Issues In The Criminal Trial

[SlowHandSam]

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

Aside from his hair in it ...

[William Anthony]

Aside from his hair in it ...

Hairs consistent with, minus the dandruff.

[tv]

Not true.Which do you think is not true? That the defense planted the dandruff or that there is no evidence the prosecution planted evidence? martin has progressed from Vannatter, Fuhrman, Fung, Peratis and the lab technicians planting evidence to the prosecution planting evidence. If you want to say the prosecution planted evidence without any proof I can say that the defense planted the dandruff. The more I think about it the more I think it's highly likely that they did.

[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.

It's funny how you want to change the subject but it's understandable since your inference you have defended as reasonable was shown to be only unsupported speculation. Based on the hair and fiber evidence found in and on the knit cap and the fact that the knit cap was found next to one of the killer's gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet it is not unreasonable to infer that the killer wore that knit cap.

bobaugust

[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.

It doesn't take an understanding of legal concepts to recognize a mistaken comment. You wrote in a posting,
"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 referring to when the police went to Rockingham and he never said he believed the police went to Rockingham because they thought Simpson was a suspect. Ito's comment was regarding the written mistakes and assumptions that Vannatter made in the search warrant that was issued later in the morning to search Simpson's house for evidence.

You continued by making another mistaken comment saying, "Why else lie about the spot on the Bronco being blood before any testing was done to show it was blood"

Vannatter never said the spot on the Bronco was blood, he said it appeared to be blood. It wasn't until after I pointed out your mistakes that you said anything about the scientific investigation. Mistaken comments you still haven't admitted to making or even thanked me for pointing them out to you.

bobaugust

[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.

There is only evidence of three people being at Rockingham when Kato Kaelin heard someone behind his room. Kato Kaelin, Allan Park, and Simpson. Which one of the three do you think was back there?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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.

There was evidence that Simpson's hair samples taken over month after the murders had dandruff and the prosecution used an expert witness to offer a reasonable logical explanation as to why Simpson had dandruff then. A reasonable logical explanation that was never challenged or contradicted by the defense. There was no evidence or claim that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 so there was no reason for the prosecution to provide any evidence to disprove it.

The real issue on this discussion group is how you William, who evidently studies law, can't understand that no reasonable inference can be drawn that Simpson had dandruff on a specific day in June based only on a witness who testified that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't.

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

Like I said, you do not understand evidence, imho. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Which do you think is not true? That the defense planted the dandruff or that there is no evidence the prosecution planted evidence? martin has progressed from Vannatter, Fuhrman, Fung, Peratis and the lab technicians planting evidence to the prosecution planting evidence. If you want to say the prosecution planted evidence without any proof I can say that the defense planted the dandruff. The more I think about it the more I think it's highly likely that they did.

I think you know which one I was calling untrue. :)

[William Anthony]

It's funny how you want to change the subject but it's understandable since your inference you have defended as reasonable was shown to be only unsupported speculation. Based on the hair and fiber evidence found in and on the knit cap and the fact that the knit cap was found next to one of the killer's gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet it is not unreasonable to infer that the killer wore that knit cap.

bobaugust

I am not changing the discussion and I am, in fact, not wanting to take that unconscionable advantage by you constantly placing yourself in that perilous position. Yes, that neatly arranged cap that was allegedly pulled off during a struggle with hairs that did not have dandruff, as his barber testified it should have in the summer months when he played golf, as he did that day. Yes, that cap that had a multitude of unidentified hairs, meaning anyone could have worn that cap and left it there at anytime. yes, that cap with fibers on it from an unknown source or, if you will, any sweat suit identified that Simpson wore. Remember the jury instruction, remember the burden of proof, by bob, remember the Alamo.

[William Anthony]

There is only evidence of three people being at Rockingham when Kato Kaelin heard someone behind his room. Kato Kaelin, Allan Park, and Simpson. Which one of the three do you think was back there?

bobaugust

I don't have to think. The only one we know for sure that was back there alone was MF.

[martin II]

Which do you think is not true? That the defense planted the dandruff or that there is no evidence the prosecution planted evidence? martin has progressed from Vannatter, Fuhrman, Fung, Peratis and the lab technicians planting evidence to the prosecution planting evidence. If you want to say the prosecution planted evidence without any proof I can say that the defense planted the dandruff. The more I think about it the more I think it's highly likely that they did.

tv
I think the prosecution had to prove that the cap was not at Bundy before about 10;40 on 6/12. I think they had to prove that oj brought that cap to Bundy on 6/12. I don't think they proved that that cap belonged to oj before 6/12. Smoke and mirrors will not do it.imo

[William Anthony]

It doesn't take an understanding of legal concepts to recognize a mistaken comment. You wrote in a posting,
"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 referring to when the police went to Rockingham and he never said he believed the police went to Rockingham because they thought Simpson was a suspect. Ito's comment was regarding the written mistakes and assumptions that Vannatter made in the search warrant that was issued later in the morning to search Simpson's house for evidence.

You continued by making another mistaken comment saying, "Why else lie about the spot on the Bronco being blood before any testing was done to show it was blood"

Vannatter never said the spot on the Bronco was blood, he said it appeared to be blood. It wasn't until after I pointed out your mistakes that you said anything about the scientific investigation. Mistaken comments you still haven't admitted to making or even thanked me for pointing them out to you.

bobaugust

You say you can draw inferences but this proves you can't, at least not the correct ones. The statements in the affidavit were to explain there warrantless entry onto his premises and to provide justification for that entry. I understand why you want me to have made a mistake but I haven't not yet.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

There was evidence that Simpson's hair samples taken over month after the murders had dandruff and the prosecution used an expert witness to offer a reasonable logical explanation as to why Simpson had dandruff then. A reasonable logical explanation that was never challenged or contradicted by the defense. There was no evidence or claim that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 so there was no reason for the prosecution to provide any evidence to disprove it.

The real issue on this discussion group is how you William, who evidently studies law, can't understand that no reasonable inference can be drawn that Simpson had dandruff on a specific day in June based only on a witness who testified that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't.

bobaugust

You, who has not studied law, have the audacity to argue with the nine Justices on the Supreme Court, to basically declare the lawyers in this case incompetent and the judge and to argue with the prosecution's expert's testimony that he could not say when the cap was placed there or when the hairs were place in or on it. You have the audacity to ignore that direct evidence/testimony while calling your inferences reasonable.

[martin II]

I found this little nugget.

Earlier, a rookie police officer, Daniel Gonzalez, denied following a secret police ''code'' to cover up for the detective Mark Fuhrman and other colleagues, but admitted leaving ''stupid little things'' out of his official reports.

One of the things Officer Gonzalez omitted was any reference to Mr. Fuhrman's informing him that he had found a bloody glove on Mr. Simpson's property.

''It's true he did come up to me and said he'd found something,'' Mr. Gonzalez acknowledged under acerbic cross-examination by a defense lawyer, Robert Baker.

''I never saw the glove,'' Mr. Gonzalez said, saying he was more concerned that Mr. Fuhrman was then declaring Mr. Simpson's estate a crime scene.

Asked to expand on the omission, Mr. Gonzalez said: ''It's irrelevant. There are even more stupid little things that aren't in the report.''

Mr. Baker gasped, ''Stupid little things?''

At that point, Mr. Gonzalez was dismissed by the judge.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DD1731F93AA25751C1A9609582 60

[bobaugust]

Like I said, you do not understand evidence, imho. ;):cool:

Sure I do and I also understand that you're arguing that it is reasonable to make an inference that Simpson had dandruff on a specific day in June based only on a witness who testified that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I am not changing the discussion and I am, in fact, not wanting to take that unconscionable advantage by you constantly placing yourself in that perilous position. Yes, that neatly arranged cap that was allegedly pulled off during a struggle with hairs that did not have dandruff, as his barber testified it should have in the summer months when he played golf, as he did that day. Yes, that cap that had a multitude of unidentified hairs, meaning anyone could have worn that cap and left it there at anytime. yes, that cap with fibers on it from an unknown source or, if you will, any sweat suit identified that Simpson wore. Remember the jury instruction, remember the burden of proof, by bob, remember the Alamo.

Yes you did change the subject of your flawed inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 by saying the prosecution claimed Simpson wore the cap on that night. Post the testimony where the prosecution made that claim William, include the date please.

Juanita Moore never testified that Simpson had dandruff every time he played golf in the summer. All the naturally shed hairs found in and on the knit cap had the same microscopic characteristics as Simpson's hair. Six hair fragments found inside that knit cap did not. There were several fibers found on the knit cap that were consistent with Ron Goldman's shirt. A cashmere fiber consistent with the lining of the killer's gloves. And an unusual x shaped fiber consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpeting.

What fibers do you know of found on the knit cap were from an unknown source?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I don't have to think. The only one we know for sure that was back there alone was MF.

I agree you don't have to think and you don't think. It is uncontradicted that the noises and vibrations Kaelin heard and felt on his back wall that tilted a picture beside his bed were made by someone behind his room. There were only three people at Rockingham at that time and the only one of the three that could have been back there was Simpson. The blood and fiber evidence found on the glove that Fuhrman saw on the path behind that room points only to Simpson.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You say you can draw inferences but this proves you can't, at least not the correct ones. The statements in the affidavit were to explain there warrantless entry onto his premises and to provide justification for that entry. I understand why you want me to have made a mistake but I haven't not yet.;):cool:

You're wrong on both counts.

I've all ready posted what Vannatter wrote about the blood on the Bronco in the search warrant that proves you were mistaken when you said Vannatter lied about the spot on the Bronco being blood.

Support your claims William. Post the transcript where you claim Judge Ito told Vannatter he had a reckless disregard for the truth so we can all see if your claim is correct that those words were actually told to Vannatter and were regarding the entry into Rockingham and not the search warrant to collect evidence.

Include the dates please.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You, who has not studied law, have the audacity to argue with the nine Justices on the Supreme Court, to basically declare the lawyers in this case incompetent and the judge and to argue with the prosecution's expert's testimony that he could not say when the cap was placed there or when the hairs were place in or on it. You have the audacity to ignore that direct evidence/testimony while calling your inferences reasonable.

What are you talking about? We are discussing your claims William. Claims that were never made in this case. I'm not arguing with the nine Justices on the Supreme Court I'm arguing with you Someone who argues that it is reasonable to make an inference that Simpson had dandruff on a specific day in June based only on a witness who testified that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. Someone who can't ever admit to being mistaken even when he is proven to have been mistaken. Try to stay on subject William.

bobaugust

[SlowHandSam]

Hairs consistent with, minus the dandruff.

there is NO proof he had dandruff. Good gravy boat.

No one claims he had dandruff. Period.

So yes, his hair was in the cap. Done.

[tv]

I think you know which one I was calling untrue. :)If I knew I wouldn't have asked.

[William Anthony]

If I knew I wouldn't have asked.

I thought you were just being cute. :)

[William Anthony]

What are you talking about? We are discussing your claims William. Claims that were never made in this case. I'm not arguing with the nine Justices on the Supreme Court I'm arguing with you Someone who argues that it is reasonable to make an inference that Simpson had dandruff on a specific day in June based only on a witness who testified that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. Someone who can't ever admit to being mistaken even when he is proven to have been mistaken. Try to stay on subject William.

bobaugust

I am on subject. Try to :read:. I will not think any less of you, if you say you don't understand.

[martin II]

there is NO proof he had dandruff. Good gravy boat.

No one claims he had dandruff. Period.

So yes, his hair was in the cap. Done.

no one has been able to prove that the cap was not under the bushes before 6/12.

[William Anthony]

You're wrong on both counts.

I've all ready posted what Vannatter wrote about the blood on the Bronco in the search warrant that proves you were mistaken when you said Vannatter lied about the spot on the Bronco being blood.

Support your claims William. Post the transcript where you claim Judge Ito told Vannatter he had a reckless disregard for the truth so we can all see if your claim is correct that those words were actually told to Vannatter and were regarding the entry into Rockingham and not the search warrant to collect evidence.

Include the dates please.

bobaugust

Already done. It's alright to say you don't understand.

[William Anthony]

I agree you don't have to think and you don't think. It is uncontradicted that the noises and vibrations Kaelin heard and felt on his back wall that tilted a picture beside his bed were made by someone behind his room. There were only three people at Rockingham at that time and the only one of the three that could have been back there was Simpson. The blood and fiber evidence found on the glove that Fuhrman saw on the path behind that room points only to Simpson.

bobaugust

We don't know who or what made those noises. There was no evidence of anyone being back there before MF. That is what I think. You should understand this, because you claim to post on evidence.

[William Anthony]

Yes you did change the subject of your flawed inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 by saying the prosecution claimed Simpson wore the cap on that night. Post the testimony where the prosecution made that claim William, include the date please.

Juanita Moore never testified that Simpson had dandruff every time he played golf in the summer. All the naturally shed hairs found in and on the knit cap had the same microscopic characteristics as Simpson's hair. Six hair fragments found inside that knit cap did not. There were several fibers found on the knit cap that were consistent with Ron Goldman's shirt. A cashmere fiber consistent with the lining of the killer's gloves. And an unusual x shaped fiber consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpeting.

What fibers do you know of found on the knit cap were from an unknown source?

bobaugust

You have made the claim he wore the cap to conceal himself. Did you forget? Please it is rather common knowledge that was the prosecution's theory. Why embarrass yourself like this? Are you saying it was pulled off during another struggle he had with Mr. Ronald Goldman?

[William Anthony]

Sure I do and I also understand that you're arguing that it is reasonable to make an inference that Simpson had dandruff on a specific day in June based only on a witness who testified that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't.

bobaugust

Why do you keep omitting that he had dandruff more so on the days he played golf? You act as though the only thing she said was sometimes.

[tv]

I thought you were just being cute. :)Now that you know that isn't the case you can answer the question. :)

[William Anthony]

Now that you know that isn't the case you can answer the question. :)

Alright, I'll answer. What was the question?

[weezer]

Why do you keep omitting that he had dandruff more so on the days he played golf? You act as though the only thing she said was sometimes.

MS. CLARK: So sometimes he had dandruff and sometimes he did not?

MS. MOORE: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And sometimes in the summer when you saw him to take care of his hair, he would have dandruff and sometimes he would not?

MS. MOORE: That's correct

[martin II]

Why do you keep omitting that he had dandruff more so on the days he played golf? You act as though the only thing she said was sometimes.

Hot june morning in la, playing golf, Dry black hair/scalp--
YEP, HE HAD DANDRUFF.

[William Anthony]

MS. CLARK: So sometimes he had dandruff and sometimes he did not?

MS. MOORE: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And sometimes in the summer when you saw him to take care of his hair, he would have dandruff and sometimes he would not?

MS. MOORE: That's correct

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

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

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

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

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, when you say the off season, so we're clear about that, in the last 10 years or so, when you would cut Mr. Simpson's hair, when you say off season, what do you mean by off season as opposed to on season?

MS. MOORE: Well, when he wasn't working as a reporter or he wasn't playing football.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Regarding the fibers

1. Kato was not sure what Simpson was wearing on the way to MacDonald's.

2. He did describe what he thought it was and what it looked like. I believe he thought it had white piping and/or a white zipper. Dennis Fung never testified about the clothing items he found in the washing machine. If I remember correctly, there is a picture of him holding it and I believe there are are also pictures of the items in the washing machine---I didn't see any white in the those photos.

3. The FBI agent said he believed all the fibers came from the same cloth, he never said they came from a sweat suit, he never compared those fibers to any other sweat suits. The FBI shoe expert, Bodizack (sp?) goes all the way to Italy to track this down. Hundreds and hundreds of man-hours were spent on the shoes alone, even tracking down who bought these shoes. Do you really think it is reasonable to believe that the same was not done for this sweat suit, or any sweat suit that those fibers could have come from?

4. The fibers, if I remember correctly, were not from an expensive garment. If I also remember correctly, the main reason why these fibers were shed is because it was from a "new piece of cloth". How is it if this sweat suit was new, that no link to Simpson or anyone else who purchased this sweat suit.

5. The DA's have dressed for these murders like he was more afraid of getting caught by the fashion police rather then the LAPD. Expensive shoes, expensive gloves, dress socks---now they want us to believe he wore a Wal-Mart or K-Mart sweat suit to commit the murders?

6. Just a reminder, Fung never testified about what he saw in the washer.

7. The DA's based their fiber evidence on a witness who was never sure what OJ was wearing.

8. How was the sweat suit described in the second search warrant?

9. Last but not least, I am sure this was not the first nor will it be the last search warrant where items were listed knowing full well they would not be found. It is a perfect media move, IMO. There was no way the DA's could have ever determined those fibers could have only come from a sweat suit. IMO.

PS--Please note, many pictures were sent to the DA's in regards to gloves and shoes, yet none with a sweat suit---how odd is that?

[limakey]

Mr. August,

RE Kato's thumps:

1. He thought it was an earthquake at first.

2. Always described them as three thumps, three separate thumps.

3. How they loud they were has was what to do with anything?

4. He was listening to see if he could hear anything else and he heard nothing.

5. In reading Lange and Vanatter's book, never does Kato ever describe the thumps as someone being back there. Only he heard a loud noise, three thumps---again, not mention that he thought anyone was back there to the detectives.

6. Unless he did tell Fuhrman that when he was alone and that is when MF "found" the glove.

7. This wire you talking about, why didn't the DA's use this? Was this wire strong enough to hold him and when did this information come out?

8. Marcia Clark would have loved to give a reasonable explaination for the thumps and how that glove got back there, she couldn't. How many man-hours do you think both the DA's and the defense put into this, trying to explain the thumps?

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Re: Simpson not being a suspect

1. Lange and Vanatter both considered him a "potential" suspect before they left for Bundy---they knew that OJ and Nicole did see each other on that day.

2. The blood drops at Rockingham, leading from the Bronco to the house or to the house to the Bronco---how did MF and Vanatter know how old those blood drops were---they assumed they had to be from the night before and the only injuries that generated that blood, had to come from the struggle at Bundy.

3. None of them had any idea of the time of death---yet they consider Rockingham a crime scene because.........They saw blood drops?

4. There was no evidence that anyone was back behind Kato's wall, there was a glove---one look at this glove made Simpson the prime suspect?

5. Yet, in Vanatter's search warrant, I don't believe he ever mentioned MF as to who found the glove---I think he gave the impression that it was discovered during the sealing up of the crime scene.

6. Neither Kato nor Arnelle were asked about the maid, if she was in the house.

7. They never searched the house house for the maid. Just because there was no struggle in the maid's room, doesn't mean she couldn't have been in another area of the house or even on estate.

8. No one searched Rockingham estate for any other victims nor did they search other outside areas for blood. It appears to me that they knew before they entered the house, the maid was not there and/or she was in perfect health. They also knew they only had search behind Kato's wall and in the front of Simpson's home for blood drops.

[tv]

Alright, I'll answer. What was the question?I'm puzzled as to why you are evading this question...but just never mind. It's not worth it to me to haggle about it.

[limakey]

William and Martin,

I don't know if you have an answer for this but here goes!

If the blood drops from Rockingham were kept in the same truck that Fung used at Bundy, shouldn't all the blood drops been fried as well? How could one crime scene's blood evidence be affected by a broken A/C unit and not the other's?

Also, Lange said he found a blood drop by Nicole's jeep, alone with some coins, yet this blood drop was never collected and tested?

Seems to me that would have been a very important piece of evidence--reminds of the blood drops on Nicole's back. Again, why were these not collected or tested?

In Joe Bosco's book, he talks about Ron's keys. They had blood on them but they were never typed or tested according to the DA's---yet he had a couple sources who in fact said they were typed.

Perhaps this happened with MF's blood finger print.

Also, I wonder if Nicole's jeep was dusted for prints. It would be interesting to see if any of these fingerprints matched any of the other fingerprints taken from Nicole's home.

[martin II]

William and Martin,

I don't know if you have an answer for this but here goes!

If the blood drops from Rockingham were kept in the same truck that Fung used at Bundy, shouldn't all the blood drops been fried as well? How could one crime scene's blood evidence be affected by a broken A/C unit and not the other's?

In Joe Bosco's book, he talks about Ron's keys. They had blood on them but they were never typed or tested according to the DA's---yet he had a couple sources who in fact said they were typed.

Perhaps this happened with MF's blood finger print.

Also, I wonder if Nicole's jeep was dusted for prints. It would be interesting to see if any of these fingerprints matched any of the other fingerprints taken from Nicole's home.


limakey
Fung started putting evidence in his hot truck in plastic bags early morning at rockingham. He then did the same at Bundy and arrived at his lab at about 6pm that evening. So yes there was plenty of time for all of the samples in plastic to cook in that hot truck.

Lang collected a piece of jewelry near nicoles jeep and he kept it in his desk drawer during the trial.

Bob seems to believe that oj ran through thick hedges, bushes and thick growth of vines, jumped over the fence and his foot hit ONE piece of wire and bent it.

Vanhatter stated that he did not believe anyone jumped that fence. Two other detectives stated that they examined the fence area and saw on evidence that anyone came over the fence.

There were many blood spots that were not collected. the spot on the back gate was collected after the scene had been washed down with a hose.

Pictures

Some have talked about the removal of the picture in ojs bedroom.

I read testimony where it was stated that nicole was in the habit of having pictures of all of her current boyfriends pictures displayed on her coffee table.

That she had complained to oj that he had Paulas picture in his bedroom and he had asked her why she complained about Paulas picture when she all those mens pictures on display in her living room.

Those were removed also.

Another issue is that i believe i read that the Bundy crime scene was washed down by lou Brown on 6/14. Is this correct if you know.
imo

[bobaugust]

I am on subject. Try to :read:. I will not think any less of you, if you say you don't understand.

Your little rant about nine Justices on the Supreme Court and that Deedrick couldn't say how long the six hair fragments that weren't Simpson's could have been in the knit cap was not the subject. The subject is your flawed inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

bobaugust.

[bobaugust]

Already done. It's alright to say you don't understand.

Already Done? Are you saying you have already posted the transcript where Judge Ito told Vannatter he had a reckless disregard for the truth regarding the police entry onto Simpson's estate and not the search warrant? Is that what you're saying? Post the message number where you did that please.

bobaugust.

[bobaugust]

We don't know who or what made those noises. There was no evidence of anyone being back there before MF. That is what I think. You should understand this, because you claim to post on evidence.

It's funny and understandable that you who makes an inference based on nothing except imagination and calls it reasonable can not understand an inference based on facts and physical evidence. You may not know who was behind Kaelin's room but we who do understand the evidence know that it was Simpson.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You have made the claim he wore the cap to conceal himself. Did you forget? Please it is rather common knowledge that was the prosecution's theory. Why embarrass yourself like this? Are you saying it was pulled off during another struggle he had with Mr. Ronald Goldman?

If anyone is embarrassing them self it's you William. It may be common knowledge that we on this discussion group who think Simpson was the killer believe Simpson wore that knit cap to Bundy but you're the one who said the prosecutors made that claim. I don't remember reading where they did but you evidently do so support your claim and post the testimony please. Be sure to include the date.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Why do you keep omitting that he had dandruff more so on the days he played golf? You act as though the only thing she said was sometimes.

Because Moore said Simpson had dandruff more so on the days he played golf in the sun does not mean she testified that every time Simpson played golf in the sun he had dandruff. It's the same thing as when she said sometimes he had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. Moore also testified that if Simpson put oil in his hair he wouldn't get dandruff and if he did get dandruff he would treat it himself. Nothing Moore testified to is evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. There was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and Simpson's defense never claimed he did.

July 18, 1995 Juanita Moore
MR. COCHRAN: All right, ma'am. Now, with regard to the so-called off season, you were saying that this condition of dandruff would be perhaps worse at times during the--I think you said off season when he's playing golf; is that correct?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And what, if anything, would attribute to that, that he would have more dandruff in the off season?
MS. MOORE: Well, it would happen mostly if he didn't put oil on his hair. If he put oil on his hair, he wouldn't have dandruff like he did. It would be in--when he played golf, he was in the sun, you know, and with the lack of oil that would create the dry scalp.
*
MR. COCHRAN: And as such, with regard to when you would see dandruff in his hair or around his shoulders or whatever, what would you do for him or recommend to him?
MS. MOORE: Well, I would tell him to be sure and to put more oil in his hair if he's going to be in the sun and I would tell him to use some kind of dandruff shampoo, you know, over-the-counter shampoo. It wasn't bad enough for him to go to a dermatologist, you know. He could just use a dandruff shampoo.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Okay. And would you ever shampoo his hair or was that something he took care of himself?
MS. MOORE: Oh, he would do that himself.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Regarding the fibers

1. Kato was not sure what Simpson was wearing on the way to MacDonald's.

2. He did describe what he thought it was and what it looked like. I believe he thought it had white piping and/or a white zipper. Dennis Fung never testified about the clothing items he found in the washing machine. If I remember correctly, there is a picture of him holding it and I believe there are are also pictures of the items in the washing machine---I didn't see any white in the those photos.

3. The FBI agent said he believed all the fibers came from the same cloth, he never said they came from a sweat suit, he never compared those fibers to any other sweat suits. The FBI shoe expert, Bodizack (sp?) goes all the way to Italy to track this down. Hundreds and hundreds of man-hours were spent on the shoes alone, even tracking down who bought these shoes. Do you really think it is reasonable to believe that the same was not done for this sweat suit, or any sweat suit that those fibers could have come from?

4. The fibers, if I remember correctly, were not from an expensive garment. If I also remember correctly, the main reason why these fibers were shed is because it was from a "new piece of cloth". How is it if this sweat suit was new, that no link to Simpson or anyone else who purchased this sweat suit.

5. The DA's have dressed for these murders like he was more afraid of getting caught by the fashion police rather then the LAPD. Expensive shoes, expensive gloves, dress socks---now they want us to believe he wore a Wal-Mart or K-Mart sweat suit to commit the murders?

6. Just a reminder, Fung never testified about what he saw in the washer.

7. The DA's based their fiber evidence on a witness who was never sure what OJ was wearing.

8. How was the sweat suit described in the second search warrant?

9. Last but not least, I am sure this was not the first nor will it be the last search warrant where items were listed knowing full well they would not be found. It is a perfect media move, IMO. There was no way the DA's could have ever determined those fibers could have only come from a sweat suit. IMO.

PS--Please note, many pictures were sent to the DA's in regards to gloves and shoes, yet none with a sweat suit---how odd is that?

Limakey, Kaelin was consistent every time he testified that Simpson was wearing a dark blue or black colored sweat suit when he and Simpson drove to McDonald's the night of the murders and returned to Rockingham about an hour or so before the murders. Kaelin testified that was the last time he saw Simpson that night until later when they were loading bags in the limousine before leaving for the airport.

Leslie Gardner, the Playboy video wardrobe stylist testified in the Civil Trial that she bought the clothing for Simpson for that video. Besides a DKNY cashmere sweatsuit that Simpson requested she had bought a Reebok black cotton sweat suit. The video was filmed on May 25 and 26 at a sound stage in Hollywood and on the third day, the 27th filming was at Simpson's home. She testified that when she left Simpson's house after filming on the final day she left the black sweat clothing at Simpson's house. She testified it was not returned to her or any member of the production crew. Gardner was shown a photograph of Simpson wearing that black cotton sweat suit and she testified that photograph was taken on the third day of filming at Simpson's house.

Deedrick testified that all the blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron's shirt, the killer's right hand glove, and on Simpson's socks were consistent with each other all having the same microscopic characteristics.

June 30, 1995 Deedrick
MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Testimony was presented in this case that as of 9:45 on the night of June the 12th the Defendant was wearing a dark blue or black cotton type sweatsuit. Did you find any fibers like that in any of the fibers collected from the evidence that you examined in this case?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did.
*
MS. CLARK: Can you please tell us from which items you found such fibers?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there were blue black cotton fibers found on the Rockingham glove, on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the socks from the Defendant's bedroom.
*
MS. CLARK: Can you tell us, sir, what conclusion you reached concerning the blue black cotton fibers found on the Rockingham glove, Ron Goldman's shirt and the sock found in the Defendant's bedroom?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they all could have originated from the same fabric.
MS. CLARK: What appearance would those fibers have in a piece of fabric in terms of color?
MR. DEEDRICK: They would be black. It would look black.

In Mark Fuhrman's book he quotes what the June 28, 1994 search warrant said regarding the dark colored sweat suit "....your affiant did not know which specific clothing to look for and can no longer remember whether clothing of that description was present at the location as literally hundreds of items of clothing were seen. Your affiant now wishes to examine the clothing in the residence for the specific black cotton type sweat suit described and if found, to examine that clothing more closely for traces of blood."

Fuhrman wrote,
"The words "can no longer remember" seem comical, as there was a videotape of the sweats, and at least six people who saw them in the washing machine.
The words, "to examine that clothing more closely for traces of blood," seems an odd way to describe a first look at an item. By using "more closely" it would almost appear that they had already been inspected at an earlier time. In truth they had. Could he be so embarrassed b the fact that he left important evidence at the scene that he was willing to sweat to a misleading statement?"

Is it odd or just another mistake that the prosecutors never took the time to investigate the making of the exercise video tape showing Simpson wearing a black cotton sweat suit? But it was investigated by the plaintiffs lawyers in the civil trial.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

RE Kato's thumps:

1. He thought it was an earthquake at first.

2. Always described them as three thumps, three separate thumps.

3. How they loud they were has was what to do with anything?

4. He was listening to see if he could hear anything else and he heard nothing.

5. In reading Lange and Vanatter's book, never does Kato ever describe the thumps as someone being back there. Only he heard a loud noise, three thumps---again, not mention that he thought anyone was back there to the detectives.

6. Unless he did tell Fuhrman that when he was alone and that is when MF "found" the glove.

7. This wire you talking about, why didn't the DA's use this? Was this wire strong enough to hold him and when did this information come out?

8. Marcia Clark would have loved to give a reasonable explaination for the thumps and how that glove got back there, she couldn't. How many man-hours do you think both the DA's and the defense put into this, trying to explain the thumps?

Limakey, in the criminal trial Kaelin was called by the prosecution and later declared a hostile witness. It was clear at that time Kaelin was actually a defense witness who was trying not to say anything that would be detrimental to Simpson. Despite that he was an honest witness who told the truth. By the time of the civil trial Kaelin had come to believe that Simpson did kill both Ron and Nicole and he when asked more specific questions about what he heard and did that night he continued to tell the truth. This thread is about the criminal trial but this is what Kaelin testified to in the civil trial

November 19, 1996 Kaelin

Q. Okay. Were you looking at the clock and watch at all?
A. No.
Q. Then what happened?
A. Then I heard these three noises that were thumps, three loud thumps, and my picture moved in the...
MR. PETROCELLI: Can we have the photo of his room with the picture. This is 143 on the television monitor.
Give me 194, Steve. (Exhibit 194 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When the noises occurred, did you look at a watch or a clock?
A. No.
Q. And you said a picture moved. Can you point to Exhibit 194 and tell us what picture you're referring to?
A. This picture. It just moved after I heard the thumps, the picture moved that way.
Q. It tilted a little bit?
A. It tilted.
Q. How do you know that it moved?
A. I saw it.
Q. Now, where were you at the precise time that you heard these noises?
A. Leaning up against this bed, like that, talking on the phone (indicating).
Q. Talking on the phone?
A. (Witness nods.)
Q. So your back was against the head board?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said you heard these noises. What did they sound like?
A. Like someone falling back behind my bedroom wall.

Q. And what makes you say that?
A. Because that's what it sounded like to me after --
Q. You previously testified about the rhythm and volume of these noises. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. By hitting the witness stand. Can you demonstrate that to the jury, the rhythm and the volume of the noises.
A. (Witness pounds witness stand three times.)
Q. And did you feel anything against your back?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you feel?
A. Vibration.
Q. Okay. What did you then do?
A. Well, I talked to Rachel on the phone, I said, Rachel, did we just have an earthquake?
Q. Why did you say that?
A. I kind of wanted to believe that it was an earthquake because the picture moved. And she said no.
Q. Why did you want to believe it was an earthquake?
A. Because I didn't want to believe there was someone back there.
Q. And what did Rachel then say?
A. She said no.
Q. What did you then do?
A. I explained to her what had happened, the picture moved, and I said I should probably check on this.
Q. What did you do?
A. I got off the phone with her and then -- I have a flashlight, pen light, in the drawer, and I went to check on the noise.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Re: Simpson not being a suspect

1. Lange and Vanatter both considered him a "potential" suspect before they left for Bundy---they knew that OJ and Nicole did see each other on that day.

2. The blood drops at Rockingham, leading from the Bronco to the house or to the house to the Bronco---how did MF and Vanatter know how old those blood drops were---they assumed they had to be from the night before and the only injuries that generated that blood, had to come from the struggle at Bundy.

3. None of them had any idea of the time of death---yet they consider Rockingham a crime scene because.........They saw blood drops?

4. There was no evidence that anyone was back behind Kato's wall, there was a glove---one look at this glove made Simpson the prime suspect?

5. Yet, in Vanatter's search warrant, I don't believe he ever mentioned MF as to who found the glove---I think he gave the impression that it was discovered during the sealing up of the crime scene.

6. Neither Kato nor Arnelle were asked about the maid, if she was in the house.

7. They never searched the house house for the maid. Just because there was no struggle in the maid's room, doesn't mean she couldn't have been in another area of the house or even on estate.

8. No one searched Rockingham estate for any other victims nor did they search other outside areas for blood. It appears to me that they knew before they entered the house, the maid was not there and/or she was in perfect health. They also knew they only had search behind Kato's wall and in the front of Simpson's home for blood drops.

Limakey, lets use a little common sense here. The detectives were ordered to go to Rockingham to notify Simpson of his ex wife's death. The lead detectives expected to be back at Bundy within 20 minutes or less but they encountered an unexpected situation. The blood that was seen on the outside of the Bronco was very disturbing considering the reality that had just come from an extremely bloody double murder scene less than five minutes away. When they got Simpson's telephone number from Westec, Simpson's private security company, they were told that there should have been a live in housekeeper in the house and that if Simpson had gone way they would have been notified. There were lights on upstairs in the house yet no one was answering the gate bell or the telephone.

When they entered the estate and first talked to Kaelin, he was half asleep and didn't seem to know where Simpson was and when asked if anyone else was here he told them Arnelle was next door. When they talked to Arnelle she was not sure if her father was in the house or not. When Arnelle let the detectives in the rear door of the house Vannatter asked Arnelle where the maids room was. Vannatter saw that the bed was made and the room was in good order just as the rest of the house was.

After Fuhrman found the glove and showed it to the rest of the detectives Vannatter asked him and Phillips to return to Bundy to make sure it was a match to the glove there, have it photographed and bring the photographer back to Rockingham to photograph that glove. After they left it was getting light outside and that's when Vannatter first saw blood drops on the driveway. He followed them to the Rockingham gate and then out on the street. The glove and the blood made Simpson a strong suspect and Rockingham a crime scene.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Limakey, in the criminal trial Kaelin was called by the prosecution and later declared a hostile witness. It was clear at that time Kaelin was actually a defense witness who was trying not to say anything that would be detrimental to Simpson. Despite that he was an honest witness who told the truth. By the time of the civil trial Kaelin had come to believe that Simpson did kill both Ron and Nicole and he when asked more specific questions about what he heard and did that night he continued to tell the truth. This thread is about the criminal trial but this is what Kaelin testified to in the civil trial

November 19, 1996 Kaelin

Q. Okay. Were you looking at the clock and watch at all?
A. No.
Q. Then what happened?
A. Then I heard these three noises that were thumps, three loud thumps, and my picture moved in the...
MR. PETROCELLI: Can we have the photo of his room with the picture. This is 143 on the television monitor.
Give me 194, Steve. (Exhibit 194 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When the noises occurred, did you look at a watch or a clock?
A. No.
Q. And you said a picture moved. Can you point to Exhibit 194 and tell us what picture you're referring to?
A. This picture. It just moved after I heard the thumps, the picture moved that way.
Q. It tilted a little bit?
A. It tilted.
Q. How do you know that it moved?
A. I saw it.
Q. Now, where were you at the precise time that you heard these noises?
A. Leaning up against this bed, like that, talking on the phone (indicating).
Q. Talking on the phone?
A. (Witness nods.)
Q. So your back was against the head board?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said you heard these noises. What did they sound like?
A. Like someone falling back behind my bedroom wall.

Q. And what makes you say that?
A. Because that's what it sounded like to me after --
Q. You previously testified about the rhythm and volume of these noises. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. By hitting the witness stand. Can you demonstrate that to the jury, the rhythm and the volume of the noises.
A. (Witness pounds witness stand three times.)
Q. And did you feel anything against your back?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you feel?
A. Vibration.
Q. Okay. What did you then do?
A. Well, I talked to Rachel on the phone, I said, Rachel, did we just have an earthquake?
Q. Why did you say that?
A. I kind of wanted to believe that it was an earthquake because the picture moved. And she said no.
Q. Why did you want to believe it was an earthquake?
A. Because I didn't want to believe there was someone back there.
Q. And what did Rachel then say?
A. She said no.
Q. What did you then do?
A. I explained to her what had happened, the picture moved, and I said I should probably check on this.
Q. What did you do?
A. I got off the phone with her and then -- I have a flashlight, pen light, in the drawer, and I went to check on the noise.

bobaugust

Kato as he was pronged to do, allowed Petrocelli to get him to make some changes in his testimony as to how the noise sounded. The many prompting session petrocelli had with him in his office caused Kato to change his descrition from what he had said in three iother ocassions to what he said in the civil trial. Petrocelli manufactured words comming from Kato.imo

[martin II]

Limakey, Kaelin was consistent every time he testified that Simpson was wearing a dark blue or black colored sweat suit when he and Simpson drove to McDonald's the night of the murders and returned to Rockingham about an hour or so before the murders. Kaelin testified that was the last time he saw Simpson that night until later when they were loading bags in the limousine before leaving for the airport.

Leslie Gardner, the Playboy video wardrobe stylist testified in the Civil Trial that she bought the clothing for Simpson for that video. Besides a DKNY cashmere sweatsuit that Simpson requested she had bought a Reebok black cotton sweat suit. The video was filmed on May 25 and 26 at a sound stage in Hollywood and on the third day, the 27th filming was at Simpson's home. She testified that when she left Simpson's house after filming on the final day she left the black sweat clothing at Simpson's house. She testified it was not returned to her or any member of the production crew. Gardner was shown a photograph of Simpson wearing that black cotton sweat suit and she testified that photograph was taken on the third day of filming at Simpson's house.

Deedrick testified that all the blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron's shirt, the killer's right hand glove, and on Simpson's socks were consistent with each other all having the same microscopic characteristics.

June 30, 1995 Deedrick
MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Testimony was presented in this case that as of 9:45 on the night of June the 12th the Defendant was wearing a dark blue or black cotton type sweatsuit. Did you find any fibers like that in any of the fibers collected from the evidence that you examined in this case?
MR. DEEDRICK: I did.
*
MS. CLARK: Can you please tell us from which items you found such fibers?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there were blue black cotton fibers found on the Rockingham glove, on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the socks from the Defendant's bedroom.
*
MS. CLARK: Can you tell us, sir, what conclusion you reached concerning the blue black cotton fibers found on the Rockingham glove, Ron Goldman's shirt and the sock found in the Defendant's bedroom?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they all could have originated from the same fabric.
MS. CLARK: What appearance would those fibers have in a piece of fabric in terms of color?
MR. DEEDRICK: They would be black. It would look black.

In Mark Fuhrman's book he quotes what the June 28, 1994 search warrant said regarding the dark colored sweat suit "....your affiant did not know which specific clothing to look for and can no longer remember whether clothing of that description was present at the location as literally hundreds of items of clothing were seen. Your affiant now wishes to examine the clothing in the residence for the specific black cotton type sweat suit described and if found, to examine that clothing more closely for traces of blood."

Fuhrman wrote,
"The words "can no longer remember" seem comical, as there was a videotape of the sweats, and at least six people who saw them in the washing machine.
The words, "to examine that clothing more closely for traces of blood," seems an odd way to describe a first look at an item. By using "more closely" it would almost appear that they had already been inspected at an earlier time. In truth they had. Could he be so embarrassed b the fact that he left important evidence at the scene that he was willing to sweat to a misleading statement?"

Is it odd or just another mistake that the prosecutors never took the time to investigate the making of the exercise video tape showing Simpson wearing a black cotton sweat suit? But it was investigated by the plaintiffs lawyers in the civil trial.

bobaugust


Kato testified that the dark sweat he thought oj was wearing had a white zipper down the front.
Gardner the person that purchased a two piece outfit for the shoot ,in court looked at the video picture of the two piece outfit she said she baught and stated that it did not have a white zipper down the front.imo

[martin II]

Earlier, a rookie police officer, Daniel Gonzalez, denied following a secret police ''code'' to cover up for the detective Mark Fuhrman and other colleagues, but admitted leaving ''stupid little things'' out of his official reports.

One of the things Officer Gonzalez omitted was any reference to Mr. Fuhrman's informing him that he had found a bloody glove on Mr. Simpson's property.

''It's true he did come up to me and said he'd found something,'' Mr. Gonzalez acknowledged under acerbic cross-examination by a defense lawyer, Robert Baker.

''I never saw the glove,'' Mr. Gonzalez said, saying he was more concerned that Mr. Fuhrman was then declaring Mr. Simpson's estate a crime scene.

Asked to expand on the omission, Mr. Gonzalez said: ''It's irrelevant. There are even more stupid little things that aren't in the report.''

Mr. Baker gasped, ''Stupid little things?''

At that point, Mr. Gonzalez was dismissed by the judge.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DD1731F93AA25751C1A9609582 60

[William Anthony]

I'm puzzled as to why you are evading this question...but just never mind. It's not worth it to me to haggle about it.

I honestly forgot the question but I don't believe the prosecution planted evidence. They did try to hide evidence as did the defense.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

I don't know if you have an answer for this but here goes!

If the blood drops from Rockingham were kept in the same truck that Fung used at Bundy, shouldn't all the blood drops been fried as well? How could one crime scene's blood evidence be affected by a broken A/C unit and not the other's?

Also, Lange said he found a blood drop by Nicole's jeep, alone with some coins, yet this blood drop was never collected and tested?

Seems to me that would have been a very important piece of evidence--reminds of the blood drops on Nicole's back. Again, why were these not collected or tested?

In Joe Bosco's book, he talks about Ron's keys. They had blood on them but they were never typed or tested according to the DA's---yet he had a couple sources who in fact said they were typed.

Perhaps this happened with MF's blood finger print.

Also, I wonder if Nicole's jeep was dusted for prints. It would be interesting to see if any of these fingerprints matched any of the other fingerprints taken from Nicole's home.

While my knowledge of CSI is limited, there seems to be no explanation for what the Keystone Cops decided to do. It appears they may have been in some sort of cover up.

[William Anthony]

Your little rant about nine Justices on the Supreme Court and that Deedrick couldn't say how long the six hair fragments that weren't Simpson's could have been in the knit cap was not the subject. The subject is your flawed inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

bobaugust.

Yes, the subject was about inferences and the burden of proof. Although in a motion for summary judgment, the Supreme Court ruled what an inference is and what is required to rebut it. There is nothing required to rebut an I don't know from a hair expert when it is given on direct testimony and is directly contradictory to the prosecution's theory. There is no inference to be drawn from that testimony.

[William Anthony]

Already Done? Are you saying you have already posted the transcript where Judge Ito told Vannatter he had a reckless disregard for the truth regarding the police entry onto Simpson's estate and not the search warrant? Is that what you're saying? Post the message number where you did that please.

bobaugust.

Yes and already done. What don't you understand the statement that he considered as a reckless disregard for the truth were about the invasion and were contained in the application for a search warrant. Try to follow, LE had to justify the warrantless invasion and based on what they allegedly found thereafter they sought a search warrant. The reckless disregard for the truth was based on the statements made to invade the curtilage, because they believe Simpson was a suspect. In other words Ito and the other judge did not believe but could not prove that Simpson was not a suspect at the time the, imho, the unlawful invasion was made. Why do you think the defense sought to get the evidence suppressed? If they had succeeded, the prosecution would have been left with no evidence from Rockingham and both judges knew this.

[William Anthony]

It's funny and understandable that you who makes an inference based on nothing except imagination and calls it reasonable can not understand an inference based on facts and physical evidence. You may not know who was behind Kaelin's room but we who do understand the evidence know that it was Simpson.

bobaugust

Your claim that you understand evidence is unsupported by the evidence, i.e. there is no evidence that anyone was behind Kato's quarters before MF was. It was a theory that Simpson made the thumps on the wall. There was no disturbance of the physical surrounding found and no blood found anywhere near where the glove was allegedly found. We do have the direct testimony of the admitted evidence planter, MF, that he went back there alone.

[martin II]

While my knowledge of CSI is limited, there seems to be no explanation for what the Keystone Cops decided to do. It appears they may have been in some sort of cover up.

I don't think le was concerned about proper collection in this case or any other previous case. If they ever ran into a problem some cops would just bend and twist the evidence/testimony to help out and then run to the blue wall.imo

[William Anthony]

If anyone is embarrassing them self it's you William. It may be common knowledge that we on this discussion group who think Simpson was the killer believe Simpson wore that knit cap to Bundy but you're the one who said the prosecutors made that claim. I don't remember reading where they did but you evidently do so support your claim and post the testimony please. Be sure to include the date.

bobaugust

If you don't remember reading it, then :read::read::read: and reread, if necessary. Why do you think the magnificent one put the cap on his head. You can begin your :read: with his closing. I understand that you may not remember as evidenced by your first post following your hiatus.

[martin II]

Your claim that you understand evidence is unsupported by the evidence, i.e. there is no evidence that anyone was behind Kato's quarters before MF was. It was a theory that Simpson made the thumps on the wall. There was no disturbance of the physical surrounding found and no blood found anywhere near where the glove was allegedly found. We do have the direct testimony of the admitted evidence planter, MF, that he went back there alone.

william
I like that first sentance a lot.:beer:

[William Anthony]

Because Moore said Simpson had dandruff more so on the days he played golf in the sun does not mean she testified that every time Simpson played golf in the sun he had dandruff. It's the same thing as when she said sometimes he had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. Moore also testified that if Simpson put oil in his hair he wouldn't get dandruff and if he did get dandruff he would treat it himself. Nothing Moore testified to is evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. There was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and Simpson's defense never claimed he did.

July 18, 1995 Juanita Moore
MR. COCHRAN: All right, ma'am. Now, with regard to the so-called off season, you were saying that this condition of dandruff would be perhaps worse at times during the--I think you said off season when he's playing golf; is that correct?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And what, if anything, would attribute to that, that he would have more dandruff in the off season?
MS. MOORE: Well, it would happen mostly if he didn't put oil on his hair. If he put oil on his hair, he wouldn't have dandruff like he did. It would be in--when he played golf, he was in the sun, you know, and with the lack of oil that would create the dry scalp.
*
MR. COCHRAN: And as such, with regard to when you would see dandruff in his hair or around his shoulders or whatever, what would you do for him or recommend to him?
MS. MOORE: Well, I would tell him to be sure and to put more oil in his hair if he's going to be in the sun and I would tell him to use some kind of dandruff shampoo, you know, over-the-counter shampoo. It wasn't bad enough for him to go to a dermatologist, you know. He could just use a dandruff shampoo.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Okay. And would you ever shampoo his hair or was that something he took care of himself?
MS. MOORE: Oh, he would do that himself.

bobaugust

Circumstantial evidence, just like the entire prosecution's case.

[William Anthony]

Limakey, in the criminal trial Kaelin was called by the prosecution and later declared a hostile witness. It was clear at that time Kaelin was actually a defense witness who was trying not to say anything that would be detrimental to Simpson. Despite that he was an honest witness who told the truth. By the time of the civil trial Kaelin had come to believe that Simpson did kill both Ron and Nicole and he when asked more specific questions about what he heard and did that night he continued to tell the truth. This thread is about the criminal trial but this is what Kaelin testified to in the civil trial

November 19, 1996 Kaelin

Q. Okay. Were you looking at the clock and watch at all?
A. No.
Q. Then what happened?
A. Then I heard these three noises that were thumps, three loud thumps, and my picture moved in the...
MR. PETROCELLI: Can we have the photo of his room with the picture. This is 143 on the television monitor.
Give me 194, Steve. (Exhibit 194 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When the noises occurred, did you look at a watch or a clock?
A. No.
Q. And you said a picture moved. Can you point to Exhibit 194 and tell us what picture you're referring to?
A. This picture. It just moved after I heard the thumps, the picture moved that way.
Q. It tilted a little bit?
A. It tilted.
Q. How do you know that it moved?
A. I saw it.
Q. Now, where were you at the precise time that you heard these noises?
A. Leaning up against this bed, like that, talking on the phone (indicating).
Q. Talking on the phone?
A. (Witness nods.)
Q. So your back was against the head board?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said you heard these noises. What did they sound like?
A. Like someone falling back behind my bedroom wall.

Q. And what makes you say that?
A. Because that's what it sounded like to me after --
Q. You previously testified about the rhythm and volume of these noises. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. By hitting the witness stand. Can you demonstrate that to the jury, the rhythm and the volume of the noises.
A. (Witness pounds witness stand three times.)
Q. And did you feel anything against your back?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you feel?
A. Vibration.
Q. Okay. What did you then do?
A. Well, I talked to Rachel on the phone, I said, Rachel, did we just have an earthquake?
Q. Why did you say that?
A. I kind of wanted to believe that it was an earthquake because the picture moved. And she said no.
Q. Why did you want to believe it was an earthquake?
A. Because I didn't want to believe there was someone back there.
Q. And what did Rachel then say?
A. She said no.
Q. What did you then do?
A. I explained to her what had happened, the picture moved, and I said I should probably check on this.
Q. What did you do?
A. I got off the phone with her and then -- I have a flashlight, pen light, in the drawer, and I went to check on the noise.

bobaugust

If you knew this was about the criminal trial and not the socio-political production, why did you post it. This is what evidence and information was encompassed in the criminal trial in the context of reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

We, the people of the posting world, in order to form a more perfect union,... do ordain and establish this community.

[William Anthony]

william
I like that first sentance a lot.:beer:

Thanks, I do have my moments. :)

[William Anthony]

If anyone is embarrassing them self it's you William. It may be common knowledge that we on this discussion group who think Simpson was the killer believe Simpson wore that knit cap to Bundy but you're the one who said the prosecutors made that claim. I don't remember reading where they did but you evidently do so support your claim and post the testimony please. Be sure to include the date.

bobaugust

9/26

"MS. CLARK: All right. The knit cap. You can barely see it under the plant here. This was the position in which it was found. Now you see how the Defendant could miss it in the dark. It is underneath that plant I'm pointing to right here, that patch of blue here, (Indicating). On that knit cap you recall that the--well, it is the Defendant's hairs. Now, let me refer specifically to Mr. Deedrick's testimony in this regard because what he told us is this: He said there were hair--the hairs that he said were consistent with the Defendant's, he found nine inside the cap. It is clear--extrapolating from his testimony, it is clear that nine--there were nine I think naturally shed hairs is what he said, not fragments, but naturally shed hairs, that he wore the cap from that. Now, what is interesting also is that he talked about fragments that were found inside the cap, hairs of black origin that were not consistent with Mr. Simpson's, and so I asked him, you know, what about those hairs? He said they were treated, chemically treated.

How long were they in the cap? Can't tell. They could have been there for years, because you can--you know, life experience, if you ever had anything knit like that kind of a loose weave, you will have it in evidence, you can check it out, it is going to get hairs in it and those hairs could stay there for a very long time if it is not washed and it is not laundered. So that is why I asked the Defendant's hairdresser, what about the Defendant's former wife Marguerite, did she treat her hair? What about Arnelle, did she treat her hair? These are other people, people that could have worn the cap whose hair--the fragments, old fragments could be from, but the nine naturally shed hairs inside the cap that were consistent with the Defendant's were different in quality than those, because they were not fragments and therefore unlikely to be old. All right. And taking into account everything that we know, those were his hairs in the cap. He wore the cap. He also found on that cap fiber. He said it was consistent with the Defendant's--the carpet from the Defendant's Bronco. And he talked to you about the unusual nature of the--the trilobal cross-section of that fiber, and he showed you photographs of it through the--that were taken from the scanning electron microscope. You will have that back in the jury room if you want to see it, it is very interesting stuff, but what we know from all we know, that was a fiber from the Defendant's Bronco on that cap. Now, that is very important because that actually--with that cap we have tied the Defendant and his car to the crime scene at Bundy and now you see, to summarize, on the knit cap we have the Defendant's hair and the Bronco fiber from the carpet in his Bronco. And another piece of the puzzle. "

[martin II]

9/26

"MS. CLARK: All right. The knit cap. You can barely see it under the plant here. This was the position in which it was found. Now you see how the Defendant could miss it in the dark. It is underneath that plant I'm pointing to right here, that patch of blue here, (Indicating). On that knit cap you recall that the--well, it is the Defendant's hairs. Now, let me refer specifically to Mr. Deedrick's testimony in this regard because what he told us is this: He said there were hair--the hairs that he said were consistent with the Defendant's, he found nine inside the cap. It is clear--extrapolating from his testimony, it is clear that nine--there were nine I think naturally shed hairs is what he said, not fragments, but naturally shed hairs, that he wore the cap from that. Now, what is interesting also is that he talked about fragments that were found inside the cap, hairs of black origin that were not consistent with Mr. Simpson's, and so I asked him, you know, what about those hairs? He said they were treated, chemically treated.

How long were they in the cap? Can't tell. They could have been there for years, because you can--you know, life experience, if you ever had anything knit like that kind of a loose weave, you will have it in evidence, you can check it out, it is going to get hairs in it and those hairs could stay there for a very long time if it is not washed and it is not laundered. So that is why I asked the Defendant's hairdresser, what about the Defendant's former wife Marguerite, did she treat her hair? What about Arnelle, did she treat her hair? These are other people, people that could have worn the cap whose hair--the fragments, old fragments could be from, but the nine naturally shed hairs inside the cap that were consistent with the Defendant's were different in quality than those, because they were not fragments and therefore unlikely to be old. All right. And taking into account everything that we know, those were his hairs in the cap. He wore the cap. He also found on that cap fiber. He said it was consistent with the Defendant's--the carpet from the Defendant's Bronco. And he talked to you about the unusual nature of the--the trilobal cross-section of that fiber, and he showed you photographs of it through the--that were taken from the scanning electron microscope. You will have that back in the jury room if you want to see it, it is very interesting stuff, but what we know from all we know, that was a fiber from the Defendant's Bronco on that cap. Now, that is very important because that actually--with that cap we have tied the Defendant and his car to the crime scene at Bundy and now you see, to summarize, on the knit cap we have the Defendant's hair and the Bronco fiber from the carpet in his Bronco. And another piece of the puzzle. "

"consistant with". This must be a word that all prosecution witnesses must be able to remember for quick use in their testimony. It is like i DON'T KNOW but this is what you can consider. hahahaimo

[William Anthony]

If anyone is embarrassing them self it's you William. It may be common knowledge that we on this discussion group who think Simpson was the killer believe Simpson wore that knit cap to Bundy but you're the one who said the prosecutors made that claim. I don't remember reading where they did but you evidently do so support your claim and post the testimony please. Be sure to include the date.

bobaugust

9/26

"it didn't take Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown more than a few minutes to be overcome and slashed to death. And that is not really surprising. Think about it. A boxing match, each round is what, three minutes, and this is with men that are both prepared ready to do battle and--in good condition who are not taken by surprise, who are prepared to do battle. And we know knockouts occur in the very first round. They certainly happen within a minute, and that is with trained professionals. Same thing with martial arts matches, very quick. All right. Next question. Why did he leave the cap, glove? This one is probably very easy. It was late, he had to catch a flight, this took longer than expected. Ron Goldman was not expected at this scene. He was not supposed to be there. But it is only because of him, because of the struggle that he put up that we have the cap, we have the glove and we have all this evidence,"

This is why I am not embarrassed and suggested you read so as to not further make comments that might cause you to become embarrassed.

[bobaugust]

Yes, the subject was about inferences and the burden of proof. Although in a motion for summary judgment, the Supreme Court ruled what an inference is and what is required to rebut it. There is nothing required to rebut an I don't know from a hair expert when it is given on direct testimony and is directly contradictory to the prosecution's theory. There is no inference to be drawn from that testimony.

Moore didn't testify to anything that was directly contradictory to the prosecution's theory. Not only did she not testify that Simpson had dandruff on May 23 when she last cut his hair she could not and did not testify to Simpson's hair condition on June 12. There was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and Simpson's defense never claimed that he did. Once again this issue is about you William and your claim that it is reasonable to infer that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 based only on Moore's testimony that sometimes he had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. You're wrong. You're inference is not reasonable because there is no direct or physical evidence to support it. Your inference is unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Yes and already done. What don't you understand the statement that he considered as a reckless disregard for the truth were about the invasion and were contained in the application for a search warrant. Try to follow, LE had to justify the warrantless invasion and based on what they allegedly found thereafter they sought a search warrant. The reckless disregard for the truth was based on the statements made to invade the curtilage, because they believe Simpson was a suspect. In other words Ito and the other judge did not believe but could not prove that Simpson was not a suspect at the time the, imho, the unlawful invasion was made. Why do you think the defense sought to get the evidence suppressed? If they had succeeded, the prosecution would have been left with no evidence from Rockingham and both judges knew this.

That's not correct.

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]

Your claim that you understand evidence is unsupported by the evidence, i.e. there is no evidence that anyone was behind Kato's quarters before MF was. It was a theory that Simpson made the thumps on the wall. There was no disturbance of the physical surrounding found and no blood found anywhere near where the glove was allegedly found. We do have the direct testimony of the admitted evidence planter, MF, that he went back there alone.

Yes there is evidence that someone was behind Kaelin's room.

Kaelin's testimony that he believed someone was behind his room
The killer's right had glove that was later seen on the south path behind Kaelin's room exactly opposite where Kaelin heard the noises on his wall.
Simpson's first appearance at Rockingham a few minutes after Kaelin heard someone behind his room.
The blood and fiber evidence on the glove that points only to Simpson as handling that glove.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

If you don't remember reading it, then :read::read::read: and reread, if necessary. Why do you think the magnificent one put the cap on his head. You can begin your :read: with his closing. I understand that you may not remember as evidenced by your first post following your hiatus.

Yes I remember that ridiculous demonstration when Cochran put the knit cap on his head under the glaring lights of the court room. Not only was it too large for him but he wanted the jury to believe that by looking at him under bright lights wearing the dark colored knit cap it was the same thing as looking at Simpson wearing it in the dark shadows of night. Funny.

In your post #5388 you posted, "The prosecution made the claim that Simpson wore the hat on that night." I don't believe Clark ever made that claim so there is no reason for me to try and find something that I don't believe was ever said. It's up to you to you to support your claim. You posted it, you support it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Circumstantial evidence, just like the entire prosecution's case.

Circumstantial evidence that Simpson sometimes had dandruff and sometimes he didn't. Your inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 based only on this circumstantial evidence is unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

If you knew this was about the criminal trial and not the socio-political production, why did you post it. This is what evidence and information was encompassed in the criminal trial in the context of reasonable doubt.

I posted it in response to Limakey's comment that Kaelin never described the thumps as someone being back there. Kaelin consistently testified in the preliminary hearing and both trials that he thought someone was back there.

March 22, 1995 Kaelin
Q SO AT APPROXIMATELY 10:40 TO 10:45, WHEN YOU HEARD THE THUMPS AND YOU SAW THE PICTURE MOVE, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A WELL, I WAS ON THE PHONE STILL AND I WAS TALKING TO RACHEL AND I THOUGHT -- I SAID TO RACHEL -- I ASKED HER, "DID WE JUST HAVE AN EARTHQUAKE?"
Q DID THOSE THUMPS ALARM YOU, SIR?
A AFTER SHE SAID WE DIDN'T HAVE ONE, YES.
Q AND WHY WERE YOU ALARMED?
A WELL, IF IT WASN'T THAT, THEN I THOUGHT THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE BACK THERE.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

9/26

"it didn't take Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown more than a few minutes to be overcome and slashed to death. And that is not really surprising. Think about it. A boxing match, each round is what, three minutes, and this is with men that are both prepared ready to do battle and--in good condition who are not taken by surprise, who are prepared to do battle. And we know knockouts occur in the very first round. They certainly happen within a minute, and that is with trained professionals. Same thing with martial arts matches, very quick. All right. Next question. Why did he leave the cap, glove? This one is probably very easy. It was late, he had to catch a flight, this took longer than expected. Ron Goldman was not expected at this scene. He was not supposed to be there. But it is only because of him, because of the struggle that he put up that we have the cap, we have the glove and we have all this evidence,"

This is why I am not embarrassed and suggested you read so as to not further make comments that might cause you to become embarrassed.

Nowhere in the transcripts of Clark's closing argument did she ever claim that Simpson wore the knit cap on the night of the murders. She spoke of all the evidence that supports a reasonable inference that Simpson wore that knit cap that night. Unlike your flawed illogical inference William, that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 based only on a witness who said sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. You should be embarrassed for arguing and defending your inference as reasonable and the more you defend it the more embarrassing it is for you.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

I never said that Kato was inconsistant regarding the comments about what Simpson was wearing. I have only posted the truth, he was not positive about what Simpson was wearing. In fact, his description of the sweats did not match with what Fuhrman wrote in his book. So six people saw those sweats, well were is their testimony? Where is there description of what they saw?

Kato was made a hostile witness because MC hated his guts from the moment he insisted on having a lawyer present. She was angry because he called her bluff when she tried to strong arm him into saying what she wanted him to say. He refused and from that moment on, she declared war on Kato.

If Kato was a "defense" witness, then why testify about anything? Why not say that he was wearing blue jeans and a white shirt? Why would he say that Simpson called him to set the alarm? No, Kato did the best he could and he told the truth as best as he remembered it.

Clark jumped all over the sweats because she needed to some how link Simpson to the fibers and Kato was the best she had. Yes, lets use some common sense, where are the fabric comparison charts? Where are the percentages of those fibers coming from a sweat suit? And where in Deedrick's testimony did he say he was positive that they all could have come from the same cloth? Saying "they could have", does not mean they did. Saying they could have all come from the same cloth does not translate that the source of these fibers could only have been from a sweat suit, which was owned by OJ Simpson.

As for the civil trial on this issue---when did Petrocelli's experts compare the fibers found at the scene to those sweat suits? What percentages did the experts give that these fibers came from a Rebok or DKNY sweat suit. It is simple, Petrocelli knew that he only had to give his jurors the image that a sweat suit was inside Simpson's home. The colors, the fibers, nothing mattered, only that there was one inside of his home. Not convincing at all.

As for Kato's changed description of the thumps for the civil trial, again where is the proof that he never gave the same demonstration to Clark? Clark knew that there was no evidence to support that a person jumped that fence and banged into the wall. She also knew that Fuhrman's belief that he ran 3 times into the same A/C unit was just plain silly. Petrocelli could have called Gumby and Pokey to the stand and the judge would have allowed them to testify as experts on how stunts are done on cartoons and that civil trial jury would have thought these icons were the ultimate experts on this. Petrocelli had emotion on his side, he had the media on his side, he was like the first person to ever go to Burger King--He had it his way! Also note, while Clark drilled Kato about the time of the thumps, Petrocelli did everything he could to make sure the jury knew that Kato did not know what time he heard the thumps.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Again, lets use common sense. Vanatter and Lange had over 50 years of experience between them. They were assigned to an elite unit in the LAPD. They did not get their promotion into this unit because they strong, strapping drop dead gorgous men. They earned their promotion and in their book they said they were not star struck, they have seen too much. So why didn't they suspect him? Their experience has already exposed them to the rich and famous, they know that fame and wealth do not mean a person is not capable of committing crime.

Also, MF and Phillips knew Nicole and what her legal issues were in the past. To believe that neither Phillips or Fuhrman told Lange and Vanatter what they knew of the history is just plain silly unless both Fuhrman and Phillips were spitting mad that Lange and Vanatter got "their case". That is the only reasonable explaination---if they did not tell Lange and Vanatter.

In Evidence Dismissed, they clearly write that they asked Arnelle where the maid's room was, however, never did they ask her where was the maid? Didn't they say they were told she should have been inside the house, well where was she? Unless there is a law that says all hired, live in help must be murdered in their bedrooms inside their employer's home, then again why did they not search the house and the grounds for a maid they thought was inside?

Also, in Evidence Dismissed, why Vanatter only take notes (or was it Lange?) on what Kato said? And weren't the first words out of Kato's mouth, "Did OJ's plane go down?!) (Or crash) Why didn't he take notes on what Arnelle said. Also, it is clear that Arnelle was still half asleep and was not alert, she came home late that night, she also at the time had a drinking problem--why did MF give Kato some routine field tests but not Arnelle?

Arnelle was a grown woman living on her father's estate in a separate building, again, is there some law that she had to be made aware of her father's coming and goings? The fact that she did not know where her father was should not have aroused the cops' radar when they had two minor children who knew exactly where their father was. Why not focus on the kids who knew where their father was?

Also, when Kato asked them about the plane, did the detectives ever ask him what time did his plane leave? Again, according to them, they had no idea when the murders were committed---how did they know Simpson could have been suspect when they claim they didn't know where he was?

Last fact, Vanatter had no reason to lie to get the search warrant. He had probable cause hours ago and he could have phoned in to get a warrant. Like I posted before, there is no crime to bleed at your home and they had no way of knowing how old that blood was. He could have cut himself any time during the day or evening at his home, that does not mean he did not kill Nicole or Ron.

For some reason, you think the police who were committing a crime by even having a thought that Simpson could have anything to do with the murders.

In regards to Vanatter not "hearing" certain conversations and that is why he messed up the search warrant---are you kidding me? Any parent as well as any spouse can give countless examples of just how selective hearing can be. Also, there is a huge difference between hearing and listening. Vanatter should have been listening and paying attention to these details. His partner should have ensured that he had been brief about these conversations and the status of events----the fact that he claims he wasn't, again, goes against their experience and job performance. Vanatter wrote a search warrant that was not truthful, knowing full well that a judge would be recalled if they tossed out the warrant. He knew exactly how far he could bend the rules and get away with it. However, if you ask me, I bet both he and Lange wished the judge would have tossed out the search warrant. Then they would have only had to worry about Bundy and not Rockingham.

Again, they thought they be back in 20 minutes? They are going to a home to break some tragic news and in their experience, they knew that they could go to OJ Simpson's home, knock on his door and tell them what they had to tell them and Simpson would have been good to go in 20 minutes?

Lange did his damage by not going back to Bundy and conducting his final walk through. Yeah, he took one for the home team but it made him look like something he was not, an incompetent detective. He took one for the home team. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Nowhere in the transcripts of Clark's closing argument did she ever claim that Simpson wore the knit cap on the night of the murders. She spoke of all the evidence that supports a reasonable inference that Simpson wore that knit cap that night. Unlike your flawed illogical inference William, that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 based only on a witness who said sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. You should be embarrassed for arguing and defending your inference as reasonable and the more you defend it the more embarrassing it is for you.

bobaugust

There is no reasonable inference to be drawn. You continue to embarrass yourself. You asked me to post where the prosecution made the claim and to include the date. What part of this don't you understand?

"Why did he leave the cap, glove? This one is probably very easy. It was late, he had to catch a flight, this took longer than expected. Ron Goldman was not expected at this scene. He was not supposed to be there. But it is only because of him, because of the struggle that he put up that we have the cap,

What cap, glove, Unexpected arrival of Mr. Ronald Goldman and flight do you think she was referring to other than the night of June 12th? The closing argument is a chance for the prosecution to tell the jury what they CLAIM the evidence proves. Please, inform yourself of legal concepts so that the community will not feel that I am unconscionably taking advantage of you in our discussions.

[William Anthony]

I posted it in response to Limakey's comment that Kaelin never described the thumps as someone being back there. Kaelin consistently testified in the preliminary hearing and both trials that he thought someone was back there.

March 22, 1995 Kaelin
Q SO AT APPROXIMATELY 10:40 TO 10:45, WHEN YOU HEARD THE THUMPS AND YOU SAW THE PICTURE MOVE, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A WELL, I WAS ON THE PHONE STILL AND I WAS TALKING TO RACHEL AND I THOUGHT -- I SAID TO RACHEL -- I ASKED HER, "DID WE JUST HAVE AN EARTHQUAKE?"
Q DID THOSE THUMPS ALARM YOU, SIR?
A AFTER SHE SAID WE DIDN'T HAVE ONE, YES.
Q AND WHY WERE YOU ALARMED?
A WELL, IF IT WASN'T THAT, THEN I THOUGHT THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE BACK THERE.

bobaugust

Both of which are related to the criminal trial. Please, learn about legal concepts and criminal procedures? I know that in the preliminary hearing the witness is allowed to be cross examined. I am not sure about objections but my educated guess is that they are. I suppose Mr. Kato's last answer may have been admitted to show his state of mind or explain subsequent conduct. He did not say someone was back there, or that he observed someone back there or leaving from back there. I reiterate the only one we know that was back there alone was the soon to be convicted perjurer, MF.

[William Anthony]

Circumstantial evidence that Simpson sometimes had dandruff and sometimes he didn't. Your inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 based only on this circumstantial evidence is unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

The only thing that is unsupported is your continual posting of this, imho, redundant response.

[William Anthony]

Yes I remember that ridiculous demonstration when Cochran put the knit cap on his head under the glaring lights of the court room. Not only was it too large for him but he wanted the jury to believe that by looking at him under bright lights wearing the dark colored knit cap it was the same thing as looking at Simpson wearing it in the dark shadows of night. Funny.

In your post #5388 you posted, "The prosecution made the claim that Simpson wore the hat on that night." I don't believe Clark ever made that claim so there is no reason for me to try and find something that I don't believe was ever said. It's up to you to you to support your claim. You posted it, you support it.

bobaugust

Already done. :read:

[William Anthony]

Yes there is evidence that someone was behind Kaelin's room.

Kaelin's testimony that he believed someone was behind his room
The killer's right had glove that was later seen on the south path behind Kaelin's room exactly opposite where Kaelin heard the noises on his wall.
Simpson's first appearance at Rockingham a few minutes after Kaelin heard someone behind his room.
The blood and fiber evidence on the glove that points only to Simpson as handling that glove.

bobaugust

Already answered.

[William Anthony]

That's not correct.

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

I agree with Ito that it was a reckless disregard for the truth. That reckless disregard was an attempt to cover up, which LE often do, imho, for the unlawful entry.

[William Anthony]

Moore didn't testify to anything that was directly contradictory to the prosecution's theory. Not only did she not testify that Simpson had dandruff on May 23 when she last cut his hair she could not and did not testify to Simpson's hair condition on June 12. There was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and Simpson's defense never claimed that he did. Once again this issue is about you William and your claim that it is reasonable to infer that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 based only on Moore's testimony that sometimes he had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. You're wrong. You're inference is not reasonable because there is no direct or physical evidence to support it. Your inference is unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

:read::read: and reread. Try reading this again, "...an I don't know from a hair expert when it is given on direct testimony and is directly contradictory to the prosecution's theory." Notice the word expert.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

I never said that Kato was inconsistant regarding the comments about what Simpson was wearing. I have only posted the truth, he was not positive about what Simpson was wearing. In fact, his description of the sweats did not match with what Fuhrman wrote in his book. So six people saw those sweats, well were is their testimony? Where is there description of what they saw?

Kato was made a hostile witness because MC hated his guts from the moment he insisted on having a lawyer present. She was angry because he called her bluff when she tried to strong arm him into saying what she wanted him to say. He refused and from that moment on, she declared war on Kato.

If Kato was a "defense" witness, then why testify about anything? Why not say that he was wearing blue jeans and a white shirt? Why would he say that Simpson called him to set the alarm? No, Kato did the best he could and he told the truth as best as he remembered it.

Clark jumped all over the sweats because she needed to some how link Simpson to the fibers and Kato was the best she had. Yes, lets use some common sense, where are the fabric comparison charts? Where are the percentages of those fibers coming from a sweat suit? And where in Deedrick's testimony did he say he was positive that they all could have come from the same cloth? Saying "they could have", does not mean they did. Saying they could have all come from the same cloth does not translate that the source of these fibers could only have been from a sweat suit, which was owned by OJ Simpson.

As for the civil trial on this issue---when did Petrocelli's experts compare the fibers found at the scene to those sweat suits? What percentages did the experts give that these fibers came from a Rebok or DKNY sweat suit. It is simple, Petrocelli knew that he only had to give his jurors the image that a sweat suit was inside Simpson's home. The colors, the fibers, nothing mattered, only that there was one inside of his home. Not convincing at all.

As for Kato's changed description of the thumps for the civil trial, again where is the proof that he never gave the same demonstration to Clark? Clark knew that there was no evidence to support that a person jumped that fence and banged into the wall. She also knew that Fuhrman's belief that he ran 3 times into the same A/C unit was just plain silly. Petrocelli could have called Gumby and Pokey to the stand and the judge would have allowed them to testify as experts on how stunts are done on cartoons and that civil trial jury would have thought these icons were the ultimate experts on this. Petrocelli had emotion on his side, he had the media on his side, he was like the first person to ever go to Burger King--He had it his way! Also note, while Clark drilled Kato about the time of the thumps, Petrocelli did everything he could to make sure the jury knew that Kato did not know what time he heard the thumps.

Limakey, I agree Kaelin was not positive about the details of Simpson's clothing. The only thing he was sure about was that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit. Kaelin was an honest witness who told the truth but at the same time he tried not to say anything detrimental to Simpson. When Kaelin testified that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit I doubt if he knew how incriminating that was.

Clark wrote she believe Kaelin was intentionally downplaying the implications of Simpson's remarks he testified about. Clark believed that Kaelin was a defense witness and by declaring him a hostile witness "that would give the jury notice that any evidence he gave to incriminate Simpson was the real goods. But more important, once a witness is declared to be hostile, you get to ask leading questions. Ordinarily, when a lawyer calls a witness, he had to ask open ended questions that don't suggest the answer--that's what distinguishes direct examination from cross exam. With a hostile witness, in affect, you get to cross examine your own witness."

We all know that the sweat suit Kaelin testified Simpson was wearing that night was never collected or entered into evidence. Simpson got rid of it after the police finished searching his house the day after the murders. So there was nothing to compare against. But that doesn't change the fact that the same exact blue black cotton fibers found on Ron's shirt and found on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks.

Clark summarized the evidence and what it meant in her closing argument.

September 26. 1995
"Well, you recall that Mr. Deedrick found blue black cotton fibers in two other places and the blue black cotton fibers that he found that shared the same microscopic characteristics as those he found on Ron Goldman's shirt were found on the Rockingham glove and on the Defendant's socks. So what could that be? Well, clearly those are fibers from what the Defendant was wearing this night. You recall what Kato described. He was wearing the dark blue to black cotton sweatsuit with long sleeves. Now, a sweatsuit has banded ankles and is going to be in contact with your socks. Obviously, too, a sweatsuit, you know, if you have those--if you have an elastic ankle, exertion, you are going to pull the pants up, it is going to rub, there is going to be some friction there. And it is natural, it is also common sense, that you will find fiber from one piece of clothing transferred to another, which is why if you recall when he was testifying, I asked him did you find any of Ron Goldman's shirt fibers on his jeans? Yeah, I did. Not a surprising thing. Very common. Same thing happened with the Defendant. And when he had contact with Ronald Goldman, when he attacked Ronald Goldman, he left fibers from what he was wearing on Ron Goldman's shirt. And when he went to take--and in wearing that sweatsuit over those socks, he left fibers on those socks. And in having maybe the Rockingham glove in his pocket, when he was running down the south pathway picking up fibers from it, from his clothing, when the glove fell out, it still had the fiber from his clothing and that is why you have those fibers sharing the same microscopic characteristics with all the tests he performed on them, there were quit a few, in these three places, going to the crime scene, the south pathway and the Defendant's bedroom. So with this piece of evidence we have again tied the Defendant to the murders and this link carries us from Bundy clear into the Defendant's bedroom in Rockingham."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Again, lets use common sense. Vanatter and Lange had over 50 years of experience between them. They were assigned to an elite unit in the LAPD. They did not get their promotion into this unit because they strong, strapping drop dead gorgous men. They earned their promotion and in their book they said they were not star struck, they have seen too much. So why didn't they suspect him? Their experience has already exposed them to the rich and famous, they know that fame and wealth do not mean a person is not capable of committing crime.

Also, MF and Phillips knew Nicole and what her legal issues were in the past. To believe that neither Phillips or Fuhrman told Lange and Vanatter what they knew of the history is just plain silly unless both Fuhrman and Phillips were spitting mad that Lange and Vanatter got "their case". That is the only reasonable explaination---if they did not tell Lange and Vanatter.

In Evidence Dismissed, they clearly write that they asked Arnelle where the maid's room was, however, never did they ask her where was the maid? Didn't they say they were told she should have been inside the house, well where was she? Unless there is a law that says all hired, live in help must be murdered in their bedrooms inside their employer's home, then again why did they not search the house and the grounds for a maid they thought was inside?

Also, in Evidence Dismissed, why Vanatter only take notes (or was it Lange?) on what Kato said? And weren't the first words out of Kato's mouth, "Did OJ's plane go down?!) (Or crash) Why didn't he take notes on what Arnelle said. Also, it is clear that Arnelle was still half asleep and was not alert, she came home late that night, she also at the time had a drinking problem--why did MF give Kato some routine field tests but not Arnelle?

Arnelle was a grown woman living on her father's estate in a separate building, again, is there some law that she had to be made aware of her father's coming and goings? The fact that she did not know where her father was should not have aroused the cops' radar when they had two minor children who knew exactly where their father was. Why not focus on the kids who knew where their father was?

Also, when Kato asked them about the plane, did the detectives ever ask him what time did his plane leave? Again, according to them, they had no idea when the murders were committed---how did they know Simpson could have been suspect when they claim they didn't know where he was?

Last fact, Vanatter had no reason to lie to get the search warrant. He had probable cause hours ago and he could have phoned in to get a warrant. Like I posted before, there is no crime to bleed at your home and they had no way of knowing how old that blood was. He could have cut himself any time during the day or evening at his home, that does not mean he did not kill Nicole or Ron.

For some reason, you think the police who were committing a crime by even having a thought that Simpson could have anything to do with the murders.

In regards to Vanatter not "hearing" certain conversations and that is why he messed up the search warrant---are you kidding me? Any parent as well as any spouse can give countless examples of just how selective hearing can be. Also, there is a huge difference between hearing and listening. Vanatter should have been listening and paying attention to these details. His partner should have ensured that he had been brief about these conversations and the status of events----the fact that he claims he wasn't, again, goes against their experience and job performance. Vanatter wrote a search warrant that was not truthful, knowing full well that a judge would be recalled if they tossed out the warrant. He knew exactly how far he could bend the rules and get away with it. However, if you ask me, I bet both he and Lange wished the judge would have tossed out the search warrant. Then they would have only had to worry about Bundy and not Rockingham.

Again, they thought they be back in 20 minutes? They are going to a home to break some tragic news and in their experience, they knew that they could go to OJ Simpson's home, knock on his door and tell them what they had to tell them and Simpson would have been good to go in 20 minutes?

Lange did his damage by not going back to Bundy and conducting his final walk through. Yeah, he took one for the home team but it made him look like something he was not, an incompetent detective. He took one for the home team. IMO.

Limakey, It sounds like you think that these two experienced detectives should have suspected Simpson because he was rich and famous when in fact there was no reason for them to suspect Simpson when they were at Bundy. Yes being the ex husband he was a potential suspect just as anyone who was associated with these two victims would be but there was no obvious evidence at the murder scene for anyone to suspect Simpson.

In Lange and Vannatter's book, Evidence Dismissed, this is what they wrote,
"As the detectives talk over their crime scene strategy, Lieutenant Rogers joins the conversation and tells Lange and Phillips about Commander Bushey's order; They are supposed to contact O.J. Simpson, in person, to help him recover his children. Vannatter asks, "Do we know where he lives? "Phillips replies, "Well Fuhrman says he was once up there on a four fifteen radio call (a disturbance of the peace) some sort of domestic dispute. It's just a couple of miles away.
Vannatter hears Phillips say that Fuhrman had responded to a previous domestic dispute at Simpson's home, but he does not give it any thought; Lange only hears Phillips say that Fuhrman had once been there on some unspecific radio call. Phillips comment about a previous "domestic dispute" between O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown passes without further comment."

Fuhrman wrote about this in his book, Murder in Brentwood,
"Lange, Vannatter, and Ron Phillips all stood in front of the house discussing the scene until Ron walked away and started talking on his cellular phone. After a few moments he turned his head away from the phone and asked me if I knew the way to Simpson's estate on Rockingham Avenue. I told him I had been there in 1985 or 1986 on a family dispute call, and thought I could find it again. Ron went back to his phone call."

When Arnelle let the detectives into her father's house the first thing Vannatter did was ask where the maids room was. You keep asking why the police didn't ask this or say that. Detectives on a case do not volunteer information to civilians. They keep things to themselves. If you base your opinions on what what you think the detectives should have said or what you think they should have done or what you think they should have thought then your opinions are only as good as your personal experience as a police officer.

Yes the plan the Robbery Homicide detectives came up with was to take the two West LA detectives with them to Rockingham. They could meet with Simpson, make the notification and get his cooperation for background information down the road. The two West LA detectives would stay with Simpson and help him make the arrangements for picking up his kids at their division while the two Robbery Homicide detectives would return to Bundy to handle the bodies and the evidence. Considering Simpson lived about two miles away Lange and Vannatter assumed they would be back in twenty minutes or less. (Evidence Dismissed)

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

There is no reasonable inference to be drawn. You continue to embarrass yourself. You asked me to post where the prosecution made the claim and to include the date. What part of this don't you understand?

"Why did he leave the cap, glove? This one is probably very easy. It was late, he had to catch a flight, this took longer than expected. Ron Goldman was not expected at this scene. He was not supposed to be there. But it is only because of him, because of the struggle that he put up that we have the cap,

What cap, glove, Unexpected arrival of Mr. Ronald Goldman and flight do you think she was referring to other than the night of June 12th? The closing argument is a chance for the prosecution to tell the jury what they CLAIM the evidence proves. Please, inform yourself of legal concepts so that the community will not feel that I am unconscionably taking advantage of you in our discussions.

Clark didn't say the words that Simpson wore the knit cap, she didn't have to. I understood exactly what she was inferring as you evidently did. That's because her inference was a reasonable inference based on the physical evidence unlike your flawed inference William, based only on a witness saying sometimes.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Both of which are related to the criminal trial. Please, learn about legal concepts and criminal procedures? I know that in the preliminary hearing the witness is allowed to be cross examined. I am not sure about objections but my educated guess is that they are. I suppose Mr. Kato's last answer may have been admitted to show his state of mind or explain subsequent conduct. He did not say someone was back there, or that he observed someone back there or leaving from back there. I reiterate the only one we know that was back there alone was the soon to be convicted perjurer, MF.

The testimony I posted dated March 22, 1995 was from the criminal trial not the preliminary hearing.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The only thing that is unsupported is your continual posting of this, imho, redundant response.

No, what is unsupported is your speculation that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Already answered.

And the answer is yes, there is evidence that someone was behind Kaelin's room over six hours before Mark Fuhrman saw the glove on the south path.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I agree with Ito that it was a reckless disregard for the truth. That reckless disregard was an attempt to cover up, which LE often do, imho, for the unlawful entry.

That may be your opinion but it wasn't Judge Ito's opinion. When Judge Ito made his comment he was referring to the search warrant Vannatter wrote not the police entry onto Simpson's estate. Judge Ito did not find that entry to be unlawful.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

:read::read: and reread. Try reading this again, "...an I don't know from a hair expert when it is given on direct testimony and is directly contradictory to the prosecution's theory." Notice the word expert.

Whatever you're trying to say it has nothing to do with your speculation that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Clark didn't say the words that Simpson wore the knit cap, she didn't have to. I understood exactly what she was inferring as you evidently did. That's because her inference was a reasonable inference based on the physical evidence unlike your flawed inference William, based only on a witness saying sometimes.

bobaugust

Please, do not continue to make these embarrassing posts. A closing argument is each party's opportunity to make their claim, which is what you asked me to post, as to what the evidence proved. This is what I mean about your circular argument or reasoning. If you understood that was the prosecution's claim, whether or not based on an inference, you have wasted my time, responding to your posts. It seems that you are more interested in trying to prove me wrong, after I pointed out your three incorrect statements in your, IIRC, first post back after your hiatus, than having an open and intelligent discussion of the issues.

[William Anthony]

The testimony I posted dated March 22, 1995 was from the criminal trial not the preliminary hearing.

bobaugust

Which only showed Mr. Kato's state of mind, not evidence of anyone being behind the quarters. He thought there was someone back there. I think that if you educate yourself on legal concepts we can have an intelligent discussion, which does not make what I think true. The prosecution thought they could prove Simpson guilty and they were wrong. What one thinks is just evidence of that person's state of mind.

[William Anthony]

No, what is unsupported is your speculation that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

bobaugust

What is unsupported in regard to the issue of dandruff and the cap and your redundant post is any evidence that Simpson did not have dandruff on June 12th but more importantly that he wore the cap on June 12th.

[William Anthony]

That may be your opinion but it wasn't Judge Ito's opinion. When Judge Ito made his comment he was referring to the search warrant Vannatter wrote not the police entry onto Simpson's estate. Judge Ito did not find that entry to be unlawful.

bobaugust

That is because, as the Shiparo told the judge and was corrected, Vannatter was severely false. The judge, Ito, said not severely, because that would mean willfully (which may have led to suppression of the evidence and criminal charges) and told Shiparo it was reckless. The comments he referred to where in regard to the warrantless entry. The lie about the unexpected trip to Chicago was to explain why they felt there might be a victim when they did not get an answer when they rang the gate, as was the lie about the blood in order to make, imho, the unlawful entry and search.

[William Anthony]

Whatever you're trying to say it has nothing to do with your speculation that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

bobaugust

Thanks for finally being honest, imho, and admitting that you don't understand. Here is the original post, with emphasis added in bold.

Yes, the subject was about inferences and the burden of proof. Although in a motion for summary judgment, the Supreme Court ruled what an inference is and what is required to rebut it. There is nothing required to rebut an I don't know from a hair expert when it is given on direct testimony and is directly contradictory to the prosecution's theory. There is no inference to be drawn from that testimony.

You went on and on in your response about Ms. Moore's testimony. She was not a hair expert. Deedrick was qualified as an expert on hair and fiber analysis. He testified to a bunch of ifs, could haves and assumptions based on assumptions, i.e. he offered no testimony of a scientific investigation as to whether or not inmates acquired dandruff due to a change in shampoo or hygiene, i.e. he did not say an investigation was done on those inmates prior to their incarceration to see if they had dandruff, nor that a study was done on the types of shampoo they used and whether of not it was changed while incarcerated or on their hygienic patterns. His testimony was contradictory to the prosecution's claim, because he could not testify as to when the hairs got in the cap, i.e that the hairs were not in the cap in the months between September and January (consistent with Ms. Moore's testimony), which is evidence that Simpson did not wear that cap on the night of June 12th after he had played golf (consistent with Ms. Moore's testimony that in her 16 year personal observations of Simpson's hair, he would have more dandruff during the summer months when he played golf in the sun). you went on and on about Ms. Moore's testimony, seemingly ignoring the hair expert's testimony and the prosecution's burden of proof, which you now admit that you did not understand the point of my post, which I have previously told you it is alright to say you don't understand.

[William Anthony]

That is because, as the Shiparo told the judge and was corrected, Vannatter was severely false. The judge, Ito, said not severely, because that would mean willfully (which may have led to suppression of the evidence and criminal charges) and told Shiparo it was reckless. The comments he referred to where in regard to the warrantless entry. The lie about the unexpected trip to Chicago was to explain why they felt there might be a victim when they did not get an answer when they rang the gate, as was the lie about the blood in order to make, imho, the unlawful entry and search.

Corrections

That is because, as Shiparo told the judge and was corrected, Vannatter was severely false. The judge, Ito, said not severely, because that would mean willfully (which may have led to suppression of the evidence and criminal charges) and told Shiparo it was reckless. The comments he referred to were in regard to the warrantless entry. The lie about the unexpected trip to Chicago was to explain why they felt there might be a victim when they did not get an answer when they rang the buzzer on the gate, as was the lie about the blood in order to make, imho, the unlawful entry and search.

[William Anthony]

Eat, drink and be merry. If not, be over full.

[William Anthony]

There is a double murder trial that trutv is showing. It seems to be all circumstantial evidence of a love triangle ending in murder. The accused is supposed to take the stand. It seems that the most harmful evidence is a letter he sent to the victim's wife, his lover, that was threatening and had his palm print. I wonder how that will be explained away. The defense said something to the effect that he was under stress after the police started questioning him. He allegedly stole a friend's truck, drove an hour and a half one way, murdered two people, drove the truck back parked it in the same spot, and was seen standing in his driveway holding a cup of coffee by a female neighbor who was going on her morning jog. I think that, like with Simpson, the time line will be crucial.

[bobaugust]

Please, do not continue to make these embarrassing posts. A closing argument is each party's opportunity to make their claim, which is what you asked me to post, as to what the evidence proved. This is what I mean about your circular argument or reasoning. If you understood that was the prosecution's claim, whether or not based on an inference, you have wasted my time, responding to your posts. It seems that you are more interested in trying to prove me wrong, after I pointed out your three incorrect statements in your, IIRC, first post back after your hiatus, than having an open and intelligent discussion of the issues.

I waste your time? Funny. You have wasted far more of your time trying to defend your unsupported speculation as a reasonable inference than any time spent on this issue.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Which only showed Mr. Kato's state of mind, not evidence of anyone being behind the quarters. He thought there was someone back there. I think that if you educate yourself on legal concepts we can have an intelligent discussion, which does not make what I think true. The prosecution thought they could prove Simpson guilty and they were wrong. What one thinks is just evidence of that person's state of mind.

Kaelin testified that he believed someone was behind his room after hearing the thumps and feeling the vibrations that almost knocked a picture off the wall near his bed. Kaelin was talking to his friend on the phone at the time and asked her if there was an earthquake. He testified that he was worried and scared because he thought there might be a prowler behind his room.

Simpson's defense not only never refuted that evidence they even tried to suggest that the thumps may have been a signal from whoever was back there. Kato Kaelin's testimony is evidence someone was behind his room about ten or fifteen minutes after the murders were committed. The fact that one of the killer's gloves was found on the south path right behind the wall Kaelin heard the noises and vibrations on is evidence that person Kaelin heard was the killer.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

What is unsupported in regard to the issue of dandruff and the cap and your redundant post is any evidence that Simpson did not have dandruff on June 12th but more importantly that he wore the cap on June 12th.

It's unsupported that Simpson did not have dandruff? That's funny. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and no one in this case ever claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. No one has to disprove your unsupported speculation because your speculation is all imaginary.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

That is because, as the Shiparo told the judge and was corrected, Vannatter was severely false. The judge, Ito, said not severely, because that would mean willfully (which may have led to suppression of the evidence and criminal charges) and told Shiparo it was reckless. The comments he referred to where in regard to the warrantless entry. The lie about the unexpected trip to Chicago was to explain why they felt there might be a victim when they did not get an answer when they rang the gate, as was the lie about the blood in order to make, imho, the unlawful entry and search.

You were wrong when you said Ito used the word "reckless" pertaining to the police entering Simpson's property. You were wrong when you said Vannatter lied about the spot on the Bronco being blood.

You are wrong when you say Vannatter lied when he wrote that Simpson's trip was unexpected. Based on what Vannatter knew at the time he believed that Simpson's trip to Chicago was unexpected. Vannatter had made an incorrect assumption. There was no reason for him to lie about this, he didn't lie about this, and he was never found to have lied about this.

You are wrong when you say that "unexpected" trip was to explain why they felt there might be a victim when they didn't get an answer when they rang the gate.
The detectives concern about the possibility of another victim was based on what Westec told them. After the supervisor at Westec gave the detectives Simpson telephone number he told told them there should have been a live in housekeeper there and if Simpson had gone away they would have been notified.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Thanks for finally being honest, imho, and admitting that you don't understand. Here is the original post, with emphasis added in bold.



You went on and on in your response about Ms. Moore's testimony. She was not a hair expert. Deedrick was qualified as an expert on hair and fiber analysis. He testified to a bunch of ifs, could haves and assumptions based on assumptions, i.e. he offered no testimony of a scientific investigation as to whether or not inmates acquired dandruff due to a change in shampoo or hygiene, i.e. he did not say an investigation was done on those inmates prior to their incarceration to see if they had dandruff, nor that a study was done on the types of shampoo they used and whether of not it was changed while incarcerated or on their hygienic patterns. His testimony was contradictory to the prosecution's claim, because he could not testify as to when the hairs got in the cap, i.e that the hairs were not in the cap in the months between September and January (consistent with Ms. Moore's testimony), which is evidence that Simpson did not wear that cap on the night of June 12th after he had played golf (consistent with Ms. Moore's testimony that in her 16 year personal observations of Simpson's hair, he would have more dandruff during the summer months when he played golf in the sun). you went on and on about Ms. Moore's testimony, seemingly ignoring the hair expert's testimony and the prosecution's burden of proof, which you now admit that you did not understand the point of my post, which I have previously told you it is alright to say you don't understand.

The Supreme Court ruling you posted has absolutely nothing to do with your flawed inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. There was no need for any expert in the Simpson case to contradict any thing Moore testified to since she could not and did not testify that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and no one in this case ever claimed that he did.

bobaugust


bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The Supreme Court ruling you posted has absolutely nothing to do with your flawed inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. There was no need for any expert in the Simpson case to contradict any thing Moore testified to since she could not and did not testify that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and no one in this case ever claimed that he did.

bobaugust


bobaugust

You still do not understand. The expert's testimony contradicted or, if you will, showed the weakness of the prosecution's claim on that particular issue and it was consistent with the reasonable inferences to be drawn from Ms. Moore's testimony. ;):cool: It is understandable that, if you can't grasp this, why you disagree with the Supreme court, Imho.

[William Anthony]

You were wrong when you said Ito used the word "reckless" pertaining to the police entering Simpson's property. You were wrong when you said Vannatter lied about the spot on the Bronco being blood.

You are wrong when you say Vannatter lied when he wrote that Simpson's trip was unexpected. Based on what Vannatter knew at the time he believed that Simpson's trip to Chicago was unexpected. Vannatter had made an incorrect assumption. There was no reason for him to lie about this, he didn't lie about this, and he was never found to have lied about this.

You are wrong when you say that "unexpected" trip was to explain why they felt there might be a victim when they didn't get an answer when they rang the gate.
The detectives concern about the possibility of another victim was based on what Westec told them. After the supervisor at Westec gave the detectives Simpson telephone number he told told them there should have been a live in housekeeper there and if Simpson had gone away they would have been notified.

bobaugust

I'll side with those who have studied, practice and have knowledge of legal concepts, both judges who considered Vannatter's reckless disregard for and playing fast and loose with the truth.

[William Anthony]

It's unsupported that Simpson did not have dandruff? That's funny. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and no one in this case ever claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. No one has to disprove your unsupported speculation because your speculation is all imaginary.

bobaugust

No, they provided circumstantial evidence of the fact, i.e. they provided evidence that the prosecution's hair evidence should not be trusted. That's why the defense's case is called the rebuttal case. Got it yet?

[William Anthony]

Kaelin testified that he believed someone was behind his room after hearing the thumps and feeling the vibrations that almost knocked a picture off the wall near his bed. Kaelin was talking to his friend on the phone at the time and asked her if there was an earthquake. He testified that he was worried and scared because he thought there might be a prowler behind his room.

Simpson's defense not only never refuted that evidence they even tried to suggest that the thumps may have been a signal from whoever was back there. Kato Kaelin's testimony is evidence someone was behind his room about ten or fifteen minutes after the murders were committed. The fact that one of the killer's gloves was found on the south path right behind the wall Kaelin heard the noises and vibrations on is evidence that person Kaelin heard was the killer.

bobaugust

I really see that you don't understand. I apologize for being suspicious of your motives to pretend you didn't understand. I guess that you did not understand that the defense was being sarcastic. The evidence is that the person who deposited the glove was back there alone. Does MF ring a bigoted blunder of a bell?

[William Anthony]

I waste your time? Funny. You have wasted far more of your time trying to defend your unsupported speculation as a reasonable inference than any time spent on this issue.

bobaugust

I apologize for saying that you waste my time, as I truly love discussing the law and the concepts contained therein, even with those lacking knowledge of those things and I apologize for thinking that everyone understood the concept of a closing argument. It is the party's chance or opportunity to claim what the evidence proved. In the opening they will tell the trier of fact what the evidence is and a lot have gotten away with saying the evidence will show (argument). During a mock trial, I objected to the other side saying this and the lawyer, who played the judge, sustained my objections. It really dismantled the opposing side's opening. In my opening, I occasionally said the same thing, without objection. I did not apologize to them, because they had training and should have known. I think they failed to object, because I had proven them wrong, causing them not to focus on the issue. I apologize for thinking that you knew and I do not want the community to think I am taking an unconscionable advantage of you.

[martin II]

You were wrong when you said Ito used the word "reckless" pertaining to the police entering Simpson's property. You were wrong when you said Vannatter lied about the spot on the Bronco being blood.

You are wrong when you say Vannatter lied when he wrote that Simpson's trip was unexpected. Based on what Vannatter knew at the time he believed that Simpson's trip to Chicago was unexpected. Vannatter had made an incorrect assumption. There was no reason for him to lie about this, he didn't lie about this, and he was never found to have lied about this.

You are wrong when you say that "unexpected" trip was to explain why they felt there might be a victim when they didn't get an answer when they rang the gate.
The detectives concern about the possibility of another victim was based on what Westec told them. After the supervisor at Westec gave the detectives Simpson telephone number he told told them there should have been a live in housekeeper there and if Simpson had gone away they would have been notified.

bobaugust

Vanhatter was in the Kitchen area when Lang talked to Randa and found that oj was on a scheduled trip. I cannot believe you are suggesting that lang did not tell Vanhatter about his conversation with Randa.Immediately.

Two lead detectives and two scrubs that had been relieved of their assignment going to Rockingham sounds like a LE search party put togeather after they had decided on who the suspect was.imo

[weezer]

You were wrong when you said Ito used the word "reckless" pertaining to the police entering Simpson's property. You were wrong when you said Vannatter lied about the spot on the Bronco being blood.

You are wrong when you say Vannatter lied when he wrote that Simpson's trip was unexpected. Based on what Vannatter knew at the time he believed that Simpson's trip to Chicago was unexpected. Vannatter had made an incorrect assumption. There was no reason for him to lie about this, he didn't lie about this, and he was never found to have lied about this.

You are wrong when you say that "unexpected" trip was to explain why they felt there might be a victim when they didn't get an answer when they rang the gate.
The detectives concern about the possibility of another victim was based on what Westec told them. After the supervisor at Westec gave the detectives Simpson telephone number he told told them there should have been a live in housekeeper there and if Simpson had gone away they would have been notified.

bobaugust

in all fairness, william is probably confusing the defense's actions:

". . .imposed the fines on Cochran and Douglas and reproved them for “a representation made with reckless disregard for the truth if not a deliberate attempt to mislead both the prosecution and the court.”

Bar investigated 'everything'

". . .Johnson said the bar investigated "everything that surfaced" during the trial which was of concern. In the end, it could prove that only Douglas and Scheck violated either professional conduct rules or the State Bar Act.

Prosecutors did not pursue attorneys for any statements or actions in the courtroom, instead focusing on out-of-court activities. . ."

". . .Douglas allowed an illegal subpoena to be issued under his name. The law does not permit attorneys to subpoena a witness in a criminal proceeding to appear at an office rather than a court, nor is it acceptable office procedure to allow someone else to sign the lawyer's name to sworn declarations as Douglas did. The witness in question did not testify in the trial.

As part of his reproval, Douglas must complete eight hours of law office management courses.

Scheck, who was admitted to the California bar in 1974 after graduating from Boalt Hall, went inactive in 1982. He did not return to active status until April 1995, months after Simpson's trial began. By law, only active attorneys are authorized to practice. . ."

". . .The bar also is continuing to investigate Simpson confidante Robert Kardashian for comments he made in interviews after the verdict. Johnson said Kardashian may have violated rules requiring attorneys to keep and maintain client confidences. . ."

[William Anthony]

in all fairness, william is probably confusing the defense's actions:

". . .imposed the fines on Cochran and Douglas and reproved them for “a representation made with reckless disregard for the truth if not a deliberate attempt to mislead both the prosecution and the court.”

Bar investigated 'everything'

". . .Johnson said the bar investigated "everything that surfaced" during the trial which was of concern. In the end, it could prove that only Douglas and Scheck violated either professional conduct rules or the State Bar Act.

Prosecutors did not pursue attorneys for any statements or actions in the courtroom, instead focusing on out-of-court activities. . ."

". . .Douglas allowed an illegal subpoena to be issued under his name. The law does not permit attorneys to subpoena a witness in a criminal proceeding to appear at an office rather than a court, nor is it acceptable office procedure to allow someone else to sign the lawyer's name to sworn declarations as Douglas did. The witness in question did not testify in the trial.

As part of his reproval, Douglas must complete eight hours of law office management courses.

Scheck, who was admitted to the California bar in 1974 after graduating from Boalt Hall, went inactive in 1982. He did not return to active status until April 1995, months after Simpson's trial began. By law, only active attorneys are authorized to practice. . ."

". . .The bar also is continuing to investigate Simpson confidante Robert Kardashian for comments he made in interviews after the verdict. Johnson said Kardashian may have violated rules requiring attorneys to keep and maintain client confidences. . ."

I truly appreciate your new desire, imho, for fairness. However, this has nothing to do with what Vannatter said, because he was not a lawyer. Ito said the same thing about Vannatter as he did about the magnificent one and Mr. Douglas. I hardly see how you can claim I am confused, since I posted the link to Ito's comments on Vannatter. I think you are confused by including an investigation of the bar association who has no duty to nor engages in investigations of LE conduct to the best of my knowledge, unless of course the prosecution willfully suborned the perjured testimony of an LE. Do you know if there was an investigation of the prosecution and their claim not to know of MF's attitude and actions to minorities? I truly believe that should have been done. I really don't know how you could have forgotten or thought that I did or confused our recent discussion on the fact that both sides were sanctioned during the trial.

[William Anthony]

Be that type of person were people are happy to see you coming and hate to see you leave, as opposed to the opposite type.

[William Anthony]

Correction

Be that type of person who people are happy to see you coming and hate to see you leave, as opposed to the opposite type.

[William Anthony]

I am sure that we now realize the effect that the Simpson trial has on America. McCain has said that Obama has played the race card and dealt it from the bottom of the deck. Sound familiar? We also see how feelings on race divide America. Obama's response that he did not look like the People on One's and Five Dollar Bills was to an ad that showed Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton and likened him to them. It seems that in matters of race Americans will still look to the Simpson trial.

[bobaugust]

You still do not understand. The expert's testimony contradicted or, if you will, showed the weakness of the prosecution's claim on that particular issue and it was consistent with the reasonable inferences to be drawn from Ms. Moore's testimony. ;):cool: It is understandable that, if you can't grasp this, why you disagree with the Supreme court, Imho.

No, you're the one who can't seem to understand. Ms Moore could not and did not testify Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and there was no evidence ever presented in this case that he did and no claim by any of Simpson's attorneys that he did. The only evidence in this case of Simpson having dandruff was when he gave his hair samples over a month after the murders, in July, after he had been incarcerated for over a month.

You should be embarrassed for not only making that ridiculous inference but for spending so much time arguing it and trying to defend it as being reasonable. For you to try and claim that a Supreme Court ruling is somehow applicable to YOUR inference is completely ridiculous.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I'll side with those who have studied, practice and have knowledge of legal concepts, both judges who considered Vannatter's reckless disregard for and playing fast and loose with the truth.

You can side with anyone you want but the fact is that you have made statements on this discussion group regarding facts in this case that are incorrect. It's really not that unusual since most of the posters here occasionally make mistakes. But the difference is that most of us who do make a mistake acknowledge it when we become aware of it. But you don't William, and neither does your partner in these discussions.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

No, they provided circumstantial evidence of the fact, i.e. they provided evidence that the prosecution's hair evidence should not be trusted. That's why the defense's case is called the rebuttal case. Got it yet?

The defense never presented any circumstantial evidence, direct evidence, or physical evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and the defense never claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 because there was no evidence that he did. "Got it yet?"

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I really see that you don't understand. I apologize for being suspicious of your motives to pretend you didn't understand. I guess that you did not understand that the defense was being sarcastic. The evidence is that the person who deposited the glove was back there alone. Does MF ring a bigoted blunder of a bell?

Yeah right, and I bet you think Simpson was also just being sarcastic on his video tape when he talked about the thumps possibly being a signal standing on the south path and knocking on the wall behind Kaelin's room. Funny.

No William, the evidence is that Kaelin heard someone behind his room less than fifteen minutes after the murders were committed and that someone unknowingly dropped his right hand glove there when he slammed into that wall causing the noises and vibrations that Kaelin heard and felt, and that almost knocked a picture of the wall next to his bed. Mark Fuhrman was the detective who first saw that glove on the south path behind Kaelin's room over seven hours later.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I apologize for saying that you waste my time, as I truly love discussing the law and the concepts contained therein, even with those lacking knowledge of those things and I apologize for thinking that everyone understood the concept of a closing argument. It is the party's chance or opportunity to claim what the evidence proved. In the opening they will tell the trier of fact what the evidence is and a lot have gotten away with saying the evidence will show (argument). During a mock trial, I objected to the other side saying this and the lawyer, who played the judge, sustained my objections. It really dismantled the opposing side's opening. In my opening, I occasionally said the same thing, without objection. I did not apologize to them, because they had training and should have known. I think they failed to object, because I had proven them wrong, causing them not to focus on the issue. I apologize for thinking that you knew and I do not want the community to think I am taking an unconscionable advantage of you.

It sounds to me like you're learning to be as discourteous and devious as Cochran was when he kept objecting during Clark's closing statement. Based on some of your postings on this discussion group it doesn't surprise me.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Vanhatter was in the Kitchen area when Lang talked to Randa and found that oj was on a scheduled trip. I cannot believe you are suggesting that lang did not tell Vanhatter about his conversation with Randa.Immediately.

Two lead detectives and two scrubs that had been relieved of their assignment going to Rockingham sounds like a LE search party put togeather after they had decided on who the suspect was.imo

You are completely wrong again martin. Arnelle called and spoke with Randa while Lange and Phillips listened. Vannatter was not in the kitchen he was another part of the house, the television room, speaking with Kaelin. Phillips called and spoke with Simpson while Lange and Arnelle listened. When Phillips was finished speaking with Simpson, Arnelle spoke with him. After Arnelle finished speaking with her father she and Phillips left the kitchen and Lange called the Browns and notified them of Nicole's death.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No, you're the one who can't seem to understand. Ms Moore could not and did not testify Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and there was no evidence ever presented in this case that he did and no claim by any of Simpson's attorneys that he did. The only evidence in this case of Simpson having dandruff was when he gave his hair samples over a month after the murders, in July, after he had been incarcerated for over a month.

You should be embarrassed for not only making that ridiculous inference but for spending so much time arguing it and trying to defend it as being reasonable. For you to try and claim that a Supreme Court ruling is somehow applicable to YOUR inference is completely ridiculous.

bobaugust

Let me begin at the end. You have not studied law and, consequently, do not understand how legal reasoning should and can be used to support your point. The link I provided from the Supreme Court's legal reasoning, while done in the context of ruling on a motion for summary judgment, discussed inferences that can be drawn, the burden of proof, and the ultimate burden of proof.

I posted the argument of Scheck, when you first made the erroneous claim that no defense attorney made that claim. You continue the discussion and continue, imho, to embarrass yourself in so doing. That is your right to continue to embarrass yourself and to continue to disregard my suggestions on that issue. If you choose to continue embarrassing yourself, then I will not be rude by not allowing you to so do.

[William Anthony]

You can side with anyone you want but the fact is that you have made statements on this discussion group regarding facts in this case that are incorrect. It's really not that unusual since most of the posters here occasionally make mistakes. But the difference is that most of us who do make a mistake acknowledge it when we become aware of it. But you don't William, and neither does your partner in these discussions.

bobaugust

Let me begin at the end. I do not have a partner in these discussions, other than those who agree that there was reasonable doubt, which, unfortunately, would include he/she Mr. Bell. I think the community realizes that I admit my mistakes and say I stand corrected. However, you have a tendency to qualify your mistakes. In other words, will not fully admit that you were wrong, except for the three incorrect statements, IIRC, which I pointed out after your return from your hiatus. I thought that you had changed your tactics. I stand corrected on that thought.

[William Anthony]

The defense never presented any circumstantial evidence, direct evidence, or physical evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and the defense never claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 because there was no evidence that he did. "Got it yet?"

bobaugust

While imitation is the highest degree of flattery, it stunts the originality of the imitator, imho. You posted the definition of circumstantial evidence. Are you now denying your own link? Got it yet?

[William Anthony]

Yeah right, and I bet you think Simpson was also just being sarcastic on his video tape when he talked about the thumps possibly being a signal standing on the south path and knocking on the wall behind Kaelin's room. Funny.

No William, the evidence is that Kaelin heard someone behind his room less than fifteen minutes after the murders were committed and that someone unknowingly dropped his right hand glove there when he slammed into that wall causing the noises and vibrations that Kaelin heard and felt, and that almost knocked a picture of the wall next to his bed. Mark Fuhrman was the detective who first saw that glove on the south path behind Kaelin's room over seven hours later.

bobaugust

Again, there is no evidence of anyone being behind the quarters,prior to MF, and there is contradictory evidence in the form of the Rockingham blood trail leading through Simpson's front door. The only evidence of anyone being alone behind the quarters is that of MF, who allegedly found the glove there, although there is evidence that he saw more than one glove at Bundy. I know that you want to dismiss the latter evidence, because of your claim as to having a knowledge superior to the Supreme Court on the issue of inferences.

[William Anthony]

It sounds to me like you're learning to be as discourteous and devious as Cochran was when he kept objecting during Clark's closing statement. Based on some of your postings on this discussion group it doesn't surprise me.

bobaugust

Those who do not understand what constitutes the difference between opening statements and closing arguments or, if they do or should understand, are being discourteous and/or deceptive when they include statements that are objectionable. I am not surprised that you do not understand this or that objections are placed on the record to preserve the right to appeal, so that an issue will not be waived. I thought you understood this. However, I see that, because you do not understand, you quickly go to name calling and personal attacks, imho. Perhaps, if you :read: more, my advantage would not be unconscionable, imho.

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

Here is a link on what is permissible in an opening from Texas. You will note that the link tells the person to use the term, the evidence will show, very sparingly. This is because its form is objectionable as being argument. The courts have allowed some argument in opening, which I think they should not. The phrases, the evidence will show, we believe the evidence will show and we will show, are arguments. I believe both parties should introduce to the trier of fact what their evidence is and their theory of the case. To state what the evidence showed or will show or what the evidence proved is left to closing argument. In opening I think that a proper term is that the evidence will be or we will present evidence. However, personally I am not opposed to changing opening statements to opening arguments as the burden of persuasion is part of the burden of proof. I am interested in know the reasoning for the prohibition against arguing in the opening statement, If anyone knows.

http://www.trevortaylorlaw.com/opening_statementb.htm

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

While I did not read the entire link, the part I did read only collaterally touched on the legal reasoning behind the prohibitions against opening statements and closing arguments, it does explain the concept of "appearing rude", as opposed to being rude when stating objections. I apologize as I evidently did not copy the link.

"Second, trial practice manuals and experienced attorneys generally advise litigants to refrain from objecting to improper remarks during opening statements and closing arguments to avoid the appearance of rudeness.28 The objecting attorney will look much better to the jury if the judge has granted an order in limine banning the offending statement. Instead of merely objecting, the attorney can say, “Objection, your honor, counsel is violating your order barring him from discussing this issue.” Instead of seeming rude, if the objection is granted the attorney will demonstrate to the jury that the other side is not “playing by the rules.”29 " I found the link.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjm_38.htm

[martin II]

You are completely wrong again martin. Arnelle called and spoke with Randa while Lange and Phillips listened. Vannatter was not in the kitchen he was another part of the house, the television room, speaking with Kaelin. Phillips called and spoke with Simpson while Lange and Arnelle listened. When Phillips was finished speaking with Simpson, Arnelle spoke with him. After Arnelle finished speaking with her father she and Phillips left the kitchen and Lange called the Browns and notified them of Nicole's death.

bobaugust

And when Vanhatter returned from the living room to where lang was in the kitchen,LANG kept his conversation about ojs planned trip a secrete from Vanhatter.hahahaha

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

Here is an excellent link on a general view of legal concepts and trial procedures that, if you read will give you a degree of understanding in which we can have an intelligent conversation and alleviate any qualms I may have about appearing to take an unconscionable advantage. Here is what it says on evidence.

"Evidence

The heart of the case is the presentation of evidence. There are two types of evidence -- direct and circumstantial.

* Direct evidence usually is that which speaks for itself: eyewitness accounts, a confession, or a weapon.
* Circumstantial evidence usually is that which suggests a fact by implication or inference: the appearance of the scene of a crime, testimony that suggests a connection or link with a crime, physical evidence that suggests criminal activity.

Both kinds of evidence are a part of most trials, with circumstantial evidence probably being used more often than direct. Either kind of evidence can be offered in oral testimony of witnesses or physical exhibits, including fingerprints, test results, and documents. Neither kind of evidence is more valuable than the other.

Strict rules govern the kinds of evidence that may be admitted into a trial, and the presentation of evidence is governed by formal rules. "

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/courts/openingstatements.html

[William Anthony]

Excerpts from Clark's opening.

1/24

"MS. CLARK: SKI CAP THAT WAS FOUND AT THE FEET OF RON GOLDMAN WAS EXAMINED FOR HAIR AND TRACE ANALYSIS AND IT WAS FOUND ON THAT HAT THAT THERE WAS FIBER LIKE THOSE FROM THE CARPET OF THE DEFENDANT'S FORD BRONCO. NOW, STOP AND THINK. WHY WOULD THERE BE CARPET FIBERS LIKE THOSE FROM THE DEFENDANT'S FORD BRONCO --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO OBJECT.

THE COURT: THAT'S TRUE. JUST STATE WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS. THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, SHE IS STARTING TO ARGUE NOW.

THE COURT: SOUNDS LIKE ARGUMENT TO ME.

MS. CLARK: LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE THE SAME WAY YOU WOULD FOR ANY OTHER CASE. NOW, WINNING IS NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. THIS IS NOT A GAME. THIS IS ABOUT JUSTICE AND SEEING THAT JUSTICE IS DONE. TWO PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BRUTALLY MURDERED AND THE EVIDENCE CONSISTENTLY WILL POINT TO THE GUILT OF ONLY ONE PERSON AS THE MURDERER.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION AS ARGUMENT.

MS. CLARK: TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW.

THE COURT: ARE YOU ABOUT TO CONCLUDE?

MS. CLARK: UH-HUH. THANK YOU. THERE WAS NO RUSH TO JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE. IT WAS VERY CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BEFORE IT WAS FILED. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT AS OF JUNE THE 15TH MANY DNA RESULTS HAD ALREADY BEEN RETURNED. AS OF JUNE THE 15TH THERE HAD ALREADY BEEN A MATCH BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE BLOOD FOUND AT BUNDY DRIVE. THERE HAD ALREADY BEEN A MATCH BETWEEN THE VICTIMS AND THE BLOOD FOUND ON THE GLOVE AT HIS HOUSE. MANY THINGS WERE KNOWN AND YET IT WAS EXAMINED CAREFULLY, THE ENTIRE CASE EXAMINED VERY CAREFULLY, AND WAS NOT FILED UNTIL TWO DAYS AFTER THOSE RESULTS WERE OBTAINED. MY JOB IS TO SEEK JUSTICE. I'VE HAD CASES BEFORE THIS ONE, THERE WILL BE CASES AFTER IT. THIS THIS CASE NOT ABOUT THE LAWYERS, MYSELF, MR. HODGMAN, MR. DARDEN OR MR. COCHRAN. YOU WILL HAVE TO REMEMBER WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT; JUSTICE FOR ALL. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF THOSE WORDS ARE TO MEAN ANYTHING, WE MUST ALL BE EQUAL IN THE EYES OF THE LAW AND WE CANNOT USE A SLIDING SCALE TO JUDGE GUILT OR INNOCENCE BASED ON A DEFENDANT OR A VICTIM'S POPULARITY. WE LIVE IN VERY, VERY STRANGE TIMES.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, SHE IS ARGUING.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, THIS HAS ALL BEEN ARGUMENT FOR THE LAST FIVE MINUTES.

MS. CLARK: I WILL WRAP UP, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: PLEASE. "

It would appear that Ito thought the magnificent one's objections were on point.

[William Anthony]

Those who do not understand what constitutes the difference between opening statements and closing arguments or, if they do or should understand, are being discourteous and/or deceptive when they include statements that are objectionable. I am not surprised that you do not understand this or that objections are placed on the record to preserve the right to appeal, so that an issue will not be waived. I thought you understood this. However, I see that, because you do not understand, you quickly go to name calling and personal attacks, imho. Perhaps, if you :read: more, my advantage would not be unconscionable, imho.

correction

bobaugust,

Those who do not understand what constitutes the difference between opening statements and closing arguments may think that someone is rude when they object. However, if they do, or should understand, they know that the persons posing the objections are not being discourteous and/or deceptive when the other party had included statements that are objectionable. I am surprised that you do not understand this or that objections are placed on the record to preserve the right to appeal, so that an issue will not be waived. I thought you understood this. However, I see that, because you do not understand, you quickly go to name calling and personal attacks, imho. Perhaps, if you :read: more, my advantage would not be unconscionable, imho.

[William Anthony]

After giving some thought to the question as to the reasoning behind the prohibition against argument in the opening, I think it is due to the burden of proof. The way to meet that burden is through the presentation of evidence. Therefore, the trier of fact should be allowed to evaluate the evidence free from an argument as to what it proves. I can understand why there is argument after the close of evidence presentation, because the trier of fact has then heard all the evidence. It is now reasonably sound to me that the accused would receive a fair trial when the evidence has not been argued as to what it will show and possibly a conclusion formed before it has been presented. I have changed my mind and believe there should only be opening statements and closing arguments.

[martin II]

correction

bobaugust,

Those who do not understand what constitutes the difference between opening statements and closing arguments may think that someone is rude when they object. However, if they do, or should understand, they know that the persons posing the objections are not being discourteous and/or deceptive when the other party had included statements that are objectionable. I am surprised that you do not understand this or that objections are placed on the record to preserve the right to appeal, so that an issue will not be waived. I thought you understood this. However, I see that, because you do not understand, you quickly go to name calling and personal attacks, imho. Perhaps, if you :read: more, my advantage would not be unconscionable, imho.

:beer::beer:

[William Anthony]

:beer::beer:

Martin,

We should not be too critical in our evaluation of bobaugust's statements. I now see that they are a result of his misunderstanding or lack of knowledge, if you will, of legal concepts. He may not understand that a trial involves a dispute between two or more parties that are in an adversarial position. It is only natural that one side may try to gain a tactical advantage and the other side may take precautions to see that the advantage is not gained, such as objecting to the statements that are objectionable. Of course, as the link I provided stated the jury, when composed of members not educated in the law, may think that the person making the objections is being devious and rude. Therefore, we cannot judge bobaugust too harshly and remember he has not studied law and his assumptions are more than likely based on his reading of those with whom he agrees that probably share the same level of legal training he does. In fairness, there are those lawyers who simply object in order to disrupt the other side's momentum. However, in this case, that was not the case, as evidenced by Ito's comments. Sometimes it becomes more comfortable to accept the opinions of those not trained in law that share your untrained opinion so that you feel justified in making the statements you make. We must consider that bobaugust's statement are coming from his realm of knowledge and he has seemingly seen no reason to agree with those who are trained in those areas. Considering these things, I have developed a new appreciation for his posts.

[bobaugust]

Let me begin at the end. You have not studied law and, consequently, do not understand how legal reasoning should and can be used to support your point. The link I provided from the Supreme Court's legal reasoning, while done in the context of ruling on a motion for summary judgment, discussed inferences that can be drawn, the burden of proof, and the ultimate burden of proof.

I posted the argument of Scheck, when you first made the erroneous claim that no defense attorney made that claim. You continue the discussion and continue, imho, to embarrass yourself in so doing. That is your right to continue to embarrass yourself and to continue to disregard my suggestions on that issue. If you choose to continue embarrassing yourself, then I will not be rude by not allowing you to so do.

The Supreme Court legal reasoning you posted was regarding an inference made in court not one that is imagined on a discussion group. There was no burden of proof regarding this issue in the Simpson case because there was no allegation.

There was no inference ever made by Scheck or any of Simpson's lawyers in this case that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. All Scheck did was repeat some unrelated facts in his closing argument. Nether Scheck or any of Simpson's defense attorneys ever said those facts infer that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 because they were smart enough to know that they don't. You William, are the only one who has done that. Funny.

Not only did you actually make that inference you continue to argue and defend it as a reasonable inference. You have claimed your inference is based on circumstantial evidence but that's not true,. From Wikipedia,
"Circumstantial evidence is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. Corroboration is normally supplied by one or more expert witnesses who provide forensic evidence."

Not only is there is no significant quantity of corroborating evidence for your inference, there is no evidence at all. Just one witness who could not and did not testify that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 only that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. Your inference is flawed and nothing more than weak unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Let me begin at the end. I do not have a partner in these discussions, other than those who agree that there was reasonable doubt, which, unfortunately, would include he/she Mr. Bell. I think the community realizes that I admit my mistakes and say I stand corrected. However, you have a tendency to qualify your mistakes. In other words, will not fully admit that you were wrong, except for the three incorrect statements, IIRC, which I pointed out after your return from your hiatus. I thought that you had changed your tactics. I stand corrected on that thought.

I posted a list of your current misstatements. You have yet to admit to being mistaken about any of them.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

While imitation is the highest degree of flattery, it stunts the originality of the imitator, imho. You posted the definition of circumstantial evidence. Are you now denying your own link? Got it yet?

Wikipedia,
"Circumstantial evidence is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. Corroboration is normally supplied by one or more expert witnesses who provide forensic evidence."

Simpson's defense never claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 because there was no evidence that he did. Your inference is nothing but weak unsupported speculation.
"Got it yet?"

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Again, there is no evidence of anyone being behind the quarters,prior to MF, and there is contradictory evidence in the form of the Rockingham blood trail leading through Simpson's front door. The only evidence of anyone being alone behind the quarters is that of MF, who allegedly found the glove there, although there is evidence that he saw more than one glove at Bundy. I know that you want to dismiss the latter evidence, because of your claim as to having a knowledge superior to the Supreme Court on the issue of inferences.

The noises and vibrations Kaelin heard and felt on the back wall of his room is evidence that someone was behind his room about fifteen minutes after the murders of Ron and Nicole. The killer's right hand glove that was found over seven hours later on the path behind that wall is evidence that person Kaelin heard behind his room was the killer.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The noises and vibrations Kaelin heard and felt on the back wall of his room is evidence that someone was behind his room about fifteen minutes after the murders of Ron and Nicole. The killer's right hand glove that was found over seven hours later on the path behind that wall is evidence that person Kaelin heard behind his room was the killer.

bobaugust

There is no evidence that anyone was behind the quarters seven hours before the glove was allegedly found. There is direct evidence that MF was alone when he allegedly found the glove and knew of the noises Mr. Kato heard and the proximate location of the noises that caused Mr. Kato to have a state of mind that someone was back there. There is only evidence of one person being back there, MF, the admitted evidence planter, before or when the glove was allegedly found.

[William Anthony]

Wikipedia,
"Circumstantial evidence is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. Corroboration is normally supplied by one or more expert witnesses who provide forensic evidence."

Simpson's defense never claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 because there was no evidence that he did. Your inference is nothing but weak unsupported speculation.
"Got it yet?"

bobaugust

I apologize for telling you to :read: and I should have been more specific. In the college that I attend your source is not permitted to be used, because anyone, even a lay person such as yourself, may offer things to it. I should have told you to read from legal documents and cites. I thought you would get it when I posted the definition of circumstantial evidence from a site dealing with legal definitions. However, I will now post from another such site.

I posted the testimony in Scheck's closing, as you very well know. However, the defense did not have to claim anything on that issue. They only had to present evidence, circumstantial or direct, to show why the prosecution's evidence should not be trusted. Got it yet? If not, I refer you to :read: from legal sites on the burden of proof. Here is the link from a legal site on the definition of circumstantial evidence. Please, do not embarrass yourself anymore by posting definitions from your above source.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/circumstantial-evidence/

[William Anthony]

I posted a list of your current misstatements. You have yet to admit to being mistaken about any of them.

bobaugust

With all due respect, the fact that you call them mistakes but I posted links from legal sites to support all of them convinces me that I have not made any yet as it pertains to our discussions. Unlike you, I did not simply call your misstatements mistakes, I proved them. Got it yet?

[William Anthony]

The Supreme Court legal reasoning you posted was regarding an inference made in court not one that is imagined on a discussion group. There was no burden of proof regarding this issue in the Simpson case because there was no allegation.

There was no inference ever made by Scheck or any of Simpson's lawyers in this case that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. All Scheck did was repeat some unrelated facts in his closing argument. Nether Scheck or any of Simpson's defense attorneys ever said those facts infer that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 because they were smart enough to know that they don't. You William, are the only one who has done that. Funny.

Not only did you actually make that inference you continue to argue and defend it as a reasonable inference. You have claimed your inference is based on circumstantial evidence but that's not true,. From Wikipedia,
"Circumstantial evidence is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. Corroboration is normally supplied by one or more expert witnesses who provide forensic evidence."

Not only is there is no significant quantity of corroborating evidence for your inference, there is no evidence at all. Just one witness who could not and did not testify that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 only that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. Your inference is flawed and nothing more than weak unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

Please, stop embarrassing yourself? Of course the Supreme Court made a ruling on permissible inferences, rebuttal and the burden of proof in a courtroom. Where do you think Ms. Moore and Deedrick testified? The title of this thread is "Issues Encompassed in the Criminal Trial". Where do you think a trial takes place? Got it yet.

The link I posted addresses the false information stated in your link. The collaborating evidence is only used to strengthen an inference. The key word in your link, which I take issue with, are "usually supported". I think this might be the source of your confusion. You have a tendency not to :read: what is actually said, imho, but tend to think they say what you want them to say, as if there was a requirement that Ms. Moore's testimony be supported by other evidence, in this case, it was, the exemplar containing dandruff. Got it yet?

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

An article on your above source. The most interesting thing is that it allows readers to edit its content (page 2). It is not a recognized primary source. It might lead you to a recognized primary source. Got it yet?

http://media.www.westerncourier.com/media/storage/paper650/news/2007/10/26/Opinion/Wikipedia.Is.A.Worthless.Primary.Source-3061738-page2.shtml

[limakey]

Mr. August,

You have me confused---what is your point about the hat? That it was Simpson's and that he wore it that night because that was part of his disguise?

In reading the testimony you and William have posted, Deedrick made a lot of assumptions. I wish Clark would have asked him if this was ever an issue before.

However, it seems to me that the DA's were desperate to put that hat on Simpson's head that night. They said because there was African American hair inside the hat and on the outside, that had to be OJ's and that he had to be shed that night. The defense countered that with reasonable doubt with Simpson's hair dresser. Deedrick could only make assumptions about what can happen while a person is in jail. However, Ms. Moore knew Mr. Simpson's hair and its issues for over 16 years. She was asked if and when did Mr. Simpson have dandruff, she said it more likely happened when he was in the sun alot and playing golf. It think it is a well known fact that Simpson did play at least one or two rounds of golf a day.

The hat is just another piece of evidence that really proved nothing. However, while Mr. Cochran was made fun of when he put the hat on his head during his closing, he made the perfect point---OJ Simpson is knit cap is OJ Simpson in knit cap, it is not a disguise.

The reason why I feel it is a big deal regarding what Fuhrman wrote in his notes is because a ski mask covers the face, that ski mask alone would lend to the arrows that pointed to Simpson.

The real question is was Fuhrman telling the truth about the ski mask or did he embellish on his notes?

[martin II]

Mr. August,

You have me confused---what is your point about the hat? That it was Simpson's and that he wore it that night because that was part of his disguise?

In reading the testimony you and William have posted, Deedrick made a lot of assumptions. I wish Clark would have asked him if this was ever an issue before.

However, it seems to me that the DA's were desperate to put that hat on Simpson's head that night. They said because there was African American hair inside the hat and on the outside, that had to be OJ's and that he had to be shed that night. The defense countered that with reasonable doubt with Simpson's hair dresser. Deedrick could only make assumptions about what can happen while a person is in jail. However, Ms. Moore knew Mr. Simpson's hair and its issues for over 16 years. She was asked if and when did Mr. Simpson have dandruff, she said it more likely happened when he was in the sun alot and playing golf. It think it is a well known fact that Simpson did play at least one or two rounds of golf a day.

The hat is just another piece of evidence that really proved nothing. However, while Mr. Cochran was made fun of when he put the hat on his head during his closing, he made the perfect point---OJ Simpson is knit cap is OJ Simpson in knit cap, it is not a disguise.

The reason why I feel it is a big deal regarding what Fuhrman wrote in his notes is because a ski mask covers the face, that ski mask alone would lend to the arrows that pointed to Simpson.

The real question is was Fuhrman telling the truth about the ski mask or did he embellish on his notes?

It may be that Furhman embellished his notes thinking that Ski mask would be assumed to be a discuise but them only a cap was supposed to have been found. The cap was collected on 6/12 so why did Clarke talk about a SKI MASK in her opening.? She didn't know that they were now calling it a cap?

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

You have me confused---what is your point about the hat? That it was Simpson's and that he wore it that night because that was part of his disguise?

In reading the testimony you and William have posted, Deedrick made a lot of assumptions. I wish Clark would have asked him if this was ever an issue before.

However, it seems to me that the DA's were desperate to put that hat on Simpson's head that night. They said because there was African American hair inside the hat and on the outside, that had to be OJ's and that he had to be shed that night. The defense countered that with reasonable doubt with Simpson's hair dresser. Deedrick could only make assumptions about what can happen while a person is in jail. However, Ms. Moore knew Mr. Simpson's hair and its issues for over 16 years. She was asked if and when did Mr. Simpson have dandruff, she said it more likely happened when he was in the sun alot and playing golf. It think it is a well known fact that Simpson did play at least one or two rounds of golf a day.

The hat is just another piece of evidence that really proved nothing. However, while Mr. Cochran was made fun of when he put the hat on his head during his closing, he made the perfect point---OJ Simpson is knit cap is OJ Simpson in knit cap, it is not a disguise.

The reason why I feel it is a big deal regarding what Fuhrman wrote in his notes is because a ski mask covers the face, that ski mask alone would lend to the arrows that pointed to Simpson.

The real question is was Fuhrman telling the truth about the ski mask or did he embellish on his notes?

This is a perfect example of the prosecution not adhering to KISS and over trying their case, which weakened it, imho. Deedrick spouted a lot of baseless, not based on scientific investigations, assumptions that bobaugust has called a reasonable explanation. The bottom line is that Deedrick could not say when the hairs got in and on the cap, which contradicted and weakened the prosecution's theory that Simpson wore that hat on June 12th and that it was pulled off during a struggle. While the display of wearing the cap by the magnificent one was silly, it was silly to show how silly the prosecution's case was. If Simpson did not wear the cap on and from his alleged drive to and from Bundy, then he was not concealed. If he wore that cap on the night of June 12th it would have drawn attention to himself. That is why bobaugust has claimed it was not a disguise but a means of camouflage. The prosecution's theory was silly. I guess their theory is that Simpson did not care who saw him driving in the Bronco and only wanted to camouflage himself when he was out of the Bronco. Gloves that did not fit and a hat of may heads. I am sure that those items are proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

An Idle mind is the devil's workshop.

[martin II]

When JC put the cap on he created a picture for the jury that replaced 5 minutes of explination. Oj is not stupid, he would know that oj in that cap would be oj to any one that saw him getting out or in that white bronco which the neighbors had see many time there.

I immediately got the point he was making.imo

[martin II]

Not interested or interesting, imho.

I reported this crap to moderator.

[William Anthony]

When JC put the cap on he created a picture for the jury that replaced 5 minutes of explination. Oj is not stupid, he would know that oj in that cap would be oj to any one that saw him getting out or in that white bronco which the neighbors had see many time there.

I immediately got the point he was making.imo

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

[tv]

:punch: William, please don't quote this porn person. I put them on ignore but I can still see the pictures because you quoted them. Ick.

[William Anthony]

:punch: William, please don't quote this porn person. I put them on ignore but I can still see the pictures because you quoted them. Ick.

Yeah, I realized my mistake. I have never put anyone on ignore and did not know that you would not see the images. I apologize. You don't have to worry about me quoting the poster again. I wish the moderator would delete those images. I sincerely apologize but after I saw it I looked at the other places the poster had posted and saw the same dirt. I then clicked on the link to the poster and saw where posters had made comments to the poster and said they were going to report the poster. I went back to delete my post but the time had expired. It was early in the morning and I was not thinking quite clearly. I should have deleted it right away but I was taken aback and wanted to see what had been done about it. Again, I sincerely apologize.

[William Anthony]

I understand now. I went to the post were martin said he had reported the crap and clicked on the arrow by my nic and the images came up. This is sick and no way do I condone it. Please, will no one else post my post where I said not interested or interesting? Thanks.

[bobaugust]

There is no evidence that anyone was behind the quarters seven hours before the glove was allegedly found. There is direct evidence that MF was alone when he allegedly found the glove and knew of the noises Mr. Kato heard and the proximate location of the noises that caused Mr. Kato to have a state of mind that someone was back there. There is only evidence of one person being back there, MF, the admitted evidence planter, before or when the glove was allegedly found.

So you don't consider Kato Kaelin's testimony as evidence?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I apologize for telling you to :read: and I should have been more specific. In the college that I attend your source is not permitted to be used, because anyone, even a lay person such as yourself, may offer things to it. I should have told you to read from legal documents and cites. I thought you would get it when I posted the definition of circumstantial evidence from a site dealing with legal definitions. However, I will now post from another such site.

I posted the testimony in Scheck's closing, as you very well know. However, the defense did not have to claim anything on that issue. They only had to present evidence, circumstantial or direct, to show why the prosecution's evidence should not be trusted. Got it yet? If not, I refer you to :read: from legal sites on the burden of proof. Here is the link from a legal site on the definition of circumstantial evidence. Please, do not embarrass yourself anymore by posting definitions from your above source.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/circumstantial-evidence/

That's right, no defense lawyer in this case ever inferred or made the allegation that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. because there was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

Lets take a closer look at what Scheck said about this in his closing argument.

September 28, 1995
"You heard Mr. Simpson's barber say in the off season, in the summer, spring, he gets dandruff. Right after he's arrested, they removed known hair samples. His hair has dandruff. There's no dandruff in the hair in that hat."

Juanita Moore testified that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. Simpson's hair samples were not taken right after he was arrested, Simpson's hair samples were taken on July 13 when he was incarcerated. Scheck either mistakenly or intentionally misstated the facts.

The link you posted regarding burden of proof has absolutely nothing to do with your unsupported speculation that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

With all due respect, the fact that you call them mistakes but I posted links from legal sites to support all of them convinces me that I have not made any yet as it pertains to our discussions. Unlike you, I did not simply call your misstatements mistakes, I proved them. Got it yet?

Lets start with this. This is what you said referring to Vannatter,
"Why else lie about the spot on the Bronco being blood before any testing was done to show it was blood"

In the search warrant Vannatter never wrote that the spot on the Bronco was blood he wrote that it appeared to be blood. If you weren't mistaken when you posted that comment then evidently you intentionally posted false information.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Please, stop embarrassing yourself? Of course the Supreme Court made a ruling on permissible inferences, rebuttal and the burden of proof in a courtroom. Where do you think Ms. Moore and Deedrick testified? The title of this thread is "Issues Encompassed in the Criminal Trial". Where do you think a trial takes place? Got it yet.

The link I posted addresses the false information stated in your link. The collaborating evidence is only used to strengthen an inference. The key word in your link, which I take issue with, are "usually supported". I think this might be the source of your confusion. You have a tendency not to :read: what is actually said, imho, but tend to think they say what you want them to say, as if there was a requirement that Ms. Moore's testimony be supported by other evidence, in this case, it was, the exemplar containing dandruff. Got it yet?

The Supreme Court legal reasoning you posted was regarding an inference made in court not something you imagined and posted on this discussion group.

The fact that Simpson's hair sample taken on July 13 had dandruff is not evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and no lawyer in this case ever made the inference or the allegation that he did.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

You have me confused---what is your point about the hat? That it was Simpson's and that he wore it that night because that was part of his disguise?

In reading the testimony you and William have posted, Deedrick made a lot of assumptions. I wish Clark would have asked him if this was ever an issue before.

However, it seems to me that the DA's were desperate to put that hat on Simpson's head that night. They said because there was African American hair inside the hat and on the outside, that had to be OJ's and that he had to be shed that night. The defense countered that with reasonable doubt with Simpson's hair dresser. Deedrick could only make assumptions about what can happen while a person is in jail. However, Ms. Moore knew Mr. Simpson's hair and its issues for over 16 years. She was asked if and when did Mr. Simpson have dandruff, she said it more likely happened when he was in the sun alot and playing golf. It think it is a well known fact that Simpson did play at least one or two rounds of golf a day.

The hat is just another piece of evidence that really proved nothing. However, while Mr. Cochran was made fun of when he put the hat on his head during his closing, he made the perfect point---OJ Simpson is knit cap is OJ Simpson in knit cap, it is not a disguise.

The reason why I feel it is a big deal regarding what Fuhrman wrote in his notes is because a ski mask covers the face, that ski mask alone would lend to the arrows that pointed to Simpson.

The real question is was Fuhrman telling the truth about the ski mask or did he embellish on his notes?

Limakey, the fact is that the knit cap was found under the plant leaves at Ron's feet next to one of the killer's gloves. The fact that all the naturally shed hairs found in and on that knit cap as well as one found on Ron's shirt all had the same microscopic characteristics as Simpson's hair samples is evidence that Simpson wore that knit cap. The fact is that fiber evidence found on that knit cap ties that knit cap to the killer and to Simpson's Bronco.

Ms Moore did not testify to any fact that contradicted what the prosecution said. Moore testified that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. Ms Moore could not and did not testify that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. In the book American Tragedy pages 67, 68, Schiller wrote about what was going on at Kardashian's house on the day that Simpson was suppose turn himself into the police. Doctors were examining Simpson. Skin samples, urine samples, hair and blood samples were taken. If Simpson had dandruff on June 17 it would have been documented. The fact is that no defense lawyer in this case ever made the inference or the allegation that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 or on June 17. The only evidence that Simpson had dandruff was on July 13 when his hair samples were taken.

The only point Cochran made when he put the knit cap on his head in the glaring lights of the courtroom was that the knit cap was too big for his head. He even made the comment that Simpson has a very large head. Cochran's silly demonstration had nothing to do with Simpson wearing that knit cap for concealment in the dark shadows of the night.

Maybe some day the movie "Frogman" that Simpson was in just before the murders might be released and you will see Simpson dressed in all dark clothing wearing a knit watch cap for concealment at night and killing someone from behind them with a knife. Maybe then you might be able to understand why Simpson dressed the way he did on the night of June 12.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

So you don't consider Kato Kaelin's testimony as evidence?

bobaugust

No, I do consider it as evidence. I consider it as evidence of his state of mind and an explanation of his subsequent conduct. Mr. Kato could not and did not testify that anyone was behind the quarters, because he saw no one back there and he did not see anyone come from back there.

I fully anticipate your next response and I have posted the link on inference upon and inference and on another inference and so forth and so on, with each inference becoming weaker to prove the ultimate fact. The one thing that destroys the inference chain in this issue is the Rockingham blood trail. That is direct physical evidence, as you like to say, that Simpson entered his home through the front door via Rockingham and no evidence placing him behind the quarters.

[William Anthony]

The Supreme Court legal reasoning you posted was regarding an inference made in court not something you imagined and posted on this discussion group.

The fact that Simpson's hair sample taken on July 13 had dandruff is not evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 and no lawyer in this case ever made the inference or the allegation that he did.

bobaugust

You say that the inference I made was not reasonable. Contained in that statement is the implication that the jury could not have come to that conclusion, because the inference is unreasonable. I posted the link from the Supreme Court, hoping that you would see that members of the most honored court in our land has stated what is a permissible inference, outlined what it takes to rebut that inference and denoted the burden of proof. The fact that you continue to post your second paragraph shows me, imho, that either you do not understand the Supreme Court's ruling or Scheck's closing on the subject, or that you for some reason feel that you have more knowledge about the law than they do. When you have used terms such as credible and legitimate evidence, which, imho, to you means evidence that supports the prosecution's claims, you have shown, imho, by those incorrect nomenclatures that you really have a very limited knowledge of evidence or legal concepts. I do not think that you are in any position to disagree with the Supreme Court of Scheck until you can understand what they are saying. I have supported my posts with links. You have not provided any support for you claim that the inference I spoke of was unsupported imagined speculation.

[William Anthony]

Lets start with this. This is what you said referring to Vannatter,
"Why else lie about the spot on the Bronco being blood before any testing was done to show it was blood"

In the search warrant Vannatter never wrote that the spot on the Bronco was blood he wrote that it appeared to be blood. If you weren't mistaken when you posted that comment then evidently you intentionally posted false information.

bobaugust

Please, do not take things out of context. You know exactly what I meant. Yes, he said that it appeared to be blood and was later confirmed by to be blood by scientific investigation. There is no doubt that he was saying it was blood. The lie was that it was not confirmed to be blood at the time he applied for the warrant. Anyone reading that, maybe with the seeming exception of one, understands that he was saying what he observed as appearing to be blood was blood and, therefore, the need for a search warrant.

[William Anthony]

That's right, no defense lawyer in this case ever inferred or made the allegation that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. because there was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

Lets take a closer look at what Scheck said about this in his closing argument.

September 28, 1995
"You heard Mr. Simpson's barber say in the off season, in the summer, spring, he gets dandruff. Right after he's arrested, they removed known hair samples. His hair has dandruff. There's no dandruff in the hair in that hat."

Juanita Moore testified that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. Simpson's hair samples were not taken right after he was arrested, Simpson's hair samples were taken on July 13 when he was incarcerated. Scheck either mistakenly or intentionally misstated the facts.

The link you posted regarding burden of proof has absolutely nothing to do with your unsupported speculation that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

bobaugust

Why bobaugust. I never thought you would admit, imho, to your inequality and bias. I am pleasantly surprised. I am sure you remember your post on the inferences you drew from Ms. Clark's closing. Surely, you must allow the same for Mr. Scheck's closing (I think he deserves the Mr. for getting you to confess). However, you only posted part of the closing (is you spell checker acting up, again?). Fortunately, I posted the part were he talked about association (inference) and I told you it is not permissible for the lawyers to tell the jury what inferences to draw. Why pray tell, do you think he mentioned no dandruff and the association? You think he was trying to weaken his case by talking to the jury about something that was not a disputed issue in the case? Did you not understand that he was telling the jury that the prosecution's theory could not be trusted, because the evidence they presented did not fit with the prosecution's other evidence and Ms. Moore's testimony?

[martin II]

Please, do not take things out of context. You know exactly what I meant. Yes, he said that it appeared to be blood and was later confirmed by to be blood by scientific investigation. There is no doubt that he was saying it was blood. The lie was that it was not confirmed to be blood at the time he applied for the warrant. Anyone reading that, maybe with the seeming exception of one, understands that he was saying what he observed as appearing to be blood was blood and, therefore, the need for a search warrant.

If the spot had turned out to be something else?

[William Anthony]

If the spot had turned out to be something else?

The presumptive test gives false positives for blood, which Vannatter knew. He had to lie to justify their illegal search, imho. Imho, I'll bet they pulled frantically at MF, screaming for him to wait but, alas to no avail, as he eagerly and agilely scaled the wall, hollering I'll find a reason for probable cause later. This is an interracial couple;):cool:.

[tv]

Yeah, I realized my mistake. I have never put anyone on ignore and did not know that you would not see the images. I apologize. You don't have to worry about me quoting the poster again. I wish the moderator would delete those images. I sincerely apologize but after I saw it I looked at the other places the poster had posted and saw the same dirt. I then clicked on the link to the poster and saw where posters had made comments to the poster and said they were going to report the poster. I went back to delete my post but the time had expired. It was early in the morning and I was not thinking quite clearly. I should have deleted it right away but I was taken aback and wanted to see what had been done about it. Again, I sincerely apologize.No need to apologize. :) It's just too bad this person has nothing better to do. I've strongly suspected for a while that this message board has no moderation and this confirms it. I have one other person on ignore so I knew the pictures would disappear. When you put someone on ignore you can see that they've posted but can't read the post. Compared to this stuff, I guess we're not that low on the civility scale after all. BTW, sorry for taking this off-topic.

[martin II]

No need to apologize. :) It's just too bad this person has nothing better to do. I've strongly suspected for a while that this message board has no moderation and this confirms it. I have one other person on ignore so I knew the pictures would disappear. When you put someone on ignore you can see that they've posted but can't read the post. Compared to this stuff, I guess we're not that low on the civility scale after all. BTW, sorry for taking this off-topic.

this looks like someone taking advantage of the board to fish for customers
for his porn site. when the mod comes back i guess it will be deleted and the person banned.

[martin II]

The presumptive test gives false positives for blood, which Vannatter knew. He had to lie to justify their illegal search, imho. Imho, I'll bet they pulled frantically at MF, screaming for him to wait but, alas to no avail, as he eagerly and agilely scaled the wall, hollering I'll find a reason for probable cause later. This is an interracial couple;):cool:.

Wonder how old the blood stain was.

[William Anthony]

No need to apologize. :) It's just too bad this person has nothing better to do. I've strongly suspected for a while that this message board has no moderation and this confirms it. I have one other person on ignore so I knew the pictures would disappear. When you put someone on ignore you can see that they've posted but can't read the post. Compared to this stuff, I guess we're not that low on the civility scale after all. BTW, sorry for taking this off-topic.

I think that we have reached another point of agreement. :) The poster seems to have an abundance of time and does not know how to spent it well. I am not one to go running to the moderator but certainly this is an instance in which we need the moderator's intervention. We are not any where close to that level, imho. However, that does not mean there is no room for improvement in our posts. :)

[William Anthony]

this looks like someone taking advantage of the board to fish for customers
for his porn site. when the mod comes back i guess it will be deleted and the person banned.

I think you are right on all points.

[William Anthony]

Wonder how old the blood stain was.

I think a reasonable inference can be drawn that is was from about 10:05 until MF arrived.

[martin II]

I think a reasonable inference can be drawn that is was from about 10:05 until MF arrived.

On the bronco. how about one or two weeks? Maby for furhman from where he was, at ashfors st. ,it was shinning in the dark and caught his attention.

[martin II]

I think that we have reached another point of agreement. :) The poster seems to have an abundance of time and does not know how to spent it well. I am not one to go running to the moderator but certainly this is an instance in which we need the moderator's intervention. We are not any where close to that level, imho. However, that does not mean there is no room for improvement in our posts. :)

Maby trutv needs to buy new anti porn softwear.

[William Anthony]

On the bronco. how about one or two weeks? Maby for furhman from where he was, at ashfors st. ,it was shinning in the dark and caught his attention.

Without MF they may not have had a case? Well, they did not have one with him.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Limakey, the fact is that the knit cap was found under the plant leaves at Ron's feet next to one of the killer's gloves. The fact that all the naturally shed hairs found in and on that knit cap as well as one found on Ron's shirt all had the same microscopic characteristics as Simpson's hair samples is evidence that Simpson wore that knit cap. The fact is that fiber evidence found on that knit cap ties that knit cap to the killer and to Simpson's Bronco.

Ms Moore did not testify to any fact that contradicted what the prosecution said. Moore testified that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. Ms Moore could not and did not testify that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. In the book American Tragedy pages 67, 68, Schiller wrote about what was going on at Kardashian's house on the day that Simpson was suppose turn himself into the police. Doctors were examining Simpson. Skin samples, urine samples, hair and blood samples were taken. If Simpson had dandruff on June 17 it would have been documented. The fact is that no defense lawyer in this case ever made the inference or the allegation that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 or on June 17. The only evidence that Simpson had dandruff was on July 13 when his hair samples were taken.

The only point Cochran made when he put the knit cap on his head in the glaring lights of the courtroom was that the knit cap was too big for his head. He even made the comment that Simpson has a very large head. Cochran's silly demonstration had nothing to do with Simpson wearing that knit cap for concealment in the dark shadows of the night.

Maybe some day the movie "Frogman" that Simpson was in just before the murders might be released and you will see Simpson dressed in all dark clothing wearing a knit watch cap for concealment at night and killing someone from behind them with a knife. Maybe then you might be able to understand why Simpson dressed the way he did on the night of June 12.

bobaugust

You are an avid movie goer it seems. Is this were you get your theories that are contradicted by the evidence?

[William Anthony]

IIRC, I made a mistake on the board in regard to saying that the clear and convincing standard was higher than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Clear and Convincing is the highest standard in a civil trial and is lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. I am not thoroughly convinced that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof. Imho, the prosecution presented no evidence that was clear and convincing. In fact, imho, the only evidence they produced would allow for a prima facie case and may not have met the by a preponderance of the evidence standard.

[William Anthony]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mo&vol=/appeals/072000/&invol=4071800_2000

[martin II]

Limakey, the fact is that the knit cap was found under the plant leaves at Ron's feet next to one of the killer's gloves. The fact that all the naturally shed hairs found in and on that knit cap as well as one found on Ron's shirt all had the same microscopic characteristics as Simpson's hair samples is evidence that Simpson wore that knit cap. The fact is that fiber evidence found on that knit cap ties that knit cap to the killer and to Simpson's Bronco.

Ms Moore did not testify to any fact that contradicted what the prosecution said. Moore testified that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn't. Ms Moore could not and did not testify that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. In the book American Tragedy pages 67, 68, Schiller wrote about what was going on at Kardashian's house on the day that Simpson was suppose turn himself into the police. Doctors were examining Simpson. Skin samples, urine samples, hair and blood samples were taken. If Simpson had dandruff on June 17 it would have been documented. The fact is that no defense lawyer in this case ever made the inference or the allegation that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 or on June 17. The only evidence that Simpson had dandruff was on July 13 when his hair samples were taken.

The only point Cochran made when he put the knit cap on his head in the glaring lights of the courtroom was that the knit cap was too big for his head. He even made the comment that Simpson has a very large head. Cochran's silly demonstration had nothing to do with Simpson wearing that knit cap for concealment in the dark shadows of the night.

Maybe some day the movie "Frogman" that Simpson was in just before the murders might be released and you will see Simpson dressed in all dark clothing wearing a knit watch cap for concealment at night and killing someone from behind them with a knife. Maybe then you might be able to understand why Simpson dressed the way he did on the night of June 12.

bobaugust


BOB
You seem to always miss the points jc made in the criminal trial that most all others got. Something wrong. imo

[martin II]

MR. SCHECK: Now, putting on the--this is Defense 1186, Mr. Yamauchi's diagram of the glove found at Rockingham. Dr. Gerdes, is this the--this diagram reflect what your understanding is of the--what Mr. Yamauchi did on the morning of June 14th between 9:00 and 10:00 o'clock when he handled the glove from Rockingham after having handled Mr. Simpson's reference sample where he had that incident where the--took off the top and the blood went through the chemex and onto his glove?

MR. CLARKE: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Well, as far as the D1S80 results from the wrist area of the glove, what is your opinion as to the acceptable risks of cross-contamination with respect to those results?

MR. CLARKE: Objection. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. GERDES: They were handled the same time or shortly after Mr. Simpson's reference sample was handled. The testimony states that the sample had leaked, and under those circumstances, it represents substantial risk that contamination could have happened.

MR. SCHECK: Are the D1S80 results in terms of the amount of DNA found in the wrist area of that glove consistent with cross-contamination from the sample handling error?

DR. GERDES: Yes.

MR. CLARKE: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. CLARKE: Move to strike the answer.

THE COURT: The answer is stricken.

MR. SCHECK: On the basis of the amounts of DNA in those D1S80 tests and your review of the procedures that Mr. Yamauchi used, do you believe--what do you believe about the level of risk of cross-contamination with respect to those results?

MR. CLARKE: Objection. No foundation. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. GERDES: There's substantial risk at cross-contamination under those circumstances.

MR. SCHECK: This is Defense 1308, testing results, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman reference samples. Now, Mr. Clarke asked you a series of questions about controls and evidence of cross-contamination from the way that samples were handled in the evidence processing room on June 14th and June 15th. Do you recall those?

DR. GERDES: The questions regarding--yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. With respect to cross-contamination occurring in the handling of samples by Mr. Yamauchi on June 15th, specifically item 12, the last blood sample collected from the foyer in Mr. Simpson's home and Nicole Brown Simpson reference sample and Ron Goldman reference sample, do you believe that the results shown on this board are consistent with cross-contamination that was then retyped in two different laboratories, Cellmark and DOJ?

MR. CLARKE: Objection. No foundation. Calls for speculation and leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. GERDES: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Are the results from this board part of the basis for your opinion that there were unacceptable risks of contamination in the way Mr. Yamauchi handled those samples on June 14th and June 15th?

DR. GERDES: Yes. These results were consistent with evidence that cross-contamination actually happened.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Gerdes, you were asked--let me show you what is--this is Defense 1297, a chart depicting runs and strips May through July of 1994, run contamination, strip contamination and/or artifacts. Now, Dr. Gerdes, you were asked quite a number of--you were asked quite a number of questions on cross examination about the distinction you made when analyzing strips where you put--you indicated there were strip contamination and/or artifacts. You recall those?

DR. GERDES: I do.

MR. SCHECK: And I call your attention to Prosecution's 566. Do you see that?

DR. GERDES: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: What is that strip?

DR. GERDES: And

[martin II]

DR. GERDES: And these are a series of strips that the Prosecution showed to demonstrate the weak 1.1 and I believe in reference to discussing the DX allele.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And this is the 1.1 in the presence of the 1, correct?

DR. GERDES: Correct.

MR. SCHECK: And it was your--was it your testimony that in looking at that 1, you could not tell if that was--that is, the 1.1's were contaminants or artifacts?

DR. GERDES: That's correct. Under this circumstance, you can't really tell if that's an artifact or contaminant.

MR. SCHECK: Is that why you made the distinction when you--

DR. GERDES: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: --identified the strips?

DR. GERDES: Yes. In terms of the strips, that's the reason why I did not really try to differentiate between the two because in many--situations such as this, you can't tell.

MR. SCHECK: Now, what relation--what relationship does a result such as depicted on 566, where you can't tell if it's a contaminant or artifact, have in terms of making erroneous typings?

MR. CLARKE: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SCHECK: What is--why is it--what are the problems you see in the results such as depicted on 566 in terms of making an interpretation of the strip?

DR. GERDES: Well, on--if you look at the strip that has the 1.1 allele, the weak 1.1 allele, if this were a crime scene specimen, the interpretation of that would be that particular item where type is a 1.2, 1.2 because you can see the 1.2 signal here is dark and the 1 is dark; and for that reason, this would be probably typed as a 1.2, 1.2. but because of the weak 1.1, most likely, they would express the fact that that was present there and visible. And so it would be a 1.2, 1.2 consistent with a contributor of--with a 1.1. so it would be consistent with an individual with a 1.1, 1.1 or an individual with a 1.1, 1.2. so that obviously makes this a--that artifact has a potential of falsely accusing an individual who's a 1.1, 1.2 when in fact typing results is from a 1.2, 1.2.

MR. CLARKE: Excuse me. Objection. Calls for speculation. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Well, doctor, let me see if I can try to put this in as plain as English as I can. Is the existence of a faint dot like that in a mixture, can that cause an error?

DR. GERDES: Yes. And it doesn't matter if it's an artifact or a real contaminant. Either way, it can cause an error.

MR. SCHECK: Are dots of that intensity similar to the 1.3 dot we saw before on item 31 of the Bronco console?

DR. GERDES: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: We can turn off the--this is Defense 1295.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Gerdes, you recall Mr. Clarke asking you questions about whether or not two analysts ever did samples on the same day in your calculation of runs? Remember that?

DR. GERDES: I remember that.

MR. SCHECK: Remember he asked you if you were sure about that?

DR. GERDES: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Have you rechecked your data?

DR. GERDES: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Are you sure that two analysts didn't do or--strips on the same day?

DR. GERDES: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, do these runs, as you recorded them by month, represent contamination, definite contamination on the day all the strips were run?

DR. GERDES: Yes. At this point, they're definite contamination because I take all of the strips on a given date and I can look in the context of what's in that--in all of those strips so that you can confirm with one strip whether you're seeing the same thing in more than one strip.

MR. SCHECK: So this chart represents definite contamination, no ambiguity about artifacts as far as you're concerned?

DR. GERDES: At this point, that's correct.

[bobaugust]

No, I do consider it as evidence. I consider it as evidence of his state of mind and an explanation of his subsequent conduct. Mr. Kato could not and did not testify that anyone was behind the quarters, because he saw no one back there and he did not see anyone come from back there.

I fully anticipate your next response and I have posted the link on inference upon and inference and on another inference and so forth and so on, with each inference becoming weaker to prove the ultimate fact. The one thing that destroys the inference chain in this issue is the Rockingham blood trail. That is direct physical evidence, as you like to say, that Simpson entered his home through the front door via Rockingham and no evidence placing him behind the quarters.

Kaelin did not see anyone behind his room he heard loud noises and felt the vibrations on his back wall that nearly knocked a picture off that wall. It was either an earthquake or someone was back there. There was no earthquake, that's why Kaelin testified he was scared it might be a prowler. It doesn't take an inference upon an inference to understand that, it only takes a little common sense.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You say that the inference I made was not reasonable. Contained in that statement is the implication that the jury could not have come to that conclusion, because the inference is unreasonable. I posted the link from the Supreme Court, hoping that you would see that members of the most honored court in our land has stated what is a permissible inference, outlined what it takes to rebut that inference and denoted the burden of proof. The fact that you continue to post your second paragraph shows me, imho, that either you do not understand the Supreme Court's ruling or Scheck's closing on the subject, or that you for some reason feel that you have more knowledge about the law than they do. When you have used terms such as credible and legitimate evidence, which, imho, to you means evidence that supports the prosecution's claims, you have shown, imho, by those incorrect nomenclatures that you really have a very limited knowledge of evidence or legal concepts. I do not think that you are in any position to disagree with the Supreme Court of Scheck until you can understand what they are saying. I have supported my posts with links. You have not provided any support for you claim that the inference I spoke of was unsupported imagined speculation.

You have made a foolish, illogical, ridiculous inference that no lawyer in this case ever made and you're attempts to defend it by pointing to a Supreme Court ruling that had absolutely nothing to do with your inference is ludicrous. Your inference is based only on a witness who testified that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer. There is no physical evidence, no testimony, no nothing that supports your speculation that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. No one on this discussion group has to have any great knowledge of the law only some common sense to understand your inference is nothing more than unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Please, do not take things out of context. You know exactly what I meant. Yes, he said that it appeared to be blood and was later confirmed by to be blood by scientific investigation. There is no doubt that he was saying it was blood. The lie was that it was not confirmed to be blood at the time he applied for the warrant. Anyone reading that, maybe with the seeming exception of one, understands that he was saying what he observed as appearing to be blood was blood and, therefore, the need for a search warrant.

You're the one taking your misstatement out of context. You made that comment regarding the detectives entry into Rockingham and now you're changing it to something Vannatter wrote in his search warrant. You were wrong when you made your post and you're still wrong.

William Anthony post #5272
"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?"

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Why bobaugust. I never thought you would admit, imho, to your inequality and bias. I am pleasantly surprised. I am sure you remember your post on the inferences you drew from Ms. Clark's closing. Surely, you must allow the same for Mr. Scheck's closing (I think he deserves the Mr. for getting you to confess). However, you only posted part of the closing (is you spell checker acting up, again?). Fortunately, I posted the part were he talked about association (inference) and I told you it is not permissible for the lawyers to tell the jury what inferences to draw. Why pray tell, do you think he mentioned no dandruff and the association? You think he was trying to weaken his case by talking to the jury about something that was not a disputed issue in the case? Did you not understand that he was telling the jury that the prosecution's theory could not be trusted, because the evidence they presented did not fit with the prosecution's other evidence and Ms. Moore's testimony?

Surely you must know the difference between drawing inferences from the actual facts in this case and drawing inferences from someone who misstates the facts in this case.

Scheck either mistakenly or intentionally misstated the facts regarding this issue and any inference the jury may have drawn from his misstated facts would be false. If you made your inference based on what Scheck said then your inference is false. If you made your reference based only on Moore's testimony than your inference is nothing but unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The presumptive test gives false positives for blood, which Vannatter knew. He had to lie to justify their illegal search, imho. Imho, I'll bet they pulled frantically at MF, screaming for him to wait but, alas to no avail, as he eagerly and agilely scaled the wall, hollering I'll find a reason for probable cause later. This is an interracial couple;):cool:.

The presumptive test for blood wasn't conducted before the police entered Simpson's estate and what appeared to be blood on the Bronco was only one of reasons that led to their decision to enter. Your fantasies are funny.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Kaelin did not see anyone behind his room he heard loud noises and felt the vibrations on his back wall that nearly knocked a picture off that wall. It was either an earthquake or someone was back there. There was no earthquake, that's why Kaelin testified he was scared it might be a prowler. It doesn't take an inference upon an inference to understand that, it only takes a little common sense.

bobaugust

As I have already stated and it seems you do not understand, of course Mr. Kato's testimony, regarding the thumps explains his state of mind and explains his subsequent conduct. You are correct that Mr. Kato could not and did not testify to seeing anyone behind the quarters. Why do you think the judge instructs the jury to listen to all the evidence before forming a conclusion? MF testified that there was no disturbance of the surroundings where the glove was allegedly found and no blood, although he was looking for both. However, there was a blood trail that went from Rockingham to the front door of his home and was identified as belonging to Simpson. Mr. kato could not say who or what made the thumps. It only takes common sense to realize that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the testimonies above mentioned is that Mr. Kato thought there was someone there and MF, when he went back there, saw no evidence of anyone being back there before him and that the blood trail is evidence that Simpson entered his home via Rockingham. Common sense is often overruled by prejudice and bias. I think that will be tomorrow's thought for the day. Let us not forget the evidence of MF's motive, means and opportunity to plant the glove, as well as the fact that he admitted to planting evidence. I hope now you are beginning to understand, evidence, inferences and reasonable doubt. Got it yet?

[William Anthony]

You have made a foolish, illogical, ridiculous inference that no lawyer in this case ever made and you're attempts to defend it by pointing to a Supreme Court ruling that had absolutely nothing to do with your inference is ludicrous. Your inference is based only on a witness who testified that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer. There is no physical evidence, no testimony, no nothing that supports your speculation that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. No one on this discussion group has to have any great knowledge of the law only some common sense to understand your inference is nothing more than unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

The only thing that is foolish, illogical, and ridiculous is your refusal to admit what you read and claim that you understand the inference to be drawn from Clarke's closing but not from Scheck's. It truly weakens your argument and appearance of impartiality in regard to your alleged search for the truth. It is ludicrous that you can't understand the Supreme Court's ruling and you were wise not to have studied law, imho. Those on the discussion group do not have to have an understanding of law to know that your positions on the thumps and the dandruff are not supported by the evidence and that you post things that are contradictory to the evidence. Got it yet?

[William Anthony]

You're the one taking your misstatement out of context. You made that comment regarding the detectives entry into Rockingham and now you're changing it to something Vannatter wrote in his search warrant. You were wrong when you made your post and you're still wrong.

William Anthony post #5272
"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?"

bobaugust

No, Mr. bobaugust,

you really can't comprehend my post, imho.

[William Anthony]

The presumptive test for blood wasn't conducted before the police entered Simpson's estate and what appeared to be blood on the Bronco was only one of reasons that led to their decision to enter. Your fantasies are funny.

bobaugust

Read my post that you quoted in your post above. The other statement in regard to MF may be funny and true. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

BOB
You seem to always miss the points jc made in the criminal trial that most all others got. Something wrong. imo

Terribly wrong. :);):cool:

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Yes, lets use some common sense. Common sense is that a 6'2" man, weighing over 200 pounds, bleeding from a wound he just suffered can not climb a fence covered with vegitiation and not break a single leaf, smashing into a wall three times and not leave a single fiber, a single blood drop or even a mark on the wall.

Using common sense again, Kato knew that the gate leading to behind his wall was broke and had to be picked up and moved---he testified that the gate was not moved.

Common sense again, if a person crashed into that wall hard enough to move a picture, then chances are he bounced off the wall and he would have crashed into the fence.

Common sense again, OJ showed no major concern that Kato had in fact heard something behind his wall. I think he was the one who recommended to Kato to call the cops. Even if OJ didn't recommend this, Kato never did call the cops.

As for the hair, yes the hairs that the DA's were talking about had the same characteristics, however, that also includes how many other African-Americans?

As for the "Frogman" pilot, ever wonder why neither the DA's nor the plaintiffs' lawyers never used this?

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Regarding the blood on the Bronco and the drops leading to the front door and Vanatter's lie regarding this. The problem is, that there was no way for Vanatter to know the age of the blood drops, let alone if it was human blood. The fact that the test was never performed to confirm that it was human blood, just proves that the detectives' focus was always on OJ Simpson.

Like I have posted before, Simpson could be telling the truth about the cut on his had and remembering bleeding at his home, which does not mean that he did not kill Ron and Nicole.

Please note, the blood drops at Rockingham were never described as fresh. They had no way of knowing when the blood drops were left. The fact that they could not raise anyone inside the house doesn't mean a thing, not when they did not search or even ask where the maid was. Yes, she should have been inside the house, so why wasn't anyone asked where she was--which includes Mr. Simpson.

[William Anthony]

Surely you must know the difference between drawing inferences from the actual facts in this case and drawing inferences from someone who misstates the facts in this case.

Scheck either mistakenly or intentionally misstated the facts regarding this issue and any inference the jury may have drawn from his misstated facts would be false. If you made your inference based on what Scheck said then your inference is false. If you made your reference based only on Moore's testimony than your inference is nothing but unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

What Mr. Scheck said was not false. The only thing that is unsupported speculation is your claim to understand reasonable inferences and circumstantial evidence, imho. Assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Scheck's misstated the testimony, which he did not, the prosecution failed to object. However, let me explain. Mr. Scheck did not say that Simpson always had dandruff in the summer. He said that Ms. Moore's testimony was that Simpson would get dandruff in the summer and the exemplar had dandruff. The prosecution understood what Mr. Scheck was saying but you seem to be unable to comprehend it. Got it yet?

[William Anthony]

Common sense is often overruled by prejudice and bias.

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

Yes, lets use some common sense. Common sense is that a 6'2" man, weighing over 200 pounds, bleeding from a wound he just suffered can not climb a fence covered with vegitiation and not break a single leaf, smashing into a wall three times and not leave a single fiber, a single blood drop or even a mark on the wall.

Using common sense again, Kato knew that the gate leading to behind his wall was broke and had to be picked up and moved---he testified that the gate was not moved.

Common sense again, if a person crashed into that wall hard enough to move a picture, then chances are he bounced off the wall and he would have crashed into the fence.

Common sense again, OJ showed no major concern that Kato had in fact heard something behind his wall. I think he was the one who recommended to Kato to call the cops. Even if OJ didn't recommend this, Kato never did call the cops.

As for the hair, yes the hairs that the DA's were talking about had the same characteristics, however, that also includes how many other African-Americans?

As for the "Frogman" pilot, ever wonder why neither the DA's nor the plaintiffs' lawyers never used this?

The reason why bobaugust's posts seem to be becoming more hostile, imho, is in regard to the jury instruction in regard to two reasonable inferences and the mandate that the jury must accept the one pointing to innocence, which the magnificent one masterfully employed. He must claim that the others' inferences are unreasonable and defy common sense. However, in so doing, he gives the overwhelming appearance of bias and prejudice and seems to think that he knows more than the Justices of the Supreme Court, judge Ito, all the lawyers in the case and legal practitioners and those educated in legal concepts, although he admits that he has not studied law.

I do admire bobaugust's persistence. It is similar to that of a billy goat that constantly runs its head into brick walls and eats tin cans, imho. :);):cool:

[martin II]

Mr. August,

Yes, lets use some common sense. Common sense is that a 6'2" man, weighing over 200 pounds, bleeding from a wound he just suffered can not climb a fence covered with vegitiation and not break a single leaf, smashing into a wall three times and not leave a single fiber, a single blood drop or even a mark on the wall.

Using common sense again, Kato knew that the gate leading to behind his wall was broke and had to be picked up and moved---he testified that the gate was not moved.

Common sense again, if a person crashed into that wall hard enough to move a picture, then chances are he bounced off the wall and he would have crashed into the fence.

Common sense again, OJ showed no major concern that Kato had in fact heard something behind his wall. I think he was the one who recommended to Kato to call the cops. Even if OJ didn't recommend this, Kato never did call the cops.

As for the hair, yes the hairs that the DA's were talking about had the same characteristics, however, that also includes how many other African-Americans?

As for the "Frogman" pilot, ever wonder why neither the DA's nor the plaintiffs' lawyers never used this?


There was no evidence that anyone was in the south walkway. This according to the nonevidence and three le testimony. yet Bob seems to believe that oj jumped the fence, fell all against the wall and not one leaf was kicked out of place. maby oj running up the walkway as clark said just jumped the broken fense.imo

[William Anthony]

There was no evidence that anyone was in the south walkway. This according to the nonevidence and three le testimony. yet Bob seems to believe that oj jumped the fence, fell all against the wall and not one leaf was kicked out of place. maby oj running up the walkway as clark said just jumped the broken fense.imo

martin,

I must disagree. There is evidence that MF, the admitted evidence planter and interracial couple hating detective, as supported by the evidence was alone back there where the glove was allegedly found.

[William Anthony]

There is another relatively new member that has violated the rules and posted a link to their home page on reverse speech. I was disgusted to see the blatant posting of the most vile and reprehensible word in the English language, imho, posted on his home page on the link to Michelle Obama. I would ask the community to take a stand on this.

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .However, this has nothing to do with what Vannatter said, because he was not a lawyer. Ito said the same thing about Vannatter as he did about the magnificent one and Mr. Douglas. I hardly see how you can claim I am confused, since I posted the link to Ito's comments on Vannatter. . ."

I'm not confused william. The facts are that cochran and dream team were sanctioned for their 'recklessness' -- LE was not.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

I'm not confused william. The facts are that cochran and dream team were sanctioned for their 'recklessness' -- LE was not.

I beg to differ on the issue of your confusion. You seem to think that judge Ito had the jurisdiction to sanction LE.

[weezer]

I beg to differ on the issue of your confusion. You seem to think that judge Ito had the jurisdiction to sanction LE.

so you don't believe the prosecution was/is not part of LE?

[William Anthony]

so you don't believe the prosecution was/is not part of LE?

The prosecution was sanctioned and Ito found Vannatter to have a reckless disregard for the truth. LE works in conjunction with the prosecution in that they investigate (theoretically) the crime, make arrests of those they feel committed the crime and offers evidence in support of the arrest. However, the prosecution brings the charges based on the investigation and arrest. The prosecution then, through the use of GJ or preliminary hearing sets forth a prima facie case to show that the evidence is sufficient to have arrested a person and show that there are reasons based on the evidence obtained to believe the person committed the crime. If the GJ or it is determined during the preliminary hearing that the evidence is sufficient, the prosecution then brings the person to trial. The judge then presides over the trial but not over the investigation done by LE. The judge does not have the jurisdiction to sanction LE but does have the jurisdiction to preside over criminal charges brought against LE, such as was done with MF, and countless other LE members. A judge may also preside over civil cause of actions brought against members of LE, whether or not they are acting under color of authority at the time of the incident, leading to the civil actions.

[weezer]

*Snipped*"The prosecution was sanctioned and Ito found Vannatter to have a reckless disregard for the truth. . ."

please post a link to this statement

[SlowHandSam]

martin,

I must disagree. There is evidence that MF, the admitted evidence planter and interracial couple hating detective, as supported by the evidence was alone back there where the glove was allegedly found.

We've already been down this road. MF is NOT an admitted evidence planter.

To state he admitted to planting evidence in this topic is reckless.

[martin II]

*Snipped*

please post a link to this statement

i think itos statement has been posted.

[weezer]

i think itos statement has been posted.

martin, I know the statement has been posted. I requested a link to any prosecution sanctions.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

please post a link to this statement

Previously done.

[William Anthony]

We've already been down this road. MF is NOT an admitted evidence planter.

To state he admitted to planting evidence in this topic is reckless.

It is reckless for you not to admit that MF admitted to planting evidence and to think he did not is as wrong as you blaming me for bringing the porn to the board.

[weezer]

Previously done.

no it hasn't william. reckless disregard for the truth proves the character of the man.

[William Anthony]

no it hasn't william. reckless disregard for the truth proves the character of the man.

I stand by my post. What has not been done and can't be done is a link to your repeatedly reckless posts made in disregard for the truth that pigeon-toed shoe prints were found at Bundy.

[William Anthony]

no it hasn't william. reckless disregard for the truth proves the character of the man.

I stand by my post. What has not been done and can't be done is a link to your repeatedly reckless posts made in disregard for the truth that pigeon-toed shoe prints were found at Bundy. Reckless disregard for the truth shows a woman's forked-tongue, just as you blamed me for bringing the porn to the board.

[weezer]

I stand by my post. What has not been done and can't be done is a link to your repeatedly reckless posts made in disregard for the truth that pigeon-toed shoe prints were found at Bundy. Reckless disregard for the truth shows a woman's forked-tongue, just as you blamed me for bringing the porn to the board.

you can't stand by your post william because it never happened.

and the porn I saw on this board had your name attached.

[William Anthony]

you can't stand by your post william because it never happened.

and the porn I saw on this board had your name attached.

In an effort to remain polite, I will simply say that you are misstating the truth and made a false accusation against me. You have been around long enough to discern who made the original post and who responded to that post. If after all this time you have not been able to decipher such things on this board, then, in an effort to remain polite, I will only say that I now understand the source of your seeming inability to comprehend the smallest things, imho.

[weezer]

In an effort to remain polite, I will simply say that you are misstating the truth and made a false accusation against me. You have been around long enough to discern who made the original post and who responded to that post. If after all this time you have not been able to decipher such things on this board, then, in an effort to remain polite, I will only say that I now understand the source of your seeming inability to comprehend the smallest things, imho.

I neither misunderstood nor misstated the truth. the porn pictures were posted by YOU on this board. If after all this time, you are unable to understand how posting works then I will only say that I now understand the source of your seeming inability to comprehend the smallest things, imho.

[William Anthony]

I neither misunderstood nor misstated the truth. the porn pictures were posted by YOU on this board. If after all this time, you are unable to understand how posting works then I will only say that I now understand the source of your seeming inability to comprehend the smallest things, imho.

Your claim was that I brought the porn to the board. I did not post the porn. I responded to a post where the porn had been posted. In most cases, I am flattered when someone imitates/quotes my words. However, in this case, I would ask that you do not and find some degree of originality between those toes. With that said and in an effort to remain as polite as possible, I have decided that it is best to give you a good leaving alone, if allowed.

[martin II]

I neither misunderstood nor misstated the truth. the porn pictures were posted by YOU on this board. If after all this time, you are unable to understand how posting works then I will only say that I now understand the source of your seeming inability to comprehend the smallest things, imho.

The porn pictures posted above were posted by POSTER USING THE NIC CAUNKSAH.
I reported it i think saturday or maby it was sunday and they have not been removed. so maby there is no morderator. Unbelievable.

[weezer]

Your claim was that I brought the porn to the board. I did not post the porn. I responded to a post where the porn had been posted. In most cases, I am flattered when someone imitates/quotes my words. However, in this case, I would ask that you do not and find some degree of originality between those toes. With that said and in an effort to remain as polite as possible, I have decided that it is best to give you a good leaving alone, if allowed.

who else posted porn pictures william?

[William Anthony]

who else posted porn pictures william?

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

[SlowHandSam]

It is reckless for you not to admit that MF admitted to planting evidence and to think he did not is as wrong as you blaming me for bringing the porn to the board.

Two things William.

1. He did NOT state he planted evidence in the OJ murder fiasco.
2. I did NOT blame you for bringing porn to the board. "I expect an apology."

[William Anthony]

The porn pictures posted above were posted by POSTER USING THE NIC CAUNKSAH.
I reported it i think saturday or maby it was sunday and they have not been removed. so maby there is no morderator. Unbelievable.

It seems that the original post has been removed. However, if anyone looked at post #5528, they know I was not the original poster, i.e. did not bring the porn to the board.

[William Anthony]

Two things William.

1. He did NOT state he planted evidence in the OJ murder fiasco.
2. I did NOT blame you for bringing porn to the board. "I expect an apology."

I never said and have never said that he admitted to planting evidence in this case. So, if you claim I did, then I expect an apology.

I responded to you thinking you were someone else and I will be a big man and apologize.

[SlowHandSam]

I never said and have never said that he admitted to planting evidence in this case. So, if you claim I did, then I expect an apology.

I responded to you thinking you were someone else and I will be a big man and apologize.

You called MF an "admitted evidence planter" while discussing the OJ case. He did not admit to planting evidence in this case.

We've already had this conversation round and round and y'all are incorrect to state he admitted to planting evidence in the murders of Nicole and Ron.

[martin II]

who else posted porn pictures william?

The porn post were made by this person.Originally Posted by Caunksah
at post no 5528.
Not by william and not anyone else.I was posting when it was first recognized.

Thank you.

martinii

[William Anthony]

You called MF an "admitted evidence planter" while discussing the OJ case. He did not admit to planting evidence in this case.

We've already had this conversation round and round and y'all are incorrect to state he admitted to planting evidence in the murders of Nicole and Ron.

Why of course I did while discussing the case. The tapes where he admitted to evidence planting were admitted during the trial. I have never said that he admitted to planting evidence in this case and, as such, I expect an apology. I have never said that he planted evidence in this case. I have said that there was evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that he did. Will you show your character by apologizing?

[William Anthony]

The failure to apologize when you are wrong must be a Southern thing.

[SlowHandSam]

Why of course I did while discussing the case. The tapes where he admitted to evidence planting were admitted during the trial. I have never said that he admitted to planting evidence in this case and, as such, I expect an apology. I have never said that he planted evidence in this case. I have said that there was evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that he did. Will you show your character by apologizing?

Actually, William, we had this discussion not that long ago and I explained that he did not, ever, admit to planting evidence. You claim he did. I asked for proof, you claimed it was from the "tapes" - which I then went on to explain were not real conversations about a case but all for theatrical purposes.

I will not apologize because I did nothing wrong other than to point out that you are incorrect in stating he was an admitted evidence planter because there is no such stipulation or testimony that supports that claim.

[William Anthony]

Actually, William, we had this discussion not that long ago and I explained that he did not, ever, admit to planting evidence. You claim he did. I asked for proof, you claimed it was from the "tapes" - which I then went on to explain were not real conversations about a case but all for theatrical purposes.

I will not apologize because I did nothing wrong other than to point out that you are incorrect in stating he was an admitted evidence planter because there is no such stipulation or testimony that supports that claim.

Quite to the contrary, there was an investigation done into those things and the justice department stated that they were not saying he did nothing wrong, only that MF could not be prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired. I posted the testimony and LHM testified that after being edified about the pulling of the scab from an addict's arm she would have to rethink her answer.

It's alright, I realize that it is probably out of character for you to apologize to someone for whom you have previously stated you had no respect.

[weezer]

Actually, William, we had this discussion not that long ago and I explained that he did not, ever, admit to planting evidence. You claim he did. I asked for proof, you claimed it was from the "tapes" - which I then went on to explain were not real conversations about a case but all for theatrical purposes.

I will not apologize because I did nothing wrong other than to point out that you are incorrect in stating he was an admitted evidence planter because there is no such stipulation or testimony that supports that claim.

Incidents Of Alleged Misconduct
The defense seeks to offer 18 incidents of alleged misconduct to attack Fuhrman's credibility, to support the argument that Fuhrman planted evidence to support the testimony of Bell. The defense cites Evidence Code Sections 780 (Credibility Of Witnesses), 1101 (b) (Prior Bad Acts) abd 1105 (Habit & Custom To Prove Specific Behavior). As noted in the ruling of 20 January 1995, there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal and savage murders upon the defendant. In argument in opposition to the admission of these incidents of alleged misconduct, the prosecution has challenged the sufficiency of the defense proffer filed 23 January 1995 despite the challenge from the prosecution and inquiry by the court. That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit.
While the current state of the record does not indicate evidence that would reach the minimal threshold necessary to find inquiry into the planting of evidence theory relevant, and the court so finds, the defense has not yet tested its case. The court will therefore analyze each incident, assuming arguendo, the minimal threshold of relevance is later met.

1. Reaction to being called names:
McKinny sets the stage by asking what Fuhrman would do in front of a movie theater while moving the line out of the street and someone calls the officer a foul name. Fuhrman replies that the person would go to jail for interfering with a police officer, a violation of Penal Code Section 148. This is clearly an instance of suggesting a scenario for the screenplay. As such, it has no relevance. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained. As a suggested scenario for a screenplay, its negligible probative value is substantially outweighed by the undue amount of time that would be consumed in its presentation and refutation. The Evidence Code Section 352 objection is sustained.

2. Tearing up a driver's license as a pretext to arrest:
This incident is part of the reaction to being called names incident. Fuhrman indicates an arrest, i.e. taking the subject to the station, could be justified if the subject did not have proper identification, and that if the subject had a driver's license Fuhrman would just rip it up. McKinny then asks if Fuhrman has ever done this before and the transcript indicates a nod. McKinny then asks Fuhrman if he has ever falsified a police report, Fuhrman replies, "Never." This is the same discussion suggesting a scenario for a screenplay. As such, it has no relevance. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained. As a suggested scenario for a screenplay, its negligible probative value is substantially outweighed by the undue amount of time that would be consumed in its presentation and refutation. The Evidence Code Section 352 objection is sustained.

3. Hype arrest:
This incident is a continuation of the being called names incident. In the midst of a long statement, the following is found in the context of falsifying police reports: "...of some hype, you know says, ah, pick the scab, squeeze it, looks like serum's coming out, as if it were hours old...That's not falsifying a report. That's putting a criminal in jail. That's being a policeman." This case does not involve an arrest by Fuhrman. Because the proffer goes to a collateral matter, the probative value is therefore non-existent. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained. No factual basis has been offered in support. Admission would require diversion into what would essentially be the trial of a violation of Health and Safety Code Section 11550, being under the influence of a controlled substance, which would necessitate undue consumption of time. The Evidence Code Section 352 objection is sustained.

4. Use of deadly force in making arrests:
This case does not involve the use of deadly force. The proffer is completely irrelevant. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained. Admission of this statement would create the substantial danger of undue prejudice. The evidence Code Section 352 objection is sustained.

5. Use of deadly force in making arrests:
This case does not involve the use of deadly force. The proffer is completely irrelevant. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained. Admission of this statement would create the substantial danger of undue prejudice. The Evidence Code Section 352 objection is sustained.

6. Revenge for killing policemen:
This case does not involve the killing of a police officer. There is no suggestion that the defendant has in any way physically harmed any police officers. The record indicates the defendant was on friendly terms with the officers of the West Los Angeles Division. The proffer is completely irrelevant. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained. The inflammatory nature of this statement creates the substantial danger of undue prejudice. The Evidence Code Section 352 objection is sustained.

7. Manufacturing probable cause for arrest:
The discussion involves detaining someone who does not belong in the area and later being able to justify the arrest: "If I was pushed into saying why I did it, I'd say suspicion of burglary. I'd be able to correlate exactly what I said into a reasonable probable cause for arrest. This case does not involve an arrest made by Fuhrman. The incident does not speak to racial animosity. It is not relevant. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained. Presentation of this incident would require the undue expenditure of the court's time given its negligible probative value. The Evidence Code Section 352 objection is sustained.

8. Field interrogation techniques:
This case does not involve the field interrogation of any suspect by former Detective Fuhrman. The proffer is completely irrelevant: The Evidence Code SEction 350 objection is sustained. Presentation of this incident would require the undue expenditure of the court's time. The Evidence Code Section 352 objection is sustained.

[weezer]

9. Cover up of unlawful use of force:
McKinny seeks to place one of her female characters in a situation where she does not inform upon officers who have beaten her arrestee. Fuhrman goes on to tell of an incident where he was the first responding officer until after two policemen had been shot. Fuhrman states that he chases and beat the suspects , and escaped any punishment after an extensive Internal Affairs investigation since all his fellow officers knew to keep their mouths shut. This case does not involve any police officers as victims, any pursuit of a suspect where there is any allegation of unnecessary force used in the arrest, or any cover up of unnecessary force upon an arrestee. The proffer lacks relevance to this case. The proffer does not included mention of a basis in fact. The argument of the parties indicates there is substantial factual dispute as to whether any actual incident matches the scenario painted by Fuhrman. There is a substantial danger that the proof of the underlying incident, if such be available, would necessitate the undue consumption of the court's time. (6) The court also finds that having balanced the indirect nature of the probative value of the proffered evidence with the danger of undue prejudice, the court finds that defense counsel's characterization of this incident as a "blockbuster" most eloquently speaks to the inflammatory nature of this incident, creating the substantial danger of undue prejudice. The Evidence Code Section 352 objection is sustained.

10. Necessity for the police officers to be willing to lie:
Fuhrman discusses his then current partner, one of the "good guys" who is not willing to lie or cover for a partner. No argument or allegation has been made that Fuhrman has been lying to cover for his partner, Det. Phillips, nor has there been any argument or allegation that Phillips has been lying to cover for Fuhrman. There is no direct relevance to this case. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained. Presentation of this incident would require the undue and unwarranted expenditure of the court's time. The Evidence Code Section 352 objection is sustained.

11. Revenge against those who oppose the choke hold:
Fuhrman expresses extremely negative attitudes towards the ACLU and the NAACP with regard to their opposition to the use of the choke hold by the Los Angles Police Department. This case does not involve the use or application of any choke hold. The proffer is completely irrelevant. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained. The inflammatory nature of the statement creates the substantial risk of undue prejudice. The Evidence Code Section 352 objection is sustained.

12. Destruction of a suspect's property:
Fuhrman discusses the actions of another officer which involve the destruction of personal property of a suspect. The alleged actions of this other officer are not relevant to any of the issues in this case. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained.

13. Tearing up of driver's licenses:
In the same discussion as Incident 12 Fuhrman relates that this other officer would often tear up suspect's driver's licenses. As noted above. the alleged actions of another officer have no relevance to any of the issues in this case. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained.

14. Beating of suspects:
This incident appears to be the came as Incident 9, with the addition that one of the suspects died as a result. That addition increases the likelihood the account is fictional. No factual basis has been offered to prove the existence of an incident involving Fuhrman where a suspect was beaten to death. The proffer is rejected for the same reason stated as to Incident 9.

15. Testimony for events not witnesses:
In the context of discussing the incompetence of women police officers, Fuhrman discusses several incidents where he is the third or fourth car at the scene of a call, the women officers whom he refers to as munchkins are not capable of handling the situation and he, as the macho man, is required to step in and take over the entire situation, including testimony in court. The proffer implies a willingness to testify to events not actually witnesses and complicity by the prosecuting attorney. The proffer does not suggest any actual basis in fact. Given the collateral nature of the statement and the inferential nature of the statement, the court finds its probative value to be severely limited such that it is presentation would require an undue consumption of time. The Evidence Code Section 352 objection is sustained.

16. Coercing statements from suspects:
Fuhrman relates taking 3 gang members in for questioning after a gang related murder and beating information out of them. The proffer is not factually connected to any specific incident. This case does not involve coerced statements. The proffer is irrelevant. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained. The inflammatory nature of the statement create the substantial rise of undue prejudice. The Evidence Code Section 352 objection is sustained.

17. Baton use in different parts of the City:
Fuhrman discusses the non-use of the baton in Bel-Air versus its use in the south end. This case does not involve the use of force, batons or otherwise. The proffer is irrelevant to the issues in this case. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained. The inflammatory nature of the statement created the substantial risk of undue prejudice. The Evidence Code Section 352 objection is sustained.

18. Automobile stops:
Fuhrman discusses stopping cars or suspects that are out of place in his regular patrol area. This case does not involve an automobile stop where there was no probable cause. The proffer is irrelevant. The Evidence Code Section 350 objection is sustained. The presentation and refutation of this statement would require the undue and unwarranted expenditure of the court's time. The Evidence Code Section 352 objection is sustained.

[weezer]

Foundation Testimony By McKinny
Laura Hart McKinny testifies that in 1985 she was engaged in writing a screenplay about women in police work when she met Fuhrman at a restaurant in Westwood. Upon learning Fuhrman was a police officer with strong negative feelings about women in police work, McKinny agreed to use Fuhrman as a technical consultant, eventually agreeing to pay Fuhrman ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) upon the sale of the screenplay. McKinny testifies that her conversations with Fuhrman were for research purposes, to provide realistic dialogue, proper police procedures and insights into a police officer's thought process. The basic story to be told was that of a competent woman police officer who is transferred into a police division patterned after LAPD's 77th Street Division, and partnered with another officer who is a member of MAW (Men Against Women) and opposed to women being police officers. McKinny testified that racial tensions were not a subplot of her intended and eventual screenplay. McKinny testified that she would tape record portions of her conversations with Fuhrman, and that she would transcribe those recorded conversations within a day or two of each interview. (4) McKinny was adamant that her screenplay was intended as a fictional work. Although the screenplay has been optioned, it has not bee purchased as of 28 August 1995.

[William Anthony]

I posted actual testimony and the remarks of the justice system when they investigated the admitted evidence planter, MF. Like it or not the fact that the admitted evidence planter planted evidence in this case was an issue in the criminal trial.

[William Anthony]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE6D6123AF937A35757C0A96E9582 60

[William Anthony]

http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo80.htm

[William Anthony]

http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/FUHRMAN

http://www.bloggerforum.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=20247

[SlowHandSam]

Quite to the contrary, there was an investigation done into those things and the justice department stated that they were not saying he did nothing wrong, only that MF could not be prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired. I posted the testimony and LHM testified that after being edified about the pulling of the scab from an addict's arm she would have to rethink her answer.

It's alright, I realize that it is probably out of character for you to apologize to someone for whom you have previously stated you had no respect.

No, that isn't accurate either. There is no evidence that supports MF planted any evidence at the crime scene(s) ... just wild speculation all from an attempt to make some entertaining fiction and a little cash.

Additionally, you are on slippery slope attacking someone's character (not just mine) today. I apologize when I am in the wrong. I do not apologize when I did nothing wrong. You should be familiar with this since you and Martin and both refused to apologize for things you've done but feel you were not wrong. :)

[William Anthony]

No, that isn't accurate either. There is no evidence that supports MF planted any evidence at the crime scene(s) ... just wild speculation all from an attempt to make some entertaining fiction and a little cash.

Additionally, you are on slippery slope attacking someone's character (not just mine) today. I apologize when I am in the wrong. I do not apologize when I did nothing wrong. You should be familiar with this since you and Martin and both refused to apologize for things you've done but feel you were not wrong. :)

You seem to be adamant in your defense of MF, which is your right. However, the ease with which those incidents slivered from his forked-tongue tells me he was reciting actual events as does the justice departments words and MF's admonishment to LMH not to use a particular incident because the statute of limitations had not expired.

You need not worry about the slippery slope that you think I am on. I have come equipped with my skis. You have intimated that I accused MF of planting evidence in the criminal trial, which I did not. Yet, you have not apologized for that sentiment. However, it is not worth discussing as I am sure the community can make its own evaluation of a person's character. As far as anyone else goes and the nasty little man comment, I would urge all to remember that the fruit does not fall far from the tree. I think that will be tomorrow's thought for the day. Least I forget, you did not comment to the poster that made the false claim that I brought porn to the board that they were on a slippery slope by impugning my character.

[William Anthony]

Today has been one of those days in which the inequality and downward spiral of the board has left a bitter taste in my mouth. I really thought that we may be able to act as adults. However, I am not sure that this can be accomplished. I am including myself in the childish behavior. I will speak quite frankly as I have noticed that the feelings on this board, while denied, have a lot to do with things other than the trial. To thine own self be true.

"When you got what you want
in the struggle for life
and the world makes you
king for a day
just go to the mirror and
look at yourself and
see what that man has to say

For its not you mother, father or wife
on whose judgment you must pass
but what matters most in your life
is the verdict of the man starring back from the glass

Some may say you a straight shooting chum
and a wonderful guy
but to the man in the mirror
you're merely a bum
if you can't look him straight in the eye."

With that said, I hope we all take a good look at ourselves.

[weezer]

No, that isn't accurate either. There is no evidence that supports MF planted any evidence at the crime scene(s) ... just wild speculation all from an attempt to make some entertaining fiction and a little cash.

Additionally, you are on slippery slope attacking someone's character (not just mine) today. I apologize when I am in the wrong. I do not apologize when I did nothing wrong. You should be familiar with this since you and Martin and both refused to apologize for things you've done but feel you were not wrong. :)

their fantasies only work if they can blame orenthal's behavior on someone else -- whether they have proof or not. Everytime I read their outrageous and most often inaccurate posts, I'm reminded of a wonderful quote from a young poet: arrogance and ignorance walk hand in hand.

[bobaugust]

As I have already stated and it seems you do not understand, of course Mr. Kato's testimony, regarding the thumps explains his state of mind and explains his subsequent conduct. You are correct that Mr. Kato could not and did not testify to seeing anyone behind the quarters. Why do you think the judge instructs the jury to listen to all the evidence before forming a conclusion? MF testified that there was no disturbance of the surroundings where the glove was allegedly found and no blood, although he was looking for both. However, there was a blood trail that went from Rockingham to the front door of his home and was identified as belonging to Simpson. Mr. kato could not say who or what made the thumps. It only takes common sense to realize that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the testimonies above mentioned is that Mr. Kato thought there was someone there and MF, when he went back there, saw no evidence of anyone being back there before him and that the blood trail is evidence that Simpson entered his home via Rockingham. Common sense is often overruled by prejudice and bias. I think that will be tomorrow's thought for the day. Let us not forget the evidence of MF's motive, means and opportunity to plant the glove, as well as the fact that he admitted to planting evidence. I hope now you are beginning to understand, evidence, inferences and reasonable doubt. Got it yet?

The fact is that Kaelin heard someone behind his room about fifteen minutes after the murders were committed. Someone slammed into the back wall of his room causing loud noises and vibrations that nearly knocked a picture of that wall near Kaelin's bed. The fact that the killer's right hand glove was later found on the south path right behind that wall is evidence that the person Kaelin heard was the killer.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The only thing that is foolish, illogical, and ridiculous is your refusal to admit what you read and claim that you understand the inference to be drawn from Clarke's closing but not from Scheck's. It truly weakens your argument and appearance of impartiality in regard to your alleged search for the truth. It is ludicrous that you can't understand the Supreme Court's ruling and you were wise not to have studied law, imho. Those on the discussion group do not have to have an understanding of law to know that your positions on the thumps and the dandruff are not supported by the evidence and that you post things that are contradictory to the evidence. Got it yet?

Not only did Scheck never make the inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 he incorrectly sited the evidence in this case to try to insinuate that Simpson had dandruff. Clark sited the hair and fiber evidence found on the knit cap and said, "He wore the cap." Clark also said, "with that cap we have tied the defendant and his car to the crime scene at Bundy."

No lawyer in this case ever made the inference that Simpson had dandruff on on June 12, The Supreme Court ruling you posted has absolutely nothing to with the inference you made on this discussion group. Your inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 is nothing but unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

No, Mr. bobaugust,

you really can't comprehend my post, imho.

It seems you can't comprehend your own words. Funny. The incorrect comments you made in your post #5272 were regarding the detectives entry onto Simpson's estate, not the search warrant that Vannatter wrote later that morning. That's why your comments were incorrect.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

What Mr. Scheck said was not false. The only thing that is unsupported speculation is your claim to understand reasonable inferences and circumstantial evidence, imho. Assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Scheck's misstated the testimony, which he did not, the prosecution failed to object. However, let me explain. Mr. Scheck did not say that Simpson always had dandruff in the summer. He said that Ms. Moore's testimony was that Simpson would get dandruff in the summer and the exemplar had dandruff. The prosecution understood what Mr. Scheck was saying but you seem to be unable to comprehend it. Got it yet?

Scheck told the jury, "Right after he's arrested, they removed known hair samples. His hair has dandruff."

Simpson's hair samples were not removed right after he was arrested. They were removed on July 13 when he was in jail.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The reason why bobaugust's posts seem to be becoming more hostile, imho, is in regard to the jury instruction in regard to two reasonable inferences and the mandate that the jury must accept the one pointing to innocence, which the magnificent one masterfully employed. He must claim that the others' inferences are unreasonable and defy common sense. However, in so doing, he gives the overwhelming appearance of bias and prejudice and seems to think that he knows more than the Justices of the Supreme Court, judge Ito, all the lawyers in the case and legal practitioners and those educated in legal concepts, although he admits that he has not studied law.

I do admire bobaugust's persistence. It is similar to that of a billy goat that constantly runs its head into brick walls and eats tin cans, imho. :);):cool:

That's funny. You supposedly study law yet you can't seem to understand that the Supreme Court rulings you posted regarding inferences made in court have absolutely nothing to with the flawed inference you made on this on this discussion group.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Foundation Testimony By McKinny
Laura Hart McKinny testifies that in 1985 she was engaged in writing a screenplay about women in police work when she met Fuhrman at a restaurant in Westwood. Upon learning Fuhrman was a police officer with strong negative feelings about women in police work, McKinny agreed to use Fuhrman as a technical consultant, eventually agreeing to pay Fuhrman ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) upon the sale of the screenplay. McKinny testifies that her conversations with Fuhrman were for research purposes, to provide realistic dialogue, proper police procedures and insights into a police officer's thought process. The basic story to be told was that of a competent woman police officer who is transferred into a police division patterned after LAPD's 77th Street Division, and partnered with another officer who is a member of MAW (Men Against Women) and opposed to women being police officers. McKinny testified that racial tensions were not a subplot of her intended and eventual screenplay. McKinny testified that she would tape record portions of her conversations with Fuhrman, and that she would transcribe those recorded conversations within a day or two of each interview. (4) McKinny was adamant that her screenplay was intended as a fictional work. Although the screenplay has been optioned, it has not bee purchased as of 28 August 1995.

Mckinny engaged furhman to talk about MAW men against Women. It was Furhman that started talking about his activities as a lapd copper and how he abused minorities and mixed couples.
His "realistic" experiences as a lapd copper is what he gave her.All were his words and some of it matched up quite well with what others had heard him say to them in person on more than one ocassion. There was testimony of what he had said to others in the criminal trial.

[weezer]

Mckinny engaged furhman to talk about MAW men against Women. It was Furhman that started talking about his activities as a lapd copper and how he abused minorities and mixed couples.
His "realistic" experiences as a lapd copper is what he gave her.All were his words and some of it matched up quite well with what others had heard him say to them in person on more than one ocassion. There was testimony of what he had said to others in the criminal trial.

nothing then and nothing since supports your theory:

". . .This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit. While the current state of the record does not indicate evidence that would reach the minimal threshold necessary to find inquiry into the planting of evidence theory relevant, and the court so finds, . ."

[William Anthony]

The fact is that Kaelin heard someone behind his room about fifteen minutes after the murders were committed. Someone slammed into the back wall of his room causing loud noises and vibrations that nearly knocked a picture of that wall near Kaelin's bed. The fact that the killer's right hand glove was later found on the south path right behind that wall is evidence that the person Kaelin heard was the killer.

bobaugust

The facts are that Kato heard what he described as three thumps and told the admitted evidence planter and interracial couple hating MF, who later went behind the quarters where the noise was heard and testified that he saw no signs of anyone being back there before him.

[William Anthony]

Not only did Scheck never make the inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 he incorrectly sited the evidence in this case to try to insinuate that Simpson had dandruff. Clark sited the hair and fiber evidence found on the knit cap and said, "He wore the cap." Clark also said, "with that cap we have tied the defendant and his car to the crime scene at Bundy."

No lawyer in this case ever made the inference that Simpson had dandruff on on June 12, The Supreme Court ruling you posted has absolutely nothing to with the inference you made on this discussion group. Your inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 is nothing but unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

I am sorry but I will not discuss legal concepts with you until you educate yourself on what they are. I have previously stated that I liked honest and intelligent conversations.

[William Anthony]

It seems you can't comprehend your own words. Funny. The incorrect comments you made in your post #5272 were regarding the detectives entry onto Simpson's estate, not the search warrant that Vannatter wrote later that morning. That's why your comments were incorrect.

bobaugust

See my response directly above.

[William Anthony]

Scheck told the jury, "Right after he's arrested, they removed known hair samples. His hair has dandruff."

Simpson's hair samples were not removed right after he was arrested. They were removed on July 13 when he was in jail.

bobaugust

He used the word right just like LE used immediately, meaning as soon as practicable. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

That's funny. You supposedly study law yet you can't seem to understand that the Supreme Court rulings you posted regarding inferences made in court have absolutely nothing to with the flawed inference you made on this on this discussion group.

bobaugust

I see that you are walking with your hands held together. ;):cool:

[martin II]

nothing then and nothing since supports your theory:

". . .This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit. While the current state of the record does not indicate evidence that would reach the minimal threshold necessary to find inquiry into the planting of evidence theory relevant, and the court so finds, . ."

mckinnys and other testimony supports my post that she engaged furhman to talk about MAW Men Against Women which he was a member of. It was fURHMAN that gave her his history of abuse of nimorities and mixed couples as a lapd copper. a crooked one at that. His words were played in court and the world heard them. imo
Nothing you post will change that fact.

martin II