Issues In The Criminal Trial

[bobaugust]

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.

The inference you made that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 based on Moore's testimony that Simpson sometimes had dandruff in the summers and sometimes he didn't is not a reasonable inference unless there is other evidence to support it. But there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 so your inference is not reasonable, it's simply unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

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

You have yet to post the claim you made which was that the defense claimed MF made that stain/shoe print that was unable to be identified as coming from any type of shoe. This is what I meant by Clark spent time trying to prove MF did not wear the shoes that made the stain. I do not believe anything MF said, including his name. Since the alleged partial shoe print could not be identified as a BM shoe print, then the expert proved nothing. This is circular reasoning again. We say it is a BM shoe print, even thought the expert cannot identify it as a BM shoe print, because we say it is a BM shoe print. How can he say they are excluded from making the print in the Bronco when he can't identify the shoe that made it? The only reasonable inferences to be drawn from his testimony is that, if it is a partial shoe print, it was made by an unidentifiable shoe worn by someone sitting in a position theretofore unknown by him.

[William Anthony]

The inference you made that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 based on Moore's testimony that Simpson sometimes had dandruff in the summers and sometimes he didn't is not a reasonable inference unless there is other evidence to support it. But there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 so your inference is not reasonable, it's simply unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

You may call it unsupported speculation. However, I have posted the testimony and the larger community knows that there is no evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that Simpson did not have dandruff on June 12th, only circular reasoning based on assumptions, ifs and could haves about others and nothing about Simpson. How many of the inmates were Black, Asian, Hispanic, Italian, or Caucasian? How many were men, women or gender neutral? How many had dandruff when they were incarcerated? How many did not? The expert testified he could not say when the hairs were deposited in the cap. Enough said.

[martin II]

Talk about whining, complaining and professionalism.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE2DD103BF937A15751C0A9639582 60

I think this was the encounter that Darden told the judge that he was tired of JC treating him like he was his son or stepson in court.

imo

[William Anthony]

I think this was the encounter that Darden told the judge that he was tired of JC treating him like he was his son or stepson in court.

imo

Didn't you post that the magnificent one suggested he become a defense attorney and sent him clients?

[William Anthony]

The inference you made that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 based on Moore's testimony that Simpson sometimes had dandruff in the summers and sometimes he didn't is not a reasonable inference unless there is other evidence to support it. But there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 so your inference is not reasonable, it's simply unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

Did you read the link I provided and the quote. I have cited case law to support why my inference is reasonable and why the prosecution failed on the issue of dandruff and the alleged partial foot print. You have only posted your claim that my inference is unsupported speculation. Things that make you go...

[weezer]

Did you read the link I provided and the quote. I have cited case law to support why my inference is reasonable and why the prosecution failed on the issue of dandruff and the alleged partial foot print. You have only posted your claim that my inference is unsupported speculation. Things that make you go...

william, you ignore the obvious -- the defense did not raise the issue of dandruff. they couldn't. your inference is not reasonable nor is it supported. the witness testified that sometimes orenthal had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. you know, of course, that orenthal had been east during the weeks before the murders. . .

[martin II]

Didn't you post that the magnificent one suggested he become a defense attorney and sent him clients?

JC sent Darden many clients to get his defence lawyering business started and Darden was very greatful for all of the help.
i just looked at "THE COCHRAN FIRM" web site.

[weezer]

JC sent Darden many clients to get his defence lawyering business started and Darden was very greatful for all of the help.
i just looked at "THE COCHRAN FIRM" web site.

martin, what exactly is a 'defence lawyering business'?

[martin II]

william, you ignore the obvious -- the defense did not raise the issue of dandruff. they couldn't. your inference is not reasonable nor is it supported. the witness testified that sometimes orenthal had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. you know, of course, that orenthal had been east during the weeks before the murders. . .

OJ was in ny and long island paying golf in the HOT June sun and doing his business at NBC.

[martin II]

martin, what exactly is a 'defence lawyering business'?

ok weezer

JC helped Darden, the guy he taught how to try a case in court get his new law practice started.imo

[martin II]

william, you ignore the obvious -- the defense did not raise the issue of dandruff. they couldn't. your inference is not reasonable nor is it supported. the witness testified that sometimes orenthal had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. you know, of course, that orenthal had been east during the weeks before the murders. . .

weezer
The defense put on Ms Moore the person that was the expert of OJS hair. She testified to the times of the year and the activity that would cause OJ to have dandruff. The prosecution did not put on a witness to disprove her testimony.
imo
martin

[weezer]

ok weezer

JC helped Darden, the guy he taught how to try a case in court get his new law practice started.imo

"Darden received his B.S. in Criminal Justice Administration from California University at San Jose (1977) and his law degree from the University of California, Hasting College of the Law (1980). After leaving the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in 1995, Darden joined the faculty at California State University, Los Angeles, where he taught criminal law. That same year, he was appointed Associate Professor of Law at Southwestern University School of Law, Los Angeles. Darden taught and specialized in criminal procedure and trial advocacy. He left the law school in 1999 and immediately started his own firm, Darden & Associates, Inc., specializing in criminal defense and civil litigation."

"Christopher Darden joined the Los Angeles District Attorney's office in 1980."

when exactly was it that cochran helped him start his 'defence lawyering business'?

[weezer]

weezer
The defense put on Ms Moore the person that was the expert of OJS hair. She testified to the times of the year and the activity that would cause OJ to have dandruff. The prosecution did not put on a witness to disprove her testimony.
imo
martin

:confused: she testified that he did NOT have dandruff just prior to the murders. she testified that sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't. what did you think the prosecution had to disprove?

[martin II]

"Darden received his B.S. in Criminal Justice Administration from California University at San Jose (1977) and his law degree from the University of California, Hasting College of the Law (1980). After leaving the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in 1995, Darden joined the faculty at California State University, Los Angeles, where he taught criminal law. That same year, he was appointed Associate Professor of Law at Southwestern University School of Law, Los Angeles. Darden taught and specialized in criminal procedure and trial advocacy. He left the law school in 1999 and immediately started his own firm, Darden & Associates, Inc., specializing in criminal defense and civil litigation."

"Christopher Darden joined the Los Angeles District Attorney's office in 1980."

when exactly was it that cochran helped him start his 'defence lawyering business'?

After Darden was fired by the la DAs office he did some Speaking and teaching. He stated on the Oprah tv program that when he opened his law
office to do defense work, JC helped him by sending him clients to get his practice started. So that is when JC help him start get his defense law practice started.
On this same progran Darden stated that 'As far as he was concerned, furhman was worse that jc."

JC was in a position to help Darden and he did as he did with many others lawyers.

JC
Career:

City of Los Angeles, deputy city attorney, 1963-65

Private attorney/Cochran, Atkins & Evans, 1986-78

Los Angeles County, assistant district attorney 1978-82

The Cochran Firm, private practice of law 1982-2005

Awards:

Los Angeles Criminal Courts Bar Assn., Criminal Trial Lawyer of the Year, 1977

California Trial Lawyers Assn., Outstanding Law Enforcement Officer, 1979

John M. Langston Bar Assn., Honorable Loren Miller Award as Trial Lawyer of the Year, 1983

Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP, Equal Justice in Law Award, 1984

UCLA Black Alumni Assn., Distinguished Alumni Award. 1988

UCLA Alumni Assn., Alumni Award for Excellence in Professional Achievement. 1988

Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Assn., Trial Lawyer of the Year, 1991

NAACP, Los Angeles Chapter, Presidential Award, 1991

Los Angeles International Airport Kiwanis Club, Man of the Year, 1991

National Law Journal Trial Lawyer of the Year, 1995

Memberships:

Los Angeles African American Chamber of Commerce, Board of Directors

Los Angeles Urban League

Criminal Courts Bar Assn., Board of Directors

Langston Bar Assn., Board of Directors

International Academy of Trial Lawyers

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Board of Directors

American Bar Foundation

National Bar Association

American College of Trial Lawyers

State Bar of California

[martin II]

:confused: she testified that he did NOT have dandruff just prior to the murders. she testified that sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't. what did you think the prosecution had to disprove?

Stop tryin to twist the issue and her testimony. she did not cut his hair on 6/10/11/or 12 So there was no JUST PRIOR to the murders that she testified to and you know that.imo

[weezer]

Stop tryin to twist the issue and her testimony. she did not cut his hair on 6/10/11/or 12 So there was no JUST PRIOR to the murders that she testified to and you know that.imo

what was the date she cut his hair?

[weezer]

After Darden was fired by the la DAs office he did some Speaking and teaching. He stated on the Oprah tv program that when he opened his law
office to do defense work, JC helped him by sending him clients to get his practice started. So that is when JC help him start get his defense law practice started.
On this same progran Darden stated that 'As far as he was concerned, furhman was worse that jc."

JC was in a position to help Darden and he did as he did with many others lawyers.

JC
Career:

City of Los Angeles, deputy city attorney, 1963-65

Private attorney/Cochran, Atkins & Evans, 1986-78

Los Angeles County, assistant district attorney 1978-82

The Cochran Firm, private practice of law 1982-2005

Awards:

Los Angeles Criminal Courts Bar Assn., Criminal Trial Lawyer of the Year, 1977

California Trial Lawyers Assn., Outstanding Law Enforcement Officer, 1979

John M. Langston Bar Assn., Honorable Loren Miller Award as Trial Lawyer of the Year, 1983

Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP, Equal Justice in Law Award, 1984

UCLA Black Alumni Assn., Distinguished Alumni Award. 1988

UCLA Alumni Assn., Alumni Award for Excellence in Professional Achievement. 1988

Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Assn., Trial Lawyer of the Year, 1991

NAACP, Los Angeles Chapter, Presidential Award, 1991

Los Angeles International Airport Kiwanis Club, Man of the Year, 1991

National Law Journal Trial Lawyer of the Year, 1995

Memberships:

Los Angeles African American Chamber of Commerce, Board of Directors

Los Angeles Urban League

Criminal Courts Bar Assn., Board of Directors

Langston Bar Assn., Board of Directors

International Academy of Trial Lawyers

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Board of Directors

American Bar Foundation

National Bar Association

American College of Trial Lawyers

State Bar of California

". . .Barbara Cochran Berry, defense attorney Johnnie Cochran's ex-wife, told NEWSWEEK her recent book alleging physical abuse at Johnnie's hands was received with sympathy by whites. African-Americans, however, considered it a work of treason. In an odd twist to the blame-the-victim impulse, black women often see domestic violence through the prism of race--and class--not gender. By portraying her prominent husband as arrogant, petty and sometimes brutal. . ."

"Cochran's personal life was often as dramatic as his professional one. He married his college sweetheart, Barbara Berry, and had two daughters, Tiffany Cochran Edwards and Melodie Cochran. However, during the couple's 1978 divorce, court documents revealed that he had cheated on his wife for 10 years and fathered a son with his mistress, Patricia Sikora. . ."

[martin II]

". . .Barbara Cochran Berry, defense attorney Johnnie Cochran's ex-wife, told NEWSWEEK her recent book alleging physical abuse at Johnnie's hands was received with sympathy by whites. African-Americans, however, considered it a work of treason. In an odd twist to the blame-the-victim impulse, black women often see domestic violence through the prism of race--and class--not gender. By portraying her prominent husband as arrogant, petty and sometimes brutal. . ."

"Cochran's personal life was often as dramatic as his professional one. He married his college sweetheart, Barbara Berry, and had two daughters, Tiffany Cochran Edwards and Melodie Cochran. However, during the couple's 1978 divorce, court documents revealed that he had cheated on his wife for 10 years and fathered a son with his mistress, Patricia Sikora. . ."

The problem i believe you have with Jc is that he gave a great defense for his client and before the world showed that the prosecution made a lot of claims against his client that they failed to prove in a court of law.
So whats left is to try to measure him by YOUR moral standard of behavior.HAHAHA:cool:

[martin II]

what was the date she cut his hair?

WEESER

It really makes no sense for me to waste my time with you on this issue as it has been discussed and testimony posted as to Ms Moors testimony about Ojs hair and dandruff issue.
I suggest you review her testimony and other post which may help you to understand the issue and prevent any further twisting of the facts.
imo

[weezer]

WEESER

It really makes no sense for me to waste my time with you on this issue as it has been discussed and testimony posted as to Ms Moors testimony about Ojs hair and dandruff issue.
I suggest you review her testimony and other post which may help you to understand the issue and prevent any further twisting of the facts.
imo

facts are facts martin. 'moors' testified that orenthal did NOT have dandruff just prior to the murders. 'moors' did testify that sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't. if anyone is twisting the facts, it is you.

[martin II]

Seems like those in the legal profession thought he deserve the title given him by some posters here.


Mr. Cochran is the only attorney ever to be the recipient of the Trial Lawyer of the Year Award from both the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association and the Criminal Courts Bar Association. Mr. Cochran is a member of the prestigious International Academy of Trial Lawyers and The American College of Trial Lawyers, whose membership consists of the top one percent of trial attorneys in the United States. Mr. Cochran was inducted into The Inner Circle of Advocates, an organization of the country's top 100 plaintiff lawyers. His autobiography, Journey to Justice, a national bestseller written with Tim Rutten, was recently published by One World/Ballantine Books.

http://aalbc.com/authors/johnnie_cochran.htm

[limakey]

Slow Hand,

Mark Fuhrman testified for the DA's. When the defense wanted to question him more about planting evidence, Judge Ito said they would have to recall him in their case in chief. As you know, the defense did recall him and plead the 5th. So, he never admitted to anything--he just took the fifth.

IMO, if the n-word was his only worry, he would not have taken the fifth, again, IMO.

[limakey]

Kate,

If the detectives' actions matched the reasons they went to Rockingham, then I believe you are right. They had every legal right to go to Rockingham as soon ASAP. First, Simpson was the most logical suspect and it would only make sense that if he was involved, he was probably in the process of either fleeing the state or trying to rid of evidence. If the scene was so bad and the detectives, with their experience did believe that Simpson may have been victim, then again, no problem with going to Rockingham right away. If they said because of Mr. Simpson's minor children, one who was extremely upset combined with his celebrity is another reason they went to Rockingham, again no problem.

However, the defense did prove that all four of the lead detectives did not about two prior domestic calls. To continue to say that he was not suspect destroyed their credibility. Then when VA did say he didn't know what he had and when he went to Rockingham, small drops of blood suddendly turned the alarm on in his head to get inside the estate? They then claim that Simpson or the live in maid could have been injured inside the home, no problem with that, but why not enter the house ASAP instead of going out back to Kato's and Arnelle's room? Then when they get inside the home, they do not search for any victims.

I have never understood why they didn't just give all three reasons why they went to Rockingham---when Vanatter testified in court that OJ Simpson was no more of supsect then you were Mr. Shapiro!---do you really think any one on the jury believed him?

However, there is another part of Vanatter's story that hurt him, later he tried to say that Simpson was a potential suspect--okay, good. However, he put a time limit on a potential suspect, any one who has seen or spoken to the victims within the past 48 hours is a potential suspect--well how did he know that Simpson and Mrs. Simpson did see each other and did speak to each other with in his time frame? And why didn't they question everyone who saw or spoke to Nicole and Ron within the last 48 hours of their life?

To me, this was the beginning of the end of the detectives' credibility with the jury---and I even think some DA's were a tad upset with them on this issue. IMO.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

I'm on to you---you haven't answered the question, what if the gloves didn't match? Does that mean Simpson is innocent?

You also haven't answered the question why was so important for the DA's to try to prove that Fuhrman had not had his picture taken with the glove before he left for Rockingham?

Officer Riske testified he showed Fuhrman all the evidence he had seen. He also said that it was not his job to find any evidence, his job was to notify his supervisors and seal off the crime scene.

As far as I can remember, no other police officers were ever asked if they even looked for a second glove. Doesn't it only make sense to look for a second glove if you find one at the scene?

And of course, you avoid the very, very sad truth of the matter, you want to believe that if someone had seen him pick up a glove that would do the honorable thing and report it. I agree with you that it would be an honorable deed as well as a very brave deed. However, honor and bravery in this matter will not protect the cop or his family, it will not be looked at as an honorable and brave deed to fellow officers and honor will not put food on the table.

Why do you believe that if a cop or some other person tampers with the evidence, they would do it in front of a witness? And that witness would come forward?

You are right, no can prove Fuhrman planted that glove, however you can't prove that it was OJ Simpson who discarded the glove behind Kato's wall.

In fact, you can't even prove that what Kato heard had anything to do at all with the murders.

But what I can prove is that Fuhrman bragged about the glove, he bragged that he had Clark by the balls and she knew it. He bragged about if he goes down, the glove goes down and the case goes bye bye. What do you think he meant by that?

I can prove Fuhrman knew the Code of Silence and used in the past when it came to internal affairs.

I can prove Fuhrman had no fear of getting caught nor did he have any fear of being reprimanded or being fired.

I can't prove that anyone saw him plant the glove, I can't prove that if any one did see him plant that glove they would have come forward. But I can prove that Fuhrman had means, motive and opportunity to do it. When you are not afraid of being caught and gotten away with in the past, and you have the city of LA by the balls, you can do what ever you want and watch the state sweat like a pig over the evidence you have found. Again, IMO.

[tv]

Mr. August,

I'm on to you---you haven't answered the question, what if the gloves didn't match? Does that mean Simpson is innocent?

You also haven't answered the question why was so important for the DA's to try to prove that Fuhrman had not had his picture taken with the glove before he left for Rockingham?

Officer Riske testified he showed Fuhrman all the evidence he had seen. He also said that it was not his job to find any evidence, his job was to notify his supervisors and seal off the crime scene.

As far as I can remember, no other police officers were ever asked if they even looked for a second glove. Doesn't it only make sense to look for a second glove if you find one at the scene?

And of course, you avoid the very, very sad truth of the matter, you want to believe that if someone had seen him pick up a glove that would do the honorable thing and report it. I agree with you that it would be an honorable deed as well as a very brave deed. However, honor and bravery in this matter will not protect the cop or his family, it will not be looked at as an honorable and brave deed to fellow officers and honor will not put food on the table.

Why do you believe that if a cop or some other person tampers with the evidence, they would do it in front of a witness? And that witness would come forward?

You are right, no can prove Fuhrman planted that glove, however you can't prove that it was OJ Simpson who discarded the glove behind Kato's wall.

In fact, you can't even prove that what Kato heard had anything to do at all with the murders.

But what I can prove is that Fuhrman bragged about the glove, he bragged that he had Clark by the balls and she knew it. He bragged about if he goes down, the glove goes down and the case goes bye bye. What do you think he meant by that?

I can prove Fuhrman knew the Code of Silence and used in the past when it came to internal affairs.

I can prove Fuhrman had no fear of getting caught nor did he have any fear of being reprimanded or being fired.

I can't prove that anyone saw him plant the glove, I can't prove that if any one did see him plant that glove they would have come forward. But I can prove that Fuhrman had means, motive and opportunity to do it. When you are not afraid of being caught and gotten away with in the past, and you have the city of LA by the balls, you can do what ever you want and watch the state sweat like a pig over the evidence you have found. Again, IMO.Let's see if you're on to me. There is zero proof that Mark Fuhrman planted or picked up the second glove. The proof that OJ Simpson dropped the glove behind Kato's room is his DNA on the glove. His blood on the glove means he bled on the glove. Simple.

[tv]

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.It's my belief that he jumped the fence but I don't care if he came in on a hang glider. His DNA was on the glove found behind Kato's room. His DNA on the glove means he bled on the glove. Simple.

[tv]

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.Laura Hart McKinney asked him if he had ever planted evidence and he said No.

[SlowHandSam]

Slow Hand,

Mark Fuhrman testified for the DA's. When the defense wanted to question him more about planting evidence, Judge Ito said they would have to recall him in their case in chief. As you know, the defense did recall him and plead the 5th. So, he never admitted to anything--he just took the fifth.

IMO, if the n-word was his only worry, he would not have taken the fifth, again, IMO.

But the root of the root is that he did not, and has not, admitted to planting any evidence and to label him as an "admitted evidence planter" is completely inaccurate.

I don't have a problem with MF taking the 5th since the NGs don't have a problem with oj not taking the stand to answer to the charges. I view it the same way -- MF's was an explicit "choose to not answer" while oj's was a implicit "choose to not answer" response.

Tell me, limakey, you fault MF for taking the 5th ... (which is his constitutional right) but you find no fault or cause for curiosity for oj not taking the stand (again a constitutional right). Why the double standard?

[SlowHandSam]

Slow Hand,

Mark Fuhrman testified for the DA's. When the defense wanted to question him more about planting evidence, Judge Ito said they would have to recall him in their case in chief. As you know, the defense did recall him and plead the 5th. So, he never admitted to anything--he just took the fifth.

IMO, if the n-word was his only worry, he would not have taken the fifth, again, IMO.

In regard to your comment I've put in bold above ... I disagree. I think MF was intelligent enough to see the agenda and realize that oj's defense was going to turn the trial into the MF trial instead of what it was suppose to be about ... him murdering two people. MF exercised his right, IMO, in an attempt to circumvent the aggressive attack that oj's team went on against him. His team was on a mission to completely smear him and ruin his career all as part of the agenda to misdirect the jurors on what was really at issue :: oj murdering two people in one of the most brutal and callous ways.

[martin II]

Let's see if you're on to me. There is zero proof that Mark Fuhrman planted or picked up the second glove. The proof that OJ Simpson dropped the glove behind Kato's room is his DNA on the glove. His blood on the glove means he bled on the glove. Simple.

You and i don't know what was on that glove when it was collected. We only know what the lab told us was on the glove when it was sent to the DNA lab.

[martin II]

In regard to your comment I've put in bold above ... I disagree. I think MF was intelligent enough to see the agenda and realize that oj's defense was going to turn the trial into the MF trial instead of what it was suppose to be about ... him murdering two people. MF exercised his right, IMO, in an attempt to circumvent the aggressive attack that oj's team went on against him. His team was on a mission to completely smear him and ruin his career all as part of the agenda to misdirect the jurors on what was really at issue :: oj murdering two people in one of the most brutal and callous ways.

SHS

Furhman had one of the highest citizen complaints made against him for police misconduct according to a report that i have previously posted.Furhman changed the subject matter of why lmk engaged him from abuse of women on the lapd to what he did to minorities and mixed couples.
He also spoke of his hatred to MS Springer and her friends and to 3-4 people in that marine recruiting office.

If furhman knew what to expect from the defense team why didn't he just inform the DA about his past rather than screw up their case on the stand.

It was the job of the defense to question all prosecution witnesses about their background and i think both sides did this.

It was not the defense that caused furhman to be a bad apple.Furhman did this himself. If the prosecution put a r***** on the stand to support their case, then it was the prosecution that interjected race into the case when they asked him to take the stand.imo

[martin II]

In regard to your comment I've put in bold above ... I disagree. I think MF was intelligent enough to see the agenda and realize that oj's defense was going to turn the trial into the MF trial instead of what it was suppose to be about ... him murdering two people. MF exercised his right, IMO, in an attempt to circumvent the aggressive attack that oj's team went on against him. His team was on a mission to completely smear him and ruin his career all as part of the agenda to misdirect the jurors on what was really at issue :: oj murdering two people in one of the most brutal and callous ways.

I don't believe furhman took the 5th only because of his r***** words.I believe he did not want to be questioned in detail about what he did on 6/12
and taking the 6th was a way 'kill two birds with one stone" so to speak.
He did not want to be questioned in detail by the defense in their case in cheif.imo

[martin II]

But the root of the root is that he did not, and has not, admitted to planting any evidence and to label him as an "admitted evidence planter" is completely inaccurate.

I don't have a problem with MF taking the 5th since the NGs don't have a problem with oj not taking the stand to answer to the charges. I view it the same way -- MF's was an explicit "choose to not answer" while oj's was a implicit "choose to not answer" response.

Tell me, limakey, you fault MF for taking the 5th ... (which is his constitutional right) but you find no fault or cause for curiosity for oj not taking the stand (again a constitutional right). Why the double standard?

Both had rights.
OJ was the defendant. Furhman was a lapd officer sworn to protect and serve and to TELL THE TRUTH. He chose to do neither. After he was caught in a lie by Bailey, He said i cannot answer any more questions about that for fear that i might incriminate myself.imo

[martin II]

Kate,

If the detectives' actions matched the reasons they went to Rockingham, then I believe you are right. They had every legal right to go to Rockingham as soon ASAP. First, Simpson was the most logical suspect and it would only make sense that if he was involved, he was probably in the process of either fleeing the state or trying to rid of evidence. If the scene was so bad and the detectives, with their experience did believe that Simpson may have been victim, then again, no problem with going to Rockingham right away. If they said because of Mr. Simpson's minor children, one who was extremely upset combined with his celebrity is another reason they went to Rockingham, again no problem.

However, the defense did prove that all four of the lead detectives did not about two prior domestic calls. To continue to say that he was not suspect destroyed their credibility. Then when VA did say he didn't know what he had and when he went to Rockingham, small drops of blood suddendly turned the alarm on in his head to get inside the estate? They then claim that Simpson or the live in maid could have been injured inside the home, no problem with that, but why not enter the house ASAP instead of going out back to Kato's and Arnelle's room? Then when they get inside the home, they do not search for any victims.

I have never understood why they didn't just give all three reasons why they went to Rockingham---when Vanatter testified in court that OJ Simpson was no more of supsect then you were Mr. Shapiro!---do you really think any one on the jury believed him?

However, there is another part of Vanatter's story that hurt him, later he tried to say that Simpson was a potential suspect--okay, good. However, he put a time limit on a potential suspect, any one who has seen or spoken to the victims within the past 48 hours is a potential suspect--well how did he know that Simpson and Mrs. Simpson did see each other and did speak to each other with in his time frame? And why didn't they question everyone who saw or spoke to Nicole and Ron within the last 48 hours of their life?

To me, this was the beginning of the end of the detectives' credibility with the jury---and I even think some DA's were a tad upset with them on this issue. IMO.


When Vanhatter told the jury that oj was not a suspect.he lost his first batch of credibility then.When judge ito informed the jury about his problems of playing fast and loose with the truth , he lost a second batch of credibility.
When he carried ojs blood around on his person without depositing it to SID where he was when the blolod was drawn he lost more.When testimony showed he was present when the nurse drew the blood and that some blood was missing he may have lost all that he had not previously lost. imo

[William Anthony]

william, you ignore the obvious -- the defense did not raise the issue of dandruff. they couldn't. your inference is not reasonable nor is it supported. the witness testified that sometimes orenthal had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. you know, of course, that orenthal had been east during the weeks before the murders. . .

You ignore the obvious not only did the defense raise that issue with Ms. Moore's testimony but the magnificent one talked about it in his closing. Ms. Moore said it would have more dandruff when he played golf, which he did that day. I do believe it was summer in the east also.

[William Anthony]

facts are facts martin. 'moors' testified that orenthal did NOT have dandruff just prior to the murders. 'moors' did testify that sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't. if anyone is twisting the facts, it is you.

We have been over this and you know Ms. Moore never testified that Simpson did not have dandruff just prior to the murders. That is a false post and all you need to do to prove me wrong is post the testimony. Bobagust admitted he was wrong with that statement, IIRC.

[William Anthony]

Laura Hart McKinney asked him if he had ever planted evidence and he said No.

That is a false statement. It seems that some who defend MF are becoming desperate.

[William Anthony]

But the root of the root is that he did not, and has not, admitted to planting any evidence and to label him as an "admitted evidence planter" is completely inaccurate.

I don't have a problem with MF taking the 5th since the NGs don't have a problem with oj not taking the stand to answer to the charges. I view it the same way -- MF's was an explicit "choose to not answer" while oj's was a implicit "choose to not answer" response.

Tell me, limakey, you fault MF for taking the 5th ... (which is his constitutional right) but you find no fault or cause for curiosity for oj not taking the stand (again a constitutional right). Why the double standard?

He did in fact admit to planting evidence on the tapes. If you choose to believe he was lying when he said he pulled off the scab on an addict's arm to make it appear that he had just used, then how can you believe anything that came out of the convicted perjurer's mouth?

[William Anthony]

In regard to your comment I've put in bold above ... I disagree. I think MF was intelligent enough to see the agenda and realize that oj's defense was going to turn the trial into the MF trial instead of what it was suppose to be about ... him murdering two people. MF exercised his right, IMO, in an attempt to circumvent the aggressive attack that oj's team went on against him. His team was on a mission to completely smear him and ruin his career all as part of the agenda to misdirect the jurors on what was really at issue :: oj murdering two people in one of the most brutal and callous ways.

The difference is that MF took an oath when he took the stand to tell the truth. Simpson never took the stand. We know that oaths/his word meant nothing to the convicted perjurer.

[William Anthony]

:confused: she testified that he did NOT have dandruff just prior to the murders. she testified that sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't. what did you think the prosecution had to disprove?

Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
I have posted my evidence and it is supported by the testimony that he had more dandruff in the off season and that he had dandruff in jail. Unlike you, I said evidence, which allows a reasonable inference to be drawn. You on the other hand claimed as fact that you were correct that Ms. Moore testified Simpson's hair did not have dandruff on May 23rd when she cut it. Since you claim you are correct, show me the testimony.

I was incorrect when I said that Moore testified Simpson did not have dandruff on May 23. She never said that nor did she testify that he did have dandruff at that time.

Your inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 is not a reasonable inference. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on May 23 or on June 12. The dandruff speculation in no way excludes Simpson from being the killer.

bobaugust

You now know that your post is false.

[bobaugust]

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.

There were several reasons that led the detectives to enter Simpson's estate. The fact that blood was found on the Bronco and that the detectives had just come from a bloody double murder scene less than five minutes away. The fact that there were lights on upstairs in the house and no one was answering the gate bell. The fact that no one answered Simpson's phone after the detectives got Simpson's phone number from a supervisor at Westec, the private security company Simpson used. The fact that Westec told the detectives that a live in maid should have been there and if Simpson was away he would have notified them. All of those reasons caused the police great concern so they entered the estate.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You have yet to post the claim you made which was that the defense claimed MF made that stain/shoe print that was unable to be identified as coming from any type of shoe. This is what I meant by Clark spent time trying to prove MF did not wear the shoes that made the stain. I do not believe anything MF said, including his name. Since the alleged partial shoe print could not be identified as a BM shoe print, then the expert proved nothing. This is circular reasoning again. We say it is a BM shoe print, even thought the expert cannot identify it as a BM shoe print, because we say it is a BM shoe print. How can he say they are excluded from making the print in the Bronco when he can't identify the shoe that made it? The only reasonable inferences to be drawn from his testimony is that, if it is a partial shoe print, it was made by an unidentifiable shoe worn by someone sitting in a position theretofore unknown by him.

The fact is that Bodziak testified that the partial shoe print in the Bronco had similar characteristics to the Silga sole imprints and even though he could not positively say it was made from a Silga sole he also said he could not exclude it. The fact that Fuhrman's shoes were excluded from making the Silga sole imprints because they were totally different is evidence that Fuhrman's shoes did not make the bloody shoe print in the Bronco.

The fact that there is no evidence that anyone but Simpson drove his Bronco the night of the murder. The fact that Simpson's fresh blood was found at the murder scene as well as fiber evidence that links Simpson to the murders. The fact that Simpson wore the same size shoes that made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy and later photographic evidence showed him wearing shoes with the exact kind of sole that left the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. The fact that when the police saw Simpson's Bronco parked on Rockingham it was locked and not opened until the criminalist had it opened to collect evidence from it. The fact that Simpson's blood was found in the Bronco some mixed with both victims blood.

Based on all those facts a reasonable inference can be made that the partial shoe print on Simpson's Bronco carpet made from Nicole's blood was made by shoes with Silga soles Simpson was wearing after he left Bundy on the night of June 12.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You may call it unsupported speculation. However, I have posted the testimony and the larger community knows that there is no evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that Simpson did not have dandruff on June 12th, only circular reasoning based on assumptions, ifs and could haves about others and nothing about Simpson. How many of the inmates were Black, Asian, Hispanic, Italian, or Caucasian? How many were men, women or gender neutral? How many had dandruff when they were incarcerated? How many did not? The expert testified he could not say when the hairs were deposited in the cap. Enough said.

The fact is there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on May 23 or on June 12 or in the week following the murders. There is only evidence that Simpson had dandruff over month after the murders after being incarcerated for over a month. There was testimony that some inmates who were incarcerated for over a month were found to have dandruff as a result of their incarceration. A reasonable understandable common sense explanation as to why Simpson had dandruff after a month of being incarceration.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Did you read the link I provided and the quote. I have cited case law to support why my inference is reasonable and why the prosecution failed on the issue of dandruff and the alleged partial foot print. You have only posted your claim that my inference is unsupported speculation. Things that make you go...

It doesn't matter how many links you post, the fact that your inference is based only on Moore's testimony that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't doesn't make your inference reasonable. It makes it unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

I'm on to you---you haven't answered the question, what if the gloves didn't match? Does that mean Simpson is innocent?

You also haven't answered the question why was so important for the DA's to try to prove that Fuhrman had not had his picture taken with the glove before he left for Rockingham?

Officer Riske testified he showed Fuhrman all the evidence he had seen. He also said that it was not his job to find any evidence, his job was to notify his supervisors and seal off the crime scene.

As far as I can remember, no other police officers were ever asked if they even looked for a second glove. Doesn't it only make sense to look for a second glove if you find one at the scene?

And of course, you avoid the very, very sad truth of the matter, you want to believe that if someone had seen him pick up a glove that would do the honorable thing and report it. I agree with you that it would be an honorable deed as well as a very brave deed. However, honor and bravery in this matter will not protect the cop or his family, it will not be looked at as an honorable and brave deed to fellow officers and honor will not put food on the table.

Why do you believe that if a cop or some other person tampers with the evidence, they would do it in front of a witness? And that witness would come forward?

You are right, no can prove Fuhrman planted that glove, however you can't prove that it was OJ Simpson who discarded the glove behind Kato's wall.

In fact, you can't even prove that what Kato heard had anything to do at all with the murders.

But what I can prove is that Fuhrman bragged about the glove, he bragged that he had Clark by the balls and she knew it. He bragged about if he goes down, the glove goes down and the case goes bye bye. What do you think he meant by that?

I can prove Fuhrman knew the Code of Silence and used in the past when it came to internal affairs.

I can prove Fuhrman had no fear of getting caught nor did he have any fear of being reprimanded or being fired.

I can't prove that anyone saw him plant the glove, I can't prove that if any one did see him plant that glove they would have come forward. But I can prove that Fuhrman had means, motive and opportunity to do it. When you are not afraid of being caught and gotten away with in the past, and you have the city of LA by the balls, you can do what ever you want and watch the state sweat like a pig over the evidence you have found. Again, IMO.

If the two gloves did not match then the detectives would have had evidence of two killers.

The question you asked me was "Why does the time matter when this photo was taken?" I answered you that it was the defense who 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. You didn't ask me why it was important to the prosecution but the answer is that the prosecution wanted the jury to know when that photograph was taken. And the evidence is that it was taken about 6:30 AM when Fuhrman and Phillips returned to Bundy from Rockingham, not before Lange, Vannatter, Phillips, and Fuhrman went to Rockingham. No evidence was photographed before the detectives went to Rockingham. The only photographs taken then were panoramic or establishing shots.

Phillips and Fuhrman arrived at Bundy about two hours after the patrol officers found the bodies and there were fifteen other police officers signed in at Bundy before they arrived. Some saw the evidence inside the crime scene and some walked around the outside of the crime scene. No one ever said they saw a second glove inside or outside the crime scene. If any of them including Fuhrman had seen a second glove they would have made it known to everyone. That was their job and they would have been proud to have been the one to have found additional evidence. But it never happened because there wasn't a second glove at Bundy to see, the killer had taken it with him.

Kaelin's friend who he was speaking with on the telephone verified what Kaelin told the police. The evidence is that there were were only three people at Bundy when Kaelin heard someone behind his room. Kaelin, Allan Park, and Simpson. Which one do you think it was?

The blood and fiber evidence found on the glove all points to Simpson as handling that glove, not Fuhrman. There is absolutely no evidence that Fuhrman ever touched that glove, only that he was the first to see it.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The fact is there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on May 23 or on June 12 or in the week following the murders. There is only evidence that Simpson had dandruff over month after the murders after being incarcerated for over a month. There was testimony that some inmates who were incarcerated for over a month were found to have dandruff as a result of their incarceration. A reasonable understandable common sense explanation as to why Simpson had dandruff after a month of being incarceration.

bobaugust

Some. Some were not on trial. Who were these some? We have circumstantial testimonial evidence from which the reasonable inference can be drawn that Simpson would have had dandruff in his hair as he did in the summer months when he played golf, as he did that day. There is no evidence that he did not have dandruff. I reiterate, "Who were these some."

[limakey]

SHS,

I have no problem with any one, including MF taking the 5th. However, how can you compare a cop pleading the 5th in a criminal case he was involved in vs the defendant? MF knew he was going to be called the stand. He knew how important that glove was to the case, he knew that at that time MC considered him a star witness. He knew very early on that his past was going to come out.

If MF was as smart as you say he was, then why lie when it was going to be easily proved that he did lie? IMO, had he even hinted at being vague regarding the use of the n-word or said something like that there is a war in the streets and cops and perps aren't always polite to one another, I have no clue what I have said in the heat of a battle.

You also forget, MF has been accused of planting evidence in at least one other case---which the city of LA paid out $100,000.00 to a career petty criminal because they didn't want MF to be in two trials, facing the same accusations.

The defense did not ruin MF's career, was able to retire from the LAPD and keep his benefits. He has profited from the Simpson case--again, no problem with that. He has gone on to make a very nice living. IMO.

[William Anthony]

There were several reasons that led the detectives to enter Simpson's estate. The fact that blood was found on the Bronco and that the detectives had just come from a bloody double murder scene less than five minutes away. The fact that there were lights on upstairs in the house and no one was answering the gate bell. The fact that no one answered Simpson's phone after the detectives got Simpson's phone number from a supervisor at Westec, the private security company Simpson used. The fact that Westec told the detectives that a live in maid should have been there and if Simpson was away he would have notified them. All of those reasons caused the police great concern so they entered the estate.

bobaugust

Someone leaves a light on when they leave their home and the assumption of a Westec employee are enough for me to assume that he/she is a victim. The truth, as Ito and, as you like to say, reasonable thinking people know is that Simpson was a suspect based on the indelible implant in MF's mind and the blood allegedly found on the Bronco before they invaded his home gave them probable cause, imho.

[William Anthony]

The fact is that Bodziak testified that the partial shoe print in the Bronco had similar characteristics to the Silga sole imprints and even though he could not positively say it was made from a Silga sole he also said he could not exclude it. The fact that Fuhrman's shoes were excluded from making the Silga sole imprints because they were totally different is evidence that Fuhrman's shoes did not make the bloody shoe print in the Bronco.

The fact that there is no evidence that anyone but Simpson drove his Bronco the night of the murder. The fact that Simpson's fresh blood was found at the murder scene as well as fiber evidence that links Simpson to the murders. The fact that Simpson wore the same size shoes that made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy and later photographic evidence showed him wearing shoes with the exact kind of sole that left the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. The fact that when the police saw Simpson's Bronco parked on Rockingham it was locked and not opened until the criminalist had it opened to collect evidence from it. The fact that Simpson's blood was found in the Bronco some mixed with both victims blood.

Based on all those facts a reasonable inference can be made that the partial shoe print on Simpson's Bronco carpet made from Nicole's blood was made by shoes with Silga soles Simpson was wearing after he left Bundy on the night of June 12.

bobaugust

That may have been good enough in the socio-political production. However, in the criminal trial the alleged shoe print, if it was a shoe print, remained unidentified, i.e. not identified as a BM. Therefore, it was circular reasoning, just as your post is, imho, to say that they were excluded from being the source of a BM shoe print, because we say the unidentified possible shoe print was a BM. The standard of proof is much higher in a criminal trial. Some like to say 24% higher, whatever that means.

[William Anthony]

It doesn't matter how many links you post, the fact that your inference is based only on Moore's testimony that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't doesn't make your inference reasonable. It makes it unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

Very interesting response. You ask for links, then ignore them when they are given. You do not respect the law, so ignore it and make up your own rules.;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

In the beginning there was God and the word was with God and God said let there be light and there was light. Words have powerful consequences and we must all be careful how we use them. They have the power to inspire or to harm. Let's try to do no harm.

[limakey]

William,

In Schiller's book, he says that in all the hair samples found inside the hat, only 20 percent of them were consistent with being from an African-American, did they ever determine where the other 80% of hair came from?

[William Anthony]

William,

In Schiller's book, he says that in all the hair samples found inside the hat, only 20 percent of them were consistent with being from an African-American, did they ever determine where the other 80% of hair came from?

I don't know. I would say that cap was a cap of many heads. :)

[SlowHandSam]

Both had rights.
OJ was the defendant. Furhman was a lapd officer sworn to protect and serve and to TELL THE TRUTH. He chose to do neither. After he was caught in a lie by Bailey, He said i cannot answer any more questions about that for fear that i might incriminate myself.imo

you don't believe oj had a duty to tell the truth?? A personal ethical "oath" so to speak?

I think *everyone*, regardless of career, have an obligation to tell the truth in a court of law and in life.

You chose to answer a post (multiple times) that wasn't submitted to you, but you then choose to not address the very nut of the question.

Why is it okay for oj to invoke an implicit "I'm not going to tell you crap" approach but it isn't okay for someone else? What reasoning do you use to explain away oj's failure to answer to the charges (and please don't tell me that it's his constitutional right because I already made that comparison).

[martin II]

you don't believe oj had a duty to tell the truth?? A personal ethical "oath" so to speak?

I think *everyone*, regardless of career, have an obligation to tell the truth in a court of law and in life.

You chose to answer a post (multiple times) that wasn't submitted to you, but you then choose to not address the very nut of the question.

Why is it okay for oj to invoke an implicit "I'm not going to tell you crap" approach but it isn't okay for someone else? What reasoning do you use to explain away oj's failure to answer to the charges (and please don't tell me that it's his constitutional right because I already made that comparison).

I don't think you understand.So i will leave it at that.

[William Anthony]

you don't believe oj had a duty to tell the truth?? A personal ethical "oath" so to speak?

I think *everyone*, regardless of career, have an obligation to tell the truth in a court of law and in life.

You chose to answer a post (multiple times) that wasn't submitted to you, but you then choose to not address the very nut of the question.

Why is it okay for oj to invoke an implicit "I'm not going to tell you crap" approach but it isn't okay for someone else? What reasoning do you use to explain away oj's failure to answer to the charges (and please don't tell me that it's his constitutional right because I already made that comparison).

If I might, the difference is in the burden of proof.

[SlowHandSam]

I don't think you understand.So i will leave it at that.

No, I get where you are at, Martin - that's why I called you out on it.

If a man is not guilty of a crime then he should have no fear of taking the stand and answering to those charges. That's the inference I took from your reply.

Just as if a sworn officer of the law has nothing to fear he should not feel the need to take the 5th.

This was not the MF trial, although is sure seems that way. It was all part of the defense's strategy of misdirection ... just like a cheap magician's act, IMO.

I'm still wanting to know why it's okay, provided BOTH had nothing to fear, that oj didn't take to the stand and answer to the charges against him?

[martin II]

you don't believe oj had a duty to tell the truth?? A personal ethical "oath" so to speak?

I think *everyone*, regardless of career, have an obligation to tell the truth in a court of law and in life.

You chose to answer a post (multiple times) that wasn't submitted to you, but you then choose to not address the very nut of the question.

Why is it okay for oj to invoke an implicit "I'm not going to tell you crap" approach but it isn't okay for someone else? What reasoning do you use to explain away oj's failure to answer to the charges (and please don't tell me that it's his constitutional right because I already made that comparison).

I don't know how many time you have to be told. The defendant has absolutely no duty or obligation to say anything in a criminal trial. Your personal opinion are just that but they have no place in criminal trial law.

MF swore to testify and tell the truth and then proceeded to tell a hugh lie.

[SlowHandSam]

If I might, the difference is in the burden of proof.

How so? If oj had nothing to "fear" and indeed did not murder Nicole and Ron, then why not answer to the questions?

They are both legal ways to avoid answering the questions. I just want to know why you fault MF for exercising his right and not oj for doing the same?

It's mostly rhetorical because I know the cookie cutter answer that will follow - I just take issue with the double standard.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by tvdinner View Post
Laura Hart McKinney asked him if he had ever planted evidence and he said No.

Here is what Ms. McKinney testified to on the subject of planting evidence.

"MR. DARDEN: Another reason that you didn't come forward immediately is because it was your view that there was nothing in those tapes that suggested to you that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence in this case; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: There was nothing to me that made me feel that Officer Fuhrman could have planted evidence in this particular case, no.

MR. DARDEN: Detective Fuhrman didn't tell you that he planted evidence on innocent people, did he?

MS. MCKINNY: I would have to find that in my transcripts. I don't recall a particular incident right now where Detective Fuhrman said he planted evidence on innocent people.

MR. DARDEN: You don't recall a particular incident?

MS. MCKINNY: No.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you and Mr. Flynn had a conversation with Fuhrman regarding the glove issue, correct?

MS. MCKINNY: Umm, there was reference made to the glove during that conversation, yes.

MR. DARDEN: And he told you that he did not plant the glove, didn't he?

MR. DARDEN: Detective Fuhrman claimed he had been libeled and slandered when Mr. Shapiro alleged that he, Detective Fuhrman, had planted the glove in this case; is that right?

MS. MCKINNY: I actually don't know why Detective Fuhrman was libeled. I know that we discussed that, but I don't know what that issue was between Mr. Shapiro and Officer Fuhrman.

MR. DARDEN: During that conversation Mr. Fuhrman told you that on the night of June--during the early morning hours of June 13th that he was just doing his job; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes.

MR. UELMEN: Now, Mr. Darden asked you whether there was anything in these transcripts about planting evidence and you indicated that you did not believe there was; is that correct?

MS. MCKINNY: I don't recall if there is.

MR. DARDEN: That misstates the question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. UELMEN: I want to make certain that we understand your understanding of that term of planting evidence. Let me ask you this: Would you regard it as planting evidence if a police officer scratched a scab on a drug addict to make it bleed so that there would be evidence of fresh blood?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: No. When I think of planting evidence, I think of taking a physical object and putting it somewhere where it wasn't previous to that placement.

MR. UELMEN: All right. So you would not regard the creation of blood as evidence from the arm of a suspect himself as planting evidence?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: In that response, no, I wouldn't. If you edified me to regard those kind of activities as planting evidence, then I would rethink."

[SlowHandSam]

I don't know how many time you have to be told. The defendant has absolutely no duty or obligation to say anything in a criminal trial. Your personal opinion are just that but they have no place in criminal trial law.

MF swore to testify and tell the truth and then proceeded to tell a hugh lie.

Watch your tone with me, Martin. You don't want to lower the level of posting any further -

I've said I get that they both have a legal right to not answer the questions.

I want to know why you slam MF for exercising his right and not oj for doing the same.

[William Anthony]

How so? If oj had nothing to "fear" and indeed did not murder Nicole and Ron, then why not answer to the questions?

They are both legal ways to avoid answering the questions. I just want to know why you fault MF for exercising his right and not oj for doing the same?

It's mostly rhetorical because I know the cookie cutter answer that will follow - I just take issue with the double standard.

The prosecution must prove its case. A defendant is not required to prove his non guilt or innocence, if you will. MF took the stand and swore to tell the truth, as such Simpson had a Constitutional right to confront him. Simpson never took the stand. I don't think there is a double standard. There have been posts on accepting personal responsibility. MF could have chosen to plead the 5th when first called to the stand. He chose not to and, as a result, he took on the personal responsibility of being convicted of perjury.

[William Anthony]

Well, I see that the debate from one side hasn't improved. You don't have to tell anyone anything Martin. You need to learn how to spell.

An innocent man would be falling over his lawyer to get to the witness stand to tell the truth.

The magnificent one and the defense, not defence, team discussed his rights with him and obviously they made the correct choice. I think I spelled, not spelt, that right.:seeya: ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

It was all part of the defense's strategy of misdirection ... just like a cheap magician's act, IMO.



The cheap magician's trick was allegedly finding a glove with no evidence of blood anywhere around it but a blood trail consistent with Simpson having been in his Rockingham driveway and on that street and entering his house via that route, combined with missing blood and EDTA results that are indicative of a dead person, imho.

[martin II]

Well, I see that the debate from one side hasn't improved. You don't have to tell anyone anything Martin. You need to learn how to spell.

An innocent man would be falling over his lawyer to get to the witness stand to tell the truth.





shs


That would be your laymans opinion but the CJS allows the defendants lawyer
to determine what is in the clients best interest.
Obviously after the defense had destroyed the prosecutions case the defense felt they had proven to the jury that the prosecution had not proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and there was no reason for oj to take the stand.

The magnificent one JC decided with defendants approval that they had won the case.

[SlowHandSam]

shs


That would be your laymans opinion but the CJS allows the defendants lawyer
to determine what is in the clients best interest.
Obviously after the defense had destroyed the prosecutions case the defense felt they had proven to the jury that the prosecution had not proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and there was no reason for oj to take the stand.

The magnificent one JC decided with defendants approval that they had won the case.

Why quote JBell and then respond to me?

I've already said, multiple times that the system allows for those to not answer questions. Yet you still refuse to answer the very root of the question - but that's okay -- I am familiar with your tactic so I know the answer.

I see you are back to using words to inflame the board.

[martin II]

Well, I see that the debate from one side hasn't improved. You don't have to tell anyone anything Martin. You need to learn how to spell.

An innocent man would be falling over his lawyer to get to the witness stand to tell the truth.

OK
What you need to do is apologize to the community for your post that 8,000,000 black africans in Somolia run down the street hacking people with hatches which was a obvious untruth. imo

JC deserves to be called magnificent for his court legal skills.imo

[William Anthony]

Why quote JBell and then respond to me?

I've already said, multiple times that the system allows for those to not answer questions. Yet you still refuse to answer the very root of the question - but that's okay -- I am familiar with your tactic so I know the answer.

I see you are back to using words to inflame the board.

If I might, correction-some claim to be inflamed by the words, not the whole board. :)

[SlowHandSam]

OK
What you need to do is apologize to the community for your post that 8,000,000 black africans in Somolia run down the street hacking people with hatches which was a obvious untruth. imo

JC deserves to be called magnificent for his court legal skills.imo

Martin, certainly you aren't instructing others to apologize?? I believe you also owe the board multiple apologies for things you've said.

However, I am curious about something. What's happened to raising the level of posting?

Issues in Somalia have no place or relevance to this forum. It doesn't matter if it was mentioned before, you're OT with it.

[martin II]

Martin, certainly you aren't instructing others to apologize?? I believe you also owe the board multiple apologies for things you've said.

However, I am curious about something. What's happened to raising the level of posting?

Issues in Somalia have no place or relevance to this forum. It doesn't matter if it was mentioned before, you're OT with it.

I have no problem with which post you support.imo

[Kate Sachel]

Well, I see that the debate from one side hasn't improved. You don't have to tell anyone anything Martin. You need to learn how to spell.

An innocent man would be falling over his lawyer to get to the witness stand to tell the truth.

Not always. An innocent man still has to protect himself by all means possible when charged with a criminal offense. The best example, I think, being this - we have discussed on this forum the belief of some that Cochran was able to spin stories effectively to take the spotlight off of OJ and place it onto LAPD. Believe me when I say that prosecutors are capable of spinning stories just the same in an effort to guarantee a conviction of a person they are convinced is guilty.

I sat in on a trial once in which the defendant was a man in his forties who was uneducated and had difficulty understanding the terminology of the basic english language. When he took the stand to testify in own defense the prosecution took full advantage of the fact that he clearly did not understand much of what they were asking him. As a result, his responses were confusing and sometimes contradicted statements he had given previously. It wasn't that he was lying, it was that he truly didn't understand the questions. The judge finally had to intervene. The defendant in this case was proven innocent when a member of his community finally stepped forward to say that not only had he witnessed the event that took place in which the defendant was charged for, but he videotaped the event. The defendant was not present at the time of the sexual assault and the video captured the men who were.

Thank goodness for that, because the jury may well have convicted him otherwise.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Wiliam, you are becoming very defensive now. I didn't use the word at all. Read your posts. I don't remember posting to you. Read your posts.

Why Mr. Bell, I am not becoming defensive at all. I was trying to see if you were a man of your word. As another person likes to post, a reckless disregard for the truth shows a person's character (paraphrasing). You have just posted to me after I used the phrase the magnificent one. You told someone to learn how to spell. In America the words are spelled and defense. I simply wanted to alert you to that fact. In case, you are not aware, this is a public forum and all are encouraged, should they choose (redmama) to participate. I guess, with that said, it's okay, if you choose to go back on your word.;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

Not always. An innocent man still has to protect himself by all means possible when charged with a criminal offense. The best example, I think, being this - we have discussed on this forum the belief of some that Cochran was able to spin stories effectively to take the spotlight off of OJ and place it onto LAPD. Believe me when I say that prosecutors are capable of spinning stories just the same in an effort to guarantee a conviction of a person they are convinced is guilty.

I sat in on a trial once in which the defendant was a man in his forties who was uneducated and had difficulty understanding the terminology of the basic english language. When he took the stand to testify in own defense the prosecution took full advantage of the fact that he clearly did not understand much of what they were asking him. As a result, his responses were confusing and sometimes contradicted statements he had given previously. It wasn't that he was lying, it was that he truly didn't understand the questions. The judge finally had to intervene. The defendant in this case was proven innocent when a member of his community finally stepped forward to say that not only had he witnessed the event that took place in which the defendant was charged for, but he videotaped the event. The defendant was not present at the time of the sexual assault and the video captured the men who were.

Thank goodness for that, because the jury may well have convicted him otherwise.

Kate

If I might, a true post, imho. The presumption of innocence and the burden of proof and the right of confrontation are to be safeguarded above all things, imho. I think that those things should be scrutinized very carefully. I do believe that they may be over watched by some which may not always allow evidence of the truth to be ascertained. I also believe that people may become nervous and misspeak. That is why I think that the aforementioned concepts must be safeguarded. With that said, like most things in the law, there must be a balancing act, in which the defendant must decide if it is right or not for him to speak. However, in the instant case, MF, having decided to testify opened himself up to cross examination and the consequences that ensued.

[William Anthony]

What the hell is red Mama? i assume one of your 'in' words.

Defense and defence was not my point William. 'Huge' was my point.

I appreciate you attempting to cover for Martin.

Like sticking to the thread. Simpson. The civil trial. You know the one.

You have to do better than that.

There have been discussions on leading and following, if you care to lead the way to the civil thread, by all means do so, and I will not follow you;) :cool: . I will repeat something I said, yesterday. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[William Anthony]

What the hell is red Mama? i assume one of your 'in' words.



It was an invitation to a poster, who I think can discuss issues in an intelligent and civil manner.

[martin II]

Bell
how about you follow/keep your pledge to the community.

In case you don't know what i am talking about .see below.


07-23-2008, 12:40 PM
Joseph Bell
Member Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 341


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.

[martin II]

Martin, certainly you aren't instructing others to apologize?? I believe you also owe the board multiple apologies for things you've said.

However, I am curious about something. What's happened to raising the level of posting?

Issues in Somalia have no place or relevance to this forum. It doesn't matter if it was mentioned before, you're OT with it.

SHS

I am sorry but i cannot give you a answer that is in conflict with what the CJS requires just to satisfy your opinion of what you think it should require.imo:cool:

[William Anthony]

Perhaps an honest member of this community will correct the post on the civil thread which states that Simpson was found liable for Nicole's death? Pardon me for being OT.

[martin II]

What the hell is red Mama? i assume one of your 'in' words.

Defense and defence was not my point William. 'Huge' was my point.

I appreciate you attempting to cover for Martin.

Like sticking to the thread. Simpson. The civil trial. You know the one.

You have to do better than that.

Bell
Why have you changed the spelling of REDMAMAS nic?

[William Anthony]

Thank you and I hope there will not be too much backlash.

[William Anthony]

I watched a trial on Trutv, where a youth minister was convicted on circumstantial evidence of murdering one of the youths he pastored. The defense countered all the evidence, including the blood evidence, imho. If I were on the jury, I would have voted to convict, because it was alleged that he claimed not to have known the victim, even though he tried to revive him. It was that statement that made me want to convict. There were no statements from Simpson that were introduced in the criminal trial that would make me decide that the jury should have convicted. Words are very powerful and they lend themselves to the potential for abuse. This is why I believe a defendant should not take the stand, unless it is an absolute necessity. When I heard the defendant give his statement and maintain his innocence, calling on God to identify the true murderer and not blaming the jury, I second guessed but did not change the way I believed I would have voted.

[martin II]

Well, I see that the debate from one side hasn't improved. You don't have to tell anyone anything Martin. You need to learn how to spell.

An innocent man would be falling over his lawyer to get to the witness stand to tell the truth.

bell

It is obvious that you continue to not understand that the criminal trial was held in the u.s.a. not Australia where the law on defendants rights to remain silent are slightly different.
It was held in the city of Los Angeles.CA.

[martin II]

Bell
how about you follow/keep your pledge to the community.

In case you don't know what i am talking about .see below.


07-23-2008, 12:40 PM
Joseph Bell
Member Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 341


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.


First you should apologize to the community for stating that OJ WAS OUT LOOKING FOR SOME "FRIED CHICKEN". a obvious racial slur.IMO:flamemad:

[bobaugust]

Some. Some were not on trial. Who were these some? We have circumstantial testimonial evidence from which the reasonable inference can be drawn that Simpson would have had dandruff in his hair as he did in the summer months when he played golf, as he did that day. There is no evidence that he did not have dandruff. I reiterate, "Who were these some."

An expert witness testified that based on his experience of examining hair samples taken from inmates who have been incarcerated for a month or more it is not uncommon to find they have dandruff. He explained that may result from a change in conditions to what someone may be normally accustom to, shampoo changes, or how they take care of themselves. Deedrick was never asked by any attorney who these inmates were but one who we all know the name of is Orenthal James Simpson.

There is no circumstantial evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12, only circumstantial evidence that he sometimes had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he did not. Your inference based only on that testimony is not reasonable it's pure speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Someone leaves a light on when they leave their home and the assumption of a Westec employee are enough for me to assume that he/she is a victim. The truth, as Ito and, as you like to say, reasonable thinking people know is that Simpson was a suspect based on the indelible implant in MF's mind and the blood allegedly found on the Bronco before they invaded his home gave them probable cause, imho.

You have minimized the situation the detectives encountered at Rockingham. The fact that this someone's ex wife was savagely killed in a double homicide less than a five minute drive away and the fact that a blood spot was seen on his car and the fact that Westec told the police that a live in housekeeper should have been there and if Simpson was away they would have been notified yet no one was answering the gate bell or the telephone the detectives had good reasons to be concerned.

I agree with Kate Sachel that if "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."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

That may have been good enough in the socio-political production. However, in the criminal trial the alleged shoe print, if it was a shoe print, remained unidentified, i.e. not identified as a BM. Therefore, it was circular reasoning, just as your post is, imho, to say that they were excluded from being the source of a BM shoe print, because we say the unidentified possible shoe print was a BM. The standard of proof is much higher in a criminal trial. Some like to say 24% higher, whatever that means.

The fact is that in the criminal trial Bodziak testified he could not eliminate the partial shoe print from being made by a Silga sole based on the characteristics he could see. And the fact is that in the criminal trial Bodziak testified that he did exclude all the officer's shoes including Fuhrman's from making the imprints because the Silga design characteristics were totally different than any of the designs of the officer's shoes.

That is proof that Mark Fuhrman's shoes did not make the imprints at Bundy or the partial imprint on Simpson's Bronco carpet. The only person in this case who was later shown to be wearing shoes with the exact kind of sole that made the imprints at Bundy and on the Bronco carpet was Orenthal James Simpson.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Very interesting response. You ask for links, then ignore them when they are given. You do not respect the law, so ignore it and make up your own rules.;) :cool:

I never asked you for a link regarding this issue. What is interesting is that someone who claims to have studied law and is supposedly a lawyer argues that an inference that Simpson had dandruff on a specific day in June based only on a witness's opinion that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't is a reasonable inference when if fact it's pure speculation.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You have minimized the situation the detectives encountered at Rockingham. The fact that this someone's ex wife was savagely killed in a double homicide less than a five minute drive away and the fact that a blood spot was seen on his car and the fact that Westec told the police that a live in housekeeper should have been there and if Simpson was away they would have been notified yet no one was answering the gate bell or the telephone the detectives had good reasons to be concerned.

I agree with Kate Sachel that if "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."

bobaugust

I have not minimized anything. Despite what they found when they arrived, it is my opinion that the '85 incident was indelibly implanted in MF's mind and Simpson was a suspect at that time. Considering how MF felt about interracial couples, it is only reasonable that he was looking for a reason to invade Simpson's property. There is no requirement that Simpson had to tell Westec, if he was going out, say to McDonalds or anyplace else. The Westec employee did not know if the maid was there of not. What I am saying is that there may have been reasonable suspicion at that time but there was no probable cause to enter without obtaining a search warrant, absent the spot of blood allegedly found on the Bronco before the invasion.

I have not disagree with the assertion that, after being informed that Simpson should have been at home, there would have been outrage if the police had not entered. I believe they could have obtained a warrant and entered afterward under those conditions, because that would have only given them reasonable suspicion, imho. Let's put this in context, it was approximately seven hours after the murders and 3 hours after MF arrived on the scene when they decided to invade his premises. I think that, if a murderer was there to kill Simpson, he would have done it in that time span. I think that is why Ito admonished Vannatter.

[William Anthony]

An expert witness testified that based on his experience of examining hair samples taken from inmates who have been incarcerated for a month or more it is not uncommon to find they have dandruff. He explained that may result from a change in conditions to what someone may be normally accustom to, shampoo changes, or how they take care of themselves. Deedrick was never asked by any attorney who these inmates were but one who we all know the name of is Orenthal James Simpson.

There is no circumstantial evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12, only circumstantial evidence that he sometimes had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he did not. Your inference based only on that testimony is not reasonable it's pure speculation.

bobaugust

Where is the testimony that he examined any of these inmates before they were incarcerated and their hair had dandruff? "Changes that may result form", where is the testimony that there was change in their shampoos or hygiene?

You keep misplacing the burden of proof. I posted the link, showing what inferences are permissible to draw from circumstantial evidence, i. e. the policeman was in the store, (there was dandruff in the exemplar), requiring rebuttal evidence that the policeman was not there (dandruff was not there). They failed due to lack of evidence.

[William Anthony]

I never asked you for a link regarding this issue. What is interesting is that someone who claims to have studied law and is supposedly a lawyer argues that an inference that Simpson had dandruff on a specific day in June based only on a witness's opinion that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't is a reasonable inference when if fact it's pure speculation.

bobaugust

Another think that is interesting is that someone's arrogance will not allow them to learn. In response to the remainder of your post, see my response directly above.

[martin II]

I have not minimized anything. Despite what they found when they arrived, it is my opinion that the '85 incident was indelibly implanted in MF's mind and Simpson was a suspect at that time. Considering how MF felt about interracial couples, it is only reasonable that he was looking for a reason to invade Simpson's property. There is no requirement that Simpson had to tell Westec, if he was going out, say to McDonalds or anyplace else. The Westec employee did not know if the maid was there of not. What I am saying is that there may have been reasonable suspicion at that time but there was no probable cause to enter without obtaining a search warrant, absent the spot of blood allegedly found on the Bronco before the invasion.

I have not disagree with the assertion that, after being informed that Simpson should have been at home, there would have been outrage if the police had not entered. I believe they could have obtained a warrant and entered afterward under those conditions, because that would have only given them reasonable suspicion, imho. Let's put this in context, it was approximately seven hours after the murders and 3 hours after MF arrived on the scene when they decided to invade his premises. I think that, if a murderer was there to kill Simpson, he would have done it in that time span. I think that is why Ito admonished Vannatter.


The fact that they were not concerned for 10 hours about ojs safety does not show much concern.
Why were they not concerned if a killer had gone to the Browns to kill Nicoles parents.

[William Anthony]

The fact is that in the criminal trial Bodziak testified he could not eliminate the partial shoe print from being made by a Silga sole based on the characteristics he could see. And the fact is that in the criminal trial Bodziak testified that he did exclude all the officer's shoes including Fuhrman's from making the imprints because the Silga design characteristics were totally different than any of the designs of the officer's shoes.

That is proof that Mark Fuhrman's shoes did not make the imprints at Bundy or the partial imprint on Simpson's Bronco carpet. The only person in this case who was later shown to be wearing shoes with the exact kind of sole that made the imprints at Bundy and on the Bronco carpet was Orenthal James Simpson.

bobaugust

The fact is that the expert testified he could not, despite several overlays and examination of the alleged partial shoe print impression, say that is was a Sliga BM. Enough said. Therefore, his exclusion of LE members wearing Silga BMs is worthless, imho.

[William Anthony]

The fact that they were not concerned for 10 hours about ojs safety does not show much concern.
Why were they not concerned if a killer had gone to the Browns to kill Nicoles parents.

Since when did the former husband become next of Kin?

[William Anthony]

The fact that they were not concerned for 10 hours about ojs safety does not show much concern.
Why were they not concerned if a killer had gone to the Browns to kill Nicoles parents.

Once they found out he was in Chicago, why didn't they leave? Oh yeah, bloody glove MF allegedly found the glove in the meantime. What a happenstance. ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/immediate

[martin II]

I never asked you for a link regarding this issue. What is interesting is that someone who claims to have studied law and is supposedly a lawyer argues that an inference that Simpson had dandruff on a specific day in June based only on a witness's opinion that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't is a reasonable inference when if fact it's pure speculation.

bobaugust

BOB
Do agree with the contents of the link given?

[martin II]

Once they found out he was in Chicago, why didn't they leave? Oh yeah, bloody glove MF allegedly found the glove in the meantime. What a happenstance. ;) :cool:

In Some cities i believe a search warrant can be obtained from a judge by phone.So it may have been possible to get a warrant while they were standing at the gate, plotting.Vanhatter called Clarke to help him write the search warrant to reinvade ojs property.imo

[martin II]

The cheap magician's trick was allegedly finding a glove with no evidence of blood anywhere around it but a blood trail consistent with Simpson having been in his Rockingham driveway and on that street and entering his house via that route, combined with missing blood and EDTA results that are indicative of a dead person, imho.

Vanhatter did a magicians trick on the search warrant judge when he told him he had found blood on the Bronco before the spot had been tested and proven to be blood.imo

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

As I posted before, I think it should be a law where the defendant can't take the stand. There are too many instances when jurors have made comments about the defendant's manner on the stand that had nothing to do with the evidence. Example--a defendant on the stand who cries, I can't ever remember a juror commenting that they believed the defendant's tears were genuine. Or the defendant showed no remorse--well how do you show remorse if you are not guilty. Or if the defendant "looks" guilty, well is that because they did the actual crime or is the defendant looking guilty because he believes that had he been a better friend or whatever, this person would still be alive.

Also, any lawyer knows how to push a defendant's buttons---in fact, it is their job to do so. They know how to ask the same questions in many different ways and as soon as one word is changed, the defendant is lying.

In all honestly, if you were a defendant in a criminal trial, I am sure the DA's could find something in your past that they can use against you. We all have stuff in our closet and you bet that they will find it.

If I was a lawyer, and the Pope was my client, I wouldn't put him on the stand. Again, IMO. I believe many defendant's do believe that they want to testify but once they get prepped for the DA's, many realize that they would do their selves more harm then good.

In this case, OJ Simpson did not have to take the stand because the defense destroyed the DA's case. Why open that door when you don't have to? Not every person makes a great witness, IMO.

[William Anthony]

A journey does not begin with the first step. It begins with thoughts of where you want to go, why you want to go there and what you will do when you get there. You must plan your trip and make preparations to reach your destination.

[William Anthony]

Vanhatter did a magicians trick on the search warrant judge when he told him he had found blood on the Bronco before the spot had been tested and proven to be blood.imo

Let's not forget that staged Peratis video that the prosecution pulled out of the hat, or Martz talking when he should have been dead.

[martin II]

Let's not forget that staged Peratis video that the prosecution pulled out of the hat, or Martz talking when he should have been dead.

Mazzola magic

NOW I SEE IT , NOW I DON'T.
I think that is correct hahaha

[martin II]

Mr. Bell,

As I posted before, I think it should be a law where the defendant can't take the stand. There are too many instances when jurors have made comments about the defendant's manner on the stand that had nothing to do with the evidence. Example--a defendant on the stand who cries, I can't ever remember a juror commenting that they believed the defendant's tears were genuine. Or the defendant showed no remorse--well how do you show remorse if you are not guilty. Or if the defendant "looks" guilty, well is that because they did the actual crime or is the defendant looking guilty because he believes that had he been a better friend or whatever, this person would still be alive.

Also, any lawyer knows how to push a defendant's buttons---in fact, it is their job to do so. They know how to ask the same questions in many different ways and as soon as one word is changed, the defendant is lying.

In all honestly, if you were a defendant in a criminal trial, I am sure the DA's could find something in your past that they can use against you. We all have stuff in our closet and you bet that they will find it.

If I was a lawyer, and the Pope was my client, I wouldn't put him on the stand. Again, IMO. I believe many defendant's do believe that they want to testify but once they get prepped for the DA's, many realize that they would do their selves more harm then good.

In this case, OJ Simpson did not have to take the stand because the defense destroyed the DA's case. Why open that door when you don't have to? Not every person makes a great witness, IMO.

lIMAKEY
Very good observations and right on point.imo

[William Anthony]

Mazzola magic

NOW I SEE IT , NOW I DON'T.
I think that is correct hahaha

And the socks, the blood in (pun intended) the Bronco and on the gate and a bloody glove still moist several hours later with no signs of disturbance around where it was allegedly found. Now you see them (pun intended), now you don't. The prosecution was extraordinary conjurers, imho.

[William Anthony]

I did find in an argument on September 21st where Kellberg said Park said Simpson told him Simpson was taking a nap. I guess that testimony was admitted. I think that anyone interested in the law may want to read that argument. Kellberg wanted a jury instruction to be given to consider the statement as an admission. I don't know how, if the hearsay statement was admitted under any exception that it was not admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted, it could have then be argued that it constituted an admission.
In other words, if it was not admitted to prove that Simpson told Park that, then how can the prosecution then say Simpson lied?

[William Anthony]

"q: By ms. Clark: After you -- you indicated that you sat for another thirty seconds. Why did you sit for another thirty seconds in your car after you hung up?

A: Because i was waiting for the gate to be opened. I figured somebody is home, they saw me and they are going to let me in.

Q: And did kato kaelin come over to let you in?

A: No, he didn't.

Q: And did the six-foot 200-pound person dressed in all dark clothing come to let you in?

A: No.

Q: And after thirty seconds what did you do?

A: That is when i got back up and out of the car and rang the intercom. This time there was an answer, which was mr. Simpson. He told me that he overslept and he just got out of the shower and he would be down in a minute.

Q: Okay. How many times did you have to ring the buzzer this time before it was answered?

Mr. Cochran: Object to the form of the question, how many times did you have to ring the buzzer.

The court: Overruled. You can answer the question.

The witness: Can you repeat it?

Q: By ms. Clark: How many times did you have to ring the buzzer this time before it was answered?

A: Oh, it was just -- he answered it pretty much immediately."

[martin II]

"q: By ms. Clark: After you -- you indicated that you sat for another thirty seconds. Why did you sit for another thirty seconds in your car after you hung up?

A: Because i was waiting for the gate to be opened. I figured somebody is home, they saw me and they are going to let me in.

Q: And did kato kaelin come over to let you in?

A: No, he didn't.

Q: And did the six-foot 200-pound person dressed in all dark clothing come to let you in?

A: No.

Q: And after thirty seconds what did you do?

A: That is when i got back up and out of the car and rang the intercom. This time there was an answer, which was mr. Simpson. He told me that he overslept and he just got out of the shower and he would be down in a minute.

Q: Okay. How many times did you have to ring the buzzer this time before it was answered?

Mr. Cochran: Object to the form of the question, how many times did you have to ring the buzzer.

The court: Overruled. You can answer the question.

The witness: Can you repeat it?

Q: By ms. Clark: How many times did you have to ring the buzzer this time before it was answered?

A: Oh, it was just -- he answered it pretty much immediately."


When the Buzzer was pushed from the Ashford gate it did not ring to a Buzzer in the house but to a telephone in the house.If oj had taken a short nap and then was in the shower he would not have heard the phone.
Nap,shower, put black bathrobe, bring two bags down to front porch, Park see AA black bathrobe,oj returns to upstairs, slips into clothes comes back down stairs with LV bag, helps pack limo and leave.Park goes blind when leaving rockingham gate. When he looks feft he sees parked car. When he looks right he goes blind as he says he did not see the bronck 3-4 feet away.imo

[William Anthony]

When the Buzzer was pushed from the Ashford gate it did not ring to a Buzzer in the house but to a telephone in the house.If oj had taken a short nap and then was in the shower he would not have heard the phone.
Nap,shower, put black bathrobe, bring two bags down to front porch, Park see AA black bathrobe,oj returns to upstairs, slips into clothes comes back down stairs with LV bag, helps pack limo and leave.Park goes blind when leaving rockingham gate. When he looks feft he sees parked car. When he looks right he goes blind as he says he did not see the bronck 3-4 feet away.imo

I agree that there were serious credibility issues with his testimony. What I don't understand is why the testimony of what Simpson allegedly said to him was not objected to, unless the statement had been ruled upon previously. In any event, regarding Kellberg's argument to make the hearsay statement an admission, DU explained it this way, which I tend to agree. I do not know for a fact how Ito ruled on the argument but I suspect that jury instruction was not given. In the colloquy it was seemingly admitted that the statement was hearsay. In any event, here is what DU said.

MR. UELMEN: Your Honor, I would like to comment on that because I think that highlights the risk of prejudice of giving 2.71 and 2.72. Statements of admission of prior similar crimes that are offered for the limited purpose of showing the intent or motive or common scheme or plan are not admissions of the crime for which the Defendant is on trial. The 271 and 272 specifically address the admission of the offense that the Defendant is being tried for and 272 cautions the jury with respect to a finding of guilt based upon that evidence.

"To suggest to this jury that there are any admissions on this record is very dangerous and highly prejudicial to the Defendant. The only evidence the Prosecution is pointing to are statements that they are going to argue are false and because they are false, you can infer a consciousness of guilt, if they are true, they are exculpatory statements, they are not admissions; and they're trying to set up a double bind and say to the jury regardless of whether you find these statements true or false, you can use them against the Defendant, use them as an admission if they're true, use them as a false exculpatory statement if they're false. You can't have it both ways. They are not admissions. They are exculpatory statements."

I think he pointed out the circular reasoning that the prosecution frequently employed and showed how desperate they were.

[martin II]

And the socks, the blood in (pun intended) the Bronco and on the gate and a bloody glove still moist several hours later with no signs of disturbance around where it was allegedly found. Now you see them (pun intended), now you don't. The prosecution was extraordinary conjurers, imho.

What is also strange is that Furhman knew exactly how to get to the area of the fence where the glove was 'FOUND' from the salangers property,when he went to pick up that blue piece of paper.imo

[William Anthony]

What is also strange is that Furhman knew exactly how to get to the area of the fence where the glove was 'FOUND' from the salangers property,when he went to pick up that blue piece of paper.imo

Was that blue piece of paper entered into evidence?

[William Anthony]

Here is a link to a case on the section of the Cal. Evidence Code that Kellberg argued supported the hearsay statement as an admission.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Y9XqcL1qiN0J:caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/a072142m.pdf+california+evidence+code+section+2.03&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

Here is what that court ruled and its reasoning.

"Here, the instruction was not proper because evidence of appellant’s pretrial
statement was lacking. The only reference to appellant’s pretrial statement to the police was his affirmative response to the prosecutor’s question that he told Officer Bello what happened when he was stopped after the incident. Contrary to the Attorney General’s suggestion, we cannot infer from appellant’s response to this question that his pretrial statement was fabricated. Appellant’s pretrial statement was not before the jury. The
trial court did not permit appellant to testify as to his pretrial statement nor was appellant permitted to elicit his pretrial statement to Officer Bello during Bello’stestimony. Hence, there was no evidentiary support for the instruction. (Cf. People v.Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 141 [defendant’s statements to his mother that he did not intend to stab the victim and acted reflexively were contrary to testimony given by eyewitnesses and provided the evidentiary support for the instruction].) The error in instructing on CALJIC NO. 2.03 compounded the trial court’s evidentiary error and cast further doubt on appellant’s credibility. We can only conclude that the errors deprived appellant of a fair trial."

[William Anthony]

Martin,

I found the answer to my own question but the testimony caused me more concern. By MF, using the scoop method, he may have avoided questions concerning his trace of fingerprints being found on the wrapper. The brilliant Bailey asked him about carrying items in plastic.

"Q: NOW, IN ADDITION TO THE GLOVE, AT APPROXIMATELY 9:30 OR SO, WAS THERE ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT WAS COLLECTED BY EITHER YOURSELF OR ANYONE ELSE IN YOUR PRESENCE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT?

A: THAT WAS A BLUE PLASTIC BAG OR CONTAINER OF SOME SORT.

Q: AND WHAT ITEM NUMBER DID YOU ASSIGN THAT?

A: THAT WAS ITEM NO. 10.

Q: DID YOU SEE THE PACKAGING FOR THAT BEING THE ITEM THAT YOU TOOK OUT AND DESCRIBED AS NO. 10 A LITTLE EARLIER?

A: YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, HE IS HOLDING UP WHAT APPEARS TO BE A COIN ENVELOPE WITH RED -- RED TAPE AND BLUE TAPE ON IT.

THE WITNESS: RED, YELLOW AND BLUE.

MR. GOLDBERG: KIND OF FESTIVE LOOKING.

Q: AND HOW DID YOU FIRST GET POSSESSION OF THAT ITEM, 10, BACK AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: ITEM 10?

Q: YEAH.

A: THAT ITEM WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN COLLECTED IT AND HANDED IT TO ME OVER THE FENCE.

Q: AND WHAT WAS IT?

A: THE --

Q: THE ITEM THAT HE COLLECTED?

A: IT WAS A BLUE PLASTIC CONTAINER OF SOME SORT, BAGGIE OR SOMETHING. I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHAT EXACTLY IT WAS.

Q: OKAY. BUT WAS IT A HARD TYPE PACKAGE OR A SOFT BAG-LIKE PACKAGE?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WHEN I SAY "HARD" I MEAN LIKE TUPPERWARE OR IS IT MORE LIKE A BAGGIE TYPE MATERIAL?

A: NO, IT IS MORE OF A SOFT PLASTIC.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WAS THAT THE LAST ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED OR WAS COLLECTED IN YOUR PRESENCE AT ROCKINGHAM THAT MORNING?

A: YES.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, YOU SAID THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE BAGGIE WAS, ITEM NO. 10. DID IT LOOK SIMILAR TO ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE EVER SEEN BEFORE?

A: NO. IT MAY HAVE BEEN -- IT MAY HAVE BEEN A GAUZE WRAPPER, BUT I'M NOT SURE.

Q: COULD IT HAVE BEEN A SANITARY NAPKIN TYPE WRAPPER?

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED, LEADING.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: COULD IT HAVE BEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN A GAUZE?

A: IT COULD HAVE BEEN. "

Pure speculation on my part, smile.

[martin II]

What is also strange is that Furhman knew exactly how to get to the area of the fence where the glove was 'FOUND' from the salangers property,when he went to pick up that blue piece of paper.imo

With a 98% conviction rate by the la DAS office i think they may have been use to just over-running most regular underpaid defense lawyers that could not hire investigators and expert lawyers to assist with the defense effort to defend the client. After the rush to indict Oj they were faced with a defense
team that proved to be too stiff and skilled for them. When they ran into a hole in their case they employed tricks that they had been successful using before. But the defense in this case presented expert skilled lawyers to meet then head on at every hole.

It was reported that after daily trial activity, G.Garcetti met with the prosecution as they mapped next day stratergy. I have always believe that he did not receive the blame he should have reveived for the loss. All of the blame was given to Darden and Clarke, the on camera two.
imo

[William Anthony]

With a 98% conviction rate by the la DAS office i think they may have been use to just over-running most regular underpaid defense lawyers that could not hire investigators and expert lawyers to assist with the defense effort to defend the client. After the rush to indict Oj they were faced with a defense
team that proved to be too stiff and skilled for them. When they ran into a hole in their case they employed tricks that they had been successful using before. But the defense in this case presented expert skilled lawyers to meet then head on at every hole.

It was reported that after daily trial activity, G.Garcetti met with the prosecution as they mapped next day stratergy. I have always believe that he did not receive the blame he should have reveived for the loss. All of the blame was given to Darden and Clarke, the on camera two.
imo

I agree and Harmon's abrasiveness left a sour taste in the jury's mouth, imho. To me, the only one who came off professional on the prosecution's team was the male with the last name Clarke, and, maybe Yochkelson, who was boring to me.

[martin II]

Martin,

I found the answer to my own question but the testimony caused me more concern. By MF, using the scoop method, he may have avoided questions concerning his trace of fingerprints being found on the wrapper. The brilliant Bailey asked him about carrying items in plastic.

"Q: NOW, IN ADDITION TO THE GLOVE, AT APPROXIMATELY 9:30 OR SO, WAS THERE ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT WAS COLLECTED BY EITHER YOURSELF OR ANYONE ELSE IN YOUR PRESENCE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT?

A: THAT WAS A BLUE PLASTIC BAG OR CONTAINER OF SOME SORT.

Q: AND WHAT ITEM NUMBER DID YOU ASSIGN THAT?

A: THAT WAS ITEM NO. 10.

Q: DID YOU SEE THE PACKAGING FOR THAT BEING THE ITEM THAT YOU TOOK OUT AND DESCRIBED AS NO. 10 A LITTLE EARLIER?

A: YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, HE IS HOLDING UP WHAT APPEARS TO BE A COIN ENVELOPE WITH RED -- RED TAPE AND BLUE TAPE ON IT.

THE WITNESS: RED, YELLOW AND BLUE.

MR. GOLDBERG: KIND OF FESTIVE LOOKING.

Q: AND HOW DID YOU FIRST GET POSSESSION OF THAT ITEM, 10, BACK AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: ITEM 10?

Q: YEAH.

A: THAT ITEM WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN COLLECTED IT AND HANDED IT TO ME OVER THE FENCE.

Q: AND WHAT WAS IT?

A: THE --

Q: THE ITEM THAT HE COLLECTED?

A: IT WAS A BLUE PLASTIC CONTAINER OF SOME SORT, BAGGIE OR SOMETHING. I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHAT EXACTLY IT WAS.

Q: OKAY. BUT WAS IT A HARD TYPE PACKAGE OR A SOFT BAG-LIKE PACKAGE?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WHEN I SAY "HARD" I MEAN LIKE TUPPERWARE OR IS IT MORE LIKE A BAGGIE TYPE MATERIAL?

A: NO, IT IS MORE OF A SOFT PLASTIC.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WAS THAT THE LAST ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED OR WAS COLLECTED IN YOUR PRESENCE AT ROCKINGHAM THAT MORNING?

A: YES.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, YOU SAID THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE BAGGIE WAS, ITEM NO. 10. DID IT LOOK SIMILAR TO ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE EVER SEEN BEFORE?

A: NO. IT MAY HAVE BEEN -- IT MAY HAVE BEEN A GAUZE WRAPPER, BUT I'M NOT SURE.

Q: COULD IT HAVE BEEN A SANITARY NAPKIN TYPE WRAPPER?

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED, LEADING.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: COULD IT HAVE BEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN A GAUZE?

A: IT COULD HAVE BEEN. "

Pure speculation on my part, smile.

Well it seems that furhman appointed himself as a evidence collector when he went to the sallangers property and collected that piece of paper/plastic bag.

If there were fingerprints on the bag from the person that left the bag, furhman destroyed any opportunity for identification when he picked up the bag with no gloves on. It seems there may have been two investigations that day. One by vanhatter and Lang and another independant one by Furhman.

Why was furhman in such a hurry to collect that bag that he went and picked it up himself. What is the possibility that the glove found on the other side of the fence was brought to that location in THAT plastic bag?
imo

[William Anthony]

Well it seems that furhman appointed himself as a evidence collector when he went to the sallangers property and collected that piece of paper/plastic bag.

If there were fingerprints on the bag from the person that left the bag, furhman destroyed any opportunity for identification when he picked up the bag with no gloves on. It seems there may have been two investigations that day. One by vanhatter and Lang and another independant one by Furhman.

Why was furhman in such a hurry to collect that bag that he went and picked it up himself. What is the possibility that the glove found on the other side of the fence was brought to that location in THAT plastic bag?
imo

Why did he walk down that side of the fence with DF and not with the other detectives? Was he looking for something that he was afraid the other detectives might recognize as belonging to him?

[martin II]

Martin,

I found the answer to my own question but the testimony caused me more concern. By MF, using the scoop method, he may have avoided questions concerning his trace of fingerprints being found on the wrapper. The brilliant Bailey asked him about carrying items in plastic.

"Q: NOW, IN ADDITION TO THE GLOVE, AT APPROXIMATELY 9:30 OR SO, WAS THERE ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT WAS COLLECTED BY EITHER YOURSELF OR ANYONE ELSE IN YOUR PRESENCE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT?

A: THAT WAS A BLUE PLASTIC BAG OR CONTAINER OF SOME SORT.

Q: AND WHAT ITEM NUMBER DID YOU ASSIGN THAT?

A: THAT WAS ITEM NO. 10.

Q: DID YOU SEE THE PACKAGING FOR THAT BEING THE ITEM THAT YOU TOOK OUT AND DESCRIBED AS NO. 10 A LITTLE EARLIER?

A: YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, HE IS HOLDING UP WHAT APPEARS TO BE A COIN ENVELOPE WITH RED -- RED TAPE AND BLUE TAPE ON IT.

THE WITNESS: RED, YELLOW AND BLUE.

MR. GOLDBERG: KIND OF FESTIVE LOOKING.

Q: AND HOW DID YOU FIRST GET POSSESSION OF THAT ITEM, 10, BACK AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: ITEM 10?

Q: YEAH.

A: THAT ITEM WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN COLLECTED IT AND HANDED IT TO ME OVER THE FENCE.

Q: AND WHAT WAS IT?

A: THE --

Q: THE ITEM THAT HE COLLECTED?

A: IT WAS A BLUE PLASTIC CONTAINER OF SOME SORT, BAGGIE OR SOMETHING. I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHAT EXACTLY IT WAS.

Q: OKAY. BUT WAS IT A HARD TYPE PACKAGE OR A SOFT BAG-LIKE PACKAGE?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WHEN I SAY "HARD" I MEAN LIKE TUPPERWARE OR IS IT MORE LIKE A BAGGIE TYPE MATERIAL?

A: NO, IT IS MORE OF A SOFT PLASTIC.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WAS THAT THE LAST ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED OR WAS COLLECTED IN YOUR PRESENCE AT ROCKINGHAM THAT MORNING?

A: YES.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, YOU SAID THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE BAGGIE WAS, ITEM NO. 10. DID IT LOOK SIMILAR TO ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE EVER SEEN BEFORE?

A: NO. IT MAY HAVE BEEN -- IT MAY HAVE BEEN A GAUZE WRAPPER, BUT I'M NOT SURE.

Q: COULD IT HAVE BEEN A SANITARY NAPKIN TYPE WRAPPER?

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED, LEADING.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: COULD IT HAVE BEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN A GAUZE?

A: IT COULD HAVE BEEN. "

Pure speculation on my part, smile.


So between the time Furhman collected the bag and gave it to Fung and when Fung testified above, Fung nor the lab had examined the bag to determine what it was.imo

[William Anthony]

So between the time Furhman collected the bag and gave it to Fung and when Fung testified above, Fung nor the lab had examined the bag to determine what it was.imo

In fairness to the, imho, Keystone cops, if they had not checked the other side of the fence for evidence prior to DF's arrival, then it is entirely possible that Simpson was not a suspect to them until MF allegedly found the glove or, either they were so gleeful that Simpson was a suspect, they forgot investigation 101. ;):cool: In anticipation of the argument that I have called them the Keystone Cops and say that they are smart enough to engage in a cover up, let me say that once they had dismissed the one they could not trust, MF, they were free to focus on covering up his mess, imho.

[martin II]

Why did he walk down that side of the fence with DF and not with the other detectives? Was he looking for something that he was afraid the other detectives might recognize as belonging to him?

Bailey suggested that furhman knew, as a exmarine, how to carry a item in a plastic bag held in his sock so as to appear to not be carrying anything.

Did lapd issue detectives latex gloves, plastic bags along with highway flares
for energency situations.Why would Furhman pick up a piece of evidence with his bare hands?

[martin II]

Why did he walk down that side of the fence with DF and not with the other detectives? Was he looking for something that he was afraid the other detectives might recognize as belonging to him?

When furhman said he 'FOUND' the glove in the south walkway he says he backtracked and asked another detective, i believe Lang to come and see.

When he saw the blue baggie, he told Fung, you go that way and i will go pick it up for you. A change of procedure for some reason. imo
Actually furhman reversed the roles. Fung should have been on the salangers property where the evidence was so HE could collect it and furhman should have been on the oj side of the fence if it required two people to pick up a piece of paper.imo

[William Anthony]

When furhman said he 'FOUND' the glove in the south walkway he says he backtraced and asked another detective, i believe Lang to come and see.

When he saw the blue baggie, he told Fung, you go that way and i will go pick it up for you. A change of procedure for some reason. imo
Actually furhman reversed the roles. Fung should have been on the salangers property where the evidence was so HE could collect it and furhman should have been on the oj side of the fence if it required two people to pick up a piece of paper.imo

I wonder if DF asked MF if he knew what the baggie was or used for?

[martin II]

I wonder if DF asked MF if he knew what the baggie was or used for?

correction
Backtracked.

[martin II]

I wonder if DF asked MF if he knew what the baggie was or used for?

If DF was asked if he asked MF that quesion, he may have answered, I DON'T REMEMBER or MABY IT WAS MOZZOLA THAT TOOK THE BAG FROM MF. I THINK.IMO

[bobaugust]

I have not minimized anything. Despite what they found when they arrived, it is my opinion that the '85 incident was indelibly implanted in MF's mind and Simpson was a suspect at that time. Considering how MF felt about interracial couples, it is only reasonable that he was looking for a reason to invade Simpson's property. There is no requirement that Simpson had to tell Westec, if he was going out, say to McDonalds or anyplace else. The Westec employee did not know if the maid was there of not. What I am saying is that there may have been reasonable suspicion at that time but there was no probable cause to enter without obtaining a search warrant, absent the spot of blood allegedly found on the Bronco before the invasion.

I have not disagree with the assertion that, after being informed that Simpson should have been at home, there would have been outrage if the police had not entered. I believe they could have obtained a warrant and entered afterward under those conditions, because that would have only given them reasonable suspicion, imho. Let's put this in context, it was approximately seven hours after the murders and 3 hours after MF arrived on the scene when they decided to invade his premises. I think that, if a murderer was there to kill Simpson, he would have done it in that time span. I think that is why Ito admonished Vannatter.

This was not about Mark Fuhrman or how you imagine he felt, this was a decision made by the Robbery Homicide detectives who had no reason to suspect Simpson of any crime. The detectives spent considerable time outside Simpson's estate before they entered, 45 minutes, when they originally believe they would be back at Bundy in 20 minutes or less to process the crime scene. Putting together what they then knew, lights on, blood on Simpson's car, no one answering, something's wrong, what if Simpson and his maid are in trouble in there? They all agreed that a potential emergency existed and they should enter Simpson's estate. You can speculate all you want in hind site but if it had turned out there was a victim in Simpson's house the detectives would have been applauded for their decision.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Where is the testimony that he examined any of these inmates before they were incarcerated and their hair had dandruff? "Changes that may result form", where is the testimony that there was change in their shampoos or hygiene?

You keep misplacing the burden of proof. I posted the link, showing what inferences are permissible to draw from circumstantial evidence, i. e. the policeman was in the store, (there was dandruff in the exemplar), requiring rebuttal evidence that the policeman was not there (dandruff was not there). They failed due to lack of evidence.

The reality is that being in jail is not the same as being in ones own home. The conditions are quite different for most people and especially for a wealthy celebrity. Most people understand that without having to hear testimony regarding specifically how jail conditions differ from normal life conditions.

Burden of proof? You keep forgetting that no one in this case ever claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. But because Simpson's hair had dandruff over a month after the murders over a month after he was incarcerated the prosecutors offered a reasonable common sense explanation as to why. A reasonable common sense explanation that was never challenged or contradicted by the defense.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Another think that is interesting is that someone's arrogance will not allow them to learn. In response to the remainder of your post, see my response directly above.

Another thing that is interesting is how someone's arrogance will not allow them to admit they are wrong calling a inference reasonable that is based only on a witness's speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The fact is that the expert testified he could not, despite several overlays and examination of the alleged partial shoe print impression, say that is was a Sliga BM. Enough said. Therefore, his exclusion of LE members wearing Silga BMs is worthless, imho.

Bodziak testified that because he could see some characteristics in the partial bloody shoe print that were similar to the Silga sole he could not eliminate the partial shoe print from being made by a shoe with a Silga sole.

Bodziak testified that because the Silga design characteristics were totally different than any of the designs of the officer's shoes including Mark Fuhrman's shoes he eliminated all those shoes from making the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. That fact also eliminated Fuhrman's shoes from making the partial shoe print on the Bronco carpet that had some similar characteristics as a Silga sole.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

This was not about Mark Fuhrman or how you imagine he felt, this was a decision made by the Robbery Homicide detectives who had no reason to suspect Simpson of any crime. The detectives spent considerable time outside Simpson's estate before they entered, 45 minutes, when they originally believe they would be back at Bundy in 20 minutes or less to process the crime scene. Putting together what they then knew, lights on, blood on Simpson's car, no one answering, something's wrong, what if Simpson and his maid are in trouble in there? They all agreed that a potential emergency existed and they should enter Simpson's estate. You can speculate all you want in hind site but if it had turned out there was a victim in Simpson's house the detectives would have been applauded for their decision.

bobaugust

As much as you may like to take MF out of the equation, you cannot. He knew who Nicole was and would have not been doing his duty, if he had not informed robbery homicide or her identity, imho. They would not have made the decision to invade his property absent MF's alleged finding of the blood on the Bronco. Whether someone applauded their decision or, as in this case, suspected them of telling untruths is irrelevant as it relates to reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Absent the alleged finding of blood on the Bronco and I am really unsure as to that equating to probable cause, the invasion without a search warrant, was illegal. If they waited 45 minutes, that does not mean that they didn't consider a suspect. Your statement that they agreed they had a potential emergency negates probable cause. Thanks.

[William Anthony]

The reality is that being in jail is not the same as being in ones own home. The conditions are quite different for most people and especially for a wealthy celebrity. Most people understand that without having to hear testimony regarding specifically how jail conditions differ from normal life conditions.

Burden of proof? You keep forgetting that no one in this case ever claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. But because Simpson's hair had dandruff over a month after the murders over a month after he was incarcerated the prosecutors offered a reasonable common sense explanation as to why. A reasonable common sense explanation that was never challenged or contradicted by the defense.

bobaugust

It is not the jail conditions that matter. It is whether or not he was able to use the same shampoo he had previously used and whether or not he kept his hygiene up while in jail.

Just as you want to ignore MF's involvement in what I consider to be an illegal search of Simpson's premises, you want to ignore the burden of proof. The prosecution maintained that Simpson wore that cap on the night of the murders and that the hairs found in it that they claimed were Simpson's did not have dandruff. Therefore, the prosecution had to provide evidence that tended to prove those three claims. Ms. Moore provided the circumstantial evidence that Simpson's hair had dandruff during off season and more so when he played golf. The prosecution failed to rebut any inference that could reasonably be drawn from her testimony, with the expert's ifs, maybe, could haves and assumptions, imho. The defense did not have to challenge a bunch of ifs, maybes, could haves or assumptions. They relied on the sophistication of the jury to see that the prosecution did not meet its burden, imho. The burden of proof remained on the prosecution throughout the trial.

[William Anthony]

Another thing that is interesting is how someone's arrogance will not allow them to admit they are wrong calling a inference reasonable that is based only on a witness's speculation.

bobaugust

I take it then you feel that you are above the Supreme Court, more intelligent and knowledgeable than the judge and the lawyers in the case, and are angered that M. Clark wasted tax payer dollars crossing on the issue of dandruff.

[William Anthony]

Bodziak testified that because he could see some characteristics in the partial bloody shoe print that were similar to the Silga sole he could not eliminate the partial shoe print from being made by a shoe with a Silga sole.

Bodziak testified that because the Silga design characteristics were totally different than any of the designs of the officer's shoes including Mark Fuhrman's shoes he eliminated all those shoes from making the bloody shoe prints at Bundy. That fact also eliminated Fuhrman's shoes from making the partial shoe print on the Bronco carpet that had some similar characteristics as a Silga sole.

bobaugust

I refuse to engage in your argument based on circular reasoning. I posted the testimony and he could not determine if that was a BM. Therefore, the claim that LE shoes were not BM is worthless, imho.

[William Anthony]

Mr. bobaugust,

I found this link that may explain what appears to me your basic misunderstanding as to what a reasonable inference is. You seem to want to change a reasonable inference into a necessary inference, which, imho, misplaces the burden of proof.

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/609-what-is-a-necessary-inference

“Reasonable” inferences suggest a likely possibility."

[bobaugust]

As much as you may like to take MF out of the equation, you cannot. He knew who Nicole was and would have not been doing his duty, if he had not informed robbery homicide or her identity, imho. They would not have made the decision to invade his property absent MF's alleged finding of the blood on the Bronco. Whether someone applauded their decision or, as in this case, suspected them of telling untruths is irrelevant as it relates to reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Absent the alleged finding of blood on the Bronco and I am really unsure as to that equating to probable cause, the invasion without a search warrant, was illegal. If they waited 45 minutes, that does not mean that they didn't consider a suspect. Your statement that they agreed they had a potential emergency negates probable cause. Thanks.

Judge Ito evidently disagreed with your opinion.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

It is not the jail conditions that matter. It is whether or not he was able to use the same shampoo he had previously used and whether or not he kept his hygiene up while in jail.

Just as you want to ignore MF's involvement in what I consider to be an illegal search of Simpson's premises, you want to ignore the burden of proof. The prosecution maintained that Simpson wore that cap on the night of the murders and that the hairs found in it that they claimed were Simpson's did not have dandruff. Therefore, the prosecution had to provide evidence that tended to prove those three claims. Ms. Moore provided the circumstantial evidence that Simpson's hair had dandruff during off season and more so when he played golf. The prosecution failed to rebut any inference that could reasonably be drawn from her testimony, with the expert's ifs, maybe, could haves and assumptions, imho. The defense did not have to challenge a bunch of ifs, maybes, could haves or assumptions. They relied on the sophistication of the jury to see that the prosecution did not meet its burden, imho. The burden of proof remained on the prosecution throughout the trial.

This discussion is about your claims William not what the criminal jury believed. I don't know and I doubt if you know that the criminal jury even considered this an issue let alone inferred anything from Moore's testimony. No defense lawyer in this case ever claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 or that there was evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. Only you have made that claim William. The fact is that there was and is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and based on Moore's speculation that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't your inference is simply unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I take it then you feel that you are above the Supreme Court, more intelligent and knowledgeable than the judge and the lawyers in the case, and are angered that M. Clark wasted tax payer dollars crossing on the issue of dandruff.

The Supreme Court has nothing to do with your illogical speculative inference. No lawyer in this case ever claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 or that there was evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 because there was and is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. No I'm not angered with Clark regarding this issue because it wasn't really an issue and Clark didn't spend very much time on it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I refuse to engage in your argument based on circular reasoning. I posted the testimony and he could not determine if that was a BM. Therefore, the claim that LE shoes were not BM is worthless, imho.

There is no circular reasoning here only a logical reasonable inference based on the physical evidence unlike inferences you have made that are based only on speculation and imagination..

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Judge Ito evidently disagreed with your opinion.

bobaugust

That is your statement, bobaugust, as to what they agreed. I think Ito recognized, as I did, that the blood allegedly found on the Bronco before the invasion was tantamount to probable cause. Judge Ito also felt like I did by his statement that Vannatter recklessly disregarded the truth means that he, like me, felt that they went there because they thought Simpson was a suspect. Why else lie about the spot on the Bronco being blood before any testing was done to show it was blood?

[William Anthony]

The Supreme Court has nothing to do with your illogical speculative inference. No lawyer in this case ever claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 or that there was evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 because there was and is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. No I'm not angered with Clark regarding this issue because it wasn't really an issue and Clark didn't spend very much time on it.

bobaugust

you do realize that the prosecution's case was purely circumstantial, don't you? The defense provided Ms. Moore's circumstantial testimonial evidence on dandruff. The link that I provided supplied the basis for allowing inferences to be drawn and showed the burden of proof on the issues. You seem to think that you do not need to study law to know as much as the lawyers and judges in the Simpson case. The defense offered Ms. Moore as a witness and submitted a proffer. The prosecution did not object and the judge did not declare her testimony irrelevant. Ergo, it was decided that Ms. Moore had relevant testimony on a material issue in the trial. Ergo, the jury was allowed to draw inferences from her testimony. IMHO, the defense wasted valuable time crossing the expert, when all they had to do is ask those last questions, you do not know when those hairs got in the cap and you do not know which came first, i.e the cap or the hairs.

[William Anthony]

This discussion is about your claims William not what the criminal jury believed. I don't know and I doubt if you know that the criminal jury even considered this an issue let alone inferred anything from Moore's testimony. No defense lawyer in this case ever claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 or that there was evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. Only you have made that claim William. The fact is that there was and is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and based on Moore's speculation that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't your inference is simply unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

See response directly above.

[William Anthony]

There is no circular reasoning here only a logical reasonable inference based on the physical evidence unlike inferences you have made that are based only on speculation and imagination..

bobaugust

IMHO, the defense wasted valuable time crossing the expert, when all they had to do is ask those last questions, you do not know when those hairs got in the cap and you do not know which came first, i.e the cap or the hairs. I do not know what "logical reasonable inference based on the physical evidence" you can base anything on from the expert's testimony that he could not determine those things, unless you chose to selectively ignore portions.

[William Anthony]

There is no circular reasoning here only a logical reasonable inference based on the physical evidence unlike inferences you have made that are based only on speculation and imagination..

bobaugust

Circular reasoning and argument. We say this is Simpson's hair that does not match our exemplar in regard to the dandruff found in the cap and we say that Simpson wore this cap on the night of June 12th after he played golf that day and we do not have to offer proof on this issue, because the defense provided testimony from his barber that he would have dandruff during the summer more so on the times he played golf, and we cannot dispute that or offer any evidence of anyone seeing him in that cap and our expert cannot say that he wore that cap on that night or that the hairs were placed there on that night but we do not have to, because we said that Simpson wore that cap and shed those hairs on that night. Now, let the defense show he did not. Oops, we misplaced the burden of proof but that's alright, because we say that Simpson wore that cap on that night and shed the hairs in that cap on that night. Sound about right?

[William Anthony]

IMHO, the defense wasted valuable time crossing the expert, when all they had to do is ask those last questions, you do not know when those hairs got in the cap and you do not know which came first, i.e the cap or the hairs. I do not know what "logical reasonable inference based on the physical evidence" you can base anything on from the expert's testimony that he could not determine those things, unless you chose to selectively ignore portions.

Correction-which came first, the Black hairs or the non Black hairs. here is the testimony in regard to the hair alleged to have been Simpson's.

"MR. BAILEY: There is no way that you can tell, either at the time of your examination or today, how long that hair had been on that dress, true?

MR. DEEDRICK: There is no way to know that, no.

MR. BAILEY: There is no way that you can tell how long the K7 similar hairs inside and outside the Bundy cap had been there?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Prior to June 12th?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, there is no way."

[William Anthony]

you do realize that the prosecution's case was purely circumstantial, don't you? The defense provided Ms. Moore's circumstantial testimonial evidence on dandruff. The link that I provided supplied the basis for allowing inferences to be drawn and showed the burden of proof on the issues. You seem to think that you do not need to study law to know as much as the lawyers and judges in the Simpson case. The defense offered Ms. Moore as a witness and submitted a proffer. The prosecution did not object and the judge did not declare her testimony irrelevant. Ergo, it was decided that Ms. Moore had relevant testimony on a material issue in the trial. Ergo, the jury was allowed to draw inferences from her testimony. IMHO, the defense wasted valuable time crossing the expert, when all they had to do is ask those last questions, you do not know when those hairs got in the cap and you do not know which came first, i.e the cap or the hairs.

Correction-you do realize that the prosecution's case was purely circumstantial, don't you? The defense provided Ms. Moore's circumstantial testimonial evidence on dandruff. The link that I provided supplied the basis for allowing inferences to be drawn and showed the burden of proof on the issues. You seem to think that you do not need to study law to know as much as the lawyers and judges in the Simpson case. The defense offered Ms. Moore as a witness and submitted a proffer. The prosecution did not object and the judge did not declare her testimony irrelevant. Ergo, it was decided that Ms. Moore had relevant testimony on a material issue in the trial. Ergo, the jury was allowed to draw inferences from her testimony. IMHO, the defense wasted valuable time crossing the expert, when all they had to do is ask that one question, you do not know when those hairs got in the cap. Where I told bobaugust to see the post above, please, insert this corrected version.

[bobaugust]

That is your statement, bobaugust, as to what they agreed. I think Ito recognized, as I did, that the blood allegedly found on the Bronco before the invasion was tantamount to probable cause. Judge Ito also felt like I did by his statement that Vannatter recklessly disregarded the truth means that he, like me, felt that they went there because they thought Simpson was a suspect. Why else lie about the spot on the Bronco being blood before any testing was done to show it was blood?

I think you're confusing this issue with what was said regarding the search warrant that Vannatter later obtained.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

you do realize that the prosecution's case was purely circumstantial, don't you? The defense provided Ms. Moore's circumstantial testimonial evidence on dandruff. The link that I provided supplied the basis for allowing inferences to be drawn and showed the burden of proof on the issues. You seem to think that you do not need to study law to know as much as the lawyers and judges in the Simpson case. The defense offered Ms. Moore as a witness and submitted a proffer. The prosecution did not object and the judge did not declare her testimony irrelevant. Ergo, it was decided that Ms. Moore had relevant testimony on a material issue in the trial. Ergo, the jury was allowed to draw inferences from her testimony. IMHO, the defense wasted valuable time crossing the expert, when all they had to do is ask those last questions, you do not know when those hairs got in the cap and you do not know which came first, i.e the cap or the hairs.

I don't dispute that Moore gave some relevant testimony on a material issue in this trial but the fact is that
her testimony about Simpson having dandruff in the past had nothing to do with the condition of Simpson's hair on June 12. She could not and did not testify to that. Any inference based only on Simpson's past dandruff problems that sometimes he had dandruff and sometimes he didn't have dandruff to infer what Simpson had dandruff on a specific day in the future without one shred of direct or physical evidence to support it is meaningless.

It doesn't take any great knowledge of the law to understand that, just common sense. I would think anyone reading this argument without knowing anything about either of us would think you're the one who has no knowledge of the law trying to argue speculation is something that actually happened.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

IMHO, the defense wasted valuable time crossing the expert, when all they had to do is ask those last questions, you do not know when those hairs got in the cap and you do not know which came first, i.e the cap or the hairs. I do not know what "logical reasonable inference based on the physical evidence" you can base anything on from the expert's testimony that he could not determine those things, unless you chose to selectively ignore portions.

I posted Bodziak's testimony based on his comparison of the Officer's shoes including Mark Fuhrman's shoe to the bloody shoe prints left by the killer. I repeat,

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.

The key words here are totally different. Bodziak also testified that partial bloody imprint on Simpson's Bronco carpet had some characteristics that were similar to the distinctive characteristics in the bloody shoe prints on the walkway at Bundy that were made by Silga soles. Specifically the "S" squiggles. Bodziak testified that even though he could not positively associate that imprint with a Silga sole he also could not eliminate it as having been made by a Silga sole. Based on those facts it is not unreasonable to infer that none of the officer's shoes including Mark Fuhrman's shoes made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy or the partial bloody shoe print on the Bronco carpet. In addition the fact that the bloody shoe prints at Bundy were made from Nicole's blood and the partial shoe print on Simpson's Bronco carpet was made from Nicole's blood it is not unreasonable to infer, without any evidence to the contrary, that the killer who left his bloody shoe prints at Bundy also left his bloody shoe print on Simpson's Bronco carpet.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Circular reasoning and argument. We say this is Simpson's hair that does not match our exemplar in regard to the dandruff found in the cap and we say that Simpson wore this cap on the night of June 12th after he played golf that day and we do not have to offer proof on this issue, because the defense provided testimony from his barber that he would have dandruff during the summer more so on the times he played golf, and we cannot dispute that or offer any evidence of anyone seeing him in that cap and our expert cannot say that he wore that cap on that night or that the hairs were placed there on that night but we do not have to, because we said that Simpson wore that cap and shed those hairs on that night. Now, let the defense show he did not. Oops, we misplaced the burden of proof but that's alright, because we say that Simpson wore that cap on that night and shed the hairs in that cap on that night. Sound about right?

No it doesn't sound right. The defense provided evidence that Simpson previously and periodically had dandruff during the summer more on times when he played golf and that evidence was clarified on cross examination when the witness agreed that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't.

There was no testimony or physical evidence that Simpson had dandruff before the murders on May 23 the last time the witness actually saw Simpson, or on June 12 the night of the murders, or in the days following the murders. There is only evidence that Simpson had dandruff over month after the murders when he had been incarcerated for over a month.

The fact that Simpson's naturally shed hairs were found in the knit cap is evidence that Simpson wore that cap. The fact is that fiber evidence found on the cap links the cap to the killer's gloves and to Simpson's Bronco. The fact is there is no evidence to suggest that cap was under the plant leaves prior to the night of the murders.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I think you're confusing this issue with what was said regarding the search warrant that Vannatter later obtained.

bobaugust

You seem to be confused. That is the issue. They made an entry without a search warrant, claiming that Simpson was not a suspect. The judge, who issued the warrant, IIRC, stated that Vannatter was playing fast and loose with the truth and Ito did not believe Vannatter when he said Simpson was not a suspect at the time they made the entry without first obtaining a warrant.

[William Anthony]

I don't dispute that Moore gave some relevant testimony on a material issue in this trial but the fact is that
her testimony about Simpson having dandruff in the past had nothing to do with the condition of Simpson's hair on June 12. She could not and did not testify to that. Any inference based only on Simpson's past dandruff problems that sometimes he had dandruff and sometimes he didn't have dandruff to infer what Simpson had dandruff on a specific day in the future without one shred of direct or physical evidence to support it is meaningless.

It doesn't take any great knowledge of the law to understand that, just common sense. I would think anyone reading this argument without knowing anything about either of us would think you're the one who has no knowledge of the law trying to argue speculation is something that actually happened.

bobaugust

I think that anyone who can read understands the links that I have supplied in support of my position and that you seem to dismiss the lawyers, judges and the Supreme Court based on the fact of your personal belief. I said she provided evidence, which includes circumstantial evidence. I even posted the definition of circumstantial evidence, which means that evidence that requires an inference to prove an issue. If there was direct or physical evidence of the fact that Simpson did not have dandruff on June 12th, then the prosecution was obligated to produce it. Instead, the defense rebutted the prosecution's theory with the circumstantial testimony of Ms. Moore. I posted the direct evidence, i.e. that the prosecution's expert could not say when the hair got on or in the cap. I know that you love to discuss issues but you've got to know when to fold them and walk away.

[William Anthony]

I posted Bodziak's testimony based on his comparison of the Officer's shoes including Mark Fuhrman's shoe to the bloody shoe prints left by the killer. I repeat,

"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.

The key words here are totally different. Bodziak also testified that partial bloody imprint on Simpson's Bronco carpet had some characteristics that were similar to the distinctive characteristics in the bloody shoe prints on the walkway at Bundy that were made by Silga soles. Specifically the "S" squiggles. Bodziak testified that even though he could not positively associate that imprint with a Silga sole he also could not eliminate it as having been made by a Silga sole. Based on those facts it is not unreasonable to infer that none of the officer's shoes including Mark Fuhrman's shoes made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy or the partial bloody shoe print on the Bronco carpet. In addition the fact that the bloody shoe prints at Bundy were made from Nicole's blood and the partial shoe print on Simpson's Bronco carpet was made from Nicole's blood it is not unreasonable to infer, without any evidence to the contrary, that the killer who left his bloody shoe prints at Bundy also left his bloody shoe print on Simpson's Bronco carpet.

bobaugust

"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--

To be continued.

[William Anthony]

"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.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you point out to the areas that you did just refer to and maybe draw in a little arrow, if you can do that without drawing over any significant portion of the photograph that would hide something that you needed to do in your analysis?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay.

MR. GOLDBERG: Why don't you just draw a little red arrow and try to avoid any areas that were significant in terms of what you looked at?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. This area here, (Indicating), was the area that I referred to that might be the border of the shoe, and this area down here, (Indicating), where it changes direction, kind of like an "S" is an example of that possible--the negative area of the shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: Stop for a second. Can you take the rubber shoe and describe for us how it is that that is possibly consistent with the sole of the Silga?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Well, the--I don't know how well this can be seen with the light, but the--if you follow the grooves between the design elements, they change direction, so there is gentle curves between those design elements, and that would be the area that would be--still might be some blood in it at that point back down the driveway, that far from the actual crime scene. And these little changes of directions that you can see down here, (Indicating), as well as this border, and you really can't see any of them clear enough to make an overlay, but you can see something that suggests that, but there is just not enough detail to absolutely say that that is representative of the Silga sole.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Were you going to point out a couple other of these design elements that were consistent with this sole?

MR. BODZIAK: No. I think that these--these in here, (Indicating), probably show it as well as any, and actually there is--there isn't enough clarity throughout this whole thing to really point to it and say positively that is what it represents, but rather you are seeing a change of direction and that is what you would expect if there was some blood here and the carpet tuffed up. But there is also the phenomena of when you get into a Bronco that is up rather high and you step up into it with your shoe, there is going to be some movement in getting into a vehicle, and because of the thick nature of this carpeting, I wouldn't expect to see, necessarily, a clear rendition of--at that point of the shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. BODZIAK: So I couldn't eliminate and I couldn't positively associate it with the Silga sole."

We have the same ifs, maybe and now, we have possibilities. The prosecution's burden in this instant was to offer evidence to show that it was the same BM shoe. You tried a clever trick. He only testified that the officers' shoes were different from the shoe prints found at Bundy. This is what I tried to explain to you. If you can't identify the shoe print as a BM, then you can't exclude any of the officers' shoes.

[William Anthony]

No it doesn't sound right. The defense provided evidence that Simpson previously and periodically had dandruff during the summer more on times when he played golf and that evidence was clarified on cross examination when the witness agreed that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't.

There was no testimony or physical evidence that Simpson had dandruff before the murders on May 23 the last time the witness actually saw Simpson, or on June 12 the night of the murders, or in the days following the murders. There is only evidence that Simpson had dandruff over month after the murders when he had been incarcerated for over a month.

The fact that Simpson's naturally shed hairs were found in the knit cap is evidence that Simpson wore that cap. The fact is that fiber evidence found on the cap links the cap to the killer's gloves and to Simpson's Bronco. The fact is there is no evidence to suggest that cap was under the plant leaves prior to the night of the murders.

bobaugust

I see now you know more than the lawyers, judges, Supreme Court and the experts.

[martin II]

No it doesn't sound right. The defense provided evidence that Simpson previously and periodically had dandruff during the summer more on times when he played golf and that evidence was clarified on cross examination when the witness agreed that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't.

There was no testimony or physical evidence that Simpson had dandruff before the murders on May 23 the last time the witness actually saw Simpson, or on June 12 the night of the murders, or in the days following the murders. There is only evidence that Simpson had dandruff over month after the murders when he had been incarcerated for over a month.

The fact that Simpson's naturally shed hairs were found in the knit cap is evidence that Simpson wore that cap. The fact is that fiber evidence found on the cap links the cap to the killer's gloves and to Simpson's Bronco. The fact is there is no evidence to suggest that cap was under the plant leaves prior to the night of the murders.

bobaugust

bob
OJ was not tested for danfruff on 6/10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19 and after.You do not know if he had dandruff or not.

You nor the prosecution had any evidence that the cap was not there long before 6/12 imo

[bobaugust]

You seem to be confused. That is the issue. They made an entry without a search warrant, claiming that Simpson was not a suspect. The judge, who issued the warrant, IIRC, stated that Vannatter was playing fast and loose with the truth and Ito did not believe Vannatter when he said Simpson was not a suspect at the time they made the entry without first obtaining a warrant.

I'm sorry but you recall wrong. The search warrant was written and issued later in the morning on June 13 to conduct a search of Simpson's house. It had nothing to do with the detectives entering Simpson's estate earlier that morning.

Evidence Dismissed,

"In his search warrant, Vannatter had made one assumption that was incorrect, two others that were true but unconfirmed at the time, and one omission of fact:

Vannatter had written that Simpson's trip to Chicago was "unexpected." In fact, it had been scheduled for some time. However, Vannatter had based his conclusion on Kato Kaelin deferring to Arnelle Simpson when they first contacted him during the early morning hours of June 13, asking for Simpson's where-about. Arnelle initially said that she believed her father was in his house. As a result of the statements of both Kaelin and Simpson's daughter, Vannatter believed that Simpson's trip to Chicago was "unexpected."

Also in his warrant, Vannatter omitted that Simpson had voluntarily agreed to return to Los Angeles. However, unlike Lange and Phillips, he had not been party to the phone calls with Simpson at North Rockingham when the notification of his ex-wife's death was made. In the midst of everything that was going on during those early-morning hours on June 13, neither Lange nor Phillips had explained to him that Simpson had volunteered to leave Chicago, as opposed to being ordered by the detectives to return to Los Angeles.

The other mistake Vannatter had made was his premature identification of red spots on the driveway and the red substance on the right-hand glove as blood. Even though Dennis Fung later confirmed this as blood evidence, Vannatter had made these claims in his search warrant without that confirmation, relying instead on his observations from years of experience dealing with blood at crime scenes.

Commenting from the bench - even though there was no evidence of malice on Vannatter's part or that he had deliberately lied - Judge Ito charges, "I cannot make a finding that this was merely negligent. I have to make a finding that this was reckless."

Nevertheless, Ito upholds the search that was based on Vannatter's supposedly "reckless" warrant and admits the challenged evidence.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I think that anyone who can read understands the links that I have supplied in support of my position and that you seem to dismiss the lawyers, judges and the Supreme Court based on the fact of your personal belief. I said she provided evidence, which includes circumstantial evidence. I even posted the definition of circumstantial evidence, which means that evidence that requires an inference to prove an issue. If there was direct or physical evidence of the fact that Simpson did not have dandruff on June 12th, then the prosecution was obligated to produce it. Instead, the defense rebutted the prosecution's theory with the circumstantial testimony of Ms. Moore. I posted the direct evidence, i.e. that the prosecution's expert could not say when the hair got on or in the cap. I know that you love to discuss issues but you've got to know when to fold them and walk away.

Nothing supports your position except your imagination. The prosecution was under no obligation to provide evidence that Simpson didn't have dandruff on June 12 when there was no evidence that he did and no claim by the defense that he did. Moore could not and did not testify to any fact regarding Simpson's hair condition on June 12.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I see now you know more than the lawyers, judges, Supreme Court and the experts.

Whatever lawyers, judges, Supreme Court, and experts you are referring to has nothing to do with your unsupported speculation that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bob
OJ was not tested for danfruff on 6/10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19 and after.You do not know if he had dandruff or not.

You nor the prosecution had any evidence that the cap was not there long before 6/12 imo

martin II, you are incorrect.

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

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I'm sorry but you recall wrong. The search warrant was written and issued later in the morning on June 13 to conduct a search of Simpson's house. It had nothing to do with the detectives entering Simpson's estate earlier that morning.

Evidence Dismissed,

"In his search warrant, Vannatter had made one assumption that was incorrect, two others that were true but unconfirmed at the time, and one omission of fact:

Vannatter had written that Simpson's trip to Chicago was "unexpected." In fact, it had been scheduled for some time. However, Vannatter had based his conclusion on Kato Kaelin deferring to Arnelle Simpson when they first contacted him during the early morning hours of June 13, asking for Simpson's where-about. Arnelle initially said that she believed her father was in his house. As a result of the statements of both Kaelin and Simpson's daughter, Vannatter believed that Simpson's trip to Chicago was "unexpected."

Also in his warrant, Vannatter omitted that Simpson had voluntarily agreed to return to Los Angeles. However, unlike Lange and Phillips, he had not been party to the phone calls with Simpson at North Rockingham when the notification of his ex-wife's death was made. In the midst of everything that was going on during those early-morning hours on June 13, neither Lange nor Phillips had explained to him that Simpson had volunteered to leave Chicago, as opposed to being ordered by the detectives to return to Los Angeles.

The other mistake Vannatter had made was his premature identification of red spots on the driveway and the red substance on the right-hand glove as blood. Even though Dennis Fung later confirmed this as blood evidence, Vannatter had made these claims in his search warrant without that confirmation, relying instead on his observations from years of experience dealing with blood at crime scenes.

Commenting from the bench - even though there was no evidence of malice on Vannatter's part or that he had deliberately lied - Judge Ito charges, "I cannot make a finding that this was merely negligent. I have to make a finding that this was reckless."

Nevertheless, Ito upholds the search that was based on Vannatter's supposedly "reckless" warrant and admits the challenged evidence.

bobaugust

What don't you get. You need a search warrant to enter a person's curtilage, unless you have probable cause. Simpson was a suspect and they fabricated probable cause. This is why I have a hard time explaining things to you and your arrogance/self righteousness (I do not mean that offensively) prevents you from understanding.

http://www.tscmusa.com/CURTILAGE.htm

[William Anthony]

Nothing supports your position except your imagination. The prosecution was under no obligation to provide evidence that Simpson didn't have dandruff on June 12 when there was no evidence that he did and no claim by the defense that he did. Moore could not and did not testify to any fact regarding Simpson's hair condition on June 12.

bobaugust

You really have a distorted view of what is required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution's evidence was a cap with hairs without dandruff on the night of the murders. The prosecution's theory is that Simpson wore that cap to commit the murders. The defense provided circumstantial evidence to rebut that theory. The exemplar hairs had dandruff. The prosecution expert testified he could not say when the hairs got in the cap. The prosecution presented no evidence to support their claim.

[William Anthony]

Whatever lawyers, judges, Supreme Court, and experts you are referring to has nothing to do with your unsupported speculation that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

bobaugust

The more you call it unsupported speculation, after I have posted the link from the Supreme Court and shown why the judge and lawyers allowed and presented the testimony and shown what the prosecution's expert testified to the more you show that you have a very limited understanding of legal concepts and the legal process, imho.

[William Anthony]

martin II, you are incorrect.

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

bobaugust

I am tired of typing the same thing so I will let martin answer with what I know is coming. I will just say that the prosecution didn't ask.

[William Anthony]

Don't trouble trouble until trouble troubles you.

[William Anthony]

I'm sorry but you recall wrong. The search warrant was written and issued later in the morning on June 13 to conduct a search of Simpson's house. It had nothing to do with the detectives entering Simpson's estate earlier that morning.

Evidence Dismissed,



Vannatter had written that Simpson's trip to Chicago was "unexpected." In fact, it had been scheduled for some time. However, Vannatter had based his conclusion on Kato Kaelin deferring to Arnelle Simpson when they first contacted him during the early morning hours of June 13, asking for Simpson's where-about. Arnelle initially said that she believed her father was in his house. As a result of the statements of both Kaelin and Simpson's daughter, Vannatter believed that Simpson's trip to Chicago was "unexpected."

bobaugust

There are things for which the term Freudian slip are employed. Vannatter was aware that Ms. Arnelle had spoken to Ms. Randa and learned that the trip to Chicago was planned. So, to whom was the trip unexpected-LE? The word unexpected was used, imho, because LE did not know what time his flight left and he would have a possible alibi. The alleged finding of the glove placed LE in a perilous position, imho. This is why, imho, MF was asked to leave and Vannatter, while playing fast and loose with the truth, made a Freudian slip.

[bobaugust]

What don't you get. You need a search warrant to enter a person's curtilage, unless you have probable cause. Simpson was a suspect and they fabricated probable cause. This is why I have a hard time explaining things to you and your arrogance/self righteousness (I do not mean that offensively) prevents you from understanding.

http://www.tscmusa.com/CURTILAGE.htm

You wrote, "Judge Ito also felt like I did by his statement that Vannatter recklessly disregarded the truth means that he, like me, felt that they went there because they thought Simpson was a suspect. Why else lie about the spot on the Bronco being blood before any testing was done to show it was blood?"

Post the testimony where Ito made the statement you claim he made and where you think Vannatter lied about the spot on the Bronco being blood. Include the dates please.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You really have a distorted view of what is required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution's evidence was a cap with hairs without dandruff on the night of the murders. The prosecution's theory is that Simpson wore that cap to commit the murders. The defense provided circumstantial evidence to rebut that theory. The exemplar hairs had dandruff. The prosecution expert testified he could not say when the hairs got in the cap. The prosecution presented no evidence to support their claim.

The fact that Simpson's hair sample taken over a month after the murders had dandruff is meaningless to what his hair condition was on June 12 since there was no evidence or claim that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 or even on the days following the murders.

The knit cap was found next to one of the killer's gloves under plant leaves at Ron's feet and had fibers on it consistent with Ron's shirt, a fiber consistent with the lining of the killer's glove, and a fiber consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpet. Ten naturally shed hairs were found inside the the knit cap and two naturally shed hairs found on the outside. Based on that fiber and hair evidence and lacking any evidence to the contrary it is not unreasonable to infer that the killer wore the knit cap.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The more you call it unsupported speculation, after I have posted the link from the Supreme Court and shown why the judge and lawyers allowed and presented the testimony and shown what the prosecution's expert testified to the more you show that you have a very limited understanding of legal concepts and the legal process, imho.

Are you saying you posted a link from the Supreme Court where a judge or a lawyer believed that an inference is reasonable when it is based only on a witness who testifies to sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I am tired of typing the same thing so I will let martin answer with what I know is coming. I will just say that the prosecution didn't ask.

Yes you should let martin respond to my response to his posting since your comment doesn't address the issue he raised.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

There are things for which the term Freudian slip are employed. Vannatter was aware that Ms. Arnelle had spoken to Ms. Randa and learned that the trip to Chicago was planned. So, to whom was the trip unexpected-LE? The word unexpected was used, imho, because LE did not know what time his flight left and he would have a possible alibi. The alleged finding of the glove placed LE in a perilous position, imho. This is why, imho, MF was asked to leave and Vannatter, while playing fast and loose with the truth, made a Freudian slip.

Ms. Arnelle? Funny. I see no Freudian slips by Vannatter. What testimony leads you to believe that Vannatter knew before he wrote the search warrant that Simpson's trip to Chicago had been scheduled for some time? Include the date please.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, you are incorrect.

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

bobaugust


Bob

Did Huizenga report state that ojs hair was tested specifically for dandruff.
I don't think so. Hair can be tested for many things but if it was not specifically tested to look for dandruff they there is no way to know if dandruff was present or not. You cannot assume one way or another if a dandruff test was not done.imo

Martin II

[William Anthony]

You wrote, "Judge Ito also felt like I did by his statement that Vannatter recklessly disregarded the truth means that he, like me, felt that they went there because they thought Simpson was a suspect. Why else lie about the spot on the Bronco being blood before any testing was done to show it was blood?"

Post the testimony where Ito made the statement you claim he made and where you think Vannatter lied about the spot on the Bronco being blood. Include the dates please.

bobaugust

Show me where I posted Ito made that statement.

[William Anthony]

The fact that Simpson's hair sample taken over a month after the murders had dandruff is meaningless to what his hair condition was on June 12 since there was no evidence or claim that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 or even on the days following the murders.

The knit cap was found next to one of the killer's gloves under plant leaves at Ron's feet and had fibers on it consistent with Ron's shirt, a fiber consistent with the lining of the killer's glove, and a fiber consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpet. Ten naturally shed hairs were found inside the the knit cap and two naturally shed hairs found on the outside. Based on that fiber and hair evidence and lacking any evidence to the contrary it is not unreasonable to infer that the killer wore the knit cap.

bobaugust

The expert's direct testimony that he could not say when the cap or the hairs were deposited there negated any inference, imho.

[William Anthony]

Are you saying you posted a link from the Supreme Court where a judge or a lawyer believed that an inference is reasonable when it is based only on a witness who testifies to sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't?

bobaugust

:read::read::read::read:

[William Anthony]

Yes you should let martin respond to my response to his posting since your comment doesn't address the issue he raised.

bobaugust

Burden of proof and he did.

[William Anthony]

Ms. Arnelle? Funny. I see no Freudian slips by Vannatter. What testimony leads you to believe that Vannatter knew before he wrote the search warrant that Simpson's trip to Chicago had been scheduled for some time? Include the date please.

bobaugust

July 10th

"MR. COCHRAN: When you got back in the kitchen, tell us what happened at that point.

MS. SIMPSON: Umm, then I had called Cathy Randa.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me stop you there. Who is Cathy Randa?

MS. SIMPSON: My father's assistant.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you called Cathy Randa and why did you call her?

MS. SIMPSON: To find out where my father was.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you ascertain that?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And after you found out where he was, did you communicate that to any of the police officers, if you recall?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you tell--which of the two did you tell? Do you remember if you told Lange or Phillips or who did you tell?

MS. SIMPSON: I believe I told both of them.

MR. COCHRAN: You told them both?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you tell them he was in Chicago?

MS. SIMPSON: I didn't know where he was but I knew he was out of town.

MR. COCHRAN: You found out from Cathy Randa where he was?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes."

[William Anthony]

Ms. Arnelle? Funny. I see no Freudian slips by Vannatter. What testimony leads you to believe that Vannatter knew before he wrote the search warrant that Simpson's trip to Chicago had been scheduled for some time? Include the date please.

bobaugust

"Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN DID YOU TALK TO CATHY RANDA?

A: AFTER ARNELLE DIALED THE PHONE NUMBER AND GOT AHOLD OF HER, YES.

Q: AND IN THE COURSE OF YOUR CONVERSATION WITH CATHY RANDA, DID YOU ASCERTAIN THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS ON A PREARRANGED TRIP TO CHICAGO?

A: THE WORD "PREARRANGED" WASN'T USED. SHE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD LEFT THE NIGHT BEFORE ON A RED EYE, THAT HE HAD FLOWN TO CHICAGO AND THAT'S WHERE HE WAS AT NOW.

Q: AND SHE KNEW ALSO WHICH HOTEL HE WAS IN ALSO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR. "

Let's be realistic. The fact that Park was there in the limousine tells you that it was prearranged.

[martin II]

Ms. Arnelle? Funny. I see no Freudian slips by Vannatter. What testimony leads you to believe that Vannatter knew before he wrote the search warrant that Simpson's trip to Chicago had been scheduled for some time? Include the date please.

bobaugust

Bob

Arnell after speaking to Randa informed the detectives that oj was gone to chicago fior business with Hertz.This was on 6/13 shortly after they invaded ojs property and brought Arnell to the kitchen.Vanhatter asked for the search warrant later, on the 6/13. So he already knew.

[martin II]

Bottom line is Vanhatter did what le do most of the time. Fudge the facts of the situation to the judge to get approval for the illegal search of a citizens property. Usually the judge ignores these infractions and sides with lapd.imo

[martin II]

July 10th

"MR. COCHRAN: When you got back in the kitchen, tell us what happened at that point.

MS. SIMPSON: Umm, then I had called Cathy Randa.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me stop you there. Who is Cathy Randa?

MS. SIMPSON: My father's assistant.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you called Cathy Randa and why did you call her?

MS. SIMPSON: To find out where my father was.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you ascertain that?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And after you found out where he was, did you communicate that to any of the police officers, if you recall?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you tell--which of the two did you tell? Do you remember if you told Lange or Phillips or who did you tell?

MS. SIMPSON: I believe I told both of them.

MR. COCHRAN: You told them both?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you tell them he was in Chicago?

MS. SIMPSON: I didn't know where he was but I knew he was out of town.

MR. COCHRAN: You found out from Cathy Randa where he was?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes."

Didn't Kato tell the detectives that oj had gone to chicago when they first talked to him.I know he said something like "did oj miss his flight" Le had the ability to call lax and discover what flight oj had taken,when the reservation was made and where he flew to. They can do this by phone from the kitchen.
Clarke could have done this before she wrote the request for the warrant.

[William Anthony]

Didn't Kato tell the detectives that oj had gone to chicago when they first talked to him.I know he said something like "did oj miss his flight" Le had the ability to call lax and discover what flight oj had taken,when the reservation was made and where he flew to. They can do this by phone from the kitchen.
Clarke could have done this before she wrote the request for the warrant.

Martin,

bobaugust may have used semantics to try to change the context, much like Vannatter. Here is what Ito said about the affidavit for the warrant.

"THE COURT: AS PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS. OKAY. WE HAVE BLOOD TESTS AND WE HAVE AN UNPLANNED TRIP."

[William Anthony]

You wrote, "Judge Ito also felt like I did by his statement that Vannatter recklessly disregarded the truth means that he, like me, felt that they went there because they thought Simpson was a suspect. Why else lie about the spot on the Bronco being blood before any testing was done to show it was blood?"

Post the testimony where Ito made the statement you claim he made and where you think Vannatter lied about the spot on the Bronco being blood. Include the dates please.

bobaugust

See my post #5115 on this thread, which I know is a quote from a link I supplied.

[William Anthony]

"mr. Shapiro: As an offer of proof, we will prove through this officer that he had that information before he wrote the warrant and the information was, at a minimum, reckless and probably false based on his own --

ms. Clark: It is not the province of this jury to determine whether or not a search warrant is valid. It is the province of this jury to determine whether or not there are inconsistent statements with his trial testimony that would impact on his credibility; and there is not.

Mr. Shapiro: I agree with everything she has said and that's exactly the way we are going to portray it, inconsistent statements with his trial testimony and prior testimony.

Ms. Clark: Certainly not based on the fact that later investigation turned up more information.

Mr. Shapiro: No. We are going to prove that earlier investigation turned up more investigation. And also, mr. Bailey has suggested that if an officer makes a false representation to get a search warrant, that shows bias.

The court: Well, miss clark, this is an issue that appeared obvious to me as a problem at trial when i ruled at the 1538 that the statements were made with reckless disregard for the truth if you recall.

Ms. Clark: I recall. What does that have to do with the admissibility of those statements in trial?

The court: No. You're asking for time to write points and authorities as to whether or not those statements should come in to impeach detective vannatter, correct?

Ms. Clark: Correct.

The court: All right. Isn't that an issue that was red flagged as a problem with this witness months ago?

Ms. Clark: No, because probable cause to issue a search warrant and the manner in which a search warrant is written is not properly before a jury. That's a pretrial matter.

The court: Miss clark, put that out of your mind. Just keep in mind this is a sworn statement under oath that is inconsistent with the state of the facts.

Ms. Clark: You know something? That is not the real issue. The real issue is whether or not it's inconsistent with what he knew at the time he wrote the warrant and --

the court: Okay. Then we agree with that. Do we agree with that?

Ms. Clark: Well, i think that we're construing that differently. I'm saying --

the court: Hold on. Let's assume arnelle simpson and cathy randa told or cathy randa told the detectives that he is in chicago for a hertz meeting, that it was -- arrangements had been previously made, "he's staying at a particular hotel, here's his hotel number." all right. that is different or contrary to vannatter's statement in the search warrant which was done later, that this was an unscheduled trip to chicago.

ms. Clark: There's only one problem.

The court: Wait. Then fung's presumptive tests for blood on the bronco was a presumptive test. That's all it was. It is not a test that is positive for human blood, correct?

Ms. Clark: Correct.

the court: And that was known before he wrote the search warrant, correct?

Ms. Clark: Correct. "

[martin II]

"mr. Shapiro: As an offer of proof, we will prove through this officer that he had that information before he wrote the warrant and the information was, at a minimum, reckless and probably false based on his own --

ms. Clark: It is not the province of this jury to determine whether or not a search warrant is valid. It is the province of this jury to determine whether or not there are inconsistent statements with his trial testimony that would impact on his credibility; and there is not.

Mr. Shapiro: I agree with everything she has said and that's exactly the way we are going to portray it, inconsistent statements with his trial testimony and prior testimony.

Ms. Clark: Certainly not based on the fact that later investigation turned up more information.

Mr. Shapiro: No. We are going to prove that earlier investigation turned up more investigation. And also, mr. Bailey has suggested that if an officer makes a false representation to get a search warrant, that shows bias.

The court: Well, miss clark, this is an issue that appeared obvious to me as a problem at trial when i ruled at the 1538 that the statements were made with reckless disregard for the truth if you recall.

Ms. Clark: I recall. What does that have to do with the admissibility of those statements in trial?

The court: No. You're asking for time to write points and authorities as to whether or not those statements should come in to impeach detective vannatter, correct?

Ms. Clark: Correct.

The court: All right. Isn't that an issue that was red flagged as a problem with this witness months ago?

Ms. Clark: No, because probable cause to issue a search warrant and the manner in which a search warrant is written is not properly before a jury. That's a pretrial matter.

The court: Miss clark, put that out of your mind. Just keep in mind this is a sworn statement under oath that is inconsistent with the state of the facts.

Ms. Clark: You know something? That is not the real issue. The real issue is whether or not it's inconsistent with what he knew at the time he wrote the warrant and --

the court: Okay. Then we agree with that. Do we agree with that?

Ms. Clark: Well, i think that we're construing that differently. I'm saying --

the court: Hold on. Let's assume arnelle simpson and cathy randa told or cathy randa told the detectives that he is in chicago for a hertz meeting, that it was -- arrangements had been previously made, "he's staying at a particular hotel, here's his hotel number." all right. that is different or contrary to vannatter's statement in the search warrant which was done later, that this was an unscheduled trip to chicago.

ms. Clark: There's only one problem.

The court: Wait. Then fung's presumptive tests for blood on the bronco was a presumptive test. That's all it was. It is not a test that is positive for human blood, correct?

Ms. Clark: Correct.

the court: And that was known before he wrote the search warrant, correct?

Ms. Clark: Correct. "


That takes care of that issue.Vanhatter knew oj was at a scheduled perplanned meeting and the brown spot on the bronco had not been tested
and proved to be blood. So Vanhatter lied to get the search warrant.

[limakey]

William and Martin,

Regarding Vanatter's "lie" about Simpson's trip---why would he lie about that?
It appears to me that he wanted to give the impression that Simpson was in the act of fleeing the scene of the crime, I belive it is called "an act of flight".

So when they had the Bronco chase, why didn't they use that as an act of flight?

Another point, why would Vanatter lie about this when he could have said that Simpson planned the murders and was planning to use his trip to Chicago as an alibi?

I really wonder why the DA's tried so hard to keep the Bronco chase out, maybe it was because they might have opened the door to the defense regarding the video tapes of Simpson at LAX? Or that the airport was searched from top to bottom even before the detectives left for Rockingham?

Another point--off subject, did you know that Tom Lange knew that there was no way to tell the "age" of a blood drop? In fact he testified about this in the prelim hearing? He said that there were about 5 drops of blood at the scene that were not Nicole's or Ron's--but he never said they were not Simpson's---so how did he know those drops weren't Nicole's or Ron's, maybe he was told they weren't Simpson's either? Or he knew there was no conclusive proof that they were Simpson's?

[limakey]

Martin,

I agree with you that Vanatter lied to get the search warrant. However, the real question is why did he lie? Perhaps he knew that it is routine for Judges to uphold warrants even if the judge does not believe they are tell the truth.

IMO, not one detective or police officer showed any signs of fear on these issues. They had no problems covering for one another even knowing that their stories were going to be shredded by the defense--again, IMO.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

You often chide NG's for their "speculation" and "imaginations", however, isn't that the theme in your posts--or that matter, all of our posts?

You are speculating that Simpson jumped a fence, banged into a wall and then dropped the glove. Yet, neither you, the DA's could provide any proof that this ever happened. There is no evidence to back this up.

It is soley your imagination that if a second glove was at Bundy, that it had to be within the killing cage.

It is soley your imagination that if a witness saw MF pick up the glove, that he would come forward and do the right the thing.

You have speculated that Kato was positive on why Simpson was wearing that night and it is only in your imagination why Kato got OJ's wardrobe wrong when he left for the airport.

It is pure imagination and speculation that the blue/black fibers had to come from a sweat suit, yet not even the state's own witness ever testified to this.

It is your imagination that each time a state's witness said that OJ Simpson could not be exclude, that means this is conclusive to OJ Simpson and no one else.

It is your stubborness that blinds you to the even the basic realities of this case. Your insistence that the police had no reason to suspect OJ Simpson, even after the detectives were told about the other instances.

Speaking of which, isn't it pure speculation that Lange and Vanatter (or other LAPD members) did not know about the other incidents between OJ and Nicole? Did only one member of the LAPD know about these incidents--which happened to be MF?

We will never know the truth, the only thing we have to post our beliefs and support them with our opinons. BTW, if for some reason that you and the other G's learned that the glove at Rockingham was planted, would it change your mind about Simpson's guilt?

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

Regarding Vanatter's "lie" about Simpson's trip---why would he lie about that?
It appears to me that he wanted to give the impression that Simpson was in the act of fleeing the scene of the crime, I belive it is called "an act of flight".

So when they had the Bronco chase, why didn't they use that as an act of flight?

Another point, why would Vanatter lie about this when he could have said that Simpson planned the murders and was planning to use his trip to Chicago as an alibi?

I really wonder why the DA's tried so hard to keep the Bronco chase out, maybe it was because they might have opened the door to the defense regarding the video tapes of Simpson at LAX? Or that the airport was searched from top to bottom even before the detectives left for Rockingham?

Another point--off subject, did you know that Tom Lange knew that there was no way to tell the "age" of a blood drop? In fact he testified about this in the prelim hearing? He said that there were about 5 drops of blood at the scene that were not Nicole's or Ron's--but he never said they were not Simpson's---so how did he know those drops weren't Nicole's or Ron's, maybe he was told they weren't Simpson's either? Or he knew there was no conclusive proof that they were Simpson's?

I agree that his lie gave the initial impression of flight. However, I also believe he could have realized that the glove was planted by MF. Thus, he had to make the trip appear far more sinister than it was. I think that he had a Freudian slip, because they did not expect Simpson to be out of town on a preplanned trip. I think that's when they realized that something was not right with the glove and that Simpson may not have done the crime and MF had unexpectedly allegedly found a glove on Simpson's property.

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree with you that Vanatter lied to get the search warrant. However, the real question is why did he lie? Perhaps he knew that it is routine for Judges to uphold warrants even if the judge does not believe they are tell the truth.

IMO, not one detective or police officer showed any signs of fear on these issues. They had no problems covering for one another even knowing that their stories were going to be shredded by the defense--again, IMO.

I believe that as reported in that citizens group report,le do lie to get search warrants and plant evidence. If Vanhatter had not lied about those two issues, there would not have been a reason to issue the warrant.I also think that Clarke advised Vanhatter on the wording of the request and they knew that Ito would not dare toss all the evidence collected from that search as that would have tanked their case and he would not have been able to withstand the media attack on him. He would have to deal with the appeals court and maby even the court administrator would have removed him form the case.
Furhman and lang knew the spot on the Bronco had not been tested as blood.
Lang knew from Randa that the trip was planned.Both remained quite when
vanhatter made those statements in the warrant request.imo

[bobaugust]

Bob

Did Huizenga report state that ojs hair was tested specifically for dandruff.
I don't think so. Hair can be tested for many things but if it was not specifically tested to look for dandruff they there is no way to know if dandruff was present or not. You cannot assume one way or another if a dandruff test was not done.imo

Martin II

martin II, we don't know what Dr. Huizenga's report stated but he conducted a complete examination of Simpson on June 15 documenting every injury and bruise on his body. And on June 17 he again continued examining him with a nurse, Dr. Baden, Dr. Faerstein, and Henry Lee. At that time skin samples, urine samples, hair and blood samples were taken. If Simpson had dandruff they would have known it and documented it. But we know he didn't because Cochran never asked Dr. Huizenga about that nor as far as I know were those documented results made available to the prosecution..

There isn't one single shred of evidence that Simpson had dandruff on May 23 when Moore last saw him, or on June 12 the night of the murders, or on June 15 and June 17, the days after the murders. The only evidence as to when Simpson did have dandruff was over a month after the murders after he was in jail for over a month.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Show me where I posted Ito made that statement.

In your statement that I posted in quotation marks.

"Judge Ito also felt like I did by his statement that Vannatter recklessly disregarded the truth means that he, like me, felt that they went there because they thought Simpson was a suspect. Why else lie about the spot on the Bronco being blood before any testing was done to show it was blood?"

Post the testimony where Ito made the statement you claim he made and where you think Vannatter lied about the spot on the Bronco being blood. Include the dates please.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The more you call it unsupported speculation, after I have posted the link from the Supreme Court and shown why the judge and lawyers allowed and presented the testimony and shown what the prosecution's expert testified to the more you show that you have a very limited understanding of legal concepts and the legal process, imho.

Yes I read what you posted and as far as I can see it has absolutely nothing to with your flawed inference that Simpson had dandruff on a specific day in June that was based only on a witness who said sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he did not.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The expert's direct testimony that he could not say when the cap or the hairs were deposited there negated any inference, imho.

No it didn't since there was no evidence that the knit cap was at Bundy before the murders.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

July 10th

"MR. COCHRAN: When you got back in the kitchen, tell us what happened at that point.

MS. SIMPSON: Umm, then I had called Cathy Randa.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me stop you there. Who is Cathy Randa?

MS. SIMPSON: My father's assistant.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you called Cathy Randa and why did you call her?

MS. SIMPSON: To find out where my father was.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you ascertain that?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And after you found out where he was, did you communicate that to any of the police officers, if you recall?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you tell--which of the two did you tell? Do you remember if you told Lange or Phillips or who did you tell?

MS. SIMPSON: I believe I told both of them.

MR. COCHRAN: You told them both?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you tell them he was in Chicago?

MS. SIMPSON: I didn't know where he was but I knew he was out of town.

MR. COCHRAN: You found out from Cathy Randa where he was?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes."

Lange and Phillips were in the kitchen when Arnelle called Randa, Vannatter wasn't.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

"Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN DID YOU TALK TO CATHY RANDA?

A: AFTER ARNELLE DIALED THE PHONE NUMBER AND GOT AHOLD OF HER, YES.

Q: AND IN THE COURSE OF YOUR CONVERSATION WITH CATHY RANDA, DID YOU ASCERTAIN THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS ON A PREARRANGED TRIP TO CHICAGO?

A: THE WORD "PREARRANGED" WASN'T USED. SHE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD LEFT THE NIGHT BEFORE ON A RED EYE, THAT HE HAD FLOWN TO CHICAGO AND THAT'S WHERE HE WAS AT NOW.

Q: AND SHE KNEW ALSO WHICH HOTEL HE WAS IN ALSO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR. "

Let's be realistic. The fact that Park was there in the limousine tells you that it was prearranged.

There is no dispute that Simpson's trip to Chicago was prearranged that's what he was relying on for an alibi. The question is did Vannatter know that when he wrote the search warrant and there is no evidence that he did. Vannatter was not in the kitchen with Phillips and Lange when Arnelle called Randa and he knew nothing about Allan Park at that time.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

See my post #5115 on this thread, which I know is a quote from a link I supplied.

I read your post #5115 and what you posted is Ito referring to Vannatter obtaining the search warrant for Simpson's home. And there was no link to it. In your recent post you took Ito's words from that quote out of context and falsely stated they were regarding the police going to Rockingham thinking Simpson was a suspect. Ito never said that. And you still haven't supported your statement where you claim Vannatter lied about the spot on the Bronco because you you can't since he never lied about that.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I agree that his lie gave the initial impression of flight. However, I also believe he could have realized that the glove was planted by MF. Thus, he had to make the trip appear far more sinister than it was. I think that he had a Freudian slip, because they did not expect Simpson to be out of town on a preplanned trip. I think that's when they realized that something was not right with the glove and that Simpson may not have done the crime and MF had unexpectedly allegedly found a glove on Simpson's property.

I agree
After waiting about 10 hours after deciding oj was a suspect they got their story togeather and decided to go to his house and catch him in a after murder mode of getting rid of evidence. No one in that group thought about accounting for the movements of Furhman and others prior to this decision.

While Vanhatter and lang were in the kitchen being informed that oj was on a planned trip, Furhman deposited Kato in the kitchen and went off on his own search of the property looking for a potential person that made a noise in the walkway several hours,10:45, the previous night.(six hours earlier) and comes up with the glove.imo

[bobaugust]

That takes care of that issue.Vanhatter knew oj was at a scheduled perplanned meeting and the brown spot on the bronco had not been tested
and proved to be blood. So Vanhatter lied to get the search warrant.

Ito did not find that Vannatter lied about anything in the search warrant. Vannatter had made an assumption that was incorrect when he wrote that Simpson's trip to Chicago was "unexpected."

This is what Vannatter wrote in the search warrant regarding the blood on the Bronco,

"Detectives observed what appeared to be human blood, later confirmed by scientific investigation personnel to be human blood on the drivers door if the vehicle."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

You often chide NG's for their "speculation" and "imaginations", however, isn't that the theme in your posts--or that matter, all of our posts?

You are speculating that Simpson jumped a fence, banged into a wall and then dropped the glove. Yet, neither you, the DA's could provide any proof that this ever happened. There is no evidence to back this up.

It is soley your imagination that if a second glove was at Bundy, that it had to be within the killing cage.

It is soley your imagination that if a witness saw MF pick up the glove, that he would come forward and do the right the thing.

You have speculated that Kato was positive on why Simpson was wearing that night and it is only in your imagination why Kato got OJ's wardrobe wrong when he left for the airport.

It is pure imagination and speculation that the blue/black fibers had to come from a sweat suit, yet not even the state's own witness ever testified to this.

It is your imagination that each time a state's witness said that OJ Simpson could not be exclude, that means this is conclusive to OJ Simpson and no one else.

It is your stubborness that blinds you to the even the basic realities of this case. Your insistence that the police had no reason to suspect OJ Simpson, even after the detectives were told about the other instances.

Speaking of which, isn't it pure speculation that Lange and Vanatter (or other LAPD members) did not know about the other incidents between OJ and Nicole? Did only one member of the LAPD know about these incidents--which happened to be MF?

We will never know the truth, the only thing we have to post our beliefs and support them with our opinons. BTW, if for some reason that you and the other G's learned that the glove at Rockingham was planted, would it change your mind about Simpson's guilt?

There is evidence to support my speculation that Simpson scaled his fence. Fresh green leaves near the glove, and a bent wire exactly above where the glove was found and exactly opposite where Kaelin heard the noises on his back wall. A bent wire consistent with someone scaling the fence from the Salinger's property to Simpson's property. There is also Kaelin's testimony about the vibrations on that wall that he felt and that tilted the picture near his bed. There is also what the defense learned by unsuccessfully trying to create vibrations to tilt that picture by hitting and ramming into that wall.

There is not one shred of evidence that there was a second glove anywhere at Bundy when the police arrived there.

Kato Kaelin testified honestly as to what he remembered Simpson wearing when they went to McDonalds about an hour and a half before the murders. Just because Kaelin could not remember what Simpson was wearing when he left for the airport does not change that fact. Kaelin had other concerns then and was still nervous about the possibility of an intruder on the property. He testified he didn't remember what Simpson was wearing then.

It is a reasonable inference that the blue black cotton fibers found on Simpson's socks came from the dark colored sweat suit Kaelin saw Simpson wearing the night of the murders. The fact that a freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders is additional evidence to support that inference. The fact that when the police went back to Rockingham to get that sweat suit but it was no longer there is additional evidence to support that inference.

The detectives testified that because Simpson was the ex husband he was a potential suspect just as anybody that had personal contact with a murder victim is before they are eliminated. After the killer's right hand glove was found on his estate and then blood drops were seen on his driveway the testimony was that Simpson became a strong suspect.

The fact is that fiber evidence and Simpson's blood found on the killer's right hand glove is incriminating evidence against Simpson and the fact is there is no evidence that the glove was planted. Based on that physical evidence and the evidence that Simpson was behind Kaelin's room after he returned from Bundy it's not unreasonable to infer that Simpson dropped the glove there.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

You often chide NG's for their "speculation" and "imaginations", however, isn't that the theme in your posts--or that matter, all of our posts?

You are speculating that Simpson jumped a fence, banged into a wall and then dropped the glove. Yet, neither you, the DA's could provide any proof that this ever happened. There is no evidence to back this up.

It is soley your imagination that if a second glove was at Bundy, that it had to be within the killing cage.

It is soley your imagination that if a witness saw MF pick up the glove, that he would come forward and do the right the thing.

You have speculated that Kato was positive on why Simpson was wearing that night and it is only in your imagination why Kato got OJ's wardrobe wrong when he left for the airport.

It is pure imagination and speculation that the blue/black fibers had to come from a sweat suit, yet not even the state's own witness ever testified to this.

It is your imagination that each time a state's witness said that OJ Simpson could not be exclude, that means this is conclusive to OJ Simpson and no one else.

It is your stubborness that blinds you to the even the basic realities of this case. Your insistence that the police had no reason to suspect OJ Simpson, even after the detectives were told about the other instances.

Speaking of which, isn't it pure speculation that Lange and Vanatter (or other LAPD members) did not know about the other incidents between OJ and Nicole? Did only one member of the LAPD know about these incidents--which happened to be MF?

We will never know the truth, the only thing we have to post our beliefs and support them with our opinons. BTW, if for some reason that you and the other G's learned that the glove at Rockingham was planted, would it change your mind about Simpson's guilt?

Many have stated their belief that justice was not served and have therefore set out to prove that Simpson is the murder, i.e. that the verdict was wrong. In so doing they have created, imho, a legal system that differs vastly from any court of law in America. They have decided that the court of law is less than the court of public opinion, imho. I think this is because they do not understand the legal concept of justice. The legal concept deals more with due process rights and punishment that fits the crime. In most cases, it does not deal with the concept of whether the verdict was right or wrong. They speak of jury nullification not realizing the historical aspects of the term. There was no jury nullification in this trial, because no court has ruled that the verdict was not in line with the evidence. They proclaim the evidence proved this and that and will not consider the evidence presented to rebut that evidence. The most damning thing in this trial other than the destruction of the prosecution's evidence by the defense was that jury instruction on reasonable inferences and which version the jury had to adopt, imho. I have provided two links and one is on the legal definition of justice and the other on jury nullification. My concern is not with guilt or non guilt but with whether or not the jury rightly could have concluded there was reasonable doubt. I think that, given the evidence and the instruction, justice was served, i.e. the jury rightly concluded there was reasonable doubt.



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/justice

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/634240

[William Anthony]

In your statement that I posted in quotation marks.

"Judge Ito also felt like I did by his statement that Vannatter recklessly disregarded the truth means that he, like me, felt that they went there because they thought Simpson was a suspect. Why else lie about the spot on the Bronco being blood before any testing was done to show it was blood?"

Post the testimony where Ito made the statement you claim he made and where you think Vannatter lied about the spot on the Bronco being blood. Include the dates please.

bobaugust

That has already been done.

[William Anthony]

martin II, we don't know what Dr. Huizenga's report stated but he conducted a complete examination of Simpson on June 15 documenting every injury and bruise on his body. And on June 17 he again continued examining him with a nurse, Dr. Baden, Dr. Faerstein, and Henry Lee. At that time skin samples, urine samples, hair and blood samples were taken. If Simpson had dandruff they would have known it and documented it. But we know he didn't because Cochran never asked Dr. Huizenga about that nor as far as I know were those documented results made available to the prosecution..

There isn't one single shred of evidence that Simpson had dandruff on May 23 when Moore last saw him, or on June 12 the night of the murders, or on June 15 and June 17, the days after the murders. The only evidence as to when Simpson did have dandruff was over a month after the murders after he was in jail for over a month.

bobaugust

Much to your seeming displeasure, Simpson did not have to prove his innocence. The prosecution had to prove his guilt.

[William Anthony]

I read your post #5115 and what you posted is Ito referring to Vannatter obtaining the search warrant for Simpson's home. And there was no link to it. In your recent post you took Ito's words from that quote out of context and falsely stated they were regarding the police going to Rockingham thinking Simpson was a suspect. Ito never said that. And you still haven't supported your statement where you claim Vannatter lied about the spot on the Bronco because you you can't since he never lied about that.

bobaugust

I posted the judge's remark and Clark's agreement, regarding Vannatter's lie about the blood. :read: What you don't seem to understand is that they had to first justify the entry into his curtilage to thereafter obtain a warrant. The lies in the affidavit were to give them a reason to have entered his curtilage and the things they allegedly found after making the entry gave them reason to have probable cause to believe Simpson a suspect and to search his home. They had began the search without a warrant. What don't you understand?

[William Anthony]

Ito did not find that Vannatter lied about anything in the search warrant. Vannatter had made an assumption that was incorrect when he wrote that Simpson's trip to Chicago was "unexpected."

This is what Vannatter wrote in the search warrant regarding the blood on the Bronco,

"Detectives observed what appeared to be human blood, later confirmed by scientific investigation personnel to be human blood on the drivers door if the vehicle."

bobaugust

Yes, and this part was a lie, "later confirmed by scientific investigation personnel to be human blood on the drivers door if the vehicle.", as Ito pointed out. :read:

[martin II]

There is no dispute that Simpson's trip to Chicago was prearranged that's what he was relying on for an alibi. The question is did Vannatter know that when he wrote the search warrant and there is no evidence that he did. Vannatter was not in the kitchen with Phillips and Lange when Arnelle called Randa and he knew nothing about Allan Park at that time.

bobaugust

Bob

So vanhatter did not talk to Lang and Lang did not tell vanhatter what he had learned from his phone talks to Randa and OJ although they were all
in the same house and Vanhater and Lang were partners. When Kato told them that OJ left in the limo for the airport the night before did all of them ignore his comments. I don't think so. I believe lang talked to Vanhatter and he to lang about everything they were doing.So yes Vanhater knew.imo

[martin II]

There is evidence to support my speculation that Simpson scaled his fence. Fresh green leaves near the glove, and a bent wire exactly above where the glove was found and exactly opposite where Kaelin heard the noises on his back wall. A bent wire consistent with someone scaling the fence from the Salinger's property to Simpson's property. There is also Kaelin's testimony about the vibrations on that wall that he felt and that tilted the picture near his bed. There is also what the defense learned by unsuccessfully trying to create vibrations to tilt that picture by hitting and ramming into that wall.

There is not one shred of evidence that there was a second glove anywhere at Bundy when the police arrived there.

Kato Kaelin testified honestly as to what he remembered Simpson wearing when they went to McDonalds about an hour and a half before the murders. Just because Kaelin could not remember what Simpson was wearing when he left for the airport does not change that fact. Kaelin had other concerns then and was still nervous about the possibility of an intruder on the property. He testified he didn't remember what Simpson was wearing then.

It is a reasonable inference that the blue black cotton fibers found on Simpson's socks came from the dark colored sweat suit Kaelin saw Simpson wearing the night of the murders. The fact that a freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders is additional evidence to support that inference. The fact that when the police went back to Rockingham to get that sweat suit but it was no longer there is additional evidence to support that inference.

The detectives testified that because Simpson was the ex husband he was a potential suspect just as anybody that had personal contact with a murder victim is before they are eliminated. After the killer's right hand glove was found on his estate and then blood drops were seen on his driveway the testimony was that Simpson became a strong suspect.

The fact is that fiber evidence and Simpson's blood found on the killer's right hand glove is incriminating evidence against Simpson and the fact is there is no evidence that the glove was planted. Based on that physical evidence and the evidence that Simpson was behind Kaelin's room after he returned from Bundy it's not unreasonable to infer that Simpson dropped the glove there.

bobaugust

BOB
There is no physical evidence that oj was in the south walkway and you know this but you continue to state that there is.imo

[William Anthony]

There is evidence to support my speculation that Simpson scaled his fence. Fresh green leaves near the glove, and a bent wire exactly above where the glove was found and exactly opposite where Kaelin heard the noises on his back wall. A bent wire consistent with someone scaling the fence from the Salinger's property to Simpson's property. There is also Kaelin's testimony about the vibrations on that wall that he felt and that tilted the picture near his bed. There is also what the defense learned by unsuccessfully trying to create vibrations to tilt that picture by hitting and ramming into that wall.

There is not one shred of evidence that there was a second glove anywhere at Bundy when the police arrived there.

Kato Kaelin testified honestly as to what he remembered Simpson wearing when they went to McDonalds about an hour and a half before the murders. Just because Kaelin could not remember what Simpson was wearing when he left for the airport does not change that fact. Kaelin had other concerns then and was still nervous about the possibility of an intruder on the property. He testified he didn't remember what Simpson was wearing then.

It is a reasonable inference that the blue black cotton fibers found on Simpson's socks came from the dark colored sweat suit Kaelin saw Simpson wearing the night of the murders. The fact that a freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders is additional evidence to support that inference. The fact that when the police went back to Rockingham to get that sweat suit but it was no longer there is additional evidence to support that inference.

The detectives testified that because Simpson was the ex husband he was a potential suspect just as anybody that had personal contact with a murder victim is before they are eliminated. After the killer's right hand glove was found on his estate and then blood drops were seen on his driveway the testimony was that Simpson became a strong suspect.

The fact is that fiber evidence and Simpson's blood found on the killer's right hand glove is incriminating evidence against Simpson and the fact is there is no evidence that the glove was planted. Based on that physical evidence and the evidence that Simpson was behind Kaelin's room after he returned from Bundy it's not unreasonable to infer that Simpson dropped the glove there.

bobaugust

"There is evidence to support my speculation"-not in the criminal trial.

MF's testimony that he saw "them", which he could not decide was a slip of the tongue or not.

Kato testified that he could not identify the material of the sweat suit.

The only inference that can be drawn in regard to the sweat suit is that someone washed one and put it away, if there was one in the washing machine. No blood found in the washing machine or the drains allows the reasonable inference that the sweat suit had not been used in the commission of any murders and was therefore irrelevant to the charges.

Given the lack of evidence of anyone being behind the quarters before MF allegedly found the glove, it is reasonable to believe MF planted it there.

I agree with the poster that you engage in a lot of speculation. However, even if we consider them as reasonable inferences, I ask you to remember the jury instruction.

[William Anthony]

Bob

So vanhatter did not talk to Lang and Lang did not tell vanhatter what he had learned from his phone talks to Randa and OJ although they were all
in the same house and Vanhater and Lang were partners. When Kato told them that OJ left in the limo for the airport the night before did all of them ignore his comments. I don't think so. I believe lang talked to Vanhatter and he to lang about everything they were doing.So yes Vanhater knew.imo

Nows, that is a reasonable inference, imho.

[William Anthony]

BOB
There is no physical evidence that oj was in the south walkway and you know this but you continue to state that there is.imo

You know he claims to always post on the evidence.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

It is not the size of the man in the fight but the size of the fight in the man that makes the difference.

[William Anthony]

I found this article pretty enlightening and especially this quote.

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/ojverdict103

"And regardless of whether one believes Simpson was innocent or guilty, the true lesson to be gained from the trial was that the structure that makes up the justice system is tried and true, Epps said, adding that she did not believe that the gridiron great would be acquitted.

“My first thought was surprise, and not unpleasantly so, because it reminded me of something that I had forgotten,” Epps said. “The right outcome of a trial is the outcome a jury gives us. And it was a spectacular outcome.”

[martin II]

Nows, that is a reasonable inference, imho.

Well they had just finished having that huddle at bundy when they decided oj was a suspect and assembeled their team to go to his house.They talked to each other then.They talked to each other at the Gate when Furhman nominated himself to go over the wall.imo

[William Anthony]

Ito did not find that Vannatter lied about anything in the search warrant. Vannatter had made an assumption that was incorrect when he wrote that Simpson's trip to Chicago was "unexpected."

This is what Vannatter wrote in the search warrant regarding the blood on the Bronco,

"Detectives observed what appeared to be human blood, later confirmed by scientific investigation personnel to be human blood on the drivers door if the vehicle."

bobaugust

Link please to your quote. I would like to see where Vannatter wrote "to be human blood on the drivers door if the vehicle."

[martin II]

I found this article pretty enlightening and especially this quote.

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/ojverdict103

"And regardless of whether one believes Simpson was innocent or guilty, the true lesson to be gained from the trial was that the structure that makes up the justice system is tried and true, Epps said, adding that she did not believe that the gridiron great would be acquitted.

“My first thought was surprise, and not unpleasantly so, because it reminded me of something that I had forgotten,” Epps said. “The right outcome of a trial is the outcome a jury gives us. And it was a spectacular outcome.”

William
Very good article.

If i were a white person living in a nice part of towm where there was none or very little police misconduct such as abuse of citizens and police giving untruthful testimony and planting evidence ,it would be easy for me to believe that they behaved properly and ignore claims of abuse.

If i were a minority or a poor white person living in a different kind of neighborhood where i had seen le lie and give false testimony, i would listen to defense claims of misconduct much more carefully as experience would tell me that it does happen.
imo
martin II

[Redmama]

What the hell is red Mama? i assume one of your 'in' words.

Defense and defence was not my point William. 'Huge' was my point.

I appreciate you attempting to cover for Martin.

Like sticking to the thread. Simpson. The civil trial. You know the one.

You have to do better than that.

Just me - :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Just me - :seeya:

Glad to see you get "in"volved. :)

[William Anthony]

William
Very good article.

If i were a white person living in a nice part of towm where there was none or very little police misconduct such as abuse of citizens and police giving untruthful testimony and planting evidence ,it would be easy for me to believe that they behaved properly and ignore claims of abuse.

If i were a minority or a poor white person living in a different kind of neighborhood where i had seen le lie and give false testimony, i would listen to defense claims of misconduct much more carefully as experience would tell me that it does happen.
imo
martin II

Yes martin,

trust is a central component of the relationship LE shared with the various communities. When that trust is lost, rightly or wrongly, because of a perception, then it is inevitable that the strain cause by that loss of trust will lead to abuses. The police took an oath and, once it became apparent to any member of the force that they could not live up to it, that member should have severed their relationship from the force, as MF attempted to do. Unfortunately, he chose for whatever reason, be it the benefits of retirement or whatever, MF did not chose to break that relationship. His feeling having been exposed lent credibility to the evidence that he may have planted evidence in this case. Based on the history of past abuses and the evidence in the instant case, I think it was impossible for that particular jury to place trust in LE.

[William Anthony]

ito did not find that vannatter lied about anything in the search warrant. Vannatter had made an assumption that was incorrect when he wrote that simpson's trip to chicago was "unexpected."

this is what vannatter wrote in the search warrant regarding the blood on the bronco,

"detectives observed what appeared to be human blood, later confirmed by scientific investigation personnel to be human blood on the drivers door if the vehicle."

bobaugust

"q: Okay. Now, on cross-examination, sir, you indicated in response to one of mr. Cochran's questions that arnelle told you that mr. Simpson was in chicago but that she told you that subsequent.

Mr. Cochran: Objection. This is leading and suggestive.

Q: By ms. Clark: What did you mean by that?

The court: Overruled.

The witness: I thought i meant that arnelle simpson told me that after she made a telephone call to cathy randa.

Q: By ms. Clark: Okay. Prior to the phone call that arnelle made to cathy randa, did you ask her the defendant's whereabouts?

A: I don't believe i did.

Q: Did someone ask her?

A: I believe my partner did.

Q: Okay. And what was her response?

Mr. Cochran: That's hearsay, your honor.

The court: Sustained.

Q: By ms. Clark: Did you -- did she give you any information concerning where the defendant could be found?

Mr. Cochran: Hearsay, your honor.

The court: Overruled.

The witness: She didn't know.

Mr. Cochran: That's hearsay. Move to strike it.

The court: That will be stricken. The question is, did she give you any information, yes or no.

The witness: As to his whereabouts, no.

The court: Next question.

Q: By ms. Clark: When you were at the location, sir, at that time, approximately 6:00 a.m., did you go upstairs to look for mr. Simpson or any possible injured victims?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: By that time, we'd been informed that mr. Simpson was in chicago.

Mr. Cochran: Hearsay, your honor. Object to the form.

The court: Overruled. "

[martin II]

"q: Okay. Now, on cross-examination, sir, you indicated in response to one of mr. Cochran's questions that arnelle told you that mr. Simpson was in chicago but that she told you that subsequent.

Mr. Cochran: Objection. This is leading and suggestive.

Q: By ms. Clark: What did you mean by that?

The court: Overruled.

The witness: I thought i meant that arnelle simpson told me that after she made a telephone call to cathy randa.

Q: By ms. Clark: Okay. Prior to the phone call that arnelle made to cathy randa, did you ask her the defendant's whereabouts?

A: I don't believe i did.

Q: Did someone ask her?

A: I believe my partner did.

Q: Okay. And what was her response?

Mr. Cochran: That's hearsay, your honor.

The court: Sustained.

Q: By ms. Clark: Did you -- did she give you any information concerning where the defendant could be found?

Mr. Cochran: Hearsay, your honor.

The court: Overruled.

The witness: She didn't know.

Mr. Cochran: That's hearsay. Move to strike it.

The court: That will be stricken. The question is, did she give you any information, yes or no.

The witness: As to his whereabouts, no.

The court: Next question.

Q: By ms. Clark: When you were at the location, sir, at that time, approximately 6:00 a.m., did you go upstairs to look for mr. Simpson or any possible injured victims?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: By that time, we'd been informed that mr. Simpson was in chicago.

Mr. Cochran: Hearsay, your honor. Object to the form.

The court: Overruled. "


Before Arnell talked to cathy he did not know where oj was. but after entering the house at 6 am because they thought oj may have been killed they did not look for him because someone told them he was in chicago?

[William Anthony]

Before Arnell talked to cathy he did not know where oj was. but after entering the house at 6 am because they thought oj may have been killed they did not look for him because someone told them he was in chicago?

Now that we are in, I guess we can say he is a suspect and took an unexpected/unplanned/unscheduled trip to Chicago.

[martin II]

Now that we are in, I guess we can say he is a suspect and took an unexpected/unplanned/unscheduled trip to Chicago.

Or lang and vanhatter looked at Furhman and said " i thought you said for sure we would catch him here"

martin II

[William Anthony]

Or lang and vanhatter looked at Furhman and said " i thought you said for sure we would catch him here"

martin II

Or maybe they waited that 45 minutes hoping someone would kill him, if they believed they had an emergency situation, as opposed to discussing how they could make entry and finding something to negate probable cause, believing he was a suspect.

[William Anthony]

Once Simpson arrived at Los Angeles International Airport, he must have said I know I'll go where the can't extradite me, Chicago, and check into the room where I said I would be so they can find me. Sound about right?

[bobaugust]

Much to your seeming displeasure, Simpson did not have to prove his innocence. The prosecution had to prove his guilt.

Much to your seeming displeasure (funny), the prosecution did not have to prove Simpson didn't have dandruff on the night of the murders because not only was there no evidence that Simpson had dandruff then none of his lawyers ever claimed that he did.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I posted the judge's remark and Clark's agreement, regarding Vannatter's lie about the blood. :read: What you don't seem to understand is that they had to first justify the entry into his curtilage to thereafter obtain a warrant. The lies in the affidavit were to give them a reason to have entered his curtilage and the things they allegedly found after making the entry gave them reason to have probable cause to believe Simpson a suspect and to search his home. They had began the search without a warrant. What don't you understand?

What you just did was not even acknowledge or admit to being mistaken when it was brought to your attention that you took Ito's words from that quote out of context and falsely said, "Judge Ito also felt like I did by his statement that Vannatter recklessly disregarded the truth means that he, like me, felt that they went there because they thought Simpson was a suspect." Judge ito never said that regarding the police entry onto Simpson's estate or that the police went to Rockingham because they though Simpson was a suspect. What part of that do you not understand?

And then you made another false statement when you said, "Why else lie about the spot on the Bronco being blood before any testing was done to show it was blood" When in fact Vannatter never said that. He said it "appeared to be human blood" Did you admit to that mistake? No, you simply changed your claim to Vannatter lied when he said the blood was later confirmed by scientific investigation personnel to be human blood.

Since the presumptive test for blood indicated that it was blood Vannatter assumed that it was human blood. Vannatter didn't lied about either of these issues and Judge Ito never found that he did.

You asked me for a link to my quote from the search warrant. Sorry I don't have a link to the search warrant. A copy of it is in Lange and Vannatter's book, Evidence Dismissed and the portion I quoted was on page 45 of that book. If you obtain a copy of that book you can see if for yourself or maybe you might be more successful than me searching the internet for a copy of the search warrant. If you question that what I posted is correct then maybe some other poster who has that book will confirm that I quoted it correctly.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Bob

So vanhatter did not talk to Lang and Lang did not tell vanhatter what he had learned from his phone talks to Randa and OJ although they were all
in the same house and Vanhater and Lang were partners. When Kato told them that OJ left in the limo for the airport the night before did all of them ignore his comments. I don't think so. I believe lang talked to Vanhatter and he to lang about everything they were doing.So yes Vanhater knew.imo

I would thing that Lange did speak to Vannatter regarding the telephone conversation with Simpson but there is no evidence that he told Vannatter anything specific regarding Simpson's trip to Chicago otherwise Vannatter wouldn't have written that the trip to Chicago was "unexpected." Vannatter didn't need to write that. Not writing it would not have prevented the detectives from getting the search warrant. Vannatter didn't lie about this and Judge Ito never found that he lied about this. Vannatter simply made an an incorrect assumption.

It was because of what Vannatter overheard Kaelin say and Arnelle said not seeming to know if Simpson was in his house or not that led Vannatter to assume the trip to Chicago was "unexpected."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

BOB
There is no physical evidence that oj was in the south walkway and you know this but you continue to state that there is.imo

The fact is that Kaelin heard someone behind his room. The fact is there were only three people at Rockingham at that time. Kaelin, Park, and Simpson. Which one do you think was back there?

The fact is that Simpson was never seen or heard from by Allan Park that night until a couple of minutes after Kaelin heard someone behind his room. Park testified he first saw Kaelin and then Simpson at the same time at the front of the house. Kaelin had left his room and walked around the house to check on the noises in the same amount of time it would have taken Simpson to make his his way around the house after causing the noises on Kaelin's wall. The fact is that the blood found on that glove was from both victims and Simpson. The fact is that fibers found on that glove were the same exact fibers that were found on Simpson's socks. As well as a fiber found on that glove was consistent from coming from Simpson's Bronco carpet.

Based on all that evidence it is not unreasonable to infer that Simpson was the person Kaelin heard behind his room.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

"There is evidence to support my speculation"-not in the criminal trial.

MF's testimony that he saw "them", which he could not decide was a slip of the tongue or not.

Kato testified that he could not identify the material of the sweat suit.

The only inference that can be drawn in regard to the sweat suit is that someone washed one and put it away, if there was one in the washing machine. No blood found in the washing machine or the drains allows the reasonable inference that the sweat suit had not been used in the commission of any murders and was therefore irrelevant to the charges.

Given the lack of evidence of anyone being behind the quarters before MF allegedly found the glove, it is reasonable to believe MF planted it there.

I agree with the poster that you engage in a lot of speculation. However, even if we consider them as reasonable inferences, I ask you to remember the jury instruction.

The evidence in the criminal trial points to Simpson as the person that Kaelin heard behind his room.

Mark Fuhrman clearly testified that when he said "them" he was referring to the glove and the knit cap. Fuhrman clearly testified that when he said "them" it was not a slip of the tongue.

When the sweat suit was found it was freshly washed and had no signs of blood. There was no reason for the police to search the drains in the laundry room since at that time the police didn't even know that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders. The evidence is that when the police went back to Rockingham to get the sweat suit it was not there.

If I make an inference I base it the known facts and evidence, not imagination. If I speculate about something where there are no facts or evidence to support it I call it for what is, unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Much to your seeming displeasure (funny), the prosecution did not have to prove Simpson didn't have dandruff on the night of the murders because not only was there no evidence that Simpson had dandruff then none of his lawyers ever claimed that he did.

bobaugust

I will not continue to debate evidence with you since you show you have no understanding of what evidence is, imho. The prosecution claimed they had a cap with hairs without dandruff that Simpson wore on the night of the murders. Ergo, they had to provide evidence (something that tend to establish) those claims. Now I understand why you posted three things in one post that was directly contradictory to the evidence and claimed you posted on the evidence, which was one of the thing that was wrong in that post.

[William Anthony]

What you just did was not even acknowledge or admit to being mistaken when it was brought to your attention that you took Ito's words from that quote out of context and falsely said, "Judge Ito also felt like I did by his statement that Vannatter recklessly disregarded the truth means that he, like me, felt that they went there because they thought Simpson was a suspect." Judge ito never said that regarding the police entry onto Simpson's estate or that the police went to Rockingham because they though Simpson was a suspect. What part of that do you not understand?

And then you made another false statement when you said, "Why else lie about the spot on the Bronco being blood before any testing was done to show it was blood" When in fact Vannatter never said that. He said it "appeared to be human blood" Did you admit to that mistake? No, you simply changed your claim to Vannatter lied when he said the blood was later confirmed by scientific investigation personnel to be human blood.

Since the presumptive test for blood indicated that it was blood Vannatter assumed that it was human blood. Vannatter didn't lied about either of these issues and Judge Ito never found that he did.

You asked me for a link to my quote from the search warrant. Sorry I don't have a link to the search warrant. A copy of it is in Lange and Vannatter's book, Evidence Dismissed and the portion I quoted was on page 45 of that book. If you obtain a copy of that book you can see if for yourself or maybe you might be more successful than me searching the internet for a copy of the search warrant. If you question that what I posted is correct then maybe some other poster who has that book will confirm that I quoted it correctly.

bobaugust

:read: I posted what Ito said and Clark agreed. If that was the quote, then Vannatter needed lessons in English. When was the substance that was alleged to be Blood on the Bronco found? Answer, before they invaded Simpson's premises. Why do you think Ito told Vannatter he had a reckless disregard for the truth? Once you educate yourself on legal concepts, you and I can have a discussion in which I feel that I do not have an unconscionable advantage.

[William Anthony]

The evidence in the criminal trial points to Simpson as the person that Kaelin heard behind his room.

Mark Fuhrman clearly testified that when he said "them" he was referring to the glove and the knit cap. Fuhrman clearly testified that when he said "them" it was not a slip of the tongue.

When the sweat suit was found it was freshly washed and had no signs of blood. There was no reason for the police to search the drains in the laundry room since at that time the police didn't even know that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders. The evidence is that when the police went back to Rockingham to get the sweat suit it was not there.

If I make an inference I base it the known facts and evidence, not imagination. If I speculate about something where there are no facts or evidence to support it I call it for what is, unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

Not true.

[martin II]

The fact is that Kaelin heard someone behind his room. The fact is there were only three people at Rockingham at that time. Kaelin, Park, and Simpson. Which one do you think was back there?

The fact is that Simpson was never seen or heard from by Allan Park that night until a couple of minutes after Kaelin heard someone behind his room. Park testified he first saw Kaelin and then Simpson at the same time at the front of the house. Kaelin had left his room and walked around the house to check on the noises in the same amount of time it would have taken Simpson to make his his way around the house after causing the noises on Kaelin's wall. The fact is that the blood found on that glove was from both victims and Simpson. The fact is that fibers found on that glove were the same exact fibers that were found on Simpson's socks. As well as a fiber found on that glove was consistent from coming from Simpson's Bronco carpet.

Based on all that evidence it is not unreasonable to infer that Simpson was the person Kaelin heard behind his room.

bobaugust

There is no evidence that either was back there. There is no source for those fibers. The prosecution had the socks for several weeks in their lab.
I guess they could plant whatever blood,fibers,hair they wahted to.
imo

[tv]

There is no evidence that either was back there. There is no source for those fibers. The prosecution had the socks for several weeks in their lab.
I guess they could plant whatever blood,fibers,hair they wahted to.
imoYou have absolutely no evidence that the prosecution planted anything anywhere including the evidence in the lab. Here's a thought -- maybe the defense planted the dandruff. :)

[bobaugust]

I will not continue to debate evidence with you since you show you have no understanding of what evidence is, imho. The prosecution claimed they had a cap with hairs without dandruff that Simpson wore on the night of the murders. Ergo, they had to provide evidence (something that tend to establish) those claims. Now I understand why you posted three things in one post that was directly contradictory to the evidence and claimed you posted on the evidence, which was one of the thing that was wrong in that post.

There is nothing to debate. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and Simpson's lawyers never claimed he did. There is only evidence that Simpson had dandruff over a month after the murders. Your speculation that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders is unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

:read: I posted what Ito said and Clark agreed. If that was the quote, then Vannatter needed lessons in English. When was the substance that was alleged to be Blood on the Bronco found? Answer, before they invaded Simpson's premises. Why do you think Ito told Vannatter he had a reckless disregard for the truth? Once you educate yourself on legal concepts, you and I can have a discussion in which I feel that I do not have an unconscionable advantage.

You falsely posted what Ito said and what he was referring to. You also falsely posted that Vannatter lied about the spot on the Bronco being blood. You ask why I think Ito told Vannatter he had a reckless disregard for the truth? First post the testimony where you think Ito told that to Vannatter. Include the date please and I'll be happy to answer your question.

Since you refuse to admit to your mistakes it's appropriate that you think you have an "unconscionable advantage" Unconscionable meaning unscrupulous or unreasonable.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Not true.

Yes true.

[bobaugust]

There is no evidence that either was back there. There is no source for those fibers. The prosecution had the socks for several weeks in their lab.
I guess they could plant whatever blood,fibers,hair they wahted to.
imo

The reality is that there were only three people at Rockingham that night and one of them was behind the guest room. You know who it was you just can't bring yourself to say it. Funny.

Of course there is no source for those fibers because the killer disposed of it That doesn't change the fact that all the same exact blue black cotton fibers found in this case came from the same source, the clothing the killer wore. Your claims of evidence planting are nothing more than just unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

There is nothing to debate. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and Simpson's lawyers never claimed he did. There is only evidence that Simpson had dandruff over a month after the murders. Your speculation that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders is unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

The prosecution made the claim that Simpson wore the hat on that night. The expert failed and they failed on that claim. If you understood evidence and the burden of proof, you would know that, imho. If you understood a prima facie case and the burden of proof in a trial, you would understand this.

[William Anthony]

You have absolutely no evidence that the prosecution planted anything anywhere including the evidence in the lab. Here's a thought -- maybe the defense planted the dandruff. :)

Not true.

[William Anthony]

Yes true.

You and I have finally agree that your post was not true. Thanks. :)

[William Anthony]

You falsely posted what Ito said and what he was referring to. You also falsely posted that Vannatter lied about the spot on the Bronco being blood. You ask why I think Ito told Vannatter he had a reckless disregard for the truth? First post the testimony where you think Ito told that to Vannatter. Include the date please and I'll be happy to answer your question.

Since you refuse to admit to your mistakes it's appropriate that you think you have an "unconscionable advantage" Unconscionable meaning unscrupulous or unreasonable.

bobaugust

You may wish I had posted falsely. Since you really have a very limited understanding of legal concepts, I wish you would say in your opinion so that you can maintain some semblance of having an understanding of what went on. The things that Ito was referring to were the things in the affidavit, or application for a search warrant, if you will, that the tongue of Vannatter was accused of by two judges as playing fast and lose with the truth and showing a reckless disregard for the truth. They were made about, as you claim, his unexpected trip to Chicago and the spot alleged to be blood. They allegedly believed he was a victim and not getting any answer put the two things together in order to unlawfully, imho, invade his home and curtilage. If you read my prior post you will see that Ito was referring to Vannattaer's false statement about the scientific investigation, when, at the time he wrote the affidavit, only a presumptive test had been done for blood, which Ito said was insufficient, because other things give positive results. In other words, his statement that what appeared to be blood was later proven to be blood was false at the time he made it, i.e. the spot identified as blood had not been so identified at the time Vannatter made the statement.

Yes, those are two meanings for unconscionable and they somewhat apply being that it is unreasonable for me to discuss legal concepts with you, due to you demonstrated lack of knowledge on the subjects and some may say that it is unscrupulous of you to place yourself in that position. However, I was speaking of it as it is used in legal terms in regard to the parties to a K. I was speaking of taking advantage, because you are not on equal footing, imho. This is why I suggested that you educate yourself, so that others would not think I was being unscrupulous.

[William Anthony]

The reality is that there were only three people at Rockingham that night and one of them was behind the guest room. You know who it was you just can't bring yourself to say it. Funny.

Of course there is no source for those fibers because the killer disposed of it That doesn't change the fact that all the same exact blue black cotton fibers found in this case came from the same source, the clothing the killer wore. Your claims of evidence planting are nothing more than just unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

There were at least seven people at Rockingham during the night of June 12th or the early morning hours of the 13th, if you will. The evidence is that there was no evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters before MF went back there where he allegedly found the glove.

[William Anthony]

A man who has found nothing to die for has found nothing to live for.

[William Anthony]

You have absolutely no evidence that the prosecution planted anything anywhere including the evidence in the lab. Here's a thought -- maybe the defense planted the dandruff. :)

The EDTA results of Martz. Maybe, LE planted the cap with evidence that did not fit.:)

[SlowHandSam]

I am still struggling why there is commentary suggesting the prosecution had to prove that OJ did not have dandruff on the night he murdered Nicole and Ron since no one has claimed he did.

I guess I just don't get it.

[William Anthony]

I am still struggling why there is commentary suggesting the prosecution had to prove that OJ did not have dandruff on the night he murdered Nicole and Ron since no one has claimed he did.

I guess I just don't get it.

I will not get into a discussion of Ms. Moore's testimony and will only say that the prosecution asked their expert on direct, IIRC, before Ms. Moore testified, trying to explain away the absence of dandruff in the hairs in and on the cap they claimed Simpson wore to commit the murders, because their exemplar sample was inconsistent on the issue of dandruff, with the hairs found in and on the cap. The prosecution understood that they had to provide evidence on that issue since it was their claim. I have discussed some issues with you and I think you understand the burden of proof and the fact that the defense is not required to make claims. Your question is worth discussing in the context of the burden of proof.

[SlowHandSam]

I will not get into a discussion of Ms. Moore's testimony and will only say that the prosecution asked their expert on direct, IIRC, before Ms. Moore testified, trying to explain away the absence of dandruff in the hairs in and on the cap they claimed Simpson wore to commit the murders, because their exemplar sample was inconsistent on the issue of dandruff, with the hairs found in and on the cap. The prosecution understood that they had to provide evidence on that issue since it was their claim. I have discussed some issues with you and I think you understand the burden of proof and the fact that the defense is not required to make claims. Your question is worth discussing in the context of the burden of proof.

You decide when a post is worthy of discussing?

There was no dandruff on the cap. There was no proof or claim that he had dandruff the night he murdered two people. So, back to what I said previously - I don't understand why this is such a topic when there is no claim (or proof) he had dandruff the night he murdered Nicole and Ron.

It's a moot point, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

You decide when a post is worthy of discussing?

There was no dandruff on the cap. There was no proof or claim that he had dandruff the night he murdered two people. So, back to what I said previously - I don't understand why this is such a topic when there is no claim (or proof) he had dandruff the night he murdered Nicole and Ron.

It's a moot point, IMHO.

I think you take offense where there was none intended. I should have added that it is worthy of discussing in the context of the burden of proof to me. I don't understand what is so difficult to understand. The prosecution understood that they had to provide evidence that there was no dandruff, since the exemplar had dandruff. Why do you think they asked the expert about dandruff? There was no proof to support their claim that he did not have dandruff or that he wore that cap on the night of the murders. The point is not moot, imho, when you consider the burden of proof. If the prosecution thought it was moot, they would not have asked the expert questions about it, imho.

[martin II]

was there some simular or like knit caps found in nicoles house.

[martin II]

I am still struggling why there is commentary suggesting the prosecution had to prove that OJ did not have dandruff on the night he murdered Nicole and Ron since no one has claimed he did.

I guess I just don't get it.

The prosecution claimed that oj wore that cap on 6/12. Therefore they had to prove that claim. They had to prove that the cap was not there before 6/12 and that the cap was brought to the scene on 6/12 and left by oj.

I don't believe they proved either.imo

[William Anthony]

was there some simular or like knit caps found in nicoles house.

IIRC, yes.