the magnificent one and I do not apologize for my feelings about him. I have not let their negative comments incite me as they should not let my praise incite them, or claim that it does.

I think he did what he was sworn to do, which was to give his client the best defense possible, despite his own personal feelings as to guilt or non guilt. He made the prosecution prove their charge, in this case showed why they could not. I personally believe that he was able to do so, because of his magnificent lawyering skills. In light of what I have seen in regard to your posts defending those who have slammed me, I can honestly say that, imho, it appears that you have an agenda.

I didn't defend you are Martin because you chose to trade slams. You and Martin are the ones who keep harping on raising the level, yet you choose to not follow your own instruction until it suits you. That was the point of my note.

As for the boy and chicken comments. I thought y'all were being absolutely ridiculous to take offense at something that had nothing untoward about it. You chose to make it mean what you wanted to fit your need. No one can change that.

And yes, I have said I have no respect for you because you show no respect for anyone on here except Martin and some of the NGs that support your theories. You have been less than civil and respectful to me, personally, as well. So I treat you as you treat me. That's how I roll.

JBell has added to the conversations but you have chosen to attack, demean and otherwise just push aside anything he's added. He's not the only person to which that has been done, IIRC.

I don't jump on a bandwagon. I take up my own causes as I see fit. I'm an educated professionally employed person who can spell basic words (and sometimes big words! lol) and carry on an intelligent coherent conversation.

I do not have an agenda aside from wanting all this B.S. on this board to stop. I'm so over it. Many posters are over it.

So, let me jump up on Kate's cart since you think that's what I do and say it's time you and Martin drop all the notes for us to raise the level since it is apparent that you are not sincere in wanting to do so.

[SlowHandSam]

I didn't defend you OR Martin because you chose to trade slams. You and Martin are the ones who keep harping on raising the level, yet you choose to not follow your own instruction until it suits you. That was the point of my note.

As for the boy and chicken comments. I thought y'all were being absolutely ridiculous to take offense at something that had nothing untoward about it. You chose to make it mean what you wanted to fit your need. No one can change that.

And yes, I have said I have no respect for you because you show no respect for anyone on here except Martin and some of the NGs that support your theories. You have been less than civil and respectful to me, personally, as well. So I treat you as you treat me. That's how I roll.

JBell has added to the conversations but you have chosen to attack, demean and otherwise just push aside anything he's added. He's not the only person to which that has been done, IIRC.

I don't jump on a bandwagon. I take up my own causes as I see fit. I'm an educated professionally employed person who can spell basic words (and sometimes big words! lol) and carry on an intelligent coherent conversation.

I do not have an agenda aside from wanting all this B.S. on this board to stop. I'm so over it. Many posters are over it.

So, let me jump up on Kate's cart since you think that's what I do and say it's time you and Martin drop all the notes for us to raise the level since it is apparent that you are not sincere in wanting to do so.

stupid board won't let me edit ... please note my correction above in bold. Typo.

[martin II]

Johnnie Cochran was a successful lawyer as DAs office and as a defense lawyer protecting citizens against lapd abuse.In the simpson trial he showed his high lawyering skills as he won the case for his client as leader of a great defense team. After the Oj case he was very successful in defending other citizens against police abuse. He was recognized as one of the top lawyers in his profession by one of the top legal professional organizations in America.

Some. upset with his success in the criminal trail have attacked the prosecution for the way they handeled the case, some witnesses, all of the defense lawyers, the judge and the jury. One poster expressed glee that he died and tryed to claim it was Karma that caused his death.

Some posters use oj as a short cut to O.J. Simpson. I use Jc as a short cut to Jonnie Cochran.
I think his successful legal career calls for expressions of respect. Therefore
the manificant one.imo

[bobaugust]

Dark enough that he used a flash to take the pictures.Do you understand that?

In the civil trial Rokahr testified that he used a flash when it wasn't dark.

January 6, 1997 Rokahr
Q. Now, do you --
A. I use a flash with every photo I take, even if the sun shines.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I see so you think you get to determine what is reliable.

As you correctly stated Ms. Clairborne was not part of the criminal trial.

Riske contradicts Phillips.

One thing is very clear the photo was taken before 5:41. Please post the date and the quote where the defense made the claims you claim they made.

I think the fact that Rokahr was under heavy medication and continually said that he had no recollection as to the actual times involved makes any of his time estimates unreliable.

Yes Clairborne was not part of the criminal trial and Riske's opinion that he saw Rokahr take that photograph when it was getting light outside was not part of the criminal trial but that doesn't change the evidence that tells us when that photograph was taken. Riske had a different opinion as to what he remembered as to how dark or light it was outside than Phillips but that doesn't change the facts that both testified to. They both testified that the photograph was taken after Phillips and Fuhrman returned from Rockingham and they both estimated the same time it was taken, about 6:40.

There is no evidence that the photograph was taken before 5:41 AM. We know that both Vannatter and Lange were at Bundy before 4:30 AM and the four detectives left for Rockingham about 5:00 AM. There is no evidence that any photographs were taken inside the crime scene during that time, only panoramic or establishing shots. If that photograph was taken then the detectives responsible for the crime scene, Lange or Vannatter, would have directed Rokahr to take it, not Mark Fuhrman who was no longer on the case.

Marcia Clark summarized the defense position in her closing argument,

September 29, 1995 Clark
Now, they want us to explain this one away by saying that Mark Fuhrman stepped in the blood of Nicole Brown because--actually this is all woven in, a bunch of stuff together. That photograph where you see him pointing to the evidence at Bundy, that really wasn't taken at 7:00 or 6:30 or something as was testified to. No, no, no, no, no. That was taken before he left to go to Rockingham. And the blood on his shoe dried. He was standing there--he was marching around in her pool of blood. That's what you have to believe. Then he went out on Rockingham, he stepped on the wet grass, he got it wet again, and when he got into this Bronco, which I guess he must have had a slim jim with him to break into it because it was locked, he got in and he put his foot on that carpet right where you would put it if you were driving it. But he didn't have the keys. So why would he be sitting that way? I don't know, but that's the story. That's what you're supposed to believe. Now, there's a bunch of problems with that story that make it impossible. It doesn't fit. It doesn't make sense and it didn't happen, and here's why. No. 1, there was testimony from Mr. Bodziak concerning the characteristics of this stain. And that means 33 where the imprint is. And what he said was that there were the "S" squiggles that were very distinctive of this Silga design of the Bruno Maglis. He said there was not distinguishable characteristics for him to make an absolute positive identification. But you can see. I'm going to show you. I'm going to show you that logic and common sense in your own powers of observation tell you that's the Bruno Magli shoe.

And Mr. Bodziak told you that he excluded the shoes of all of the officers including those of Mark Fuhrman from the bloody shoeprints at Bundy.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

"Why then, ladies and gentlemen, is he pointing at this glove when he hasn't even been over there? Why then would they try to tell you he doesn't have time at Bundy when he is by himself for this period of time? He is not with Spangler; he is walking around by him. Why then is he walking in that crime scene and why does he lie to you and said he didn't have access to the crime scene? These are the facts. These are the facts. I haven't made them up. This is what you heard in this case. This is what we have proved. Some of it came in late; some of it came in early, but our job here is to piece this together so that you can then see this, so when he refers to the gloves as "Them," that has never been cleared up for you and he can't. That is a Freudian slip when he talks about "In the Bronco." And there was a dispute. Well, did he really say that? Remember the tape was played at the preliminary hearing and his voice was heard saying "In the Bronco." You can see all these things. He is strolling down to Rockingham, the big man, figuring a way to do this, to carry out this plan, this spot he has in his mind since 1985, to make the big score, and so Rokahr severely impeaches Fuhrman about these photographs, and once again, these photographs speak a thousand words. Concluding about Riske, he said on cross-examination that the photograph pointing at the glove was taken at least forty minutes before daylight, the sun rose at 5:41, maybe a little bit late, but it was before daylight and so we know that. That is now clear. Why did they then all try to cover for this man Fuhrman? Why would this man who is not only Los Angeles' worst nightmare, but America's worse nightmare, why would they all turn their heads and try to cover for them? Why would you do that if you are sworn to uphold the law? There is something about corruption. There is something about a rotten apple that will ultimately infect the entire barrel, because if the others don't have the courage that we have asked you to have in this case, people sit sadly by. We live in a society where many people are apathetic, they don't want to get involved, and that is why all of us, to a person, in this courtroom, have thanked you from the bottom of our hearts. Because you know what? You haven't been apathetic. You are the ones who made a commitment, a commitment toward justice, and it is a painful commitment, but you've got to see it through. Your commitment, your courage, is much greater than these police officers. This man could have been off the force long ago if they had done their job, but they didn't do their job. People looked the other way. People didn't have the courage. One of the things that has made this country so great is people's willingness to stand up and say that is wrong. I'm not going to be part of it. I'm not going to be part of the cover-up. That is what I'm asking you to do. Stop this cover-up. Stop this cover-up. If you don't stop it, then who? Do you think the police department is going to stop it? Do you think the D.A.'s office is going to stop it? Do you think we can stop it by ourselves? It has to be stopped by you. And you know, they talked about Fuhrman, they talked about him in derisive tones now, and that is very fashionable now, isn't it? Everybody wants to beat up on Fuhrman, the favored whipping boy in America. I told you I don't take any delight in that because you know before this trial started, if you grow up in this country, you know there are Fuhrmans out there. You learn early on in your life that you are not going to be naive, that you love your country, but you know it is not perfect, so you understand that, so it is no surprise to me, but I don't take any pride in it. But for some of you, you are finding out the other side of life. You are finding out--that is why this case is so instructive. You are finding out about the other side of life, but things aren't always as they seem. It is not just rhetoric, it is the actions of people, it is the lack of courage and it is a lack of integrity at high places. That is what we are talking about here. Credibility doesn't attach to a title or position; it attaches to the person, so the person who may have a job where he makes two dollars an hour can have more integrity than the highest person. It is something from within. It is in your heart. It is what the lord has put there. That is what we are talking about in this case. And so why don't they speak out? Why do they take him to their breast? Compare how our prosecutors treat Fuhrman as opposed to Kato Kaelin. Look at how they treated mark partridge as opposed to Kato Kaelin. Look at how they embraced him. And now they want to distance themselves. These same people say, oh, he is not important, but the Rokahr photograph puts the lie to that. He is very important. And what becomes so important when we talk about these two twin demons of evil, Vannatter and Fuhrman, is the jury instruction which you know about now and it says essentially that a witness willfully false--I think Mr. Douglas is going to put that up for us

Nothing but rhetoric, speculation, and hyperbole contradicted by common sense, witness testimony, and physical evidence.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I didn't defend you are Martin because you chose to trade slams. You and Martin are the ones who keep harping on raising the level, yet you choose to not follow your own instruction until it suits you. That was the point of my note.

As for the boy and chicken comments. I thought y'all were being absolutely ridiculous to take offense at something that had nothing untoward about it. You chose to make it mean what you wanted to fit your need. No one can change that.

And yes, I have said I have no respect for you because you show no respect for anyone on here except Martin and some of the NGs that support your theories. You have been less than civil and respectful to me, personally, as well. So I treat you as you treat me. That's how I roll.

JBell has added to the conversations but you have chosen to attack, demean and otherwise just push aside anything he's added. He's not the only person to which that has been done, IIRC.

I don't jump on a bandwagon. I take up my own causes as I see fit. I'm an educated professionally employed person who can spell basic words (and sometimes big words! lol) and carry on an intelligent coherent conversation.

I do not have an agenda aside from wanting all this B.S. on this board to stop. I'm so over it. Many posters are over it.

So, let me jump up on Kate's cart since you think that's what I do and say it's time you and Martin drop all the notes for us to raise the level since it is apparent that you are not sincere in wanting to do so.

yes, I asked to raise the level but my requests fell on death ears to some, including you, imho. No, you did not defend martin and me but chose to attack us and that was my point.

I see nothing untoward about saying the magnificent one. You started being uncivil when you did not like the posts on slavery and reparations. I don't roll. I am ride or die, down by law.

Deny, deny, deny until the wall falls down, but your agenda is clear to me as to where you choose to see and not see fault.

[William Anthony]

I didn't defend you are Martin because you chose to trade slams. You and Martin are the ones who keep harping on raising the level, yet you choose to not follow your own instruction until it suits you. That was the point of my note.

As for the boy and chicken comments. I thought y'all were being absolutely ridiculous to take offense at something that had nothing untoward about it. You chose to make it mean what you wanted to fit your need. No one can change that.

And yes, I have said I have no respect for you because you show no respect for anyone on here except Martin and some of the NGs that support your theories. You have been less than civil and respectful to me, personally, as well. So I treat you as you treat me. That's how I roll.

JBell has added to the conversations but you have chosen to attack, demean and otherwise just push aside anything he's added. He's not the only person to which that has been done, IIRC.

I don't jump on a bandwagon. I take up my own causes as I see fit. I'm an educated professionally employed person who can spell basic words (and sometimes big words! lol) and carry on an intelligent coherent conversation.

I do not have an agenda aside from wanting all this B.S. on this board to stop. I'm so over it. Many posters are over it.

So, let me jump up on Kate's cart since you think that's what I do and say it's time you and Martin drop all the notes for us to raise the level since it is apparent that you are not sincere in wanting to do so.

As an educate person with a proficiency in the English language, you say, "So I treat you as you treat me. That's how I roll." Please allow me the same privilege and do not criticize me for doing what you admit to doing. I think Kate can speak for herself and I did not see where she took sides. If I were you, imho, I would not push that particular issue.

[William Anthony]

I think the fact that Rokahr was under heavy medication and continually said that he had no recollection as to the actual times involved makes any of his time estimates unreliable.

Yes Clairborne was not part of the criminal trial and Riske's opinion that he saw Rokahr take that photograph when it was getting light outside was not part of the criminal trial but that doesn't change the evidence that tells us when that photograph was taken. Riske had a different opinion as to what he remembered as to how dark or light it was outside than Phillips but that doesn't change the facts that both testified to. They both testified that the photograph was taken after Phillips and Fuhrman returned from Rockingham and they both estimated the same time it was taken, about 6:40.

There is no evidence that the photograph was taken before 5:41 AM. We know that both Vannatter and Lange were at Bundy before 4:30 AM and the four detectives left for Rockingham about 5:00 AM. There is no evidence that any photographs were taken inside the crime scene during that time, only panoramic or establishing shots. If that photograph was taken then the detectives responsible for the crime scene, Lange or Vannatter, would have directed Rokahr to take it, not Mark Fuhrman who was no longer on the case.

Marcia Clark summarized the defense position in her closing argument,

September 29, 1995 Clark
Now, they want us to explain this one away by saying that Mark Fuhrman stepped in the blood of Nicole Brown because--actually this is all woven in, a bunch of stuff together. That photograph where you see him pointing to the evidence at Bundy, that really wasn't taken at 7:00 or 6:30 or something as was testified to. No, no, no, no, no. That was taken before he left to go to Rockingham. And the blood on his shoe dried. He was standing there--he was marching around in her pool of blood. That's what you have to believe. Then he went out on Rockingham, he stepped on the wet grass, he got it wet again, and when he got into this Bronco, which I guess he must have had a slim jim with him to break into it because it was locked, he got in and he put his foot on that carpet right where you would put it if you were driving it. But he didn't have the keys. So why would he be sitting that way? I don't know, but that's the story. That's what you're supposed to believe. Now, there's a bunch of problems with that story that make it impossible. It doesn't fit. It doesn't make sense and it didn't happen, and here's why. No. 1, there was testimony from Mr. Bodziak concerning the characteristics of this stain. And that means 33 where the imprint is. And what he said was that there were the "S" squiggles that were very distinctive of this Silga design of the Bruno Maglis. He said there was not distinguishable characteristics for him to make an absolute positive identification. But you can see. I'm going to show you. I'm going to show you that logic and common sense in your own powers of observation tell you that's the Bruno Magli shoe.

And Mr. Bodziak told you that he excluded the shoes of all of the officers including those of Mark Fuhrman from the bloody shoeprints at Bundy.

bobaugust

Those they said they were wearing. When the evidence is capable of two reasonable inferences, one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence, you must adopt/accept the one that points to innocence-jury instruction.

[William Anthony]

Nothing but rhetoric, speculation, and hyperbole contradicted by common sense, witness testimony, and physical evidence.

bobaugust

A masterful and magnificent summation showing why the jury should use their common sense to evaluate the rehearsed witnesses' testimonies and the corrupt and/or contaminated evidence.

[William Anthony]

I shouldn't have even bothered to explain myself.

You cannot put everything on Joseph Bell, you are responsible for the manner in which you conduct yourself and if Joseph Bell not posting to you is an answer then let it be at that, but you won't allow that. Instead you would rather exchange snide remarks with martin about it.

It's called leading by example. And if you don't want to lead the parade of posting improvement then I suggest you bench the idea that all others should adhere to the standard you claim you'd like to see.

Kate

I apologize as I did overlook this post. I accept everything I said to Mr. Bell. I don't think they were snide remarks. I thought they were expressions of elation. I think I asked for participation/assistance from the community. If that led anyone to believe that I was going to allow myself to be abused, then I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Have martin and I been wrong, yes?
When Mr. Bell jumped to the preposterous conclusion and made the ridiculous accusation that I had slandered Drew Peterson, posters were quick to agree. You set an example in that situation, which I appreciated. Then the other things happened with Mr. Bell. A poster has stated that they treat people as people treat them. You have acknowledged that you recently responded in a manner that you wish you hadn't to martin. None of us are perfect. That in no means means that you nor I are not interested in seeing the level of the posting improve. You are correct when you say that I do not want to lead the parade, although it has been suggested that I preside over a festival.:) I would like to be a member of the parade. I really have not heard one poster say publicly that they want to raise the level, IIRC. However, there are some who immediately criticize my posts, without claiming an interest in raising the level or a desire to participate but point out that my posts allegedly do not. I have not included you in that group. I ask why the posters do not speak out when they saw the snide remarks directed toward me.

I believe but I have found that turning the other cheek does not always serve me well. I do not know if others share that belief and the times I tried I found I was struck twice.:) I do believe that pride goes before a great fall. I take pride in the fact that, as a human being, I have the right not to be abused and the right to fight fire with fire or forgive and forget. I think that some must be shown the error of their ways before you can forgive and forget, so that they are aware that you will not tolerate, even momentarily, some types of abuse. After I posted that I was interested in raising the level of posting in this community and requested an apology from Mr. Bell, he responded with the only way he would was if the community came down on him like a ton of bricks. I waited and there was no ton, in fact they supported him. Since I believe that he, who is with out sin should cast the first brick, I decided to drive the truck carrying the ton of bricks, imho. :)

I will follow your example and ask the community to pardon my lapse at Mr. Bell's abuse. I mean that sincerely.

[bobaugust]

Those they said they were wearing. When the evidence is capable of two reasonable inferences, one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence, you must adopt/accept the one that points to innocence-jury instruction.

The photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove had nothing to do with Simpson's guilt or innocence. The fact that the shoes that Fuhrman wore that night were excluded from making the bloody shoe prints at Bundy and on the Bronco carpet is the evidence that supports the reasonable explanation that points to Fuhrman's innocence in the defense imagined evidence planting theory.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

A masterful and magnificent summation showing why the jury should use their common sense to evaluate the rehearsed witnesses' testimonies and the corrupt and/or contaminated evidence.

Nothing but rhetoric, speculation, and hyperbole by the master deceiver to try and influence the jury to ignore common sense explanations, contradicting facts, and contradicting physical evidence.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove had nothing to do with Simpson's guilt or innocence. The fact that the shoes that Fuhrman wore that night were excluded from making the bloody shoe prints at Bundy and on the Bronco carpet is the evidence that supports the reasonable explanation that points to Fuhrman's innocence in the defense imagined evidence planting theory.

bobaugust

I really wish you would state things in your opinion. The picture had everything to do with the evidence of evidence planting. I have asked you to post the claim that you said the defense made in regard to the Bronco, i.e. that MF planted the shoe print. The fact that the perjurer, by direct evidence, and soon to be convicted claimed to wear a certain pair of shoes does not point to his innocence, imho.

[William Anthony]

Nothing but rhetoric, speculation, and hyperbole by the master deceiver to try and influence the jury to ignore common sense explanations, contradicting facts, and contradicting physical evidence.

bobaugust

I really wish you would state things in your opinion, because of you demonstrated understanding of evidence, inferences and your ability to claim that the evidence was the exact opposite of what it was. The prosecution tried to hire master deceivers but the magnificent one and his superb team brought havoc to those deceptive employees, imho.

[bobaugust]

I really wish you would state things in your opinion. The picture had everything to do with the evidence of evidence planting. I have asked you to post the claim that you said the defense made in regard to the Bronco, i.e. that MF planted the shoe print. The fact that the perjurer, by direct evidence, and soon to be convicted claimed to wear a certain pair of shoes does not point to his innocence, imho.

I posted Clark's closing argument where she talked about the defense evidence planting theory and how it made no sense. Bodziak testified that the shoes that Fuhrman, Phillips, Roberts, Riske, and Terrazas wore the night of the murders were excluded from making the bloody shoe prints at Bundy and the print on Simpson's Bronco carpet. Photographs of those shoes were shown on a prosecution exhibit. The photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove had nothing to do with evidence planting. If you believe differently please explain how you think it did.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I really wish you would state things in your opinion, because of you demonstrated understanding of evidence, inferences and your ability to claim that the evidence was the exact opposite of what it was. The prosecution tried to hire master deceivers but the magnificent one and his superb team brought havoc to those deceptive employees, imho.

We who believe for an inference to be reasonable it should be based on specific credible facts and or physical evidence not opinion and not unsupported speculation. You on the other hand call some of your inferences reasonable that are based not on what a witness said but on what you imagine they meant. There are many examples in this case of how the master deceiver Cochran misled the criminal trial jurors.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I posted Clark's closing argument where she talked about the defense evidence planting theory and how it made no sense. Bodziak testified that the shoes that Fuhrman, Phillips, Roberts, Riske, and Terrazas wore the night of the murders were excluded from making the bloody shoe prints at Bundy and the print on Simpson's Bronco carpet. Photographs of those shoes were shown on a prosecution exhibit. The photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove had nothing to do with evidence planting. If you believe differently please explain how you think it did.

bobaugust

I did not ask you to post what the prosecution claimed was the defense's claim about the Bronco. I asked you to post your claim as to what the defense claimed. Yes, the magnificent one tied it all together. Do you need to read it again?

[William Anthony]

We who believe for an inference to be reasonable it should be based on specific credible facts and or physical evidence not opinion and not unsupported speculation. You on the other hand call some of your inferences reasonable that are based not on what a witness said but on what you imagine they meant. There are many examples in this case of how the master deceiver Cochran misled the criminal trial jurors.

bobaugust

Please, respect the law. In most cases and it is supposed to be in a criminal jury trial that the jury determines the credibility of the evidence and the facts. This is why you use the term credible facts, incorrectly. Once credibility has been decided, the jury draws reasonable inferences in order to determine if the prosecution meet its burden of proof. The jury made decide to give the physical evidence or the circumstantial evidence or the direct evidence or the writing evidence or the tangible evidence more weight and credibility than any of the other types. Quite to the contrary, I weigh the testimony of the witness to see what inferences are reasonable from what they said, keeping in mind who has the burden of proof. With that in mind let's see what the shoe impression expert said and what inference is reasonable.

[William Anthony]

"MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, getting back to the Bronco carpet, I would like to mark as People's next in order, it is 397 for identification, another chart that is entitled "Bronco carpet."

THE COURT: Bronco carpet?

MR. GOLDBERG: That is a good title.

THE COURT: Catchy.

MR. GOLDBERG: Appropriate.

(Brief pause.)

(Peo's 397 for id = chart)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Bodziak, perhaps you could step down, and using this chart, can you tell us what you did in trying to make an analysis to determine whether or not there were any footwear impressions on this item of evidence?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. On September 1st I came to the Los Angeles Police Department and examined this carpet and I was asked to attempt to enhance, that is, make it easier to see, the blood impression, particularly this area here, (Indicating), but any other area of the carpet as well, that might contain some blood and possibly a shoe impression. And by doing so I first treated the carpeting with what is known as a fixative and that is so that when the subsequent enhancement solutions contacted the blood, that is where it will not run away and just dissolve, but it will stay in its fixed position on that respective area of carpeting. I then treated the carpeting with luminol. Luminol is a material which reacts with a substance in the blood and it must be done in total darkness. And that was photographed. And when blood reacts with luminol you get a luminescence or a glowing in the dark, in layman's terms. And that was photographed. And then subsequent to that I treated the carpeting with a material called luco crystal violet, which also reacts with material in the blood, but which turns a crystal violet color, and that is now seen, since it can be done in normal light. That was photographed. And you can see the entire mat as well as the enhanced area. That is now seen as a dark violet area of staining and there is a lot of little drops, but also primarily this area here which is the entry point to the Bronco. In other words, if this door is opened, this is the part that you would step up into if you were getting into the car, into the Bronco.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you look at that area where a person steps up into if they were getting into the Bronco?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. And after I treated the carpet with any chemicals at all, I examined the photographs which were taken immediately upon the acquisition of the Bronco, as well as the current condition of it, and you could see the reddish or reddish brown staining in this area, but not as clear as it can be seen now.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So both of the photos that we are showing here, do both of these show the carpet in its enhanced condition?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. This is after the total enhancement process to your right on the chart shows the whole piece of carpeting that had been cut out of the driver's side on the floor, and to the left is an enlarged area to natural size of this approximate area, (Indicating), the area where the feet would be, if you were sitting in a seat.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you now tell us, and if you need to use either an overlay or a shoe to do this, one of our shoe soles, can you tell us what you did in order to try to make a comparison?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, as I had mentioned before, before the break, the blood, after going down the long walkway to--across the driveway to a possible car that was parked there, would not have an imprint in it from the bottom of the shoe, like it would have further back up the sidewalk, but instead it would have had blood up in the areas or grooves of the shoe between the design elements and possibly blood that was wedged in crevasses between the perimeter or even around the edge of the shoe and would have therefore still survived that distance, that far along. And what I did was take a test impression in a transparent form, such as I have previously showed, and I tried to put it--position it different ways over the impression where you would normally step up and enter into the Bronco to see if I could get any of the features in this enhanced impression to correspond with the Silga sole, such as I had with the other comparisons that I made. And I was not able to make--take an overlay and actually reconstruct the exact position of that shoe to the point where I could say it was absolutely the Silga design and even go farther and say it was the same. There just wasn't enough detail and of course it is not representing the normal design of the case, but it is just wherever there happened to be some blood up in the grooves and wherever the carpeting had to go up, it just randomly whipped down the--

MR. GOLDBERG: So this would be in the negative area?

MR. BODZIAK: In the negative areas of the shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: Or the areas in the grooves, so to speak?

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. I did notice that there was this area here which could possibly have been a border of the shoe, and there also is some little what I call squiggles or little "S" shapes which might represent the curved areas between the design elements, but they weren't clear enough or reliable enough to make any kind of a positive determination."

Now, you may understand why she spend time trying to prove they weren't MF's shoes, because she could not prove they were BMs. The reasonable inference to be drawn from this testimony is that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient beyond a reasonable doubt, imho.

[William Anthony]

Please, respect the law. In most cases and it is supposed to be in a criminal jury trial that the jury determines the credibility of the evidence and the facts. This is why you use the term credible facts, incorrectly. Once credibility has been decided, the jury draws reasonable inferences in order to determine if the prosecution meet its burden of proof. The jury made decide to give the physical evidence or the circumstantial evidence or the direct evidence or the writing evidence or the tangible evidence more weight and credibility than any of the other types. Quite to the contrary, I weigh the testimony of the witness to see what inferences are reasonable from what they said, keeping in mind who has the burden of proof. With that in mind let's see what the shoe impression expert said and what inference is reasonable.

Thinking faster than I type. Corrections-Once credibility has been decided, the jury draws reasonable inferences in order to determine if the prosecution met its burden of proof-The jury may decide...

[bobaugust]

I did not ask you to post what the prosecution claimed was the defense's claim about the Bronco. I asked you to post your claim as to what the defense claimed. Yes, the magnificent one tied it all together. Do you need to read it again?

As Clark said, "No. 1, there was testimony from Mr. Bodziak concerning the characteristics of this stain. And that means 33 where the imprint is. And what he said was that there were the "S" squiggles that were very distinctive of this Silga design of the Bruno Maglis. He said there was not distinguishable characteristics for him to make an absolute positive identification. But you can see. I'm going to show you. I'm going to show you that logic and common sense in your own powers of observation tell you that's the Bruno Magli shoe. And Mr. Bodziak told you that he excluded the shoes of all of the officers including those of Mark Fuhrman from the bloody shoeprints at Bundy"

June 19, 1995 Bodziak
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, in performing the analysis that you did in this case, did you also have occasion to look at some photographs of police officer--of the shoes of police officers?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And I would like to direct your attention to what we've previously marked as People's 73 for identification.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: And I would like to mark as People's next in order, that would be People's 296 for identification--
THE COURT: How about 396.
MR. GOLDBERG: 396, what appears to be several photographs that were D.A. discovery no.4381 and they are similar to 63--73.(Brief pause.)
(Peo's 396 for id = chart)
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, I'm going to show you what we've marked as 73 for identification. Can you take a look at that to see whether you looked at the pictures of those shoes?
MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.) Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And now will showing you a series of six photographs that we have just marked as People's 396 for identification, did you also look at those prior to taking the witness stand today?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And with respect to these two exhibits, were you able to include or exclude the officer's shoeprints as having created any of the prints that you saw at the Bundy location?
MR. BODZIAK: I was able to exclude those officer's footprints as having made any of the distinguishable, you know, the Silga design that I pointed out previously this morning. That Silga design is totally different than any of the designs of these officer's shoes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And just for the record, the package of six photographs that I sent--just showed you, included Phillips, Fuhrman and Roberts?
MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let me just put them on the elmo quickly.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we just take a quick look at those.
MR. GOLDBERG: And Mr. Bodziak, can you confirm whether those are the ones that you saw and excluded. Can you just move those around so that we can see all four of them up front.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: That's fine.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Bodziak, are those four photographs, the ones that say "Phillips" up at the top and then "Fuhrman" and "Fuhrman" again at the bottom?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, they are.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you turn that over just so we can see the reverse side.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the "Roberts" and "Roberts" photographs?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And look at those. I'm not going to ask you about all the ones in 73, but let's just look at Officer Riske's shoes. Can you pull back so we can see the name. Thanks. Did you look at these officers, the ones of Officer Terrazas--the pictures, and the pictures of Officer Riske?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. There was far more detail in what I looked at than what I could see here, but those are the same photographs.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And you excluded those?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Thank you.

By not including the dates of testimony you post William it's completely discourteous to other posters or readers who wish to read the transcripts for themselves. How about answering my question. Why do you think the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove is evidence of planting?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Please, respect the law. In most cases and it is supposed to be in a criminal jury trial that the jury determines the credibility of the evidence and the facts. This is why you use the term credible facts, incorrectly. Once credibility has been decided, the jury draws reasonable inferences in order to determine if the prosecution meet its burden of proof. The jury made decide to give the physical evidence or the circumstantial evidence or the direct evidence or the writing evidence or the tangible evidence more weight and credibility than any of the other types. Quite to the contrary, I weigh the testimony of the witness to see what inferences are reasonable from what they said, keeping in mind who has the burden of proof. With that in mind let's see what the shoe impression expert said and what inference is reasonable.

You were not a juror in this case William, and some of your inferences you claim are reasonable are not reasonable at all.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

"MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, getting back to the Bronco carpet, I would like to mark as People's next in order, it is 397 for identification, another chart that is entitled "Bronco carpet."

THE COURT: Bronco carpet?

MR. GOLDBERG: That is a good title.

THE COURT: Catchy.

MR. GOLDBERG: Appropriate.

(Brief pause.)

(Peo's 397 for id = chart)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Bodziak, perhaps you could step down, and using this chart, can you tell us what you did in trying to make an analysis to determine whether or not there were any footwear impressions on this item of evidence?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. On September 1st I came to the Los Angeles Police Department and examined this carpet and I was asked to attempt to enhance, that is, make it easier to see, the blood impression, particularly this area here, (Indicating), but any other area of the carpet as well, that might contain some blood and possibly a shoe impression. And by doing so I first treated the carpeting with what is known as a fixative and that is so that when the subsequent enhancement solutions contacted the blood, that is where it will not run away and just dissolve, but it will stay in its fixed position on that respective area of carpeting. I then treated the carpeting with luminol. Luminol is a material which reacts with a substance in the blood and it must be done in total darkness. And that was photographed. And when blood reacts with luminol you get a luminescence or a glowing in the dark, in layman's terms. And that was photographed. And then subsequent to that I treated the carpeting with a material called luco crystal violet, which also reacts with material in the blood, but which turns a crystal violet color, and that is now seen, since it can be done in normal light. That was photographed. And you can see the entire mat as well as the enhanced area. That is now seen as a dark violet area of staining and there is a lot of little drops, but also primarily this area here which is the entry point to the Bronco. In other words, if this door is opened, this is the part that you would step up into if you were getting into the car, into the Bronco.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you look at that area where a person steps up into if they were getting into the Bronco?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. And after I treated the carpet with any chemicals at all, I examined the photographs which were taken immediately upon the acquisition of the Bronco, as well as the current condition of it, and you could see the reddish or reddish brown staining in this area, but not as clear as it can be seen now.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So both of the photos that we are showing here, do both of these show the carpet in its enhanced condition?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. This is after the total enhancement process to your right on the chart shows the whole piece of carpeting that had been cut out of the driver's side on the floor, and to the left is an enlarged area to natural size of this approximate area, (Indicating), the area where the feet would be, if you were sitting in a seat.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you now tell us, and if you need to use either an overlay or a shoe to do this, one of our shoe soles, can you tell us what you did in order to try to make a comparison?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, as I had mentioned before, before the break, the blood, after going down the long walkway to--across the driveway to a possible car that was parked there, would not have an imprint in it from the bottom of the shoe, like it would have further back up the sidewalk, but instead it would have had blood up in the areas or grooves of the shoe between the design elements and possibly blood that was wedged in crevasses between the perimeter or even around the edge of the shoe and would have therefore still survived that distance, that far along. And what I did was take a test impression in a transparent form, such as I have previously showed, and I tried to put it--position it different ways over the impression where you would normally step up and enter into the Bronco to see if I could get any of the features in this enhanced impression to correspond with the Silga sole, such as I had with the other comparisons that I made. And I was not able to make--take an overlay and actually reconstruct the exact position of that shoe to the point where I could say it was absolutely the Silga design and even go farther and say it was the same. There just wasn't enough detail and of course it is not representing the normal design of the case, but it is just wherever there happened to be some blood up in the grooves and wherever the carpeting had to go up, it just randomly whipped down the--

MR. GOLDBERG: So this would be in the negative area?

MR. BODZIAK: In the negative areas of the shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: Or the areas in the grooves, so to speak?

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. I did notice that there was this area here which could possibly have been a border of the shoe, and there also is some little what I call squiggles or little "S" shapes which might represent the curved areas between the design elements, but they weren't clear enough or reliable enough to make any kind of a positive determination."

Now, you may understand why she spend time trying to prove they weren't MF's shoes, because she could not prove they were BMs. The reasonable inference to be drawn from this testimony is that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient beyond a reasonable doubt, imho.

June 19, 1995 Bodziak
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And with respect to these two exhibits, were you able to include or exclude the officer's shoeprints as having created any of the prints that you saw at the Bundy location?
MR. BODZIAK: I was able to exclude those officer's footprints as having made any of the distinguishable, you know, the Silga design that I pointed out previously this morning. That Silga design is totally different than any of the designs of these officer's shoes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And just for the record, the package of six photographs that I sent--just showed you, included Phillips, Fuhrman and Roberts?
MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

As Clark said, "No. 1, there was testimony from Mr. Bodziak concerning the characteristics of this stain. And that means 33 where the imprint is. And what he said was that there were the "S" squiggles that were very distinctive of this Silga design of the Bruno Maglis. He said there was not distinguishable characteristics for him to make an absolute positive identification. But you can see. I'm going to show you. I'm going to show you that logic and common sense in your own powers of observation tell you that's the Bruno Magli shoe. And Mr. Bodziak told you that he excluded the shoes of all of the officers including those of Mark Fuhrman from the bloody shoeprints at Bundy"

June 19, 1995 Bodziak
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, in performing the analysis that you did in this case, did you also have occasion to look at some photographs of police officer--of the shoes of police officers?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And I would like to direct your attention to what we've previously marked as People's 73 for identification.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: And I would like to mark as People's next in order, that would be People's 296 for identification--
THE COURT: How about 396.
MR. GOLDBERG: 396, what appears to be several photographs that were D.A. discovery no.4381 and they are similar to 63--73.(Brief pause.)
(Peo's 396 for id = chart)
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, I'm going to show you what we've marked as 73 for identification. Can you take a look at that to see whether you looked at the pictures of those shoes?
MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.) Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And now will showing you a series of six photographs that we have just marked as People's 396 for identification, did you also look at those prior to taking the witness stand today?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And with respect to these two exhibits, were you able to include or exclude the officer's shoeprints as having created any of the prints that you saw at the Bundy location?
MR. BODZIAK: I was able to exclude those officer's footprints as having made any of the distinguishable, you know, the Silga design that I pointed out previously this morning. That Silga design is totally different than any of the designs of these officer's shoes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And just for the record, the package of six photographs that I sent--just showed you, included Phillips, Fuhrman and Roberts?
MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let me just put them on the elmo quickly.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we just take a quick look at those.
MR. GOLDBERG: And Mr. Bodziak, can you confirm whether those are the ones that you saw and excluded. Can you just move those around so that we can see all four of them up front.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: That's fine.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Bodziak, are those four photographs, the ones that say "Phillips" up at the top and then "Fuhrman" and "Fuhrman" again at the bottom?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, they are.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you turn that over just so we can see the reverse side.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the "Roberts" and "Roberts" photographs?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And look at those. I'm not going to ask you about all the ones in 73, but let's just look at Officer Riske's shoes. Can you pull back so we can see the name. Thanks. Did you look at these officers, the ones of Officer Terrazas--the pictures, and the pictures of Officer Riske?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes. There was far more detail in what I looked at than what I could see here, but those are the same photographs.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And you excluded those?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Thank you.

By not including the dates of testimony you post William it's completely discourteous to other posters or readers who wish to read the transcripts for themselves. How about answering my question. Why do you think the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove is evidence of planting?

bobaugust

You claimed that the defense claimed MF planted the shoe print. I asked you to post that claim. You are being discourteous by not so doing. The magnificent one tied it all together.

[William Anthony]

June 19, 1995 Bodziak
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And with respect to these two exhibits, were you able to include or exclude the officer's shoeprints as having created any of the prints that you saw at the Bundy location?
MR. BODZIAK: I was able to exclude those officer's footprints as having made any of the distinguishable, you know, the Silga design that I pointed out previously this morning. That Silga design is totally different than any of the designs of these officer's shoes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And just for the record, the package of six photographs that I sent--just showed you, included Phillips, Fuhrman and Roberts?
MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

bobaugust

Where is the evidence that the partial shoe print in the Bronco was a Silga BM?

[William Anthony]

You were not a juror in this case William, and some of your inferences you claim are reasonable are not reasonable at all.

bobaugust

You are not the reasonable inference judge and jury.;) :cool:

[limakey]

Mr. August,

A couple of points regarding the MF-Photographer.

1. Why would VA and TL send Fuhrman over to Rockingham to see if the glove was match? Do you mean to tell me if one glove was a black one and one was a brown, this would clear OJ Simpson?

2. Why does the time matter when this photo was taken?

Does this remind you of anything else in this trial, like the fact that Dennis Fung apparently had to be sent back to the Bronco because he didn't collect it and then, when he does go back almost two months later, he collects the only stain that happens to have Ron Goldman's blood in the mix.

Does this remind you of the police leaking that Simpson's and Nicole's blood would be on the socks, even before the DA's sent them out to be tested.

It appears to me that some of the state's witnesses are able to read the results of these tests by just looking at the piece of evidence. IMO.

[bobaugust]

You claimed that the defense claimed MF planted the shoe print. I asked you to post that claim. You are being discourteous by not so doing. The magnificent one tied it all together.

I posted Clark's explanation why the defense suggestion that the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was taken before Fuhrman went to Rockingham didn't make any sense. I'm was not being discourteous when I made that claim I was basing it on Clark's explanation. Evidently you don't agree that the defense suggested what Clark said so tell us William why do you think the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove is evidence of planting as you have claimed?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Where is the evidence that the partial shoe print in the Bronco was a Silga BM?

As Clark said, "No. 1, there was testimony from Mr. Bodziak concerning the characteristics of this stain. And that means 33 where the imprint is. And what he said was that there were the "S" squiggles that were very distinctive of this Silga design of the Bruno Maglis. He said there was not distinguishable characteristics for him to make an absolute positive identification. But you can see. I'm going to show you. I'm going to show you that logic and common sense in your own powers of observation tell you that's the Bruno Magli shoe."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You are not the reasonable inference judge and jury.;) :cool:

No I'm not the reasonable inference judge and jury but I am like a lot of other posters on this discussion group who understand that an inference not supported by any credible evidence is not a reasonable inference. It's unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

A couple of points regarding the MF-Photographer.

1. Why would VA and TL send Fuhrman over to Rockingham to see if the glove was match? Do you mean to tell me if one glove was a black one and one was a brown, this would clear OJ Simpson?

2. Why does the time matter when this photo was taken?

Does this remind you of anything else in this trial, like the fact that Dennis Fung apparently had to be sent back to the Bronco because he didn't collect it and then, when he does go back almost two months later, he collects the only stain that happens to have Ron Goldman's blood in the mix.

Does this remind you of the police leaking that Simpson's and Nicole's blood would be on the socks, even before the DA's sent them out to be tested.

It appears to me that some of the state's witnesses are able to read the results of these tests by just looking at the piece of evidence. IMO.

"Evidence Dismissed" Lange and Vannatter
"Following Fuhrman's discovery, Vannatter and Fuhrman return to the front of the Simpson's house. There, Vannatter says to Fuhrman, 'I want you to go back to Bundy. I want you to look at the glove over there. Make sure that we have a match. And I want you to have the photographer photograph it. Then, I want you to bring the photographer back here, so that we can photograph this one."

The defense tried to use the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove to suggest that Fuhrman walked through Nicole's blood before he went to Rockingham and when he was there he somehow got into Simpson's Bronco and left his bloody shoe print on the Bronco carpet. A suggestion that was not only contradicted by witnesses who testified the photograph was taken when Fuhrman returned from Rockingham but contradicted by the fact that Fuhrman's shoes were excluded from making the bloody shoe prints.

Fung first collected blood from the Bronco on June 14. Two of the blood stains he collected from the center console were found to be a mixture of Simpson and Goldman's blood. On August 26 scientific testing continued in the Bronco. The passenger seat was removed and the substance Luminol, "a sophisticated but toxic spray on chemical that makes blood glow in the dark" was used. Several additional locations of blood evidence were found and collected. After testing they were found to be mixtures of Simpson, Goldman, and Nicole's blood.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I posted Clark's explanation why the defense suggestion that the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was taken before Fuhrman went to Rockingham didn't make any sense. I'm was not being discourteous when I made that claim I was basing it on Clark's explanation. Evidently you don't agree that the defense suggested what Clark said so tell us William why do you think the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove is evidence of planting as you have claimed?

bobaugust

So now you are not making the claim that the defense made the claim but that Clark said they did and then she argued that her claim did not make sense. The magnificent one tied it up.

[William Anthony]

As Clark said, "No. 1, there was testimony from Mr. Bodziak concerning the characteristics of this stain. And that means 33 where the imprint is. And what he said was that there were the "S" squiggles that were very distinctive of this Silga design of the Bruno Maglis. He said there was not distinguishable characteristics for him to make an absolute positive identification. But you can see. I'm going to show you. I'm going to show you that logic and common sense in your own powers of observation tell you that's the Bruno Magli shoe."

bobaugust

Where is the evidence?

[William Anthony]

No I'm not the reasonable inference judge and jury but I am like a lot of other posters on this discussion group who understand that an inference not supported by any credible evidence is not a reasonable inference. It's unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

First you said credible facts. I am glad you have changed it to credible evidence, because that resembles a legal concept. So now you are the credibility judge and jury.

[William Anthony]

Let's talk about master deceivers. However the defense was knowledgeable enough of the evidence to catch their attempt.

"THE COURT: We're talking about two things. We're talking about 42, Nicole Brown Simpson blood pool results.

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: And we're talking about the request for the PCR testing results of any of the investigating officers with regard to the 4 allele on the steering wheel.

MS. CLARK: Could I ask Mr. Harmon to address the court on that matter, because he handled it. I didn't.

THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Good afternoon, your Honor. Starting with the request in--what seemed like a lifetime ago--we had a lot of requests from the Defense. Some of them we acquiesced to initially because we had the material and it was readily available.

THE COURT: Let's cut to the chase.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

THE COURT: What's the state of the record?

MR. HARMON: The state of the record is, many, many months ago, they requested a broad request, all laboratory personnel and a vague request for police personnel. We eventually provided all the PCR typing results for all the police personnel that we had and then that were produced as this trial slowly progressed and we told them that we didn't have them for police officers, and it is my recollection that that was the end of that and that there was never a formal request made of you to resolve the request.

THE COURT: The problem is, this is reference to items not in the record. That's my concern.

MR. HARMON: Excuse me?

THE COURT: This is something that is not in the record before the jury though.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Hold on. I'm not finished talking to Mr. Harmon.

MR. SCHECK: I apologize.

THE COURT: That has not been a subject of questions and answers before the jury; is that correct? My recollection is that it has not.

MR. HARMON: That police officers were not typed?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: That is correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, Mr. Harmon--listen carefully to his answer because his answer accords with your recollection and my recollection. It wasn't a vague request. We requested the types--

THE COURT: Counsel, the point is, is it in the record before the jury. The answer is no.

MR. SCHECK: No, no.

THE COURT: No, no. Counsel, that's the issue. If it's not in the record before the jury, then it's not something that's appropriate to have argument made of. Do you agree?

MR. SCHECK: I agree with that. And I have a further point if you may just hear me. And that point is this, because you must instruct the jury to the contrary. As Mr. Harmon has indicated and as the court recalls, we did make such a request for the typings of the police officers, and they chose not to do them. Mr. Harmon can say now they weren't available, so we didn't produce them. But the record and the truth is, we made the request and they did not provide it. What Miss Clark just told the jury is if--

THE COURT: Counsel, I know.

MR. SCHECK: That would have been honored. Untrue, and they should be so instructed. The request was made and it was not honored. Those are the facts. That's what the jury should be instructed. She had no right to say it in the first place. What she said wasn't true and that should be corrected.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, can I just comment on that?

THE COURT: No, no, no. You don't need to comment on that. You know, it's obvious to me we're not going to finish this today, isn't it? So now, what's going to happen is, Miss Clark is going to get a second wind over the weekend.

MS. CLARK: Judge, why won't we be able to finish today?

THE COURT: You are going to finish in 90 minutes?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Especially if we don't have 90 minutes of argument in-between, I'll be done. I will be done, your Honor. Now, what I had no knowledge of what--it was my understanding from Mr. Harmon that the request was made. Mr. Harmon said, "Give me a list of the officers." They never came back to him and that was the state of the report.

THE COURT: The state of the record is this. No typing results, PCR typing results were made available to the Defense by the Prosecution during the course of the case. That's the state of the record.

MS. CLARK: Then I will correct it.

THE COURT: That is not before the jury and you need to correct that.

MS. CLARK: Okay."

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Again, what does it matter to the detectives if the gloves matched? You ignore the obvious --- what if the gloves were different colors or had different linings? What would that prove to the detectives?

The defense did prove that Fuhrman saw blood where he could not have seen it unless he opened up the Bronco. The defense did prove that MF took at least 15 minutes from when MF dropped off Kato and then found the glove.

The defense did prove that the Bronco was entered because of the police report filled out regarding the checklist on the Bronco. Two policeman who were seen playing the dog, are the ones who handled the Bronco.

Also, it was a violent struggle, when did the DA's prove that any dirt or other debris was on the socks? Did they find any traces of dirt in the Bronco that could be matched to Bundy?

[limakey]

William,

IMO, what the picture proves is that Fuhrman was alone for a signficant amount of time to pick up a second glove---he already knew that no one else has seen it.

IMO, he used the photographer to get a very good up close and personal look at the glove---to make sure he did have a "set".

Also, IMO, I think Lange and Vanatter knew something was up with that glove and they wanted Fuhrman away from Rockingham. What doesn't make sense is that they sent Phillips with him? Why, they needed two detectives to look at one glove and see if it matched?

And do you think that MF or other police officers have only pair of shoes to their name? And he had photographs of the shoes---how did the state expert know these were the shoes they all wore at Bundy?

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, what the picture proves is that Fuhrman was alone for a signficant amount of time to pick up a second glove---he already knew that no one else has seen it.

IMO, he used the photographer to get a very good up close and personal look at the glove---to make sure he did have a "set".

Also, IMO, I think Lange and Vanatter knew something was up with that glove and they wanted Fuhrman away from Rockingham. What doesn't make sense is that they sent Phillips with him? Why, they needed two detectives to look at one glove and see if it matched?

And do you think that MF or other police officers have only pair of shoes to their name? And he had photographs of the shoes---how did the state expert know these were the shoes they all wore at Bundy?

I think MF had the picture taken before he left to go to Rockingham and planted the other glove. When they discovered something was up with the Rockingham glove they sent the soon to be convicted perjurer and admitted evidence planter home via Bundy.

[William Anthony]

Well said Bob. You are absolutely correct. Continue posting the truth. I enjoy reading the truth. Not the rubbish that William and Martin like to pretend is the truth. :beer:

In case you are unaware, we are attempting to raise the level of posting and personal attacks are against the rules. Truth is much like beauty and lays in the eyes of the beholder. It is sometimes guided by one's frame of reference. For instance to some we are the invaders of Iraq, while to others we are the heroes. However, there are some instances in which the truth cannot be avoided and one is compelled to admit their mistakes. I think we had a recent example of the latter. The one truth I know, as it applies to the criminal trial, is that the verdict was not guilty.

[William Anthony]

"MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, getting back to the Bronco carpet, I would like to mark as People's next in order, it is 397 for identification, another chart that is entitled "Bronco carpet."

THE COURT: Bronco carpet?

MR. GOLDBERG: That is a good title.

THE COURT: Catchy.

MR. GOLDBERG: Appropriate.

(Brief pause.)

(Peo's 397 for id = chart)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Bodziak, perhaps you could step down, and using this chart, can you tell us what you did in trying to make an analysis to determine whether or not there were any footwear impressions on this item of evidence?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. On September 1st I came to the Los Angeles Police Department and examined this carpet and I was asked to attempt to enhance, that is, make it easier to see, the blood impression, particularly this area here, (Indicating), but any other area of the carpet as well, that might contain some blood and possibly a shoe impression. And by doing so I first treated the carpeting with what is known as a fixative and that is so that when the subsequent enhancement solutions contacted the blood, that is where it will not run away and just dissolve, but it will stay in its fixed position on that respective area of carpeting. I then treated the carpeting with luminol. Luminol is a material which reacts with a substance in the blood and it must be done in total darkness. And that was photographed. And when blood reacts with luminol you get a luminescence or a glowing in the dark, in layman's terms. And that was photographed. And then subsequent to that I treated the carpeting with a material called luco crystal violet, which also reacts with material in the blood, but which turns a crystal violet color, and that is now seen, since it can be done in normal light. That was photographed. And you can see the entire mat as well as the enhanced area. That is now seen as a dark violet area of staining and there is a lot of little drops, but also primarily this area here which is the entry point to the Bronco. In other words, if this door is opened, this is the part that you would step up into if you were getting into the car, into the Bronco.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you look at that area where a person steps up into if they were getting into the Bronco?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. And after I treated the carpet with any chemicals at all, I examined the photographs which were taken immediately upon the acquisition of the Bronco, as well as the current condition of it, and you could see the reddish or reddish brown staining in this area, but not as clear as it can be seen now.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So both of the photos that we are showing here, do both of these show the carpet in its enhanced condition?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. This is after the total enhancement process to your right on the chart shows the whole piece of carpeting that had been cut out of the driver's side on the floor, and to the left is an enlarged area to natural size of this approximate area, (Indicating), the area where the feet would be, if you were sitting in a seat.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you now tell us, and if you need to use either an overlay or a shoe to do this, one of our shoe soles, can you tell us what you did in order to try to make a comparison?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, as I had mentioned before, before the break, the blood, after going down the long walkway to--across the driveway to a possible car that was parked there, would not have an imprint in it from the bottom of the shoe, like it would have further back up the sidewalk, but instead it would have had blood up in the areas or grooves of the shoe between the design elements and possibly blood that was wedged in crevasses between the perimeter or even around the edge of the shoe and would have therefore still survived that distance, that far along. And what I did was take a test impression in a transparent form, such as I have previously showed, and I tried to put it--position it different ways over the impression where you would normally step up and enter into the Bronco to see if I could get any of the features in this enhanced impression to correspond with the Silga sole, such as I had with the other comparisons that I made. And I was not able to make--take an overlay and actually reconstruct the exact position of that shoe to the point where I could say it was absolutely the Silga design and even go farther and say it was the same. There just wasn't enough detail and of course it is not representing the normal design of the case, but it is just wherever there happened to be some blood up in the grooves and wherever the carpeting had to go up, it just randomly whipped down the--

MR. GOLDBERG: So this would be in the negative area?

MR. BODZIAK: In the negative areas of the shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: Or the areas in the grooves, so to speak?

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. I did notice that there was this area here which could possibly have been a border of the shoe, and there also is some little what I call squiggles or little "S" shapes which might represent the curved areas between the design elements, but they weren't clear enough or reliable enough to make any kind of a positive determination."

Now, you may understand why she spend time trying to prove they weren't MF's shoes, because she could not prove they were BMs. The reasonable inference to be drawn from this testimony is that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient beyond a reasonable doubt, imho.

Correction-Now, you may understand why she spent time

[tv]

In case you are unaware, we are attempting to raise the level of posting and personal attacks are against the rules. Truth is much like beauty and lays in the eyes of the beholder. It is sometimes guided by one's frame of reference. For instance to some we are the invaders of Iraq, while to others we are the heroes. However, there are some instances in which the truth cannot be avoided and one is compelled to admit their mistakes. I think we had a recent example of the latter. The one truth I know, as it applies to the criminal trial, is that the verdict was not guilty.In case you are unaware you have no proof that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove. You have no evidence, no witnesses, nothing except your own overly fertile imagination. Without any credible evidence I have to say it's all rubbish also. I notice you are still adding colorful adjectives to describe different players in this case.

Speaking of personal attacks, perhaps you'd like to revisit some of your own remarks for which you haven't apologized?

[William Anthony]

There has been much discussion on reasonable inference and the burden of proof. While this is in the context of an appeal of a motion for summary judgment, I think that it is relevant, because a jury in the Simpson criminal trial was mandated by the jury instruction to view the evidence in the light most favorable if there were two reasonable inferences to be drawn, i.e. the same standard that the court originally applied in deciding this summary judgment motion, which was reversed on appeal. This is what the court said.

"We think that on the basis of this record, it was error to grant summary judgment. As the moving party, respondent had the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact, and for these purposes the material it lodged must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party. 15 Respondent here did not carry its burden because of its failure to foreclose the possibility that there was a policeman in the Kress store while petitioner was awaiting service, and that this policeman reached an understanding with some Kress employee that petitioner not be served.

It is true that Mr. Powell, the store manager, claimed in his deposition that he had not seen or communicated with a policeman prior to his tacit signal to Miss Baggett, the supervisor of the food counter. But respondent did not submit any affidavits from Miss Baggett, 16 or from [398 U.S. 144, 158] Miss Freeman, 17 the waitress who actually refused petitioner service, either of whom might well have seen and communicated with a policeman in the store. Further, we find it particularly noteworthy that the two officers involved in the arrest each failed in his affidavit to foreclose the possibility (1) that he was in the store while petitioner was there; and (2) that, upon seeing petitioner with Negroes, he communicated his disapproval to a Kress employee, thereby influencing the decision not to serve petitioner.

Given these unexplained gaps in the materials submitted by respondent, we conclude that respondent failed to fulfill its initial burden of demonstrating what is a critical element in this aspect of the case - that there was no policeman in the store. If a policeman were present, we think it would be open to a jury, in light of the sequence that followed, to infer from the circumstances that the policeman and a Kress employee had a "meeting of the minds" and thus reached an understanding that petitioner should be refused service. Because "[o]n summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in [the moving party's] materials must be viewed in the light [398 U.S. 144, 159] most favorable to the party opposing the motion," United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962), we think respondent's failure to show there was no policeman in the store requires reversal. "

The gaps in the prosecution case, no dandruff and no identification of the partial shoe print. Ms. Moore's testimony allowed an inference to be drawn. The shoe impression expert's testimony allowed the inference to be drawn that the shoe impression was not that of a BM. In the above case, the simple presence of a policeman in the store allowed the inference of a conspiracy, when it was not properly rebutted. That is what happened in the Simpson case on the aforementioned issue of the dandruff and the prosecution failed to meet its initial burden on the issue of the partial shoe print, imho.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=398&invol=144

[William Anthony]

In case you are unaware you have no proof that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove. You have no evidence, no witnesses, nothing except your own overly fertile imagination. Without any credible evidence I have to say it's all rubbish also. I notice you are still adding colorful adjectives to describe different players in this case.

Speaking of personal attacks, perhaps you'd like to revisit some of your own remarks for which you haven't apologized?

Proof is not required. I draw reasonable inferences from the evidence I found credible to conclude that he did. We can disagree as to what is credible. However, we can not disagree as to the fact that there was evidence as the magnificent one pointed out in his closing argument. I think that your statement is stated more as your opinion on the issue of the admitted evidence planter, MF, planting evidence in this case is rubbish. That is quite different from the personal attack saying that Martin and I post rubbish, imho. I am adding adjectives to describe certain players, if you choose to think they are "colorful", that is your choice. What color do you think saying the brilliant Bailey is? IIRC, you have referred to Bailey as flee and the magnificent one as cockroach.

I think that if you will read, you will see that I asked the community to pardon me for my remarks to Bell. Prior to that I suggested that we drop all past grudges. Therefore, I see no need to revisit any of my posts.

[martin II]

I think MF had the picture taken before he left to go to Rockingham and planted the other glove. When they discovered something was up with the Rockingham glove they sent the soon to be convicted perjurer and admitted evidence planter home via Bundy.

Another problem with the gloves.
Vanhatter said he sent furhman to Bundy to make a visual of glove. He did that. Then when Vanhatter returned to Bundy he ordered Fung to bring the Rockingham glove to Bundy to make another comparison. Fung did not want to do this,bring a item from one crime scene to another.But he was ordered by Vanhatter so he did. So both gloves ended up being at Bundy and under Vanhatters control BEFORE the evidence was taken to the lab.
So any evidence found on the Rockingham glove could have been applied
when fung gave the glove to Vanhatter at bundy where the bodies were, for more inspection.

Collection 101 DO NOT BRING EVIDENCE FROM ONE CRIME SCENE TO ANOTHER.

[William Anthony]

Another problem with the gloves.
Vanhatter said he sent furhman to Bundy to make a visual of glove. He did that. Then when Vanhatter returned to Bundy he ordered Fung to bring the Rockingham glove to Bundy to make another comparison. Fung did not want to do this,bring a item from one crime scene to another.But he was ordered by Vanhatter so he did. So both gloves ended up being at Bundy and under Vanhatters control BEFORE the evidence was taken to the lab.
So any evidence found on the Rockingham glove could have been applied
when fung gave the glove to Vanhatter at bundy where the bodies were, for more inspection.

Collection 101 DO NOT BRING EVIDENCE FROM ONE CRIME SCENE TO ANOTHER.

It seemed that Vannatter did not trust MF or his own eyes for some reason.

[martin II]

In case you are unaware you have no proof that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove. You have no evidence, no witnesses, nothing except your own overly fertile imagination. Without any credible evidence I have to say it's all rubbish also. I notice you are still adding colorful adjectives to describe different players in this case.

Speaking of personal attacks, perhaps you'd like to revisit some of your own remarks for which you haven't apologized?

TV

What physical evidence do you believe the prosecution offered to prove oj was in the south walkway on 6/12? They claimed he jumped the fence to do so but there was no physical evidence that anyone jumped the fence.

[William Anthony]

On that issue of trust, I know that the reason given to take the case away from MF and Roberts is that robbery homicide had more resources. However, this did not stop them from processing the scene until robbery homicide arrived. I know that this is pure speculation but it is based on some objective questions I have. It would appear that there may have been some broken trust between others in LE and MF and his partner, as they were ordered to stand down as to the processing of the scene and to make notification to Simpson. I think Bushey was place in an awkward position of saying that immediately meant as soon as possible. It seems to me that no one even MF's psychologist believed he was truthful about his retirement issues. I think that they should have retired him once the trust was broken but unfortunately they allowed him to continue working, which caused some of the issues in this case.

[SlowHandSam]

I think MF had the picture taken before he left to go to Rockingham and planted the other glove. When they discovered something was up with the Rockingham glove they sent the soon to be convicted perjurer and admitted evidence planter home via Bundy.

uh, since when was this "admitted"? I'll give you his a convicted perjurer but the other statement is an outright tale.

[William Anthony]

uh, since when was this "admitted"? I'll give you his a convicted perjurer but the other statement is an outright tale.

It might well be a tale but it was a tale he told on the tapes. The key issue is that there was evidence that he was concerned about the statute of limitations on at least one issue. Regardless of whether it was a tale or not he admitted to planting evidence. I will expound so that you will be clear on my meaning. When he said that he pulled the scab on an addict's arm to make it bleed so that it would appear the addict had just used, that is evidence planting, imho. When you tamper with things that make them appear to be something they are not, that is evidence tampering, imho.

[William Anthony]

Perhaps, now the community will see my point. Instead of posting to Mr. Bell after he posted that Martin and I post rubbish that we like to pretend is the truth, a poster responded with this.

Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
In case you are unaware, we are attempting to raise the level of posting and personal attacks are against the rules. Truth is much like beauty and lays in the eyes of the beholder. It is sometimes guided by one's frame of reference. For instance to some we are the invaders of Iraq, while to others we are the heroes. However, there are some instances in which the truth cannot be avoided and one is compelled to admit their mistakes. I think we had a recent example of the latter. The one truth I know, as it applies to the criminal trial, is that the verdict was not guilty.

In case you are unaware you have no proof that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove. You have no evidence, no witnesses, nothing except your own overly fertile imagination. Without any credible evidence I have to say it's all rubbish also. I notice you are still adding colorful adjectives to describe different players in this case.

Speaking of personal attacks, perhaps you'd like to revisit some of your own remarks for which you haven't apologized?
Reply With Quote

I reiterate my request for participation in raising the level of posting.

[martin II]

There has been much discussion on reasonable inference and the burden of proof. While this is in the context of an appeal of a motion for summary judgment, I think that it is relevant, because a jury in the Simpson criminal trial was mandated by the jury instruction to view the evidence in the light most favorable if there were two reasonable inferences to be drawn, i.e. the same standard that the court originally applied in deciding this summary judgment motion, which was reversed on appeal. This is what the court said.

"We think that on the basis of this record, it was error to grant summary judgment. As the moving party, respondent had the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact, and for these purposes the material it lodged must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party. 15 Respondent here did not carry its burden because of its failure to foreclose the possibility that there was a policeman in the Kress store while petitioner was awaiting service, and that this policeman reached an understanding with some Kress employee that petitioner not be served.

It is true that Mr. Powell, the store manager, claimed in his deposition that he had not seen or communicated with a policeman prior to his tacit signal to Miss Baggett, the supervisor of the food counter. But respondent did not submit any affidavits from Miss Baggett, 16 or from [398 U.S. 144, 158] Miss Freeman, 17 the waitress who actually refused petitioner service, either of whom might well have seen and communicated with a policeman in the store. Further, we find it particularly noteworthy that the two officers involved in the arrest each failed in his affidavit to foreclose the possibility (1) that he was in the store while petitioner was there; and (2) that, upon seeing petitioner with Negroes, he communicated his disapproval to a Kress employee, thereby influencing the decision not to serve petitioner.

Given these unexplained gaps in the materials submitted by respondent, we conclude that respondent failed to fulfill its initial burden of demonstrating what is a critical element in this aspect of the case - that there was no policeman in the store. If a policeman were present, we think it would be open to a jury, in light of the sequence that followed, to infer from the circumstances that the policeman and a Kress employee had a "meeting of the minds" and thus reached an understanding that petitioner should be refused service. Because "[o]n summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in [the moving party's] materials must be viewed in the light [398 U.S. 144, 159] most favorable to the party opposing the motion," United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962), we think respondent's failure to show there was no policeman in the store requires reversal. "

The gaps in the prosecution case, no dandruff and no identification of the partial shoe print. Ms. Moore's testimony allowed an inference to be drawn. The shoe impression expert's testimony allowed the inference to be drawn that the shoe impression was not that of a BM. In the above case, the simple presence of a policeman in the store allowed the inference of a conspiracy, when it was not properly rebutted. That is what happened in the Simpson case on the aforementioned issue of the dandruff and the prosecution failed to meet its initial burden on the issue of the partial shoe print, imho.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=398&invol=144

Contrary to what some may think, there was no BM shoe print in the bronco.
Only a light smudge of maby blood.imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

Contrary to what some may think, there was no BM shoe print in the bronco.
Only a light smudge of maby blood.imo
martin II

Even if it was a partial shoe print, the expert could not say it was a BM or how it could have gotten there if a person sat in the seat. He tried to make several overlays, all of which failed. The issue of the policeman and the failure to show that there was no policeman in the store or that, if there was, he played no part in the conspiracy is relevant to the prosecution's failure to show that Simpson did not have dandruff, or to show that he did not based on some observation of him, as opposed to observations of others based on an assumption, when there was no testimony from the expert that he observed those others' hair conditions at the time they were arrested before incarceration.

[SlowHandSam]

It might well be a tale but it was a tale he told on the tapes. The key issue is that there was evidence that he was concerned about the statute of limitations on at least one issue. Regardless of whether it was a tale or not he admitted to planting evidence. I will expound so that you will be clear on my meaning. When he said that he pulled the scab on an addict's arm to make it bleed so that it would appear the addict had just used, that is evidence planting, imho. When you tamper with things that make them appear to be something they are not, that is evidence tampering, imho.

we're talking about the oj case. MF did not admit to planting any evidence and any claim that states otherwise is not accurate, supported or truthful.

[William Anthony]

we're talking about the oj case. MF did not admit to planting any evidence and any claim that states otherwise is not accurate, supported or truthful.

Of course we are talking about the Simpson case, of which the tapes were a part. As you will see, I did not say that he admitted to planting evidence in this case. I said he admitted to planting evidence and on at least one occasions told LHM not to use the incident, because the statute of limitations had not expired. That concern of his allows me to draw the reasonable inference that he was speaking truthfully. While I am not of the opinion that a leopard never changes its spots, I do believe that the evidence in this case allows for the reasonable inference that MF did not change his tactics. The defense provided evidence of motive, means and opportunity for MF to have planted the evidence, imho. I suggest that you review the tapes before using the adjectives not truthful.

I have not slammed Mr. Bell but I see that you have not spoken on his personal attack. I reiterate that I am requesting participation in raising the level of posting.

[Kate Sachel]

I apologize as I did overlook this post. I accept everything I said to Mr. Bell. I don't think they were snide remarks. I thought they were expressions of elation. I think I asked for participation/assistance from the community. If that led anyone to believe that I was going to allow myself to be abused, then I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Have martin and I been wrong, yes?
When Mr. Bell jumped to the preposterous conclusion and made the ridiculous accusation that I had slandered Drew Peterson, posters were quick to agree. You set an example in that situation, which I appreciated. Then the other things happened with Mr. Bell. A poster has stated that they treat people as people treat them. You have acknowledged that you recently responded in a manner that you wish you hadn't to martin. None of us are perfect. That in no means means that you nor I are not interested in seeing the level of the posting improve. You are correct when you say that I do not want to lead the parade, although it has been suggested that I preside over a festival.:) I would like to be a member of the parade. I really have not heard one poster say publicly that they want to raise the level, IIRC. However, there are some who immediately criticize my posts, without claiming an interest in raising the level or a desire to participate but point out that my posts allegedly do not. I have not included you in that group. I ask why the posters do not speak out when they saw the snide remarks directed toward me.

I believe but I have found that turning the other cheek does not always serve me well. I do not know if others share that belief and the times I tried I found I was struck twice.:) I do believe that pride goes before a great fall. I take pride in the fact that, as a human being, I have the right not to be abused and the right to fight fire with fire or forgive and forget. I think that some must be shown the error of their ways before you can forgive and forget, so that they are aware that you will not tolerate, even momentarily, some types of abuse. After I posted that I was interested in raising the level of posting in this community and requested an apology from Mr. Bell, he responded with the only way he would was if the community came down on him like a ton of bricks. I waited and there was no ton, in fact they supported him. Since I believe that he, who is with out sin should cast the first brick, I decided to drive the truck carrying the ton of bricks, imho. :)

I will follow your example and ask the community to pardon my lapse at Mr. Bell's abuse. I mean that sincerely.

I wanted to really take time to think on this before responding.

I think that, generally speaking, it is improper for an indivual to take an initiative and suggest that something be changed without being the first in line to lead by example. At work, I cannot imagine suggesting a change in procedure to then only turn around and not follow the very procedure that I suggested be changed. That is the difference between yourself and others posters, is that you are the one who suggested, and rallied behind change. With that comes the automatic expectation that you lead, which you have now indicated you do not wish to do.

It is not a matter of expecting, or wanting, you to be abused and you are aware of that. On more than one occassion I have posted such while defending the improper lashings I felt that you had recieved and did not deserve. It should be clear by this point in time that I have integrity enough to speak out on what I feel is unjust, regardless of whether a backlash comes with that or not. You have acknowledged that, for which I am appreciative.

Not everyone wishes to raise the level, and there is nothing you can do about those individuals - nothing that you say or suggest will change the mind of someone who is committed to conducting themselves in a certain manner. The only thing that you can personally do is decide how you wish to handle that individual, and you have many options.

Yes, it is your right to fight fire with fire. I'd only like to point out that some of the most powerful voices I have ever heard are those that whisper rather than scream.

Thank you for your sincerity, I appreciate your willingness to address the issues we encounter.

Respectfully,
Kate

[SlowHandSam]

Of course we are talking about the Simpson case, of which the tapes were a part. As you will see, I did not say that he admitted to planting evidence in this case. I said he admitted to planting evidence and on at least one occasions told LHM not to use the incident, because the statute of limitations had not expired. That concern of his allows me to draw the reasonable inference that he was speaking truthfully. While I am not of the opinion that a leopard never changes its spots, I do believe that the evidence in this case allows for the reasonable inference that MF did not change his tactics. The defense provided evidence of motive, means and opportunity for MF to have planted the evidence, imho. I suggest that you review the tapes before using the adjectives not truthful.

I have not slammed Mr. Bell but I see that you have not spoken on his personal attack. I reiterate that I am requesting participation in raising the level of posting.

You didn't make that distinction in your original post. And he did not admit, in court, to planting evidence. You are using tapes that were for theatrical purposes to support a false claim. Most believe that it was all for his entertainment adventure - not about the actual case.

You don't need to reiterate to me about raising the level, William. I have done nothing untoward.

[William Anthony]

I wanted to really take time to think on this before responding.

I think that, generally speaking, it is improper for an indivual to take an initiative and suggest that something be changed without being the first in line to lead by example. At work, I cannot imagine suggesting a change in procedure to then only turn around and not follow the very procedure that I suggested be changed. That is the difference between yourself and others posters, is that you are the one who suggested, and rallied behind change. With that comes the automatic expectation that you lead, which you have now indicated you do not wish to do.

It is not a matter of expecting, or wanting, you to be abused and you are aware of that. On more than one occassion I have posted such while defending the improper lashings I felt that you had recieved and did not deserve. It should be clear by this point in time that I have integrity enough to speak out on what I feel is unjust, regardless of whether a backlash comes with that or not. You have acknowledged that, for which I am appreciative.

Not everyone wishes to raise the level, and there is nothing you can do about those individuals - nothing that you say or suggest will change the mind of someone who is committed to conducting themselves in a certain manner. The only thing that you can personally do is decide how you wish to handle that individual, and you have many options.

Yes, it is your right to fight fire with fire. I'd only like to point out that some of the most powerful voices I have ever heard are those that whisper rather than scream.

Thank you for your sincerity, I appreciate your willingness to address the issues we encounter.

Respectfully,
Kate

I am glad to see you put this in the context of a work situation, as I have had the opportunities to address many inequities in the work environment. I have had a couple of supervisory positions and found that I usually ended up doing the work. In the other positions when others came to me and expressed their concerns over the inequities and decided to inform authorities, I found myself alone. I will relate one instance that I found quite humorous. My father and I worked in the same position and, unbeknown to me, I was the only person doing work that day. The others had shut down, being mad that they were required to stay until 3:30 as opposed to 3pm. They told me to stop and when I joined them in the shanty they were saying what they were going to tell the boss. I went to the bathroom. On my return, I told them they had their opportunity, because he had just driven up. They stampeded into me trying to get back to work, including my father. He laughed telling me I was the devil, which I am sure some here will agree with. :) The point is that I have learned that, if you lead, you must have followers to be effective, otherwise you would do better to just do as the romans.

Yes, and I asked the community to pardon me. It has been said that it is a poor dog that will not wag its own tail. There are some types of abuse that I feel very strongly about. Racial slurs and respect being two of them. I have had my say with Mr. Bell and now consider that allowing myself to debate him on offensive issues is something not worthy of my time. I know this may surprise some but I lost a job when a Hispanic supervisor bullied and threatened a much smaller white man, saying he would rock his world. I asked him if he wanted to rock mine, which led to my termination for insubordination.
There are some things that I will take the lead on.

[William Anthony]

You didn't make that distinction in your original post. And he did not admit, in court, to planting evidence. You are using tapes that were for theatrical purposes to support a false claim. Most believe that it was all for his entertainment adventure - not about the actual case.

You don't need to reiterate to me about raising the level, William. I have done nothing untoward.

I did not say you did anything untoward but yesterday you said that you did not intercede because I slammed Mr. Bell back. Today, I did not but you still have remained silent, other than your opinion that my post was rubbish on a particular subject, which escapes me at this point. I did not have to make a distinction, since I never said MF admitted to planting evidence in the Simpson case. You say most believe, as if I am somehow obligated to conform to what most believe. I have stated the reasons why I feel that he was talking about actual incidents and whether or not we believe they are true he admitted to evidence tampering.

[SlowHandSam]

I did not say you did anything untoward but yesterday you said that you did not intercede because I slammed Mr. Bell back. Today, I did not but you still have remained silent, other than your opinion that my post was rubbish on a particular subject, which escapes me at this point. I did not have to make a distinction, since I never said MF admitted to planting evidence in the Simpson case. You say most believe, as if I am somehow obligated to conform to what most believe. I have stated the reasons why I feel that he was talking about actual incidents and whether or not we believe they are true he admitted to evidence tampering.

Check your facts, William, I never said your post was rubbish.

I said my piece and I'm done with the rest of the "slamfest" conversations.

You called MF a "soon to be convicted perjurer and admitted evidence planter". That is not accurate or correct in regard to being an "admitted evidence planter".

[Kate Sachel]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9112664]The point is that I have learned that, if you lead, you must have followers to be effective, otherwise you would do better to just do as the romans.
QUOTE]

I so strongly disagree with this statement. Even without followers, you are effective in so many ways within yourself when you lead. That is what I found for myself. I am a leader, I have not always had followers. When I did not have followers, I still found that continuing to stand up in that leadership role afforded me pride in standing tall through adversity, strength within myself, and the ability to realize that I did not have to allow others to determine the manner in which I conducted myself. Those things have a profound effect on myself, my character, my integrity.

Kate

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9112664]The point is that I have learned that, if you lead, you must have followers to be effective, otherwise you would do better to just do as the romans.
QUOTE]

I so strongly disagree with this statement. Even without followers, you are effective in so many ways within yourself when you lead. That is what I found for myself. I am a leader, I have not always had followers. When I did not have followers, I still found that continuing to stand up in that leadership role afforded me pride in standing tall through adversity, strength within myself, and the ability to realize that I did not have to allow others to determine the manner in which I conducted myself. Those things have a profound effect on myself, my character, my integrity.

Kate

We seem to have a misunderstanding. I said to be effective, meaning to make a change in a situation. I have never compromised my principles and have always stood up for myself and I agree with the rest of your post, which is why I like the poem "The Man in the Mirror". What I am speaking of is situations in which others complain and you see the validity to the complaints. I have found myself in the position of leading and, being assured that they will be behind me, only to discover that they are too far behind for me to find them. In those situations, such as the additional work half hour, they are things that I could live with. However, when others as a group want to change things that I can live with, I have found myself alone and frequently turned against so that they can better their lives. This is why I have chosen the law. I feel that is the way that I can effectively stand up for others and make a change, hopefully to improve the lives of all.

[William Anthony]

Check your facts, William, I never said your post was rubbish.

I said my piece and I'm done with the rest of the "slamfest" conversations.

You called MF a "soon to be convicted perjurer and admitted evidence planter". That is not accurate or correct in regard to being an "admitted evidence planter".

You are correct and I stand corrected. I had you confused with another poster.

I am through with it also and just wondered why you hadn't interceded when I did not slam back.

He admitted to it on the tapes. You may think he was just speaking in the context of a screen play but I look at the entirety of the evidence and conclude he was telling the truth. Whether or not he told the truth, he admitted to planting evidence.

[martin II]

Check your facts, William, I never said your post was rubbish.

I said my piece and I'm done with the rest of the "slamfest" conversations.

You called MF a "soon to be convicted perjurer and admitted evidence planter". That is not accurate or correct in regard to being an "admitted evidence planter".

Again, MF words on the tapes says he planted evidence.imo

[martin II]

You didn't make that distinction in your original post. And he did not admit, in court, to planting evidence. You are using tapes that were for theatrical purposes to support a false claim. Most believe that it was all for his entertainment adventure - not about the actual case.

You don't need to reiterate to me about raising the level, William. I have done nothing untoward.

what about the Bratton case against mf.

[martin II]

I did not say you did anything untoward but yesterday you said that you did not intercede because I slammed Mr. Bell back. Today, I did not but you still have remained silent, other than your opinion that my post was rubbish on a particular subject, which escapes me at this point. I did not have to make a distinction, since I never said MF admitted to planting evidence in the Simpson case. You say most believe, as if I am somehow obligated to conform to what most believe. I have stated the reasons why I feel that he was talking about actual incidents and whether or not we believe they are true he admitted to evidence tampering.

It is my understanding from her testimony LHM engaged MF to talk about MAW Men Against WOMEN in the lapd. Instead of sticking to that subject MF started talking about his experience in lapd which included abusing blacks and other minorities, mixed couples and planting evidence against citizens.
Why was that? imo

[William Anthony]

It is my understanding from her testimony LHM engaged MF to talk about MAW Men Against WOMEN in the lapd. Instead of sticking to that subject MF started talking about his experience in lapd which included abusing blacks and other minorities, mixed couples and planting evidence against citizens.
Why was that? imo

This is a very relevant question as I was just looking up a declaration against interest and how it applies. Here is the link and the declaration is inherently trustworthy.

http://www.answers.com/topic/declaration-against-in-terest

[weezer]

in the zeal to elevate the defense team to great lofts, let's remember them for what there were:

"Given the importance of this witness, the absolute bare minimum level of professional competence would require that the lawyer preparing to present the testimony of such witness confirm the inventory of statements, reports, notes and recordings concerning this witness. Given the experience of defense counsel, their professional reputations before this and other courts, and the Court's own experience with the involved counsel, the Court should be able to rely upon something significantly more than the bare minimum. Given the Court's previous order to Mr. Douglas on behalf of the defense to prepare and submit to the Court a catalog of defense witnesses and statements, the latest failure of disclosure cannot be viewed as inadvertent. The false representations by Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas that no such tape recordings existed lends credence to the finding that this was at the very least a representation made with reckless disregard for the truth if not a deliberate attempt to mislead the both the prosecution and the Court."

ahh yes -- reckless disregard for the truth reflects the character of the person. imo

[William Anthony]

in the zeal to elevate the defense team to great lofts, let's remember them for what there were:

"Given the importance of this witness, the absolute bare minimum level of professional competence would require that the lawyer preparing to present the testimony of such witness confirm the inventory of statements, reports, notes and recordings concerning this witness. Given the experience of defense counsel, their professional reputations before this and other courts, and the Court's own experience with the involved counsel, the Court should be able to rely upon something significantly more than the bare minimum. Given the Court's previous order to Mr. Douglas on behalf of the defense to prepare and submit to the Court a catalog of defense witnesses and statements, the latest failure of disclosure cannot be viewed as inadvertent. The false representations by Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas that no such tape recordings existed lends credence to the finding that this was at the very least a representation made with reckless disregard for the truth if not a deliberate attempt to mislead the both the prosecution and the Court."

ahh yes -- reckless disregard for the truth reflects the character of the person. imo

Ah yes, it seems both sides had character flaws.

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/2cbj/97jul/art01.htm

[martin II]

in the zeal to elevate the defense team to great lofts, let's remember them for what there were:

"Given the importance of this witness, the absolute bare minimum level of professional competence would require that the lawyer preparing to present the testimony of such witness confirm the inventory of statements, reports, notes and recordings concerning this witness. Given the experience of defense counsel, their professional reputations before this and other courts, and the Court's own experience with the involved counsel, the Court should be able to rely upon something significantly more than the bare minimum. Given the Court's previous order to Mr. Douglas on behalf of the defense to prepare and submit to the Court a catalog of defense witnesses and statements, the latest failure of disclosure cannot be viewed as inadvertent. The false representations by Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas that no such tape recordings existed lends credence to the finding that this was at the very least a representation made with reckless disregard for the truth if not a deliberate attempt to mislead the both the prosecution and the Court."

ahh yes -- reckless disregard for the truth reflects the character of the person. imo

And the defense went on to win their case and proved that the prosecution
had made some serious charges against the defendant that they could not prove. This caused many in the media and the general public to attack them for their poor performance in their failed attemps to prove their claims.imo

[William Anthony]

I think that one has to understand that discovery violations are not an uncommon things in a trial. Sometimes there are many motions to compel that are made so that discovery can be obtained. It is sometimes a tactical decision for lawyers to wait until the opportune time to make the disclosure and they are prepared to suffer the wrath of the court in order to ensure that they have gained a tactical advantage. While some may see it as a character flaw, it may be seen as necessary under the circumstances to ensure that the client is placed in the best position possible, or for that matter the people. I do not think this has anything to do with the lawyer's skill. I do not think the magnificent one was doing inventory, although as lead attorney he had to accept the responsibility for others' failures. The fact that he was able and willing to do this only makes me admire him more.

[martin II]

in the zeal to elevate the defense team to great lofts, let's remember them for what there were:

"Given the importance of this witness, the absolute bare minimum level of professional competence would require that the lawyer preparing to present the testimony of such witness confirm the inventory of statements, reports, notes and recordings concerning this witness. Given the experience of defense counsel, their professional reputations before this and other courts, and the Court's own experience with the involved counsel, the Court should be able to rely upon something significantly more than the bare minimum. Given the Court's previous order to Mr. Douglas on behalf of the defense to prepare and submit to the Court a catalog of defense witnesses and statements, the latest failure of disclosure cannot be viewed as inadvertent. The false representations by Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas that no such tape recordings existed lends credence to the finding that this was at the very least a representation made with reckless disregard for the truth if not a deliberate attempt to mislead the both the prosecution and the Court."

ahh yes -- reckless disregard for the truth reflects the character of the person. imo

I see you are using judge itos words directed at Vanhatter on the matter of how he lied to get that search warrant of ojs house.imo

[William Anthony]

I see you are using judge itos words directed at Vanhatter on the matter of how he lied to get that search warrant of ojs house.imo

"Judge Lance Ito previously chastised Vannatter for engaging in "reckless disregard" for the truth when obtaining the search warrant for Simpson's home. The jury never heard about the judge's findings, but on Tuesday were informed of the problems with Vannatter's credibility."

LE and the prosecution seemed to have a reckless disregard for the truth.

[martin II]

in the zeal to elevate the defense team to great lofts, let's remember them for what there were:

"Given the importance of this witness, the absolute bare minimum level of professional competence would require that the lawyer preparing to present the testimony of such witness confirm the inventory of statements, reports, notes and recordings concerning this witness. Given the experience of defense counsel, their professional reputations before this and other courts, and the Court's own experience with the involved counsel, the Court should be able to rely upon something significantly more than the bare minimum. Given the Court's previous order to Mr. Douglas on behalf of the defense to prepare and submit to the Court a catalog of defense witnesses and statements, the latest failure of disclosure cannot be viewed as inadvertent. The false representations by Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas that no such tape recordings existed lends credence to the finding that this was at the very least a representation made with reckless disregard for the truth if not a deliberate attempt to mislead the both the prosecution and the Court."

ahh yes -- reckless disregard for the truth reflects the character of the person. imo


Here you go weezer


The prosecution, too, was sanctioned for discovery abuse, such as when it was denied use of important evidence about the uniqueness of fibers from Simpson's vehicle that matched those found at the crime scene.

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/2cbj/97jul/art01.htm

[weezer]

Ah yes, it seems both sides had character flaws.

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/2cbj/97jul/art01.htm

some more fatal than others; i.e.,

"carl e douglas:

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law
Disciplinary and Related Actions
6/29/1997 Public reproval with/duties 95-O-17054 "

"On November 21, 2001, the Supreme Court of Florida disbarred attorney F. Lee Bailey for "multiple counts of egregious misconduct, including offering false testimony, engaging in ex parte communications, violating a client's confidences, violating two federal court orders, and trust account violations, including commingling and misappropriation."

[William Anthony]

some more fatal than others; i.e.,

"carl e douglas:

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law
Disciplinary and Related Actions
6/29/1997 Public reproval with/duties 95-O-17054 "

"On November 21, 2001, the Supreme Court of Florida disbarred attorney F. Lee Bailey for "multiple counts of egregious misconduct, including offering false testimony, engaging in ex parte communications, violating a client's confidences, violating two federal court orders, and trust account violations, including commingling and misappropriation."

Which in no way affected his brilliant ability to trap the soon to be convicted perjurer and LE member, MF.

[martin II]

"Judge Lance Ito previously chastised Vannatter for engaging in "reckless disregard" for the truth when obtaining the search warrant for Simpson's home. The jury never heard about the judge's findings, but on Tuesday were informed of the problems with Vannatter's credibility."

LE and the prosecution seemed to have a reckless disregard for the truth.

It is my belief that everything discovered as a result of Vanhatters search warrant should have excluded. But the judge didn't have the nerve.imo

[William Anthony]

Talk about whining, complaining and professionalism.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE2DD103BF937A15751C0A9639582 60

[Kate Sachel]

It is my belief that everything discovered as a result of Vanhatters search warrant should have excluded. But the judge didn't have the nerve.imo

You don't think it possible that they believed OJ may have been a victim in his home that needed assistance?

I fully believe that had someone murdered Nicole as a form of revenge against OJ and also attacked OJ in his home at Rockingham and it came out that police did not enter the grounds after being informed that, as far as anyone knew, he should have been at home, that people would be outraged over the police's lack of action.

Kate

[martin II]

some more fatal than others; i.e.,

"carl e douglas:

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law
Disciplinary and Related Actions
6/29/1997 Public reproval with/duties 95-O-17054 "

"On November 21, 2001, the Supreme Court of Florida disbarred attorney F. Lee Bailey for "multiple counts of egregious misconduct, including offering false testimony, engaging in ex parte communications, violating a client's confidences, violating two federal court orders, and trust account violations, including commingling and misappropriation."

Not too many lawyers had the court room success or reputaiton of F.Lee Baily
before he ran into trouble. But he just continued to expand his speaking circuit money making activities.imo

[William Anthony]

It is my belief that everything discovered as a result of Vanhatters search warrant should have excluded. But the judge didn't have the nerve.imo

Perhaps, he realized how thoroughly the prosecution's so-called evidence was being artfully destroyed.

[William Anthony]

You don't think it possible that they believed OJ may have been a victim in his home that needed assistance?

I fully believe that had someone murdered Nicole as a form of revenge against OJ and also attacked OJ in his home at Rockingham and it came out that police did not enter the grounds after being informed that, as far as anyone knew, he should have been at home, that people would be outraged over the police's lack of action.

Kate

If I might, judging from MF's claim that the '89 abuse incident had been indelibly implanted in his mind, I think that Simpson was an immediate suspect. I think that Ito realized that they were playing fast and loose with the truth. I believe at that point they only had reasonable suspicion and needed to find a probable cause excuse to invade his curtilage. Enter the blood allegedly found on the Bronco door before invasion.

[martin II]

Florida disbarred Bailey in 2001 which means he could apply to be reinstated
in 2006 if that was his wish.

[martin II]

If I might, judging from MF's claim that the '89 abuse incident had been indelibly implanted in his mind, I think that Simpson was an immediate suspect. I think that Ito realized that they were playing fast and loose with the truth. I believe at that point they only had reasonable suspicion and needed to find a probable cause excuse to invade his curtilage. Enter the blood allegedly found on the Bronco door before invasion.

I think The vanhatter lie was told the day after mf jumped ojs wall to enter his estate.
I believe it was that Mobster person Falito SP that testified that Vanhater told him that they went to ojs because he was a suspect.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

MR. COCHRAN: And in that conversation didn't you tell him that Vannatter said that O.J. Simpson was always a suspect and we always go after the husband? Did you tell Vic Walters that?

MR. FIATO: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And that was on or about September 8th of 1995; is that right?

MR. FIATO: Would you please repeat that back to me one more time?

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly, sir. We were talking about the conversation you had--

MR. FIATO: I know what we were talking about, but what did I say?

MR. COCHRAN: I will read it verbatim. "heard--I heard Phil Vannatter say that that--that O.J. Simpson was--was--was always a suspect and we always go after--we always--we always go--go after the husband." Is that what you told Vic Walters on or about September 8th, sir?

MR. FIATO: I believe so.

[weezer]

MR. COCHRAN: And in that conversation didn't you tell him that Vannatter said that O.J. Simpson was always a suspect and we always go after the husband? Did you tell Vic Walters that?

MR. FIATO: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And that was on or about September 8th of 1995; is that right?

MR. FIATO: Would you please repeat that back to me one more time?

MR. COCHRAN: Certainly, sir. We were talking about the conversation you had--

MR. FIATO: I know what we were talking about, but what did I say?

MR. COCHRAN: I will read it verbatim. "heard--I heard Phil Vannatter say that that--that O.J. Simpson was--was--was always a suspect and we always go after--we always--we always go--go after the husband." Is that what you told Vic Walters on or about September 8th, sir?

MR. FIATO: I believe so.

LOL -- if that were the prosecution doing the questioning, you'd be having a fit. LOL

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Again, what does it matter to the detectives if the gloves matched? You ignore the obvious --- what if the gloves were different colors or had different linings? What would that prove to the detectives?

The defense did prove that Fuhrman saw blood where he could not have seen it unless he opened up the Bronco. The defense did prove that MF took at least 15 minutes from when MF dropped off Kato and then found the glove.

The defense did prove that the Bronco was entered because of the police report filled out regarding the checklist on the Bronco. Two policeman who were seen playing the dog, are the ones who handled the Bronco.

Also, it was a violent struggle, when did the DA's prove that any dirt or other debris was on the socks? Did they find any traces of dirt in the Bronco that could be matched to Bundy?

The defense never proved that anyone entered the Bronco because there was no evidence that anyone did. If you think there was post it please. Fuhrman testified the brush marks he saw were visible on the outside of the Bronco with the door closed. I don't know what you are referring to when you say the defense proved Fuhrman took at least 15 minutes after talking to Kaelin and finding the glove. Did the defense claim there should have been dirt on the socks or in the Bronco?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

William,

IMO, what the picture proves is that Fuhrman was alone for a signficant amount of time to pick up a second glove---he already knew that no one else has seen it.

IMO, he used the photographer to get a very good up close and personal look at the glove---to make sure he did have a "set".

Also, IMO, I think Lange and Vanatter knew something was up with that glove and they wanted Fuhrman away from Rockingham. What doesn't make sense is that they sent Phillips with him? Why, they needed two detectives to look at one glove and see if it matched?

And do you think that MF or other police officers have only pair of shoes to their name? And he had photographs of the shoes---how did the state expert know these were the shoes they all wore at Bundy?

The photograph proves no such thing. There was no evidence that there was a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there. It's all in your imagination just as your comments of what you think Lange and Vannatter knew or thought is all in your imagination. Phillips and Fuhrman were riding together. It seems to me that Vannatter was simply using the West LA detectives for these simple tasks because they were available. There were plenty of photographs and video tapes showing what Fuhrman was wearing at the crime scenes. If the defense had any doubt that the shoes Bodziak examined were not the same shoes Fuhrman was wearing the day after the murders I have no doubt they would have raised it as an issue.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Correction-Now, you may understand why she spent time

Clark spent time? Clark simply explained why the defense suggestions made no sense. Bodziak testified about the "S" characteristics that he could see that could be consistent with the Silga sole but there wasn't enough clarity throughout it to say positively that is what it represents. Even though Bodziak said he couldn't eliminate or positively associate it with the Silga sole he also testified that he was able to exclude all the officer's footprints as having made any of the distinguishable Silga design prints. And that the Silga design is totally different than any of the designs of the officer's shoes. That included Mark Fuhrman's shoes proving any speculation false that Mark Fuhrman left the bloody shoe print in the Bronco.

bobaugust