Issues In The Criminal Trial

[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, . ."

The u.s. justice Department thought the accusaitons should be investigatred by them but found that they had waited to late to do so based on the statue of limatations.imo

[martin II]

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.

Sounds to me like you are describing some of your own post in that last line.

[weezer]

The u.s. justice Department thought the accusaitons should be investigatred by them but found that they had waited to late to do so based on the statue of limatations.imo

actually martin, the 'statue' of 'limatations' only runs out for the degree of punishment -- not the crime. the 'accusaitons' were 'investigatred' and they were found to have no substance.

[William Anthony]

The statute of limitations is the time that is allotted to bring a cause of action for a crime or a civil action. The justice department said that they were not saying that MF did nothing wrong only that the statute of limitations, the time to bring charges, had expired. It does not apply to the degree of punishment, because it is possible that a person can be found not guilty, as Simpson was, of the charges. I think that those not learned in the law should do research or state things as their opinion, so they will not seem to be walking with their hands locked together.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Statute+of+Limitations

[SlowHandSam]

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.

what fruit and what tree and why are you talking about FOOD again!?

You keep calling him an admitted evidence planter. There is NO criminal charges or punishment that support that claim, William, and you know it. He did not admit to planting evidence in court, testimony, statements or otherwise. He FICTIONALIZED events for entertainment purposes.

Aside from that, why are you admonishing me for not defending you? LOL Now, that actually made me LOL. You are dishing out just as much as you are receiving so take responsibility for your own actions and not ask anyone else to do anything for you.

You did, whether you like to admit it or not, contribute a post to this board with PORN. You know exactly what the quote reply does as you use it on almost every single post you make. You made a pretty huge error - and now you have to live with those consequences of being accused and reminded that it was your post that contained the offensive images. Had you not done the quote reply - most of us wouldn't have been startled with images (while at work! no doubt) of women's nether regions.

[William Anthony]

what fruit and what tree and why are you talking about FOOD again!?

You keep calling him an admitted evidence planter. There is NO criminal charges or punishment that support that claim, William, and you know it. He did not admit to planting evidence in court, testimony, statements or otherwise. He FICTIONALIZED events for entertainment purposes.

Aside from that, why are you admonishing me for not defending you? LOL Now, that actually made me LOL. You are dishing out just as much as you are receiving so take responsibility for your own actions and not ask anyone else to do anything for you.

You did, whether you like to admit it or not, contribute a post to this board with PORN. You know exactly what the quote reply does as you use it on almost every single post you make. You made a pretty huge error - and now you have to live with those consequences of being accused and reminded that it was your post that contained the offensive images. Had you not done the quote reply - most of us wouldn't have been startled with images (while at work! no doubt) of women's nether regions.

I am sure that you do not know of the fruit and tree of which I speak and I see no need to explain, as that should have done long before you and I started communicating, imho.

I did not say there were charges or that MF was punished for the crimes that he admitted to. I said he was an admitted evidence planter. Those incidents were not fictionalized, as LMH testified and admitted she would have to rethink her answer, if she had been edified to the fact that he confessed to evidence planting. Let me remind you that she had a chance to judge his words and demeanor.

You are wrong in thinking I asked you to defend me, because I have nothing to be defended for and believe me you would be the third from the last person I would ask. I will not take responsibility for things I have not done, i.e bringing porn to the board and visiting the site. I took responsibility for my inadvertence. :read: I do not have to live with being falsely accused and, in regard to asking your false post about me asking you to defend me, I asked why you had not said something to the poster who falsely accused me. That is not asking for your defense. I believe that you will need all the time you can muster to defend yourself. I have for the most part disagreed in a civil way with an honest poster. I must say that I disagree with that poster's opinion of you. I will say that with a little expansion of your horizon and a trip out of the south you probably have the potential to become a civil person.

Based on the recent posts and my allowing myself to respond to some of the rubbish contained therein, I must repeat that we would all do well to emulate the conduct displayed, for the most part, by that poster. I am not worried about taking up for myself or the untruthful things posted about me. I have found that the truth can hurt a thousand times more than a lie. I can look in the mirror and stare that person squarely in the eye. IIRC, you once made a post about reading transcripts in different airports while flying and, IIRC, you have posted that you have never been out of the south. I guess you do a lot of overseas flying or something wrong. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. I did a quick word search and I found your statement to say that you were born and bred in the south and never lived outside of that state. I guess you don't socialize much in your travels. I think you should learn more about people and expand your horizon. Perhaps, you will find that honesty, civility and respectfulness are traits that are admired in your travels.

[William Anthony]

http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/len/96/15dec/html/nation.html

[William Anthony]

http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/3.09/970425-riot.html

[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.

The fact is that Kaelin testified he heard someone behind his room about fifteen minutes after the murders.

You say Mark Fuhrman testified that he saw no signs of anyone being back there before him? Post Fuhrman's testimony where he says there were no signs of anyone being back there. Be sure and include the date please.

bobaugust

[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.

It doesn't take a discussion of legal concepts to know the difference between an inference and an insinuation. Neither Barry Scheck or any of Simpson's attorneys ever made the inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. You're the only one who has ever done that William and your inference is nothing more than unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

See my response directly above.

The incorrect comments you made in your post #5272 speak for themselves whether or not you have the integrity to admit you were mistaken or you don't.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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

Simpson was arrested on June 17, 1994
Simpson's hair samples were taken on July 13, 1994 while he was jail.

So when Barry Scheck said that Simpson gave his hair samples "right after he was arrested" that means to you that Barry Scheck wasn't incorrect because "right after he was arrested" somehow means to you almost a month after he was arrested. Wow, I guess this is an example of your honest, intelligent conversation, right? Funny.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The fact is that Kaelin testified he heard someone behind his room about fifteen minutes after the murders.

You say Mark Fuhrman testified that he saw no signs of anyone being back there before him? Post Fuhrman's testimony where he says there were no signs of anyone being back there. Be sure and include the date please.

bobaugust

Wrong, Mr. Kato only testified that he heard noises.

MF's testimony is common knowledge.

[William Anthony]

It doesn't take a discussion of legal concepts to know the difference between an inference and an insinuation. Neither Barry Scheck or any of Simpson's attorneys ever made the inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. You're the only one who has ever done that William and your inference is nothing more than unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

Wrong.

[William Anthony]

Simpson was arrested on June 17, 1994
Simpson's hair samples were taken on July 13, 1994 while he was jail.

So when Barry Scheck said that Simpson gave his hair samples "right after he was arrested" that means to you that Barry Scheck wasn't incorrect because "right after he was arrested" somehow means to you almost a month after he was arrested. Wow, I guess this is an example of your honest, intelligent conversation, right? Funny.

bobaugust

You claim to honestly believe that when Bushey said to make immediate notification he meant a soon as practicable and I choose to believe that right after meant as soon as practicable. It is an example of your prejudice and bias, imho.

[William Anthony]

The fruit does not fall far from the tree. However, it does not have to remain there. It can be carried off, improved and made pleasing to others.

[William Anthony]

If you can't improve
on what you see
then its better
just to let it be

[martin II]

The fact is that Kaelin testified he heard someone behind his room about fifteen minutes after the murders.

You say Mark Fuhrman testified that he saw no signs of anyone being back there before him? Post Fuhrman's testimony where he says there were no signs of anyone being back there. Be sure and include the date please.

bobaugust

NO bob
Kato testified that he heard a noise. you would like to say he said it was someone but he did not.

It seems that for you

Noise = oj automatically

[martin II]

shs

I think your claim that william BROUGHT porn to this board is not true.
The pictures were posted before william responded NOT INTERESTING etc

Actuallt i saw the pictures and started to reply to the original poster to GET THIS CRAP out of here using the reply button to speak directly to that poster.
william beat me to the response so i did not see a reason to respond.

It mattere not whether the pictures were posted once or twice on one thread as they were posted on more than on thread by the original poster.

I don't think it is fair to claim william did something wrong by replying negativetly to the original poster.

TV brouight this to williams attention and he apologized if his response to the pictures had offended her. She informed him there was need to apologize
as she understood his intentions/mistake or something close to that.

I think she was acting in a unbiased and fair assessment of what had happened in her response to william which is why i like posting to her even when we dissagree. imo
To blame william for bringing porn to the thread is a major twisting of the facts.imo

martin II

[martin II]

I think Bushy and the detectice at bundy discussed the situaiton and a detective informed Bushy that they need to get to oj to see where he was and what he may be doing. He told them to go to rockingham and use notifications as the reason for their visit. normally this would require one or at most two le. but because they had another agenda in mind they took four.
Four sound mor like a search party than a notificaiton person.imo

[William Anthony]

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/archive/01230202.fsj.html

"Sergeant Neilander testified that inmates in the Marion County jail are given a two-week supply of medicine at a time and allowed to take it without any monitoring. While he did testify that inmates without medicine have access to other inmates’ medicine if the other inmates allow it, he did not speculate as to whether Defendant obtained medication in jail.

Defendant argues that the jury was permitted to speculate improperly that Defendant received medication from another inmate while in jail. Under the circumstances, however, Sergeant Neilander’s testimony was proper. Defendant contended that the victim had been molested by her step-father in the past and could have gotten trichomonas from him. Defendant further claimed that because he did not have trichomonas, he could not have given it to his victim.

Evidence that Defendant tested negative for trichomonas would create an inference that Defendant had not had sex with the victim. It was therefore permissible for the trial court to allow the State to introduce evidence that it was possible that Defendant could have avoided having been diagnosed with trichomonas by getting medication from another inmate. "

The prosecution claimed Simpson wore the cap and the hairs in it were without dandruff. Ms. Moore did not speculate as to Simpson having dandruff on June 12th, therefore her testimony was proper to allow the inference for the jury to consider. In anticipation of the argument that she said sometimes, I will say that Deedrick testified it was not uncommon, i.e. sometimes, and remind those who seek to make the argument on the magnificent one's use of the jury instruction on inferences.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/evid/600-607.html

[martin II]

Kato terstified that he heard a noise on his wall that he believes came from the south walkway.

There was no evidence found that anyone jumped the south wall fence
and three detectives testified that they did not see any evidence that anyone jumped the fence in the south walkway.

There was no disturbance of the trash in the south walkway indicating that anyone had fell or walked or ran in that area.

The presence of the glove in the south walkway does not mean that someone had to be there to deposit the glove as it could have been tossed there from the salingers property or from ojs garage area without having to enter the walkway.

So. what if anything did Kato hear. Did he hear anything or did he think he heard somethig?imo

[bobaugust]

Wrong, Mr. Kato only testified that he heard noises.

MF's testimony is common knowledge.

Wrong. Kaelin testified that he thought if the loud noises and vibrations were not an earthquake then someone was behind his room. Mark Fuhrman never said there were no signs of anyone being back there.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Wrong.

Nothing in my post was wrong. Evidently you don't know the difference between and inference and an insinuation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You claim to honestly believe that when Bushey said to make immediate notification he meant a soon as practicable and I choose to believe that right after meant as soon as practicable. It is an example of your prejudice and bias, imho.

What you choose to believe is again what you have imagined not what was actually said. Commander Bushey did not order the detectives to "immediately" make the notification to Simpson, his order was "that Mr. Simpson be notified as soon as possible."

When Barry Scheck told the jury "Right after he's arrested, they removed known hair samples." he was incorrect since Simpson's hair samples were taken a month after he was arrested. Scheck either intentionally or unintentionally mislead the jury. Not only can't you admit to your own mistaken comments you can't even admit when Simpson's attorneys made mistaken comments. Funny.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Wrong. Kaelin testified that he thought if the loud noises and vibrations were not an earthquake then someone was behind his room. Mark Fuhrman never said there were no signs of anyone being back there.

bobaugust

two detectives testified that they saw no evidence that anyone jumped the fence.Vanhatter testified that he did not believe oj jumped the fence to enter his property.

Thats three le against your idea that oj jumped the fence.

[William Anthony]

Wrong. Kaelin testified that he thought if the loud noises and vibrations were not an earthquake then someone was behind his room. Mark Fuhrman never said there were no signs of anyone being back there.

bobaugust

Post the testimony where Mr. Kato said someone was behind the quarters. MF testified he was looking for disturbance and blood to see if anyone had been back there and he found none. Got it yet?

[William Anthony]

Nothing in my post was wrong. Evidently you don't know the difference between and inference and an insinuation.

bobaugust

Wrong again. I support my position with links. :read::read::read:them.

[William Anthony]

What you choose to believe is again what you have imagined not what was actually said. Commander Bushey did not order the detectives to "immediately" make the notification to Simpson, his order was "that Mr. Simpson be notified as soon as possible."

When Barry Scheck told the jury "Right after he's arrested, they removed known hair samples." he was incorrect since Simpson's hair samples were taken a month after he was arrested. Scheck either intentionally or unintentionally mislead the jury. Not only can't you admit to your own mistaken comments you can't even admit when Simpson's attorneys made mistaken comments. Funny.

bobaugust

Wrong again.

[William Anthony]

What you choose to believe is again what you have imagined not what was actually said. Commander Bushey did not order the detectives to "immediately" make the notification to Simpson, his order was "that Mr. Simpson be notified as soon as possible."

When Barry Scheck told the jury "Right after he's arrested, they removed known hair samples." he was incorrect since Simpson's hair samples were taken a month after he was arrested. Scheck either intentionally or unintentionally mislead the jury. Not only can't you admit to your own mistaken comments you can't even admit when Simpson's attorneys made mistaken comments. Funny.

bobaugust

I stand corrected. The immediate notification was to be made by protocol to the coroner and that was changed to ASAP. Bushey testified that he was disappointed at the amount of time they took to make the notification.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E3DA143CF93AA15755C0A9629582 60


Wrong on the time when Simpson's hair sample was taken. He did not make a mistake. You do not seem to be disappointed by LE explanation that ASAP meant 2 and 1/2 hours later and I am not disappointed that right meant some days later.

[bobaugust]

Post the testimony where Mr. Kato said someone was behind the quarters. MF testified he was looking for disturbance and blood to see if anyone had been back there and he found none. Got it yet?

March 22, 1995 Kato Kaelin

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.

March 14, 1995 Mark Fuhrman

Q DID IT -- DID YOU THEN EXAMINE, BY THE WAY, THE SHRUBBERY OVER THE CHAINLINK FENCE WHERE SOMEONE COULD CONCEIVABLY HAVE CLIMBED OVER?
A I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T FOCUS MY ATTENTION TO THE SHRUBBERY AT THAT TIME, NO.
Q DID YOU INSPECT IT TO SEE WHETHER IT WAS DAMAGED IN ANY WAY CONSISTENT WITH INTRUSION?
A THAT WHOLE AREA WAS OVERGROWN AND DIRTY. THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO MAKE THAT CONCLUSION.
Q DID YOU LOOK FOR BROKEN TWIGS OR LEAVES THAT WERE DAMAGED IN THE SHRUBBERY ABOVE THE CHAINLINK FENCE AT THE SITUS WHERE THE GLOVE WAS SEEN?
A I DID NOT LOOK, BUT I DID NOT SEE ANY OF THAT.
Q SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE AT THAT POINT ANY INTEREST IN WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE HAD DROPPED THE GLOVE COMING OVER THE FENCE?
A MY INTEREST AT THAT POINT WAS WHO LEFT THE GLOVE AND WHAT CONDITION THEY WERE IN.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Wrong again. I support my position with links. :read::read::read:them.

Nothing supports your incorrect comments or your speculation except your imagination. I repeat, Neither Barry Scheck or any of Simpson's attorneys ever made the inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. You're the only one who has ever done that William and your inference is nothing more than unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I stand corrected. The immediate notification was to be made by protocol to the coroner and that was changed to ASAP. Bushey testified that he was disappointed at the amount of time they took to make the notification.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E3DA143CF93AA15755C0A9629582 60


Wrong on the time when Simpson's hair sample was taken. He did not make a mistake. You do not seem to be disappointed by LE explanation that ASAP meant 2 and 1/2 hours later and I am not disappointed that right meant some days later.

Well at least you admitted to one of your mistakes. Good for you but then you follow it with more incorrect comments. Commander Bushey did not say notification was the coroner's responsibility, and he didn't say he was disappointed at the amount of time it took to make the notification. Cochran used that word, not Bushey. You are also wrong about when Simpson's hair samples were taken. The article you posted was regarding a hearing when Simpson's lawyer told the prosecution they could have a sample of Simpson's hair. Simpson's hair samples weren't taken from him until July 13.

September 20, 1995
MS. CLARK: What is the proper police procedure regarding who makes notification when it is unknown as to which detective or which agency will ultimately handle the case?
MR. COCHRAN: Object. That is vague, your Honor. Which agency? Talking about LAPD.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: Which division?
COMMANDER BUSHEY: It is--we try very carefully, we try very hard to make sure that the person who calls the shots is the lead investigator. And if there is going to be a hand-over investigative responsibility from one entity to another, the entity that is relinquishing that responsibility always defers to the people who are going to assume responsibility for that investigation. It is very important from the standpoint of continuity.
*

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You are disappointed he didn't do it right away; isn't that correct, also?
COMMANDER BUSHEY: Well, the--there is a lot of other things that needed to be done. That was not the only thing that needed to be done. And remember, I said as soon as possible and "Possible" means when it is practicable within the scope of the investigation.


July 13, 1994 in History
Event:
O. J. Simpson, charged with murder, gives hair samples for testing,
http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1994/july_13_1994_170390.html

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August:

Inferences why glove wasn't planted:

1. Found behind a wall on Simpson's property.

2. Kato heard three thumps


Inferences why glove was planted:

1. Glove still wet and sticky several hours later when it should have been dry.

2. No mark on the wall or trace evidence on the wall indicating a human form did in fact crash into it.

3. No marks on Simpson's body indicating he crashed into anything once, let alone three times.

4. Fuhrman was the only one who Kato told about the thumps.

5. Fuhrman dropped Kato off to Vanatter and at least 15 minutes later, he claims he found the glove.

6. There were no blood drops leading to or from the glove, which includes the neighbor's yard and the path way behind the wall.

7. Broken fence was not moved out the way, according to Kato.

8. Not a single fiber was found against the wall or any where on the pathway.

9. No evidence that a human form climbed the tree to jump over the fence.

10. No evidence that a human form scaled the fence, covered with vegitation.

11. Blue bag found on neighbor's property.

12. Kato, again was not sure what he heard but did go outside to check it out, he saw that the gate was not moved.

13. Kato's fear of what it was apparently was over when Simpson left for the airport because he did not call the police.

14. Fuhrman had at least two motives to plant the glove.

15. The DA's never gave a theory on how the glove got behind Kato's wall, Clark only focused on how loud they were.

16. The defense had an expert witness who testified that in his opinon, no one jumped over that fence.

17. Fuhrman testified that the area was not disturb--that cob webs and such were still in tact.

18. The other lead detectives also testified that they saw no evidence of anyone being back there but MF.

As I understand the rules of the game, 18 to 2 in favor the defense. IMO.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

With all due respect to you, why would MF look for evidence of someone jumping over the fence when he was the one who most likely planted the glove?

IMO, his not looking for this evidence goes against him. Again, why look for something you know you won't find?

The fact that the walk way was dirty should have made it very easy to see how the glove got back there. Unless of course Mr. Simpson could control leaving footprints and such as he did his bleeding.

[limakey]

What I don't understand is why G's believe that because of the fame and wealth of Simpson that there was no chance of any police misconduct or planting of evidence.

Or why the "mistakes" that were made by the CSI team were honest ones and that they should be given a free pass for their poor job performance.

It appears to me that all the cops have been given instant credibility because they wear a badge and because of that badge, we have to accept their word.

I don't get it.

[martin II]

Anyone know what phillips was doing while Vanhatter and lang was in the house and furhman was someplace for 15 minutes before 'FINDING' the glove?

[martin II]

What I don't understand is why G's believe that because of the fame and wealth of Simpson that there was no chance of any police misconduct or planting of evidence.

Or why the "mistakes" that were made by the CSI team were honest ones and that they should be given a free pass for their poor job performance.

It appears to me that all the cops have been given instant credibility because they wear a badge and because of that badge, we have to accept their word.

I don't get it.

Some that consider themselves to be really great citizens seem to believe that if le arrest someone that person must have done something wrong otherwise le would not have arrested him/her. imo

[limakey]

Martin,

Some points to ponder:

1. On the 3 blood drops at Bundy, if their DNA was so degraded because of a broken AC unit on the truck, then shouldn't the DNA found inside the Bronco be totally destroyed? If the DNA fried after in the truck for 7 or 8 hours, what about over 30 days?

2. The shoe print in the Bronco, how is it that the bloody shoe prints stop at Bundy, but then pick up inside the Bronco? Where did they say he parked the Bronco?

3. Also, why only 1 footprint in the Bronco? I would assume that a person would drive with both feet inside the car.

4. Were the police cars checked for bloody footprints? I would love to know if one or two police cars were cleaned inside and out!

5. If I remember correct, no blood was found on the glove at Bundy, is that correct? Well if that is true, how is both the hat and the glove, laying so close to each other did not have any blood land on those items nor did the fall into any blood stains. How can that area be a sea of blood but none on those two items?

6. In one book, they say that Sydney Simpson also heard the "hey, hey, hey" and if that is true, then she must have also heard the other voice. Maybe because she told the police what she heard and said that the other voice was not her father's?

7. But if that is the case and Sydney did hear these things, apparently she was not alarmed enough to get out of bed and check it out---does that mean that Nicole and Ron were killed much later---when she fell back asleep?

[William Anthony]

Well at least you admitted to one of your mistakes. Good for you but then you follow it with more incorrect comments. Commander Bushey did not say notification was the coroner's responsibility, and he didn't say he was disappointed at the amount of time it took to make the notification. Cochran used that word, not Bushey. You are also wrong about when Simpson's hair samples were taken. The article you posted was regarding a hearing when Simpson's lawyer told the prosecution they could have a sample of Simpson's hair. Simpson's hair samples weren't taken from him until July 13.

September 20, 1995
MS. CLARK: What is the proper police procedure regarding who makes notification when it is unknown as to which detective or which agency will ultimately handle the case?
MR. COCHRAN: Object. That is vague, your Honor. Which agency? Talking about LAPD.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: Which division?
COMMANDER BUSHEY: It is--we try very carefully, we try very hard to make sure that the person who calls the shots is the lead investigator. And if there is going to be a hand-over investigative responsibility from one entity to another, the entity that is relinquishing that responsibility always defers to the people who are going to assume responsibility for that investigation. It is very important from the standpoint of continuity.
*

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You are disappointed he didn't do it right away; isn't that correct, also?
COMMANDER BUSHEY: Well, the--there is a lot of other things that needed to be done. That was not the only thing that needed to be done. And remember, I said as soon as possible and "Possible" means when it is practicable within the scope of the investigation.


July 13, 1994 in History
Event:
O. J. Simpson, charged with murder, gives hair samples for testing,
http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1994/july_13_1994_170390.html

bobaugust

Unlike you, I admit to my mistakes and do not spend countless pages of posts denying them. However, in your hesitancy to make me wrong, you continue to embarrass yourself. I have never said that Bushey said it was the coroner's responsibility nor have I said that the samples were taken on that day. The article was to show that the prosecution chose to wait to collect the hair samples, just as LE chose to wait to make the notification. Any untimeliness was due to law enforcement.

Yes, you posted Bushey's evasive answer, which is tantamount to saying yes.

The magnificent one later asked Bushey if Phillips violated his order by waiting the 2 and 1/2 hours, to which Bushey replied that it was not a disciplinary action. Have you ever heard the legal term negative pregnant. It is an answer that admits the question. Bushey's negative pregnant admits that Phillips violated his order. I do not think that you have to have legal training to understand this, only an understanding of the English language.

[William Anthony]

Nothing supports your incorrect comments or your speculation except your imagination. I repeat, Neither Barry Scheck or any of Simpson's attorneys ever made the inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. You're the only one who has ever done that William and your inference is nothing more than unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

See the post to which you responded.

[William Anthony]

March 22, 1995 Kato Kaelin

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.

March 14, 1995 Mark Fuhrman

Q DID IT -- DID YOU THEN EXAMINE, BY THE WAY, THE SHRUBBERY OVER THE CHAINLINK FENCE WHERE SOMEONE COULD CONCEIVABLY HAVE CLIMBED OVER?
A I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T FOCUS MY ATTENTION TO THE SHRUBBERY AT THAT TIME, NO.
Q DID YOU INSPECT IT TO SEE WHETHER IT WAS DAMAGED IN ANY WAY CONSISTENT WITH INTRUSION?
A THAT WHOLE AREA WAS OVERGROWN AND DIRTY. THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO MAKE THAT CONCLUSION.
Q DID YOU LOOK FOR BROKEN TWIGS OR LEAVES THAT WERE DAMAGED IN THE SHRUBBERY ABOVE THE CHAINLINK FENCE AT THE SITUS WHERE THE GLOVE WAS SEEN?
A I DID NOT LOOK, BUT I DID NOT SEE ANY OF THAT.
Q SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE AT THAT POINT ANY INTEREST IN WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE HAD DROPPED THE GLOVE COMING OVER THE FENCE?
A MY INTEREST AT THAT POINT WAS WHO LEFT THE GLOVE AND WHAT CONDITION THEY WERE IN.

bobaugust

We have had this discussion on Mr. Kato's state of mind. He thought someone was back there and did not testify there was someone back there. You are wrong again.

You are wrong on MF's testimony or did your spell checker delete this part.

"Q: BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THE APPEARANCE OF THE GLOVE, SIR.

A: WELL, IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT DIDN'T MATCH THE TERRAIN. THERE IS LEAVES ALL OVER THE WALKWAY. IT WAS DIRTY IN THE AREA. IT WAS UNKEPT (SIC). THIS GLOVE DIDN'T HAVE ANY SIGNS OF DIRT OR LEAVES OR TWIGS ON IT. IT APPEARED A DARK LEATHER GLOVE. IT APPEARED TO BE SOMEWHAT MOIST OR STICKY. I DIDN'T TOUCH IT, BUT IT APPEARED THAT PARTS WERE STICKING TO OTHER PARTS OF THE GLOVE.

Q: AND YOU WERE DESCRIBING THE WALKWAY AREA. YOU INDICATED IT WAS KIND OF DIRTY WITH LEAVES. WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY -- ANY FOOTPRINTS OR SHOEPRINTS OR DISTURBANCE IN THOSE LEAVES?

A: NO, I DIDN'T. "

[William Anthony]

Unlike you, I admit to my mistakes and do not spend countless pages of posts denying them. However, in your hesitancy to make me wrong, you continue to embarrass yourself. I have never said that Bushey said it was the coroner's responsibility nor have I said that the samples were taken on that day. The article was to show that the prosecution chose to wait to collect the hair samples, just as LE chose to wait to make the notification. Any untimeliness was due to law enforcement.

Yes, you posted Bushey's evasive answer, which is tantamount to saying yes.

The magnificent one later asked Bushey if Phillips violated his order by waiting the 2 and 1/2 hours, to which Bushey replied that it was not a disciplinary action. Have you ever heard the legal term negative pregnant. It is an answer that admits the question. Bushey's negative pregnant admits that Phillips violated his order. I do not think that you have to have legal training to understand this, only an understanding of the English language.

Correction-In your haste to make me wrong.

[William Anthony]

Mr. August:

Inferences why glove wasn't planted:

1. Found behind a wall on Simpson's property.

2. Kato heard three thumps


Inferences why glove was planted:

1. Glove still wet and sticky several hours later when it should have been dry.

2. No mark on the wall or trace evidence on the wall indicating a human form did in fact crash into it.

3. No marks on Simpson's body indicating he crashed into anything once, let alone three times.

4. Fuhrman was the only one who Kato told about the thumps.

5. Fuhrman dropped Kato off to Vanatter and at least 15 minutes later, he claims he found the glove.

6. There were no blood drops leading to or from the glove, which includes the neighbor's yard and the path way behind the wall.

7. Broken fence was not moved out the way, according to Kato.

8. Not a single fiber was found against the wall or any where on the pathway.

9. No evidence that a human form climbed the tree to jump over the fence.

10. No evidence that a human form scaled the fence, covered with vegitation.

11. Blue bag found on neighbor's property.

12. Kato, again was not sure what he heard but did go outside to check it out, he saw that the gate was not moved.

13. Kato's fear of what it was apparently was over when Simpson left for the airport because he did not call the police.

14. Fuhrman had at least two motives to plant the glove.

15. The DA's never gave a theory on how the glove got behind Kato's wall, Clark only focused on how loud they were.

16. The defense had an expert witness who testified that in his opinon, no one jumped over that fence.

17. Fuhrman testified that the area was not disturb--that cob webs and such were still in tact.

18. The other lead detectives also testified that they saw no evidence of anyone being back there but MF.

As I understand the rules of the game, 18 to 2 in favor the defense. IMO.

More of MF's slimy testimony, imho. I did not look but I did not see... That is the most asinine response I have seen in some time.

[William Anthony]

What I don't understand is why G's believe that because of the fame and wealth of Simpson that there was no chance of any police misconduct or planting of evidence.

Or why the "mistakes" that were made by the CSI team were honest ones and that they should be given a free pass for their poor job performance.

It appears to me that all the cops have been given instant credibility because they wear a badge and because of that badge, we have to accept their word.

I don't get it.

I totally agree with this post. The leader of the G pack has said the he does not believe that a person should be found guilty on human error and mistakes. However, he then went on to say that those mistakes were irrelevant to proving guilt. I simply do not understand the poster's position. One of my instructors told me that jury instructions decide the case. I understand what he meant as to forming an argument.

[William Anthony]

Don't fatten any frogs for snakes.

[William Anthony]

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/749C76F0-608B-49E8-9A84C1B9E443F95D/alpha/N/

[bobaugust]

Unlike you, I admit to my mistakes and do not spend countless pages of posts denying them. However, in your hesitancy to make me wrong, you continue to embarrass yourself. I have never said that Bushey said it was the coroner's responsibility nor have I said that the samples were taken on that day. The article was to show that the prosecution chose to wait to collect the hair samples, just as LE chose to wait to make the notification. Any untimeliness was due to law enforcement.

Yes, you posted Bushey's evasive answer, which is tantamount to saying yes.

The magnificent one later asked Bushey if Phillips violated his order by waiting the 2 and 1/2 hours, to which Bushey replied that it was not a disciplinary action. Have you ever heard the legal term negative pregnant. It is an answer that admits the question. Bushey's negative pregnant admits that Phillips violated his order. I do not think that you have to have legal training to understand this, only an understanding of the English language.

In your post #5664 you finally admitted to one of the many mistakes you've made and then you posted a link to an article regarding a hearing where Simpson's lawyer told the prosecution they could have a sample of Simpson's hair. You never claimed then that article was was to show that the prosecution chose to wait to collect the hair samples. You mistakenly used that article to call me wrong when I told you that Simpson's hairs samples were collected a month after he was arrested. You again claimed that Scheck did not make a mistake and you again claimed that "right after he's arrested" meant days later.

Your post #5664
"Wrong on the time when Simpson's hair sample was taken. He did not make a mistake. You do not seem to be disappointed by LE explanation that ASAP meant 2 and 1/2 hours later and I am not disappointed that right meant some days later."

Every claim you made in that post was wrong.

Simpson was arrested on June 17 and his hair samples were taken on July 13. That's not days later that's a month later. The date of the article that you posted was June 29, 1994 almost two weeks after Simpson' arrest. Evidently that was what led you to mistakenly believe that Simpson's hair samples were taken days after his arrest. Scheck misstated the facts and misled the jury. If Scheck didn't make a mistake as you claim then he intentionally misled the jury. In trying to defend Scheck's misstatement all you do is make more mistakes. And instead of admitting to your mistakes you just "spend countless pages of posts denying them." Funny.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

We have had this discussion on Mr. Kato's state of mind. He thought someone was back there and did not testify there was someone back there. You are wrong again.

You are wrong on MF's testimony or did your spell checker delete this part.

"Q: BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THE APPEARANCE OF THE GLOVE, SIR.

A: WELL, IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT DIDN'T MATCH THE TERRAIN. THERE IS LEAVES ALL OVER THE WALKWAY. IT WAS DIRTY IN THE AREA. IT WAS UNKEPT (SIC). THIS GLOVE DIDN'T HAVE ANY SIGNS OF DIRT OR LEAVES OR TWIGS ON IT. IT APPEARED A DARK LEATHER GLOVE. IT APPEARED TO BE SOMEWHAT MOIST OR STICKY. I DIDN'T TOUCH IT, BUT IT APPEARED THAT PARTS WERE STICKING TO OTHER PARTS OF THE GLOVE.

Q: AND YOU WERE DESCRIBING THE WALKWAY AREA. YOU INDICATED IT WAS KIND OF DIRTY WITH LEAVES. WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY -- ANY FOOTPRINTS OR SHOEPRINTS OR DISTURBANCE IN THOSE LEAVES?

A: NO, I DIDN'T. "

I said Kaelin testified that if the loud noises and vibrations were not an earthquake then someone was behind his room.

There is no reason why there would be footprints or shoeprints on the leaf covered path and no one could tell if someone had walked over those leaves over seven hours earlier when Kaelin heard someone behind his room. Just as no one could tell if someone had made their way through the heavy summer growth bushes to get to the fence and scale it over seven hours earlier.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Correction-In your haste to make me wrong.

I don't have to make you wrong you do that so well all by yourself.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I said Kaelin testified that if the loud noises and vibrations were not an earthquake then someone was behind his room.

There is no reason why there would be footprints or shoeprints on the leaf covered path and no one could tell if someone had walked over those leaves over seven hours earlier when Kaelin heard someone behind his room. Just as no one could tell if someone had made their way through the heavy summer growth bushes to get to the fence and scale it over seven hours earlier.

bobaugust

three le detectives testified that they did not see any evidence that anyone jumped that fence.
end of story.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

You are correct, Kato did make statements and some of his actions did indicate that he thought someone was back there. However, IMO, his leap from no earthquake to a human being back there is too great a leap.

A loud noise can in fact move objects, including a picture on a wall. However, the loud noise does not mean that it was a human being who made the loud noise that moved the picture.

Both sides tried to figure out what the thumps were, neither side could. However, while Clark focused on how loud the noise was, the defense put on experts who testified that there was no evidence that any human being was back there before MF found the glove.

However, what I do find interesting, both the criminal trial jurors and the civil trial jurors both felt that Kato knew more then what he was saying. Not that he was protecting Simpson, only that he was doing what was best for him.

And lets not forget, Kato did testify truthfully to the events he remembered that night, however, this does not mean that all of his recollections were in fact accurate. Please note, I am not saying that he was lying, but that he was wrong on some issues---he is after all, a human being. IMO.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

You are correct, Kato did make statements and some of his actions did indicate that he thought someone was back there. However, IMO, his leap from no earthquake to a human being back there is too great a leap.

A loud noise can in fact move objects, including a picture on a wall. However, the loud noise does not mean that it was a human being who made the loud noise that moved the picture.

Both sides tried to figure out what the thumps were, neither side could. However, while Clark focused on how loud the noise was, the defense put on experts who testified that there was no evidence that any human being was back there before MF found the glove.

However, what I do find interesting, both the criminal trial jurors and the civil trial jurors both felt that Kato knew more then what he was saying. Not that he was protecting Simpson, only that he was doing what was best for him.

And lets not forget, Kato did testify truthfully to the events he remembered that night, however, this does not mean that all of his recollections were in fact accurate. Please note, I am not saying that he was lying, but that he was wrong on some issues---he is after all, a human being. IMO.

Kaelin testified that the loud noises caused vibrations on the wall that tilted a picture next to his bed. Vibrations that he felt. That's why he thought and hoped it was an earthquake because as he said if it wasn't then someone was behind his room. What Kaelin described is consistent with someone slamming into that sturdy wall with enough force to cause those kind of vibrations, A force that could not be generated from simply ramming into the wall as some of Simpson's defense team learned for themselves. But a force that could be generated when a two hundred pound man slammed into it jumping from the top of the fence. Is it just coincidence that after the foliage that covered the top of the fence was trimmed back one set of the twisted wires along the top of the fence could be seen bent towards that wall consistent with someone putting their weight on them to scale the fence from the Salinger's property to Simpson's property? Is it just coincidence that bent wire was exactly above where the glove was found on the south path? Is it just coincidence that bent wire was exactly opposite the place on the wall that Kaelin said he heard the loud noises? I think not.

Tell us Limakey if the loud noises and vibrations were not made by a person what do you think they were made by?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

In your post #5664 you finally admitted to one of the many mistakes you've made and then you posted a link to an article regarding a hearing where Simpson's lawyer told the prosecution they could have a sample of Simpson's hair. You never claimed then that article was was to show that the prosecution chose to wait to collect the hair samples. You mistakenly used that article to call me wrong when I told you that Simpson's hairs samples were collected a month after he was arrested. You again claimed that Scheck did not make a mistake and you again claimed that "right after he's arrested" meant days later.

Your post #5664
"Wrong on the time when Simpson's hair sample was taken. He did not make a mistake. You do not seem to be disappointed by LE explanation that ASAP meant 2 and 1/2 hours later and I am not disappointed that right meant some days later."

Every claim you made in that post was wrong.

Simpson was arrested on June 17 and his hair samples were taken on July 13. That's not days later that's a month later. The date of the article that you posted was June 29, 1994 almost two weeks after Simpson' arrest. Evidently that was what led you to mistakenly believe that Simpson's hair samples were taken days after his arrest. Scheck misstated the facts and misled the jury. If Scheck didn't make a mistake as you claim then he intentionally misled the jury. In trying to defend Scheck's misstatement all you do is make more mistakes. And instead of admitting to your mistakes you just "spend countless pages of posts denying them." Funny.

bobaugust

You are not only are in a haste to make me wrong but it seems that you want to make aspersions about every member of the dream team. You jump to assumptions as to everyone's intent. One only has to read the article I posted to understand what it says. Unlike you, I am not interested in proving everything you say is wrong. Although, I believe that arrogance and ignorance of legal concepts makes most of what you post wrong, I do believe there are occasions when you are correct. It is clear from the article that the defense agreed to allow the prosecution to collect Simpson's hair sample some two weeks prior to the time it was done. That was my sole point, not trying to prove you wrong as to the date it was collected. I do not have the time to devote to attempting to prove everything you say is wrong and I have said you are occasionally correct.

June 17th until July 13th is not a month. It is three days short, IIRC. You jump to erroneous conclusions about what I believe. I used the term, "days after", anticipating that you would make this claim. There were days after Simpson was arrested and the time his hair sample was taken. Although, you may not like the terminology and jump to erroneous conclusions about its use, I am correct in that there were days that ensued the arrest of Simpson and the day his hair was collected and the same is true of Scheck's argument.

[William Anthony]

I don't have to make you wrong you do that so well all by yourself.

bobaugust

I am trying and find it arduous to equal the amount of mistakes you made on the board. However, if it pleases you, I will try harder. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

I said Kaelin testified that if the loud noises and vibrations were not an earthquake then someone was behind his room.

There is no reason why there would be footprints or shoeprints on the leaf covered path and no one could tell if someone had walked over those leaves over seven hours earlier when Kaelin heard someone behind his room. Just as no one could tell if someone had made their way through the heavy summer growth bushes to get to the fence and scale it over seven hours earlier.

bobaugust

Thanks for admitting you were wrong on both scores and that I was correct. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

There is no reason to ask someone what they think, if you have already decided that what they think is not as important as what you think.

[martin II]

There is no reason to ask someone what they think, if you have already decided that what they think is not as important as what you think.

does anyone know if Kato has a alibi for where he was when he returned from mcd until about 10;20 on 6/12

[weezer]

does anyone know if Kato has a alibi for where he was when he returned from mcd until about 10;20 on 6/12

wasn't he on the phone?

[weezer]

does anyone know if Kato has a alibi for where he was when he returned from mcd until about 10;20 on 6/12

He then "took a Jacuzzi" about 7:30, finished about 8:30, then went to his room and called a friend named Susan. Then OJ came to Kato's door and told him he left the Jacuzzi on, but OJ would turn it off.

Kato then called his friend Tom in San Diego, at 9:03. While he was on the phone with Tom, OJ came to his door again. Kato told Tom he would call him back. OJ said he only had hundred dollar bills and needed a $5 for the skycap, and asked Kato if he had change. Kato gave him a $20 bill. He put the $20 in OJ's hand and did not see any bleeding or cuts. Then OJ said he was going for a hamburger. Kato asked if he could go along. OJ was wearing a dark sweat suit, either blue, dark blue, or black, long sleeves. They then went in the back door, through the bar area, and out the kitchen nook door to the front, went to the Bentley which was parked in the driveway facing the Rockingham gate. They left at 9:10 p.m. Kato did not notice any other cars parked outside when they left.

In the car they talked about OJ's red eye flight. OJ was tired, Kato suggested he take a nap, OJ said he didn't have time and directed Kato's attention to the clock. They were at San Vicente and 26th, and the time was 9:15 or 9:18. Six minutes later, or maybe 9:22, they pulled into the McDonald's on Santa Monica and went through the drive-through. (Kato did not know why OJ did not go to a closer McDonald's on San Vicente.) Kato gave OJ another $20 to pay for the food. OJ gave Kato his change and Kato did not see any blood or cuts on his hands. OJ did not get change for the first $20 for the skycap. They got their food about 9:25 or 9:26. Then they drove home, OJ eating as he drove. Kato ate a few french fries. Kato thought they got home about 9:40, and Kato thought they entered through the Ashford gate. He did not notice any other cars parked outside the gate. They parked the Bentley in the same place it had been parked. Kato said OJ usually drove a Bronco and parked it outside the Ashford gate. Gigi sometimes also drove it.

When they returned, they got out of the car. Kato walked toward the kitchen, intending to go inside. He turned and saw OJ still at the car and turned and went to his room to eat. He and OJ did not have any conversation after getting out of the car. Kato went to his room, ate, and called Tom back at 9:37 [per the telephone records, so they got home earlier than 9:40]. Then Kato went into the office area and tried to use a typewriter, having some problems and moving it to different electric outlets. He gave up about 10:10.

Kato then called his friend Rachel Ferrara. While he was on the phone with Rachel he heard a noise on the south wall of his room, next to the south pathway of the property. It would be possible to out his bathroom window and see the pathway, and a wire fence on the far side of it, but he couldn't see to the right or left of the window. The air conditioner in Kato's room juts out over the walkway. Kato was talking to Rachel while sitting on the bed, leaning against the headboard. The headboard of the bed was up against the south wall.

Kato described the noise as follows: "I heard a loud thumping noise." Marcia Clark asked how many thumps did he hear, and he said three. She then asked him to demonstrate the noises, and he thumped three times on the top of the table in front of the witness stand. The noise was coming from the wall right behind where he was sitting. There was a picture on the wall next to the bed, and it tilted when he heard the noise.

He had been on the phone with Rachel about 30 minutes, so it was about 10:40 p.m. when he heard the noise. Marcia Clark asked if that time was exact, and Kato replied about 10:40.0 Marcia pointed out he had previously testified to 10:40 - 10:45, and Kato said that was correct. Kato asked Rachel if there had been an earthquake and she said they didn't have one. Kato was alarmed because if there was no earthquake he was afraid there was someone outside on the pathway. The noise started to the right of Kato's bed where the air conditioner was. About two - three minutes later Kato told Rachel he was going to go check it out. He took a small pen flashlight out of his dresser. He walked past the pool and along the path that goes to the front of the house, ending up at the driveway near the Ashford gate.

Kato said after hearing the noise, he was on the phone with Rachel another 2-3 minutes before going outside. He said it was about 10:43-10:44 when he went outside. [He testified here it was 10:40 when he heard the noise, Marcia Clark got him to agree to 10:40 - 10:45, making it 10:43 to 10:48 when he left his room. How long to get the flashlight?]

Kato saw a limousine sitting at the Ashford gate. He could not see anyone inside the limousine, it was dark in the area, no headlights on. There were dim outdoor lights on by the driveway. Kato did not let the limousine driver in because he knew the limousine driver could buzz the house from the gate. He thought there was a reason the limousine driver was waiting there. He saw the limousine at approximately 10:50 p.m. He thought there were lights on upstairs in the house, but not downstairs.

[martin II]

He then "took a Jacuzzi" about 7:30, finished about 8:30, then went to his room and called a friend named Susan. Then OJ came to Kato's door and told him he left the Jacuzzi on, but OJ would turn it off.

Kato then called his friend Tom in San Diego, at 9:03. While he was on the phone with Tom, OJ came to his door again. Kato told Tom he would call him back. OJ said he only had hundred dollar bills and needed a $5 for the skycap, and asked Kato if he had change. Kato gave him a $20 bill. He put the $20 in OJ's hand and did not see any bleeding or cuts. Then OJ said he was going for a hamburger. Kato asked if he could go along. OJ was wearing a dark sweat suit, either blue, dark blue, or black, long sleeves. They then went in the back door, through the bar area, and out the kitchen nook door to the front, went to the Bentley which was parked in the driveway facing the Rockingham gate. They left at 9:10 p.m. Kato did not notice any other cars parked outside when they left.

In the car they talked about OJ's red eye flight. OJ was tired, Kato suggested he take a nap, OJ said he didn't have time and directed Kato's attention to the clock. They were at San Vicente and 26th, and the time was 9:15 or 9:18. Six minutes later, or maybe 9:22, they pulled into the McDonald's on Santa Monica and went through the drive-through. (Kato did not know why OJ did not go to a closer McDonald's on San Vicente.) Kato gave OJ another $20 to pay for the food. OJ gave Kato his change and Kato did not see any blood or cuts on his hands. OJ did not get change for the first $20 for the skycap. They got their food about 9:25 or 9:26. Then they drove home, OJ eating as he drove. Kato ate a few french fries. Kato thought they got home about 9:40, and Kato thought they entered through the Ashford gate. He did not notice any other cars parked outside the gate. They parked the Bentley in the same place it had been parked. Kato said OJ usually drove a Bronco and parked it outside the Ashford gate. Gigi sometimes also drove it.

When they returned, they got out of the car. Kato walked toward the kitchen, intending to go inside. He turned and saw OJ still at the car and turned and went to his room to eat. He and OJ did not have any conversation after getting out of the car. Kato went to his room, ate, and called Tom back at 9:37 [per the telephone records, so they got home earlier than 9:40]. Then Kato went into the office area and tried to use a typewriter, having some problems and moving it to different electric outlets. He gave up about 10:10.

Kato then called his friend Rachel Ferrara. While he was on the phone with Rachel he heard a noise on the south wall of his room, next to the south pathway of the property. It would be possible to out his bathroom window and see the pathway, and a wire fence on the far side of it, but he couldn't see to the right or left of the window. The air conditioner in Kato's room juts out over the walkway. Kato was talking to Rachel while sitting on the bed, leaning against the headboard. The headboard of the bed was up against the south wall.

Kato described the noise as follows: "I heard a loud thumping noise." Marcia Clark asked how many thumps did he hear, and he said three. She then asked him to demonstrate the noises, and he thumped three times on the top of the table in front of the witness stand. The noise was coming from the wall right behind where he was sitting. There was a picture on the wall next to the bed, and it tilted when he heard the noise.

He had been on the phone with Rachel about 30 minutes, so it was about 10:40 p.m. when he heard the noise. Marcia Clark asked if that time was exact, and Kato replied about 10:40.0 Marcia pointed out he had previously testified to 10:40 - 10:45, and Kato said that was correct. Kato asked Rachel if there had been an earthquake and she said they didn't have one. Kato was alarmed because if there was no earthquake he was afraid there was someone outside on the pathway. The noise started to the right of Kato's bed where the air conditioner was. About two - three minutes later Kato told Rachel he was going to go check it out. He took a small pen flashlight out of his dresser. He walked past the pool and along the path that goes to the front of the house, ending up at the driveway near the Ashford gate.

Kato said after hearing the noise, he was on the phone with Rachel another 2-3 minutes before going outside. He said it was about 10:43-10:44 when he went outside. [He testified here it was 10:40 when he heard the noise, Marcia Clark got him to agree to 10:40 - 10:45, making it 10:43 to 10:48 when he left his room. How long to get the flashlight?]

Kato saw a limousine sitting at the Ashford gate. He could not see anyone inside the limousine, it was dark in the area, no headlights on. There were dim outdoor lights on by the driveway. Kato did not let the limousine driver in because he knew the limousine driver could buzz the house from the gate. He thought there was a reason the limousine driver was waiting there. He saw the limousine at approximately 10:50 p.m. He thought there were lights on upstairs in the house, but not downstairs.


up to 10;20 i was asking about.are local call recorded on phone bills.

[martin II]

He then "took a Jacuzzi" about 7:30, finished about 8:30, then went to his room and called a friend named Susan. Then OJ came to Kato's door and told him he left the Jacuzzi on, but OJ would turn it off.

Kato then called his friend Tom in San Diego, at 9:03. While he was on the phone with Tom, OJ came to his door again. Kato told Tom he would call him back. OJ said he only had hundred dollar bills and needed a $5 for the skycap, and asked Kato if he had change. Kato gave him a $20 bill. He put the $20 in OJ's hand and did not see any bleeding or cuts. Then OJ said he was going for a hamburger. Kato asked if he could go along. OJ was wearing a dark sweat suit, either blue, dark blue, or black, long sleeves. They then went in the back door, through the bar area, and out the kitchen nook door to the front, went to the Bentley which was parked in the driveway facing the Rockingham gate. They left at 9:10 p.m. Kato did not notice any other cars parked outside when they left.

In the car they talked about OJ's red eye flight. OJ was tired, Kato suggested he take a nap, OJ said he didn't have time and directed Kato's attention to the clock. They were at San Vicente and 26th, and the time was 9:15 or 9:18. Six minutes later, or maybe 9:22, they pulled into the McDonald's on Santa Monica and went through the drive-through. (Kato did not know why OJ did not go to a closer McDonald's on San Vicente.) Kato gave OJ another $20 to pay for the food. OJ gave Kato his change and Kato did not see any blood or cuts on his hands. OJ did not get change for the first $20 for the skycap. They got their food about 9:25 or 9:26. Then they drove home, OJ eating as he drove. Kato ate a few french fries. Kato thought they got home about 9:40, and Kato thought they entered through the Ashford gate. He did not notice any other cars parked outside the gate. They parked the Bentley in the same place it had been parked. Kato said OJ usually drove a Bronco and parked it outside the Ashford gate. Gigi sometimes also drove it.

When they returned, they got out of the car. Kato walked toward the kitchen, intending to go inside. He turned and saw OJ still at the car and turned and went to his room to eat. He and OJ did not have any conversation after getting out of the car. Kato went to his room, ate, and called Tom back at 9:37 [per the telephone records, so they got home earlier than 9:40]. Then Kato went into the office area and tried to use a typewriter, having some problems and moving it to different electric outlets. He gave up about 10:10.

Kato then called his friend Rachel Ferrara. While he was on the phone with Rachel he heard a noise on the south wall of his room, next to the south pathway of the property. It would be possible to out his bathroom window and see the pathway, and a wire fence on the far side of it, but he couldn't see to the right or left of the window. The air conditioner in Kato's room juts out over the walkway. Kato was talking to Rachel while sitting on the bed, leaning against the headboard. The headboard of the bed was up against the south wall.

Kato described the noise as follows: "I heard a loud thumping noise." Marcia Clark asked how many thumps did he hear, and he said three. She then asked him to demonstrate the noises, and he thumped three times on the top of the table in front of the witness stand. The noise was coming from the wall right behind where he was sitting. There was a picture on the wall next to the bed, and it tilted when he heard the noise.

He had been on the phone with Rachel about 30 minutes, so it was about 10:40 p.m. when he heard the noise. Marcia Clark asked if that time was exact, and Kato replied about 10:40.0 Marcia pointed out he had previously testified to 10:40 - 10:45, and Kato said that was correct. Kato asked Rachel if there had been an earthquake and she said they didn't have one. Kato was alarmed because if there was no earthquake he was afraid there was someone outside on the pathway. The noise started to the right of Kato's bed where the air conditioner was. About two - three minutes later Kato told Rachel he was going to go check it out. He took a small pen flashlight out of his dresser. He walked past the pool and along the path that goes to the front of the house, ending up at the driveway near the Ashford gate.

Kato said after hearing the noise, he was on the phone with Rachel another 2-3 minutes before going outside. He said it was about 10:43-10:44 when he went outside. [He testified here it was 10:40 when he heard the noise, Marcia Clark got him to agree to 10:40 - 10:45, making it 10:43 to 10:48 when he left his room. How long to get the flashlight?]

Kato saw a limousine sitting at the Ashford gate. He could not see anyone inside the limousine, it was dark in the area, no headlights on. There were dim outdoor lights on by the driveway. Kato did not let the limousine driver in because he knew the limousine driver could buzz the house from the gate. He thought there was a reason the limousine driver was waiting there. He saw the limousine at approximately 10:50 p.m. He thought there were lights on upstairs in the house, but not downstairs.


you bring up another issue when you say Kato heard the noise at 10:40 as 10:40 is the time Heidstra said he saw someone in a white bronco at Dorothy
and Bundy which some say was oj in his bronco. Was there two ojs?

[martin II]

wasn't he on the phone?

at 10;20?

does the phone company record local calls on the bill?

[limakey]

Mr. August,

I do not know what the thumps were or what made the loud noise that caused the picture to move. I am not convince they have anything to do with the murders, however, if they are connected, then Kato was meant to hear them. For some reason, the possibility that the noise itself could have caused the vibrations never entered my mind. I always assumed that something had to be slammed against the wall. See, learn something new everyday!

As for your version of events, neither the DA's nor the plaintiffs ever gave an explaination. I believe Dennis Fung found a very tiny drop of blood on a wire, however, it was so small, it could not be determined if it was even human.

The LAPD and the DA's spent a lot of money trying to figure out how Simpson got back there and if he climbed the fence and jumped into the wall. The millions of dollars they had still could not produce a logical theory which is why they focused on how loud they were.

Dennis Fung spent how many hours at Rockingham? How many hours behind the pathway looking for any trace evidence?

Yes, the defense did try to recreate the thumps as well and failed to do so.

Kato did testify about what he thought it was, but he also testified that he realized that whatever could have caused the noise did not have to be a human being because he saw the broken gate was not moved. He did not hear any foot steps, the did not see anything out of the ordinary.

Also, while Rachel said they did not have earthquake, Kato still asked the limo driver if they had an earthquake. Kato then tells OJ about the thumps he hears, Simpson has no reaction other then to try to find a better a flashlight and if I remember correctly, may have suggested that Kato called the police.

But here is another interesting point---OJ went to Kato's to tell him about the jets being left on for the hot tub. However, Kato firmly believes that he did in fact turn them off. What if both men are telling the truth? Doesn't that mean that a person was on the estate and knew it well enough to turn on the jets? Perhaps this person was trying to set up a distraction because they knew what was going to happen that night?

Again, Kato did testify about what he saw and thought about that night, however, what he saw and what he thought does not mean that he is accurate. The fact that Kato may have thought someone was back there does not mean that it is a fact. It does not mean that only a human being could have caused the noise to jar the picture.

[limakey]

Martin,

You do ask a very interesting question regarding local phone records. I would think that if there were these phone records, the DA's would have used them. However, if there were phone records and they went against the DA's case, I can see how they may have been "lost".

I would love to know if Nicole had a cell phone and if Faye Resnick had a cell phone. IMO, Faye's hiding her phone records is being done for a reason. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Is it just coincidence that after the foliage that covered the top of the fence was trimmed back one set of the twisted wires along the top of the fence could be seen bent towards that wall consistent with someone putting their weight on them to scale the fence from the Salinger's property to Simpson's property? Is it just coincidence that bent wire was exactly above where the glove was found on the south path? Is it just coincidence that bent wire was exactly opposite the place on the wall that Kaelin said he heard the loud noises? I think not.

bobaugust

The question is who knew of Mr. Kato's claim and the location of where the glove was found. Who could have come back after the glove was found and bent the fence? I see another reasonable explanation as to who may have bent the fence, when and why. Let's not forget that Simpson was found not guilty. Whose responsibility was it to check for evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was guilty? I think the Goldmans sued the wrong party.

[martin II]

Mr. August,

I do not know what the thumps were or what made the loud noise that caused the picture to move. I am not convince they have anything to do with the murders, however, if they are connected, then Kato was meant to hear them. For some reason, the possibility that the noise itself could have caused the vibrations never entered my mind. I always assumed that something had to be slammed against the wall. See, learn something new everyday!

As for your version of events, neither the DA's nor the plaintiffs ever gave an explaination. I believe Dennis Fung found a very tiny drop of blood on a wire, however, it was so small, it could not be determined if it was even human.

The LAPD and the DA's spent a lot of money trying to figure out how Simpson got back there and if he climbed the fence and jumped into the wall. The millions of dollars they had still could not produce a logical theory which is why they focused on how loud they were.

Dennis Fung spent how many hours at Rockingham? How many hours behind the pathway looking for any trace evidence?

Yes, the defense did try to recreate the thumps as well and failed to do so.

Kato did testify about what he thought it was, but he also testified that he realized that whatever could have caused the noise did not have to be a human being because he saw the broken gate was not moved. He did not hear any foot steps, the did not see anything out of the ordinary.

Also, while Rachel said they did not have earthquake, Kato still asked the limo driver if they had an earthquake. Kato then tells OJ about the thumps he hears, Simpson has no reaction other then to try to find a better a flashlight and if I remember correctly, may have suggested that Kato called the police.

But here is another interesting point---OJ went to Kato's to tell him about the jets being left on for the hot tub. However, Kato firmly believes that he did in fact turn them off. What if both men are telling the truth? Doesn't that mean that a person was on the estate and knew it well enough to turn on the jets? Perhaps this person was trying to set up a distraction because they knew what was going to happen that night?

Again, Kato did testify about what he saw and thought about that night, however, what he saw and what he thought does not mean that he is accurate. The fact that Kato may have thought someone was back there does not mean that it is a fact. It does not mean that only a human being could have caused the noise to jar the picture.

Llimakey
i agree with what you have posted.
last night i was reading some of Bill Pavalics stuff what he suggest is that Kato had access to all of ojs house through that extra room in Katos quarters that led to ojs pool room in the house. That westec testified that this door was not covered by the alarm system for the rest of the house that at least on one ocassions the children had gone through this door to play with Kato and oj had come to this extra roon from the pool room to get the kids.

He also states that the phones in Katos and Arnells quarters were connected to the phones in the house and that when the ashford gate buzzer was engaged it would ring on the phones in Katos,Arnels and the maids quarters.imo

[bobaugust]

You are not only are in a haste to make me wrong but it seems that you want to make aspersions about every member of the dream team. You jump to assumptions as to everyone's intent. One only has to read the article I posted to understand what it says. Unlike you, I am not interested in proving everything you say is wrong. Although, I believe that arrogance and ignorance of legal concepts makes most of what you post wrong, I do believe there are occasions when you are correct. It is clear from the article that the defense agreed to allow the prosecution to collect Simpson's hair sample some two weeks prior to the time it was done. That was my sole point, not trying to prove you wrong as to the date it was collected. I do not have the time to devote to attempting to prove everything you say is wrong and I have said you are occasionally correct.

June 17th until July 13th is not a month. It is three days short, IIRC. You jump to erroneous conclusions about what I believe. I used the term, "days after", anticipating that you would make this claim. There were days after Simpson was arrested and the time his hair sample was taken. Although, you may not like the terminology and jump to erroneous conclusions about its use, I am correct in that there were days that ensued the arrest of Simpson and the day his hair was collected and the same is true of Scheck's argument.

I do not make you wrong William, that's funny, you do that all by yourself. Your previous words speak for themselves and contradict what you now claim was your reason for posting the link to the article Either you forgot what you wrote, or you can't comprehend what you wrote.

This is what you wrote in post #5664 following the link you posted.
"Wrong on the time when Simpson's hair sample was taken. He did not make a mistake. You do not seem to be disappointed by LE explanation that ASAP meant 2 and 1/2 hours later and I am not disappointed that right meant some days later."

You were wrong about everything regarding Simpson's hair samples you said in that post.

Simpson was arrested on June 17. Some days later on June 29 a hearing was conducted where Simpson's lawyer agreed that Simpson's hair samples could be taken. Simpson's hair samples were not taken until July 13, almost a month after he was arrested. Scheck did not say days after or some days after he was arrested, like you claim he meant, Scheck said "Right after he's arrested, they removed known hair samples. His hair has dandruff." I find your interpretation that "right after he was arrested" means almost a month after he was arrested completely ridiculous considering the context in which Scheck said it.

I believe it's pretty clear that Scheck either intentionally or unintentionally misled the jury by misstating the facts to insinuate Simpson may have have had dandruff on June 12. A claim that neither Scheck or any of Simpson's attorneys including Simpson's civil trial attorneys were smart enough never to infer or claim. Only you William have done that.

bobaugust

[martin II]

The question is who knew of Mr. Kato's claim and the location of where the glove was found. Who could have come back after the glove was found and bent the fence? I see another reasonable explanation as to who may have bent the fence, when and why. Let's not forget that Simpson was found not guilty. Whose responsibility was it to check for evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was guilty? I think the Goldmans sued the wrong party.

Much later when the hedges were trimmed by a Gardner with machines it is very reasonable to believe that is when this ONE wire out of a hundred wires was bent. It is also possible that the wire was bent during installation. What is not rerasonable is that a 220 pound man stood on top of the fence in size 12 shoes and only bent one very small wire.
There is also the issue claimed by Wagner that the photo taken from above looking down on the glove was taken by a photographer standing on the fence.imo

[martin II]

Martin,

You do ask a very interesting question regarding local phone records. I would think that if there were these phone records, the DA's would have used them. However, if there were phone records and they went against the DA's case, I can see how they may have been "lost".

I would love to know if Nicole had a cell phone and if Faye Resnick had a cell phone. IMO, Faye's hiding her phone records is being done for a reason. IMO.

limakey
It has been stated that local phone calls were not recorded by the telephone company only long distance calls were recored and listed on the phone bill.
But i believe le could get a court order that would require the phone company to check the machines to identify ALL calls.

So the time of Katos local call were not verified by the phone company.

[martin II]

Limakey

Bill Pavalic offers a quote from Terri Bakers book to show that the phones in Katos,Arnells and the maids quarters were connected to the house.

[William Anthony]

I do not make you wrong William, that's funny, you do that all by yourself. Your previous words speak for themselves and contradict what you now claim was your reason for posting the link to the article Either you forgot what you wrote, or you can't comprehend what you wrote.

This is what you wrote in post #5664 following the link you posted.
"Wrong on the time when Simpson's hair sample was taken. He did not make a mistake. You do not seem to be disappointed by LE explanation that ASAP meant 2 and 1/2 hours later and I am not disappointed that right meant some days later."

You were wrong about everything regarding Simpson's hair samples you said in that post.

Simpson was arrested on June 17. Some days later on June 29 a hearing was conducted where Simpson's lawyer agreed that Simpson's hair samples could be taken. Simpson's hair samples were not taken until July 13, almost a month after he was arrested. Scheck did not say days after or some days after he was arrested, like you claim he meant, Scheck said "Right after he's arrested, they removed known hair samples. His hair has dandruff." I find your interpretation that "right after he was arrested" means almost a month after he was arrested completely ridiculous considering the context in which Scheck said it.

I believe it's pretty clear that Scheck either intentionally or unintentionally misled the jury by misstating the facts to insinuate Simpson may have have had dandruff on June 12. A claim that neither Scheck or any of Simpson's attorneys including Simpson's civil trial attorneys were smart enough never to infer or claim. Only you William have done that.

bobaugust

I stand by my posts. Your original post was that Simpson's hair sample was taken a month after he was arrested. That is what was wrong, as you now state "nearly" a month, after I pointed out your mistake.:) You developed you own context of Scheck's statement, just as you did for the link I supplied on the date the defense agreed to give the prosecution a sample of Simpson's hair. You stroll along with your hands linked together and then want to blame others, because you are unable to unlink them.:) You have read the portion of Scheck's argument I posted and then claim that you made inferences from Clark's argument but you unequally postulate that Scheck must say something verbatim to make a claim.

It seems that you have no compunction about embarrassing yourself, either by being unable to untie your hands or your tongue. That is your prerogative.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

When you wear your clothes to tight you make yourself look over puffed up and you do not allow yourself wriggle room. In some cases it is best to make others think about what your form looks like rather than to eliminate the guess work.

[martin II]

The question is what if anything did Kato hear.with no evidence from le detectives that anyone was physically IN the south walkway by jumping the fence, we are left with the possibility that the glove was either tossed from the sallingers fence to where it was 'FOUND' or place there by someone after oj left for the airport. Did kato THINK he heard something. Was the picture he talks about already crooked on the wall before?

if he was so concerned that a person may still be in the walkway which is why he suggested that he and oj investigate,which they didn't, why not tell oj, you go on and catch your plane and i am going to call the cops. he just lost interest and went and got back on the phone.imo

[SlowHandSam]

He then "took a Jacuzzi" about 7:30, finished about 8:30, then went to his room and called a friend named Susan. Then OJ came to Kato's door and told him he left the Jacuzzi on, but OJ would turn it off.

Kato then called his friend Tom in San Diego, at 9:03. While he was on the phone with Tom, OJ came to his door again. Kato told Tom he would call him back. OJ said he only had hundred dollar bills and needed a $5 for the skycap, and asked Kato if he had change. Kato gave him a $20 bill. He put the $20 in OJ's hand and did not see any bleeding or cuts. Then OJ said he was going for a hamburger. Kato asked if he could go along. OJ was wearing a dark sweat suit, either blue, dark blue, or black, long sleeves. They then went in the back door, through the bar area, and out the kitchen nook door to the front, went to the Bentley which was parked in the driveway facing the Rockingham gate. They left at 9:10 p.m. Kato did not notice any other cars parked outside when they left.

In the car they talked about OJ's red eye flight. OJ was tired, Kato suggested he take a nap, OJ said he didn't have time and directed Kato's attention to the clock. They were at San Vicente and 26th, and the time was 9:15 or 9:18. Six minutes later, or maybe 9:22, they pulled into the McDonald's on Santa Monica and went through the drive-through. (Kato did not know why OJ did not go to a closer McDonald's on San Vicente.) Kato gave OJ another $20 to pay for the food. OJ gave Kato his change and Kato did not see any blood or cuts on his hands. OJ did not get change for the first $20 for the skycap. They got their food about 9:25 or 9:26. Then they drove home, OJ eating as he drove. Kato ate a few french fries. Kato thought they got home about 9:40, and Kato thought they entered through the Ashford gate. He did not notice any other cars parked outside the gate. They parked the Bentley in the same place it had been parked. Kato said OJ usually drove a Bronco and parked it outside the Ashford gate. Gigi sometimes also drove it.

When they returned, they got out of the car. Kato walked toward the kitchen, intending to go inside. He turned and saw OJ still at the car and turned and went to his room to eat. He and OJ did not have any conversation after getting out of the car. Kato went to his room, ate, and called Tom back at 9:37 [per the telephone records, so they got home earlier than 9:40]. Then Kato went into the office area and tried to use a typewriter, having some problems and moving it to different electric outlets. He gave up about 10:10.

Kato then called his friend Rachel Ferrara. While he was on the phone with Rachel he heard a noise on the south wall of his room, next to the south pathway of the property. It would be possible to out his bathroom window and see the pathway, and a wire fence on the far side of it, but he couldn't see to the right or left of the window. The air conditioner in Kato's room juts out over the walkway. Kato was talking to Rachel while sitting on the bed, leaning against the headboard. The headboard of the bed was up against the south wall.

Kato described the noise as follows: "I heard a loud thumping noise." Marcia Clark asked how many thumps did he hear, and he said three. She then asked him to demonstrate the noises, and he thumped three times on the top of the table in front of the witness stand. The noise was coming from the wall right behind where he was sitting. There was a picture on the wall next to the bed, and it tilted when he heard the noise.

He had been on the phone with Rachel about 30 minutes, so it was about 10:40 p.m. when he heard the noise. Marcia Clark asked if that time was exact, and Kato replied about 10:40.0 Marcia pointed out he had previously testified to 10:40 - 10:45, and Kato said that was correct. Kato asked Rachel if there had been an earthquake and she said they didn't have one. Kato was alarmed because if there was no earthquake he was afraid there was someone outside on the pathway. The noise started to the right of Kato's bed where the air conditioner was. About two - three minutes later Kato told Rachel he was going to go check it out. He took a small pen flashlight out of his dresser. He walked past the pool and along the path that goes to the front of the house, ending up at the driveway near the Ashford gate.

Kato said after hearing the noise, he was on the phone with Rachel another 2-3 minutes before going outside. He said it was about 10:43-10:44 when he went outside. [He testified here it was 10:40 when he heard the noise, Marcia Clark got him to agree to 10:40 - 10:45, making it 10:43 to 10:48 when he left his room. How long to get the flashlight?]

Kato saw a limousine sitting at the Ashford gate. He could not see anyone inside the limousine, it was dark in the area, no headlights on. There were dim outdoor lights on by the driveway. Kato did not let the limousine driver in because he knew the limousine driver could buzz the house from the gate. He thought there was a reason the limousine driver was waiting there. He saw the limousine at approximately 10:50 p.m. He thought there were lights on upstairs in the house, but not downstairs.

do you wonder if they ask where he was in an attempt to imply he was the one who murdered Ron and Nicole?

I think he was a fairly solid witness.

[martin II]

do you wonder if they ask where he was in an attempt to imply he was the one who murdered Ron and Nicole?

I think he was a fairly solid witness.

My quesiton was simply did Kato have a alibi from the time he and oj returned home until 10:20 pm on 6/12.

[weezer]

My quesiton was simply did Kato have a alibi from the time he and oj returned home until 10:20 pm on 6/12.

the simple answer is 'yes' -- it was orenthal who couldn't account for his time. remember?

[weezer]

do you wonder if they ask where he was in an attempt to imply he was the one who murdered Ron and Nicole?

I think he was a fairly solid witness.

LOL -- I don't know many people would use 'solid' as a descriptor for kato but his testimony was and remains solid. The NGs have blamed everyone except orenthal -- :eek: so unless kato could bleed orenthal's blood and unless kato could leave orenthal's size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints, hair, blood, and fiber at the murder scene, I guess it wasn't him there.

[martin II]

LOL -- I don't know many people would use 'solid' as a descriptor for kato but his testimony was and remains solid. The NGs have blamed everyone except orenthal -- :eek: so unless kato could bleed orenthal's blood and unless kato could leave orenthal's size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints, hair, blood, and fiber at the murder scene, I guess it wasn't him there.

Weezer

do you know if Kato had a alibi for the time he returned from mcd until 10:20 pm on 6/12?

[martin II]

the simple answer is 'yes' -- it was orenthal who couldn't account for his time. remember?

Well what was his alibi? that he was in his room alone? or was he able to verify his time and place? just asking.

[weezer]

well what was his alibi? That he was in his room alone? Or was he able to verify his time and place? Just asking.

ms. Clark: Okay. And what did you do then?
Mr. Kaelin: I made a phone call.
Ms. Clark: And what -- and what phone call -- who did you call?
Mr. Kaelin: Another friend, rachel.
Ms. Clark: Rachel what?
Mr. Kaelin: Rachel ferrara.
Ms. Clark: What time was it, approximately, when you placed that call, sir?
Mr. Kaelin: About like 10:10.
******

ms. Clark: And that during that phone call you were seated on the bed with your back up against that headboard?
Mr. Kaelin: Yes.
Ms. Clark: During that phone call, sir, did something unusual occur?
Mr. Kaelin: Yes.
Ms. Clark: And what was that?
Mr. Kaelin: I heard a thumping noise.
Ms. Clark: How many thumps did you hear?
Mr. Shapiro: Objection, leading.
Court: Overruled.
Mr. Kaelin: Three.
******
ms. Clark: Where did that noise seem to be coming from?
Mr. Kaelin: From the back of the wall.
******
ms. Clark: Did you notice anything occur in your room as a result of those thumps on the wall?
Mr. Kaelin: Yes.
Ms. Clark: What?
Mr. Kaelin: There is a picture that moved.

Ms. Clark: At that point that you heard the thumps on the wall, sir, approximately how long had you been on the phone with rachel ferrara?
Mr. Kaelin: About a half hour.
Ms. Clark: And so approximately what time was it when you heard the thumps on the wall?
Mr. Kaelin: At about 10:40.
******
ms. Clark: Do you recall previously testifying that it was 10:40 to 10:45?
Mr. Kaelin: Yes.

[martin II]

ms. Clark: Okay. And what did you do then?
Mr. Kaelin: I made a phone call.
Ms. Clark: And what -- and what phone call -- who did you call?
Mr. Kaelin: Another friend, rachel.
Ms. Clark: Rachel what?
Mr. Kaelin: Rachel ferrara.
Ms. Clark: What time was it, approximately, when you placed that call, sir?
Mr. Kaelin: About like 10:10.
******

ms. Clark: And that during that phone call you were seated on the bed with your back up against that headboard?
Mr. Kaelin: Yes.
Ms. Clark: During that phone call, sir, did something unusual occur?
Mr. Kaelin: Yes.
Ms. Clark: And what was that?
Mr. Kaelin: I heard a thumping noise.
Ms. Clark: How many thumps did you hear?
Mr. Shapiro: Objection, leading.
Court: Overruled.
Mr. Kaelin: Three.
******
ms. Clark: Where did that noise seem to be coming from?
Mr. Kaelin: From the back of the wall.
******
ms. Clark: Did you notice anything occur in your room as a result of those thumps on the wall?
Mr. Kaelin: Yes.
Ms. Clark: What?
Mr. Kaelin: There is a picture that moved.

Ms. Clark: At that point that you heard the thumps on the wall, sir, approximately how long had you been on the phone with rachel ferrara?
Mr. Kaelin: About a half hour.
Ms. Clark: And so approximately what time was it when you heard the thumps on the wall?
Mr. Kaelin: At about 10:40.
******
ms. Clark: Do you recall previously testifying that it was 10:40 to 10:45?
Mr. Kaelin: Yes.

At 10:40 pm on 6/12 when Kato says he heard the noise, Heidstrra testified that he saw a white bronco at Dorothy and Bundy which some including you believe was oj in his white bronco leaving the murder scene. He was not in one of these two places.That is for sure.imo

[martin II]

ms. Clark: Okay. And what did you do then?
Mr. Kaelin: I made a phone call.
Ms. Clark: And what -- and what phone call -- who did you call?
Mr. Kaelin: Another friend, rachel.
Ms. Clark: Rachel what?
Mr. Kaelin: Rachel ferrara.
Ms. Clark: What time was it, approximately, when you placed that call, sir?
Mr. Kaelin: About like 10:10.
******

ms. Clark: And that during that phone call you were seated on the bed with your back up against that headboard?
Mr. Kaelin: Yes.
Ms. Clark: During that phone call, sir, did something unusual occur?
Mr. Kaelin: Yes.
Ms. Clark: And what was that?
Mr. Kaelin: I heard a thumping noise.
Ms. Clark: How many thumps did you hear?
Mr. Shapiro: Objection, leading.
Court: Overruled.
Mr. Kaelin: Three.
******
ms. Clark: Where did that noise seem to be coming from?
Mr. Kaelin: From the back of the wall.
******
ms. Clark: Did you notice anything occur in your room as a result of those thumps on the wall?
Mr. Kaelin: Yes.
Ms. Clark: What?
Mr. Kaelin: There is a picture that moved.

Ms. Clark: At that point that you heard the thumps on the wall, sir, approximately how long had you been on the phone with rachel ferrara?
Mr. Kaelin: About a half hour.
Ms. Clark: And so approximately what time was it when you heard the thumps on the wall?
Mr. Kaelin: At about 10:40.
******
ms. Clark: Do you recall previously testifying that it was 10:40 to 10:45?
Mr. Kaelin: Yes.

ok
Let me try to be more specific

Do you know where Kato was between 9:30 pm i believe that is the time they returned to Rockingham until 10:05 pm on 6/12.

[weezer]

ok
Let me try to be more specific

Do you know where Kato was between 9:30 pm i believe that is the time they returned to Rockingham until 10:05 pm on 6/12.

Kato went to his room, ate, and called Tom back at 9:37 [per the telephone records

[martin II]

Kato went to his room, ate, and called Tom back at 9:37 [per the telephone records

Did tom testify to this or were Katos Local calls presentred in court?Direct me to the link where Katos phone records were presented in court to prove this call.

[bobaugust]

I stand by my posts. Your original post was that Simpson's hair sample was taken a month after he was arrested. That is what was wrong, as you now state "nearly" a month, after I pointed out your mistake.:) You developed you own context of Scheck's statement, just as you did for the link I supplied on the date the defense agreed to give the prosecution a sample of Simpson's hair. You stroll along with your hands linked together and then want to blame others, because you are unable to unlink them.:) You have read the portion of Scheck's argument I posted and then claim that you made inferences from Clark's argument but you unequally postulate that Scheck must say something verbatim to make a claim.

It seems that you have no compunction about embarrassing yourself, either by being unable to untie your hands or your tongue. That is your prerogative.;):cool:

In your post #5664 when you called me wrong yes you were responding to my post #5659 where I said Simpson's hair samples were taken a month after he was arrested. But the fact is at the time I made my posting I had not yet researched and found that the exact date was July 13, four days short of a month. I didn't know that exact date then and neither did you.

You on the other hand had attempted to search for it and you came up with the article dated June 29 which based on you comments following the link you posted to that article it's obvious that you mistakenly thought that's when Simpson's hair samples were taken. That's why you posted the link, that's why you incorrectly called me wrong, that's why you made the comment that Scheck "did not make a mistake" and that's why you said you were "not disappointed that right meant some days later."

You were wrong on all counts when you made post #5664 and now the more you try to defend your mistakes the more mistakes you make. All because you refuse to admit to being wrong. Funny.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

ok
Let me try to be more specific

Do you know where Kato was between 9:30 pm i believe that is the time they returned to Rockingham until 10:05 pm on 6/12.

March 22. 1995 Kato Kaelin

Q ALL RIGHT. LET'S LOOK AT THAT FOR A MINUTE.
OKAY. YOU ALREADY DESCRIBED THE FIRST ENTRY ON JUNE THE 12TH HERE AT 9:03, THAT FIRST CALL YOU MADE TO TOM IN SAN DIEGO. DO YOU SEE BELOW THAT ON JUNE 12, 9:37, INDICATED IN MILITARY TIME AS 2137, AT 9:37 A CALL TO SAN DIEGO?
A YES.
Q AGAIN, DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE THE SAME PHONE NUMBER YOU CALLED EARLIER THAT NIGHT?
A YES.
Q AGAIN, THIS SECOND CALL LASTED FOR APPROXIMATELY SEVEN MINUTES. DOES THAT COMPORT WITH YOUR MEMORY OF THE TIME AND THE DURATION OF THE CALL YOU MADE TO TOM?
A YES.
*
Q BY MS. CLARK: AFTER YOU COMPLETED THAT PHONE CALL TO TOM, APPROXIMATELY 9:44 THEN, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I WANTED TO TYPE UP SOME LIKE RESUMES AND THERE IS AN OFFICE AREA WITH A TYPEWRITER.
*
Q OKAY.
HOW LONG A PERIOD OF TIME DID YOU DO THAT?
A OH, ABOUT -- AFTER FINDING EVERYTHING, ABOUT FIFTEEN TO TWENTY MINUTES.
Q OKAY. SO CAN YOU TELL US APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME IT WAS WHEN YOU GAVE UP ON THE TYPEWRITER?
A WELL, LIKE ABOUT TEN -- 10:00 OR SO.
Q OKAY.
AND WHAT DID YOU DO THEN?
A I MADE A PHONE CALL.
Q AND WHAT -- AND WHAT PHONE CALL -- WHO DID YOU CALL?
A ANOTHER FRIEND, RACHEL.
Q RACHEL WHAT?
A RACHEL FERRARA.
Q WHAT TIME WAS IT, APPROXIMATELY, WHEN YOU PLACED THAT CALL, SIR?
A ABOUT LIKE 10:10.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

In your post #5664 when you called me wrong yes you were responding to my post #5659 where I said Simpson's hair samples were taken a month after he was arrested. But the fact is at the time I made my posting I had not yet researched and found that the exact date was July 13, four days short of a month. I didn't know that exact date then and neither did you.

You on the other hand had attempted to search for it and you came up with the article dated June 29 which based on you comments following the link you posted to that article it's obvious that you mistakenly thought that's when Simpson's hair samples were taken. That's why you posted the link, that's why you incorrectly called me wrong, that's why you made the comment that Scheck "did not make a mistake" and that's why you said you were "not disappointed that right meant some days later."

You were wrong on all counts when you made post #5664 and now the more you try to defend your mistakes the more mistakes you make. All because you refuse to admit to being wrong. Funny.

bobaugust

It behooves you not to make haste to prove me wrong as you continue to embarrass yourself. Did you read my thought for today? Tomorrow's will be haste makes waste. you did, in fact, make the claim in your post #5646 that Simpson's hair sample was taken on July 13th ([B]check it out). Something must have caused you to become [B]discombobulated (pun intended), because you changed your original post to after a month (5659), which I responded with "wrong..."(5664).

With all due respect, the only one that continues to make mistakes and embarrass himself is you, which I do not consider the least bit funny, puzzling perhaps, but more appropriately concern for your well being. I have told you that I stand corrected when I make mistakes and recently so did, in response to the immediate notification. You should understand by now that I am a man of my word. Why do you have trouble believing me, when I tell you something? I think you should stop, listen and learn, imho.

[limakey]

SHS,

In regards to Kato being a suspect, Marcia Clark did apply the pressue to Kato. Which is the main reason he would not testify at the Grand Jury without a lawyer. Also, I think fairly quickly the rumour came out that Kato and Simpson bought drugs that night. Apparently the drug dealer passed a lie detector test.

However, I don't think much came of it.

I do not believe that Kato had anything to do with the murders. IMO.

[limakey]

William,

Didn't Simpson have hair samples taken by his team a few days after the murders? Also, while I do not believe the hat means anything in regards to evidence, why didn't the person who took the samples, a member of the SID team testify about Simpson's hair?

In reading the testimony posted, to me, it still seems like Deedrick based his testimony on assumptions. Marcia asked a lot of general questions. IMO.

However, I still believe that Fuhrman's notes and his "them" mean a lot more then people realize. The "them" could have been the gloves or they could have been the "ski mask" and the glove.

I find astonishing that any one could possibly believe Simpson would only wear a knit cap to disguise his appearance. However, a ski mask would perhaps do the trick. Again, IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

Didn't Simpson have hair samples taken by his team a few days after the murders? Also, while I do not believe the hat means anything in regards to evidence, why didn't the person who took the samples, a member of the SID team testify about Simpson's hair?

In reading the testimony posted, to me, it still seems like Deedrick based his testimony on assumptions. Marcia asked a lot of general questions. IMO.

However, I still believe that Fuhrman's notes and his "them" mean a lot more then people realize. The "them" could have been the gloves or they could have been the "ski mask" and the glove.

I find astonishing that any one could possibly believe Simpson would only wear a knit cap to disguise his appearance. However, a ski mask would perhaps do the trick. Again, IMO.

I am not sure if the dream team took Simpson's hair samples or not.

The dream team did an excellent job on Deedrick, imho.

I agree that his notes and "them" meant a lot more than is realized and, for the sake of argument, if the "them" is ambiguous, then we must consider the jury instruction.

If MF truly believe the cap was a ski mask, it shows that he was not interested in the cap but was more interested in the glove and the falsely incriminatory nature of his notes shows that he had a reckless disregard for the truth and was interested more in convicting Simpson than the truth, imho.

[William Anthony]

Haste makes waste, as evidenced by the prosecution's rush to judgment.

[martin II]

Haste makes waste, as evidenced by the prosecution's rush to judgment.

There was really no reason to rush to decide oj was THE suspect and charge him other than the pressure they may have felt from the media reports and polls showing 85% of American whites thought oj was guilty. Of course these opinions were driven by leaks and other stuff like Black celebrity kills white blond lady.

They should have taken their time to review and check what evidence they had so as to develop a case with less conflicts and charges that they could not defend. in the end they could not give the jury a believable story.
Gil Garcetti deserves a lot of the blame.

But the case dose prove that if you have the money to balance the prosectuions claims by hiring a dream team, you can get a shot at a fair trial.
otherwise you end up included in the 98% DA conviction rate and wearing a orange jump suit.I

I think that some people expected oj to just hire some local lawyer and take his chances and were not pleased that he assembeled such a great team of lawyers that gave the prosecution more than they could handle.

Clark and Darden were out matched by brain power. imo
MARTIN II

[bobaugust]

It behooves you not to make haste to prove me wrong as you continue to embarrass yourself. Did you read my thought for today? Tomorrow's will be haste makes waste. you did, in fact, make the claim in your post #5646 that Simpson's hair sample was taken on July 13th ([B]check it out). Something must have caused you to become [B]discombobulated (pun intended), because you changed your original post to after a month (5659), which I responded with "wrong..."(5664).

With all due respect, the only one that continues to make mistakes and embarrass himself is you, which I do not consider the least bit funny, puzzling perhaps, but more appropriately concern for your well being. I have told you that I stand corrected when I make mistakes and recently so did, in response to the immediate notification. You should understand by now that I am a man of my word. Why do you have trouble believing me, when I tell you something? I think you should stop, listen and learn, imho.

You are right that I posted the date of July 13 in my post #5646. I forgot I had used that date then since I didn't post the link to that date until post #5667 after your response.

I will concede to the possibility that you may have called me wrong because I said a month after he was arrested when in fact it was 26 days. Almost a month.

As to your comment that Scheck did not make a mistake, you may be right. Maybe Scheck intentionally misstated the facts to mislead the jury.

The bottom line here is that because there is absolutely no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 for Scheck's insinuation to have any credibility Simpson's hair samples would have had to be taken as close to the time of the murders as possible. Simpson was arrested five days after the murders and if his hair samples were taken right after he was arrested I could see how someone might be able to claim it was possible that Simpson could have had dandruff five days earlier on the night of the murders and then the prosecution would had to have responded to that. But no lawyer in this case ever made that claim because Simpson's hair samples were taken on July 13 a month after the murders, when he was in jail. Without any evidence or claim that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 all the prosecution had to do was offer a logical, reasonable explanation as to why Simpson could have gotten dandruff during that 31 day period. And that's what they did,

None of Simpson's defense attorneys in the criminal trial or the civil trial as far as I know ever inferred or claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. Only you have made that unsupported speculation William.

Barry Scheck either intentionally or unintentionally misled the jury when he falsely said Simpson's hair samples were taken right after he was arrested. Only you have argued that right after he was arrested means almost a month later. You're interpretation not only doesn't make any sense but it doesn't change the fact that the only evidence in this case that Simpson had dandruff was on July 13 a month after the murders.

bobaugust

[limakey]

William,

IMO, I don't think Fuhrman made a mistake regarding the cap. IMO, I think a ski mask gave Fuhrman the excuse he was looking for to go to Bundy right away. Think about it, Fuhrman could have used the ski mask as reason to go over to Rockingham ASAP. Doesn't it make much more sense that Simpson would have worn a ski mask because of his fame, rather then a watch cap?

[William Anthony]

You are right that I posted the date of July 13 in my post #5646. I forgot I had used that date then since I didn't post the link to that date until post #5667 after your response.

I will concede to the possibility that you may have called me wrong because I said a month after he was arrested when in fact it was 26 days. Almost a month.

As to your comment that Scheck did not make a mistake, you may be right. Maybe Scheck intentionally misstated the facts to mislead the jury.

The bottom line here is that because there is absolutely no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 for Scheck's insinuation to have any credibility Simpson's hair samples would have had to be taken as close to the time of the murders as possible. Simpson was arrested five days after the murders and if his hair samples were taken right after he was arrested I could see how someone might be able to claim it was possible that Simpson could have had dandruff five days earlier on the night of the murders and then the prosecution would had to have responded to that. But no lawyer in this case ever made that claim because Simpson's hair samples were taken on July 13 a month after the murders, when he was in jail. Without any evidence or claim that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 all the prosecution had to do was offer a logical, reasonable explanation as to why Simpson could have gotten dandruff during that 31 day period. And that's what they did,

None of Simpson's defense attorneys in the criminal trial or the civil trial as far as I know ever inferred or claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. Only you have made that unsupported speculation William.

Barry Scheck either intentionally or unintentionally misled the jury when he falsely said Simpson's hair samples were taken right after he was arrested. Only you have argued that right after he was arrested means almost a month later. You're interpretation not only doesn't make any sense but it doesn't change the fact that the only evidence in this case that Simpson had dandruff was on July 13 a month after the murders.

bobaugust

There is no need to be so verbose when a simple statement that your were again mistaken would suffice.

There is no possibility for you to make a concession as to what I meant, when I called you wrong. I proved you wrong and what I meant.

The fact that you continue to claim that there was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12th convinces me that you either do not understand evidence and inferences or that your prejudice and bias makes you ignore the evidence and the inference to be drawn therefrom, imho.

I have posted Scheck's argument and, just because you, imho, do not understand the inference and the evidence or it could be that your bias and prejudice causes you to ignore it, does not mean that the claim was not circumstantially made.

Time itself is a relative thing. Hence Einstein's theory of relativity. The words of the English language are conducive to various meanings. I have argued a "reasonable explanation" for what Scheck could have meant when he said right after. It may seem to you that right after does not mean what you think right after means. However, and this may be due to your limited knowledge of legal concepts. There are requests made to have the evidence/samples produced and objections listed thereto. The party seeking the discovery then may file a motion to compel, which may be objected to or the other party may agree to honor the request. Since the defense agreed to give the prosecution Simpson's hair samples and the prosecution chose to wait, then when Scheck said "right after" he probably meant "as soon as practicable within the prosecution's investigation. Perhaps, if you educated yourself with legal concepts, then my post would make sense to you. Stop, listen and learn.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, I don't think Fuhrman made a mistake regarding the cap. IMO, I think a ski mask gave Fuhrman the excuse he was looking for to go to Bundy right away. Think about it, Fuhrman could have used the ski mask as reason to go over to Rockingham ASAP. Doesn't it make much more sense that Simpson would have worn a ski mask because of his fame, rather then a watch cap?

The whole idea of the cap is nonsensical, as the magnificent one displayed. I think you have a point about MF wanting to go to Rockingham and was looking for any excuse. I think, if the situation was different as to the alleged personal notification, they would have found another excuse and MF would have found a reason after he scaled the wall, whether or not it was lawful, as supported by the testimony on his treatment of interracial couples.

[limakey]

William,

What really bothers me is that the detectives knew they did not need any more excuses to go to Rockingham based on the prior calls to 911. I have no doubt that Fuhrman knew about the 1989 incident. I believe the police did have reasons to go to Rockingham ASAP.

[William Anthony]

Stop, listen and learn.

[William Anthony]

William,

What really bothers me is that the detectives knew they did not need any more excuses to go to Rockingham based on the prior calls to 911. I have no doubt that Fuhrman knew about the 1989 incident. I believe the police did have reasons to go to Rockingham ASAP.

They did not need an excuse to go to Rockingham and I believe that Simpson was a suspect prior to the time they left to go to Rockingham. I believe they need an excuse to search his home and property, which I think was their original intent.

[martin II]

The whole idea of the cap is nonsensical, as the magnificent one displayed. I think you have a point about MF wanting to go to Rockingham and was looking for any excuse. I think, if the situation was different as to the alleged personal notification, they would have found another excuse and MF would have found a reason after he scaled the wall, whether or not it was lawful, as supported by the testimony on his treatment of interracial couples.

Furhmans interest in going to Rockingham was plain. when faced with the problem of how/why they would enter ojs property,he asked/told the others, hell, i will just go over the wall and let you guys in.His regular way of dealing with this kind of situation.Screw the law, i don't need any warrant.

I think when they talked to Bushy, they explained their proposed idea to get to rockingham quickly and he gave them the excuse which was notificaiton.
I am not sure Bushy knew the lead detectives and two relieved detectives would go to rockingham to notify and leave the Bundy crime scene without a lead detective.But that is what they did.Looking back at events it seems that Furhman acted as the lead detective.

It just seems strange that Furhman seemed to always be around or near the gloves for some reason.

Question; When vanhatter,lang,furhman and his partner were in the house
talking to Arnell and Kato did Vanhatter tell Furhman go search the property?
imo

[bobaugust]

There is no need to be so verbose when a simple statement that your were again mistaken would suffice.

There is no possibility for you to make a concession as to what I meant, when I called you wrong. I proved you wrong and what I meant.

The fact that you continue to claim that there was no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12th convinces me that you either do not understand evidence and inferences or that your prejudice and bias makes you ignore the evidence and the inference to be drawn therefrom, imho.

I have posted Scheck's argument and, just because you, imho, do not understand the inference and the evidence or it could be that your bias and prejudice causes you to ignore it, does not mean that the claim was not circumstantially made.

Time itself is a relative thing. Hence Einstein's theory of relativity. The words of the English language are conducive to various meanings. I have argued a "reasonable explanation" for what Scheck could have meant when he said right after. It may seem to you that right after does not mean what you think right after means. However, and this may be due to your limited knowledge of legal concepts. There are requests made to have the evidence/samples produced and objections listed thereto. The party seeking the discovery then may file a motion to compel, which may be objected to or the other party may agree to honor the request. Since the defense agreed to give the prosecution Simpson's hair samples and the prosecution chose to wait, then when Scheck said "right after" he probably meant "as soon as practicable within the prosecution's investigation. Perhaps, if you educated yourself with legal concepts, then my post would make sense to you. Stop, listen and learn.

The fact is there is no evidence in this case that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. No lawyer in this case ever inferred or claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. You’re the only one William who has made that flawed inference.

Simpson was arrested on June 17. Simpson’s hair samples were taken on July 13. Barry Scheck in his closing statement misled the jury by falsely saying that Simpson gave his hair samples “right after he was arrested” to insinuate Simpson had dandruff right before he was arrested. You evidently didn’t know then that Simpson’s hair samples weren’t collected until a month after the murders and you took Scheck’s false insinuation to where neither he nor any other lawyer in this case would go. You stated it as a reasonable inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. You were wrong. It is not a reasonable inference it’s simply unsupported speculation.

When it was proven to you that that Simpson's hair samples were taken on July 13 you came up with an excuse, your own interpretation that "right after he was arrested" means almost a month after the he was arrested, And now you’re still making excuses claiming that you think Scheck probably meant "as soon as practicable within the prosecution's investigation" That's funny. If Scheck meant what you imagine he meant he should have said it, or he should have said weeks after he was arrested, or he should have said on July 13. But Scheck didn't say any of those things because if he had it would have destroyed his insinuation that Simpson had dandruff five days before he was arrested on the night of the murders.

It isn't necessary to be educated in legal concepts to understand simple English that "right after he was arrested" does not mean almost a month later. It isn't necessary to be educated in legal concepts to understand that Scheck mislead the jury by misstating the facts to make a false insinuation. And isn't necessary to be educated in legal concepts to understand that your inference is based only on your imagination.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Martin,

I don't know if you know this but 65% of Americans believed OJ Simpson was innocent. It was only after the 911 tapes is when it seems white Americans believed that he was guilty. Again, this is according to "polls", but since I was never asked to participate in one, I don't have much confidence in them.

You bring up an excellent point with regards to the leaks--the only agency who could have been the source of the leaks was the LAPD, that early in the case.

IMO, the LAPD leaked certain information to was to put pressure on the judges as well as the DA's office. I think the DA's leaked the 911 tape not only to turn the tide of public opinon but also they knew they knew that the only convict they were going to to get was in the court of public opinion. IMO.

[limakey]

William,

According to "American Tragedy", hair, blood and other samples were taken, I think within 72 hours of the murders. I actually think it was 48, but I'm not sure. While I am disappointed with some of Shapiro's comments after the trial, I do believe he was brilliant in certain areas. He was very wise to have these samples taken as well as having pictures taken of Simpson's body.

I do agree with that the hat is nothing but a red herring. There is no way to prove even link the hat to Simpson. At least two other people wore the hat, IMO, I think Simpson could afford to buy every one in his family at least one new hat. I just can't see the Simpsons having to share hats. Again, IMO.

However, what is interesting is that the DA's knew from Shapiro's efforts regarding the number of hairs that could be taken from Simpson that the defense was going to challenged every piece of evidence with a vigor they have never seen before. Wouldn't it make sense that they would have taken more hair samples over a period to time to prove that Simpson's dandruff was the result of his being in jail?

I also wonder if the SID expert who took the hair samples from Simpson took any notes. I would think that he would have been a key witness for the DA's.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Your quote "You stated it as a reasonable inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. You were wrong. It is not a reasonable inference it’s simply unsupported speculation."

You are wrong. The defense had a witness who took care of Mr. Simpson's hair for 16 years. She said that sometimes he had dandruff and some times he didn't. He usually had it when he was in the sun a lot. We know that he spent several weeks in the sun filiming a pilot for a series. We also know that he played golf almost every day. What is unreasonable about Simpson having dandruff that night?

Also, Deedrick made assumptions on why a person may have dandruff when they are "guests" of the state. However, his assumptions do not come with percentages.

According to Deedrick, every single person who is jail or prison should have dandruff. He did not back up his opinion, he just gave an opinon.

The defense took samples of Simpson's hair about 48 to 72 hours after the murders. Scheck may have been mistaken, however, the defense did their job, they introduced reasonable doubt. The DA's had several opportunites and other evidence to back up their claim but they decided not to. They based their stance on a man's assumptions--just like they did with Kato. IMO.

[martin II]

Mr. August,

Your quote "You stated it as a reasonable inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. You were wrong. It is not a reasonable inference it’s simply unsupported speculation."

You are wrong. The defense had a witness who took care of Mr. Simpson's hair for 16 years. She said that sometimes he had dandruff and some times he didn't. He usually had it when he was in the sun a lot. We know that he spent several weeks in the sun filiming a pilot for a series. We also know that he played golf almost every day. What is unreasonable about Simpson having dandruff that night?

Also, Deedrick made assumptions on why a person may have dandruff when they are "guests" of the state. However, his assumptions do not come with percentages.

According to Deedrick, every single person who is jail or prison should have dandruff. He did not back up his opinion, he just gave an opinon.

The defense took samples of Simpson's hair about 48 to 72 hours after the murders. Scheck may have been mistaken, however, the defense did their job, they introduced reasonable doubt. The DA's had several opportunites and other evidence to back up their claim but they decided not to. They based their stance on a man's assumptions--just like they did with Kato. IMO.

Limakey.
you bring up some good pints.
The DA. with any real proof to link Oj to the cap, decided to do what they have done in other aspects of the case when they had problems.They put on a person that they claimed to be a 'EXPERT" and ask him quesitons that they know he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and when he gives his OPINIONS they expect the jury to just believe his opinions because he is testifying for the State. They expect the jury to ignore or not understand the judges instructions. These tactics may have worked in many of the cases where a defendant could not afford a good defense since they had a 98% conviction rate, but this was not the case in the Simpson criminal trial.

If the defense had thought that the cap was a bad issue for them they could have brought on another 'EXPERT' to say because ojs hair EXPERT' testimony
about him playing golf/dandruff that his OPINION was that he would have dandruff. According to the judges instruction the benefit would have gone to oj.
Oj was in new york a few days/week before the murders and he played golf daily.imo

[martin II]

William,

According to "American Tragedy", hair, blood and other samples were taken, I think within 72 hours of the murders. I actually think it was 48, but I'm not sure. While I am disappointed with some of Shapiro's comments after the trial, I do believe he was brilliant in certain areas. He was very wise to have these samples taken as well as having pictures taken of Simpson's body.

I do agree with that the hat is nothing but a red herring. There is no way to prove even link the hat to Simpson. At least two other people wore the hat, IMO, I think Simpson could afford to buy every one in his family at least one new hat. I just can't see the Simpsons having to share hats. Again, IMO.

However, what is interesting is that the DA's knew from Shapiro's efforts regarding the number of hairs that could be taken from Simpson that the defense was going to challenged every piece of evidence with a vigor they have never seen before. Wouldn't it make sense that they would have taken more hair samples over a period to time to prove that Simpson's dandruff was the result of his being in jail?

I also wonder if the SID expert who took the hair samples from Simpson took any notes. I would think that he would have been a key witness for the DA's.


Peratis did not make single notaiton on the blood he took from oj. I think vanhatter said there were no notes talken by le at Rockingham.

Unbelievable.

It seems that this non note taking gives le/DA a way to 'REARANGE' events
as they see fit at trial.

[martin II]

Limakey.
you bring up some good pints.
The DA. with any real proof to link Oj to the cap, decided to do what they have done in other aspects of the case when they had problems.They put on a person that they claimed to be a 'EXPERT" and ask him quesitons that they know he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and when he gives his OPINIONS they expect the jury to just believe his opinions because he is testifying for the State. They expect the jury to ignore or not understand the judges instructions. These tactics may have worked in many of the cases where a defendant could not afford a good defense since they had a 98% conviction rate, but this was not the case in the Simpson criminal trial.

If the defense had thought that the cap was a bad issue for them they could have brought on another 'EXPERT' to say because ojs hair EXPERT' testimony
about him playing golf/dandruff that his OPINION was that he would have dandruff. According to the judges instruction the benefit would have gone to oj.
Oj was in new york a few days/week before the murders and he played golf daily.imo

correction

Good points.

[limakey]

Martin,

IMO, the nurse did write out the report. I think it was in American Tragedy where they say that Collin Y, Matheson and I think a another person wrote down how much blood they used for the tests. IMO, one of them would have noticed that the original amount was not written down and would have brought it to someone's attention. To me, they knew they had to write down how much they used, so why didn't the person who drew the blood feel he didn't have to?

I do believe it is possible that the RN was either told not to write down the amount or like AM's initials missing from bindles, perhaps a new clean "sticker" was put on Simpson's blood.

However, I wonder if the amounts taken from Ron and Nicole were written down and if the person's handling the tests wrote down how much of their blood was used for tests. So much was focused on Simpson's blood, what about Ron and Nicole's?

[limakey]

Martin,

IMO, I think the DA's should have left the hat alone. They knew they could not link it to Simpson, they knew that they could not get any positive DNA from the hairs found inside the cap.

However, the real reason why I think they should have left it alone is because they knew that knit watch cap was not going to disguise Simpson, it was not going to "conceal" his identity from anyone---especially not his children. I believe they DA's were stuck with the hat because of the ski mask leak.

I also find it very hard to believe that the hat had no blood on it. How could that happen if Simpson worn it that night? Or if anyone who wore that hat while killing in that small area?

BTW, do you know if any blood was found on the Bundy glove? I can't find any information on it.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Your quote "You stated it as a reasonable inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. You were wrong. It is not a reasonable inference it’s simply unsupported speculation."

You are wrong. The defense had a witness who took care of Mr. Simpson's hair for 16 years. She said that sometimes he had dandruff and some times he didn't. He usually had it when he was in the sun a lot. We know that he spent several weeks in the sun filiming a pilot for a series. We also know that he played golf almost every day. What is unreasonable about Simpson having dandruff that night?

Also, Deedrick made assumptions on why a person may have dandruff when they are "guests" of the state. However, his assumptions do not come with percentages.

According to Deedrick, every single person who is jail or prison should have dandruff. He did not back up his opinion, he just gave an opinon.

The defense took samples of Simpson's hair about 48 to 72 hours after the murders. Scheck may have been mistaken, however, the defense did their job, they introduced reasonable doubt. The DA's had several opportunites and other evidence to back up their claim but they decided not to. They based their stance on a man's assumptions--just like they did with Kato. IMO.

There is no evidence in this case to make a reasonable inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. Juanita Moore testified that she last saw Simpson on May 23 and never said Simpson had dandruff then. Moore could not and did not testify what Simpson’s hair condition was on June 12. To make the inference that Simpson had dandruff on a specific in June based on testimony that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn’t without any other evidence to support that inference is not reasonable at all. It’s only speculation, unsupported speculation. That’s why no defense attorney in this case ever inferred or claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12.

The only evidence that Simpson had dandruff was on July 13 after he was incarcerated for almost a month. Deedrick testified that it wasn’t uncommon to see dandruff in hair samples taken from inmates who have been incarcerated. It’s understandable that when someone is in jail conditions are usually different than what they are normally accustomed to including shampoo changes and how they are able to care for themselves. It seems to me that’s a more reasonable explanation as to why Simpson had dandruff a month after the murders.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Your quote: "There is no evidence in this case to make a reasonable inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12."

On the other hand, the DA's had no evidence to make a reasonable inference that he did not have dandruff on June 12.

The DA's had no evidence to to make a reasonable inference that the hairs found in and on the hat was Simpson's. Those hair samples could not identify the person who left them.

Deedrick never testified that the hairs found inside and the outside of the hat were Simpson's. Nor did he identify the other hairs found inside the cap.

However, the defense did in fact make a reasonable inference that a knit watch cap was not a disguise or an attempt to conceal his identityk, especially from his children.

The defense and Deedrick both made a reasonable inference that the hat was worn by at least two other people.

There was no blood on or in the hat, that alone is reasonable inference that no matter who killed them, may not have even wore the hat. It appears to me that the plant it was found under protected it from the blood. IMO.

Again, according to Deedrick, every prisoner should have dandruff. He made assumptions, he did not back it up with percentages. Also, he could not prove that the dandruff found in the samples was a direct result of being in prison.

He assumed that a person may develop dandruff in prison because of the shampoo they use---again, what is the evidence that prison shampoo causes dandruff? What type or brand name of shampoo did Simpson used before the murders and what kind of shampoo did Simpson use while in jail?

I would think the DA's would have an issue if Simpson used shampoo that is said to control dandruff. And, who is to say that Simpson did not ask or receive his normal shampoo. In other words, who is to say that any visitor he had did not bring him anything. I don't think there is a law where a visitor can't give an inmate a bottle of shampoo.

Remember Mr. August, your claims of the defense not making reasonable inferences always has the flipped side---the DA's made inferences and they had to prove them, they didn't. IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, I think the DA's should have left the hat alone. They knew they could not link it to Simpson, they knew that they could not get any positive DNA from the hairs found inside the cap.

However, the real reason why I think they should have left it alone is because they knew that knit watch cap was not going to disguise Simpson, it was not going to "conceal" his identity from anyone---especially not his children. I believe they DA's were stuck with the hat because of the ski mask leak.

I also find it very hard to believe that the hat had no blood on it. How could that happen if Simpson worn it that night? Or if anyone who wore that hat while killing in that small area?

BTW, do you know if any blood was found on the Bundy glove? I can't find any information on it.

LImakey

From memory of the picture i believe the Bundy glove did have blood but will look for the picture again.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Your quote: "There is no evidence in this case to make a reasonable inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12."

On the other hand, the DA's had no evidence to make a reasonable inference that he did not have dandruff on June 12.

The DA's had no evidence to to make a reasonable inference that the hairs found in and on the hat was Simpson's. Those hair samples could not identify the person who left them.

Deedrick never testified that the hairs found inside and the outside of the hat were Simpson's. Nor did he identify the other hairs found inside the cap.

However, the defense did in fact make a reasonable inference that a knit watch cap was not a disguise or an attempt to conceal his identityk, especially from his children.

The defense and Deedrick both made a reasonable inference that the hat was worn by at least two other people.

There was no blood on or in the hat, that alone is reasonable inference that no matter who killed them, may not have even wore the hat. It appears to me that the plant it was found under protected it from the blood. IMO.

Again, according to Deedrick, every prisoner should have dandruff. He made assumptions, he did not back it up with percentages. Also, he could not prove that the dandruff found in the samples was a direct result of being in prison.

He assumed that a person may develop dandruff in prison because of the shampoo they use---again, what is the evidence that prison shampoo causes dandruff? What type or brand name of shampoo did Simpson used before the murders and what kind of shampoo did Simpson use while in jail?

I would think the DA's would have an issue if Simpson used shampoo that is said to control dandruff. And, who is to say that Simpson did not ask or receive his normal shampoo. In other words, who is to say that any visitor he had did not bring him anything. I don't think there is a law where a visitor can't give an inmate a bottle of shampoo.

Remember Mr. August, your claims of the defense not making reasonable inferences always has the flipped side---the DA's made inferences and they had to prove them, they didn't. IMO.

Limakey, all the naturally shed hairs found in and on the knit cap were microscopically consistent with Simpson’s hair samples. The defense didn’t make any reasonable inference or claim that the knit cap was not worn for concealment in the dark. Deedrick testified that six hair fragments found in the knit cap did not match Simpson’s hair samples. Simpson’s lawyers never contradicted Deedrick’s testimony that it wasn’t uncommon to see dandruff in hair samples taken from inmates who have been incarcerated. The prosecution offered a reasonable explanation, not an inference, as to why Simpson’s hair samples had dandruff a month after the murders. For any inference to be reasonable it should be based on direct or physical evidence, not simply imagination.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Limakey, all the naturally shed hairs found in and on the knit cap were microscopically consistent with Simpson’s hair samples. The defense didn’t make any reasonable inference or claim that the knit cap was not worn for concealment in the dark. Deedrick testified that six hair fragments found in the knit cap did not match Simpson’s hair samples. Simpson’s lawyers never contradicted Deedrick’s testimony that it wasn’t uncommon to see dandruff in hair samples taken from inmates who have been incarcerated. The prosecution offered a reasonable explanation, not an inference, as to why Simpson’s hair samples had dandruff a month after the murders. For any inference to be reasonable it should be based on direct or physical evidence, not simply imagination.

bobaugust

bob
Did Deedrick testify to a scientific certainty about the hair or did he give his opinions?

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Your quote "Limakey, all the naturally shed hairs found in and on the knit cap were microscopically consistent with Simpson’s hair samples."

The naturally shed hairs found in and on the knit cape were miscroscopically consistent with an African American. No more, no less. Certainly not a positive identification.

What is the direct evidence the DA's used to say that Simpson did not have dandruff that night? What evidence they did they produce that Simpson was never in the circumstances when his barber said he seemed to have more dandruff during this time? Where is their proof?

Deedrick assumed that a person may develop dandruff because of a change of the shampoo. This was his assumption, no more, no less. Mr. Deedrick was not Simpson's barber for the past 16 years.

When did Deedrick prove it was impossible for Simpson to have had dandruff that night?

[limakey]

Mr. August,

BTW, the other hair samples--who were they consistent with? Sydney? Justin?

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Your quote "Limakey, all the naturally shed hairs found in and on the knit cap were microscopically consistent with Simpson’s hair samples."

The naturally shed hairs found in and on the knit cape were miscroscopically consistent with an African American. No more, no less. Certainly not a positive identification.

What is the direct evidence the DA's used to say that Simpson did not have dandruff that night? What evidence they did they produce that Simpson was never in the circumstances when his barber said he seemed to have more dandruff during this time? Where is their proof?

Deedrick assumed that a person may develop dandruff because of a change of the shampoo. This was his assumption, no more, no less. Mr. Deedrick was not Simpson's barber for the past 16 years.

When did Deedrick prove it was impossible for Simpson to have had dandruff that night?

Limakey, you aren’t actually claiming that all African American’s have hairs that are all microscopically the same are you? The 12 African American naturally shed hairs all had the same microscopic characteristics as Simpson’s hair samples. The 6 African American hair fragments did not.

There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. Simpson’s defense never inferred or claimed that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders so the prosecution was no obligation to prove that he didn’t have dandruff that night. If the defense had made that allegation I have no doubt the prosecution would have questioned Dr. Huizenga about it since he conducted a complete examination of Simpson on June 15 and again on June 17 before Simpson was arrested.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Limakey, you aren’t actually claiming that all African American’s have hairs that are all microscopically the same are you? The 12 African American naturally shed hairs all had the same microscopic characteristics as Simpson’s hair samples. The 6 African American hair fragments did not.

There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. Simpson’s defense never inferred or claimed that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders so the prosecution was no obligation to prove that he didn’t have dandruff that night. If the defense had made that allegation I have no doubt the prosecution would have questioned Dr. Huizenga about it since he conducted a complete examination of Simpson on June 15 and again on June 17 before Simpson was arrested.

bobaugust


bob

The DA said a cap was found at bundy and they claimed oj wore it.
But they had a sponsibility to prove this point but never did.They just said we believe he did.

[bobaugust]

bob

The DA said a cap was found at bundy and they claimed oj wore it.
But they had a sponsibility to prove this point but never did.They just said we believe he did.

All the naturally shed hairs found inside the knit cap were microscopically consistent with Simpson’s hair samples. That fact tells us Simpson wore that knit cap. Fiber evidence found on the knit cap ties that knit cap to Simpson’s Bronco carpet and to the killer’s glove.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The fact is there is no evidence in this case that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. No lawyer in this case ever inferred or claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. You’re the only one William who has made that flawed inference.

Simpson was arrested on June 17. Simpson’s hair samples were taken on July 13. Barry Scheck in his closing statement misled the jury by falsely saying that Simpson gave his hair samples “right after he was arrested” to insinuate Simpson had dandruff right before he was arrested. You evidently didn’t know then that Simpson’s hair samples weren’t collected until a month after the murders and you took Scheck’s false insinuation to where neither he nor any other lawyer in this case would go. You stated it as a reasonable inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. You were wrong. It is not a reasonable inference it’s simply unsupported speculation.

When it was proven to you that that Simpson's hair samples were taken on July 13 you came up with an excuse, your own interpretation that "right after he was arrested" means almost a month after the he was arrested, And now you’re still making excuses claiming that you think Scheck probably meant "as soon as practicable within the prosecution's investigation" That's funny. If Scheck meant what you imagine he meant he should have said it, or he should have said weeks after he was arrested, or he should have said on July 13. But Scheck didn't say any of those things because if he had it would have destroyed his insinuation that Simpson had dandruff five days before he was arrested on the night of the murders.

It isn't necessary to be educated in legal concepts to understand simple English that "right after he was arrested" does not mean almost a month later. It isn't necessary to be educated in legal concepts to understand that Scheck mislead the jury by misstating the facts to make a false insinuation. And isn't necessary to be educated in legal concepts to understand that your inference is based only on your imagination.

bobaugust

Do you think that as soon as practicable within the investigation means the same as immediate?

[William Anthony]

All the naturally shed hairs found inside the knit cap were microscopically consistent with Simpson’s hair samples. That fact tells us Simpson wore that knit cap. Fiber evidence found on the knit cap ties that knit cap to Simpson’s Bronco carpet and to the killer’s glove.

bobaugust

The question my learned friend is not who wore the cap but who wore it and when.

[William Anthony]

William,

According to "American Tragedy", hair, blood and other samples were taken, I think within 72 hours of the murders. I actually think it was 48, but I'm not sure. While I am disappointed with some of Shapiro's comments after the trial, I do believe he was brilliant in certain areas. He was very wise to have these samples taken as well as having pictures taken of Simpson's body.

I do agree with that the hat is nothing but a red herring. There is no way to prove even link the hat to Simpson. At least two other people wore the hat, IMO, I think Simpson could afford to buy every one in his family at least one new hat. I just can't see the Simpsons having to share hats. Again, IMO.

However, what is interesting is that the DA's knew from Shapiro's efforts regarding the number of hairs that could be taken from Simpson that the defense was going to challenged every piece of evidence with a vigor they have never seen before. Wouldn't it make sense that they would have taken more hair samples over a period to time to prove that Simpson's dandruff was the result of his being in jail?

I also wonder if the SID expert who took the hair samples from Simpson took any notes. I would think that he would have been a key witness for the DA's.

Agreed. The prosecution's ant hill of a case was exposed magnificently, imho.

[bobaugust]

Do you think that as soon as practicable within the investigation means the same as immediate?

No I don’t think as soon as practicable within the investigation means the same as immediate.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The question my learned friend is not who wore the cap but who wore it and when.

Based on blood, hair, and fiber evidence I don’t believe it’s unreasonable to infer that Simpson wore the knit cap when he was at Bundy the night of the murders.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No I don’t think as soon as practicable within the investigation means the same as immediate.

bobaugust

March 16th

"Q: DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WHEN YOU LEFT OFF, YOU HAD JUST TOLD US THAT THE CORONER HAD NO AUTHORITY TO ENTER YOUR CRIME SCENE UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT YOU GAVE THEM YOUR CONSENT OR PERMISSION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: BUT YOU DO HAVE A DUTY TO NOTIFY THE CORONER; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND WE HAVE SEEN ON THE ELMO A SECTION FROM THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE AND LAPD SPECIAL LAWYER NO. 21?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THOSE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEY INDICATE THAT YOU SHOULD NOTIFY THE CORONER IMMEDIATELY; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S WHAT THEY INDICATE, YES.

Q: OKAY. WELL, YOU'VE BEEN A DETECTIVE 20 YEARS, RIGHT?

A: ACTUALLY OVER 20 YEARS.

Q: OKAY. AND IN THE REAL WORLD, FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OF VIEW, WHAT DOES "IMMEDIATE" MEAN IN THE CONTEXT OF YOU AS A DETECTIVE CONDUCTING A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. VAGUE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: "IMMEDIATE" TO ME MEANS WHEN -- WHEN IT'S PRACTICAL FOR THEM TO RESPOND TO THE SCENE TO REMOVE THE BODIES. THERE'S NO NEED FOR THEM TO BE THERE BEFORE THEN, AND THAT WOULD BE AFTER I OR MY PARTNER HAD FINISHED THE SCENE."

[William Anthony]

Based on blood, hair, and fiber evidence I don’t believe it’s unreasonable to infer that Simpson wore the knit cap when he was at Bundy the night of the murders.

bobaugust

Circular reasoning. Where is the evidence that he was at Bundy on the night of the murders?

[bobaugust]

March 16th

"Q: DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WHEN YOU LEFT OFF, YOU HAD JUST TOLD US THAT THE CORONER HAD NO AUTHORITY TO ENTER YOUR CRIME SCENE UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT YOU GAVE THEM YOUR CONSENT OR PERMISSION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: BUT YOU DO HAVE A DUTY TO NOTIFY THE CORONER; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND WE HAVE SEEN ON THE ELMO A SECTION FROM THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE AND LAPD SPECIAL LAWYER NO. 21?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THOSE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEY INDICATE THAT YOU SHOULD NOTIFY THE CORONER IMMEDIATELY; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S WHAT THEY INDICATE, YES.

Q: OKAY. WELL, YOU'VE BEEN A DETECTIVE 20 YEARS, RIGHT?

A: ACTUALLY OVER 20 YEARS.

Q: OKAY. AND IN THE REAL WORLD, FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OF VIEW, WHAT DOES "IMMEDIATE" MEAN IN THE CONTEXT OF YOU AS A DETECTIVE CONDUCTING A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. VAGUE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: "IMMEDIATE" TO ME MEANS WHEN -- WHEN IT'S PRACTICAL FOR THEM TO RESPOND TO THE SCENE TO REMOVE THE BODIES. THERE'S NO NEED FOR THEM TO BE THERE BEFORE THEN, AND THAT WOULD BE AFTER I OR MY PARTNER HAD FINISHED THE SCENE."

I believe Vannatter explained this very well. Just because a section in a health and safety code indicates you should notify the coroner immediately it may differ based on the circumstances regarding a specific homicide. Vannatter went on to explain what first call and second call notifications were.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Circular reasoning. Where is the evidence that he was at Bundy on the night of the murders?

No it’s not circular reasoning it’s a reasonable inference based on physical evidence. The evidence that Simpson was at Bundy that night was Simpson’s fresh blood found at the murder scene, Simpson’s blood found on one of the killer’s gloves, Simpson’s blood found mixed with both victims blood in his Bronco, as well as fiber evidence that ties Simpson to the murders.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I believe Vannatter explained this very well. Just because a section in a health and safety code indicates you should notify the coroner immediately it may differ based on the circumstances regarding a specific homicide. Vannatter went on to explain what first call and second call notifications were.

bobaugust

If you believe that Vannatter gave a reasonable explanation as to what immediate means, then why will you not allow the same for Scheck's use of the term right after?

[William Anthony]

No it’s not circular reasoning it’s a reasonable inference based on physical evidence. The evidence that Simpson was at Bundy that night was Simpson’s fresh blood found at the murder scene, Simpson’s blood found on one of the killer’s gloves, Simpson’s blood found mixed with both victims blood in his Bronco, as well as fiber evidence that ties Simpson to the murders.

bobaugust

As you know since we have had this discussion previously, no one testified that the blood was fresh and there is evidence that the glove was planted as well as the evidence found in the Bronco and the fiber evidence ties no one to the crime scenes, unless you begin with the hypothesis that Simpson did it, which is circular reasoning to explain the evidence that contradicts all the things you have mentioned in your post.

[William Anthony]

I believe Vannatter explained this very well. Just because a section in a health and safety code indicates you should notify the coroner immediately it may differ based on the circumstances regarding a specific homicide. Vannatter went on to explain what first call and second call notifications were.

bobaugust

I guess that you think this is a reasonable explanation also.

February 16th or 17th

"Q: DO YOU FIND ANYTHING IN THAT SECTION THAT EXEMPTS YOU FROM NEEDING TO NOTIFY THE CORONER UNTIL THE DETECTIVES ARRIVE?

A: YES.

Q: WOULD YOU READ THE SECTION OR THAT PART OF IT WHICH YOU BELIEVE EXEMPTS YOU FROM THAT OBLIGATION?

A: "IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER TO NOTIFY THE CORONER OF DEATHS OCCURRING." AND I WAS A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATING SERGEANT AND I TAKE THIS AS INVESTIGATING OFFICER, MEANING THE RESPONDING DETECTIVES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU PERSONALLY OBSERVE ANOTHER POLICEMAN VIOLATING THE LAW, WHAT IS YOUR OBLIGATION?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. I THINK WE HAVE ALREADY ASKED THIS QUESTION, THOUGH.

MS. CLARK: ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. YESTERDAY.

MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY.

Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH SECTION 210.46 OF VOLUME 1 DEALING WITH MISCONDUCT OF OFFICERS AND THE DUTY TO REPORT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU EVER HEAR ANY DETECTIVE CALL THE CORONER --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: -- THAT MORNING?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER REPORTED THE FACT THAT THE DETECTIVES HAD VIOLATED THE RULES OF THE MANUAL?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT.

Q: WHAT OBLIGATIONS DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE REPORTS OF A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION OF THIS SORT WHEN YOU ARE AT LEAST TEMPORARILY IN CHARGE OF THE MATTER?

A: THE ONLY OBLIGATION THAT I HAVE IS TO ENSURE THAT A CRIME SCENE LOG IS BEING COMPLETED. "

[bobaugust]

If you believe that Vannatter gave a reasonable explanation as to what immediate means, then why will you not allow the same for Scheck's use of the term right after?

It’s not a matter of allowing anything, it’s a matter of understand simple English and the context in which words were said. Vannatter’s explanation was regarding a matter of hours in a police investigation. Scheck was speaking to the jury in his closing argument and misstated the facts when he said Simpson’s hair samples were taken right after he was arrested when in fact Simpson’s hair samples were taken almost a month after he was arrested.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

As you know since we have had this discussion previously, no one testified that the blood was fresh and there is evidence that the glove was planted as well as the evidence found in the Bronco and the fiber evidence ties no one to the crime scenes, unless you begin with the hypothesis that Simpson did it, which is circular reasoning to explain the evidence that contradicts all the things you have mentioned in your post.

As you know there is evidence that Simpson’s blood found on the walkway at Bundy was fresh blood. There is no evidence that blood wasn’t fresh blood and as far as I know no lawyer in this case ever made that claim. There is no evidence that the glove was planted at Rockingham and there is no evidence that blood was planted in the Bronco. It is not circular reasoning that the exact same blue black cotton fibers found on Ron Goldman’s shirt and on the killer’s right hand glove were also found on Simpson’s socks. It is a fact.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I guess that you think this is a reasonable explanation also.

February 16th or 17th

"Q: DO YOU FIND ANYTHING IN THAT SECTION THAT EXEMPTS YOU FROM NEEDING TO NOTIFY THE CORONER UNTIL THE DETECTIVES ARRIVE?

A: YES.

Q: WOULD YOU READ THE SECTION OR THAT PART OF IT WHICH YOU BELIEVE EXEMPTS YOU FROM THAT OBLIGATION?

A: "IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER TO NOTIFY THE CORONER OF DEATHS OCCURRING." AND I WAS A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATING SERGEANT AND I TAKE THIS AS INVESTIGATING OFFICER, MEANING THE RESPONDING DETECTIVES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU PERSONALLY OBSERVE ANOTHER POLICEMAN VIOLATING THE LAW, WHAT IS YOUR OBLIGATION?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. I THINK WE HAVE ALREADY ASKED THIS QUESTION, THOUGH.

MS. CLARK: ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. YESTERDAY.

MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY.

Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH SECTION 210.46 OF VOLUME 1 DEALING WITH MISCONDUCT OF OFFICERS AND THE DUTY TO REPORT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU EVER HEAR ANY DETECTIVE CALL THE CORONER --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: -- THAT MORNING?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER REPORTED THE FACT THAT THE DETECTIVES HAD VIOLATED THE RULES OF THE MANUAL?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT.

Q: WHAT OBLIGATIONS DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE REPORTS OF A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION OF THIS SORT WHEN YOU ARE AT LEAST TEMPORARILY IN CHARGE OF THE MATTER?

A: THE ONLY OBLIGATION THAT I HAVE IS TO ENSURE THAT A CRIME SCENE LOG IS BEING COMPLETED. "

Who is testifying?

[William Anthony]

It’s not a matter of allowing anything, it’s a matter of understand simple English and the context in which words were said. Vannatter’s explanation was regarding a matter of hours in a police investigation. Scheck was speaking to the jury in his closing argument and misstated the facts when he said Simpson’s hair samples were taken right after he was arrested when in fact Simpson’s hair samples were taken almost a month after he was arrested.

bobaugust

You think that a matter of hours is a reasonable explanation for immediate but do not think that a matter of days is a reasonable explanation for right after. Your finding of reasonableness seems to depend on who is talking.

[William Anthony]

Who is testifying?

What difference does that make unless your finding of reasonableness depends on who is talking?

[William Anthony]

As you know there is evidence that Simpson’s blood found on the walkway at Bundy was fresh blood. There is no evidence that blood wasn’t fresh blood and as far as I know no lawyer in this case ever made that claim. There is no evidence that the glove was planted at Rockingham and there is no evidence that blood was planted in the Bronco. It is not circular reasoning that the exact same blue black cotton fibers found on Ron Goldman’s shirt and on the killer’s right hand glove were also found on Simpson’s socks. It is a fact.

bobaugust

You claimed that the blood was fresh. However, the testimony was that it appeared fresh. There is plenty of evidence that the Rockingham glove and the blood in the Bronco was planted, all of which concerns the slips or non slip of the tongue of the convicted perjurer. The evidence of the magical socks is in and of itself suspicious. The only way it fits is, if you begin with the premises that Simpson is guilty and ignore all the evidence pointing to his non guilt, which would be prejudicial and biased.

[bobaugust]

You think that a matter of hours is a reasonable explanation for immediate but do not think that a matter of days is a reasonable explanation for right after. Your finding of reasonableness seems to depend on who is talking.

You’re trying to compare apples and oranges. Vannatter testified that circumstances determined when the first notification was made. Scheck misstated the evidence when he said Simpson’s hair samples were taken “right after he was arrested.” The real question is why you are still defending Scheck’s misstatement with the ridiculous interpretation that “right after he was arrested” means almost a month after he was arrested.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

What difference does that make unless your finding of reasonableness depends on who is talking?

The only officer cross examined on Feb 16 or Feb 17 was Phillips who was cross examined by Cochran yet the testimony you posted shows only Bailey making a comment. Who was being questioned in the testimony you posted?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You claimed that the blood was fresh. However, the testimony was that it appeared fresh. There is plenty of evidence that the Rockingham glove and the blood in the Bronco was planted, all of which concerns the slips or non slip of the tongue of the convicted perjurer. The evidence of the magical socks is in and of itself suspicious. The only way it fits is, if you begin with the premises that Simpson is guilty and ignore all the evidence pointing to his non guilt, which would be prejudicial and biased.

That’s right the blood appeared fresh. Old blood does not appear fresh. There is no evidence of the glove being planted at Rockingham only unsupported speculation and your personal inability to understand that a one word answer to an improper compound question is not a reliable answer. When Fuhrman was asked if he had a slip of the tongue regarding his use of the word “them” he answered no. There was no evidence in this case ever presented that eliminated Simpson from being the killer.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

That’s right the blood appeared fresh. Old blood does not appear fresh. There is no evidence of the glove being planted at Rockingham only unsupported speculation and your personal inability to understand that a one word answer to an improper compound question is not a reliable answer. When Fuhrman was asked if he had a slip of the tongue regarding his use of the word “them” he answered no. There was no evidence in this case ever presented that eliminated Simpson from being the killer.

bobaugust

Let me begin at the end since that last sentence confirms you lack of knowledge of at least one legal concept. Your sentence is "There was no evidence in this case ever presented that eliminated Simpson from being the killer." There did not need to be any evidence presented that Simpson was eliminated as the killer. There need to be evidence presented beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the killer. There was evidence that the blood appeared fresh and the it was not collected until several hours after the murders. We must not forget our commons sense dictates when we evaluate the evidence, nor the fact that the convicted perjurer gave some questionable testimony.

[martin II]

That’s right the blood appeared fresh. Old blood does not appear fresh. There is no evidence of the glove being planted at Rockingham only unsupported speculation and your personal inability to understand that a one word answer to an improper compound question is not a reliable answer. When Fuhrman was asked if he had a slip of the tongue regarding his use of the word “them” he answered no. There was no evidence in this case ever presented that eliminated Simpson from being the killer.

bobaugust

The blood should not have appeared fresh after 7-8 hours on a warn la night.
imo

[limakey]

Mr. August,

A few points:

1. Regarding the detectives notifying the corner's office. Isn't it fair to say that there are several reasons why the the Coroner is supposed to be called in a certain time frame?

2. The detectives again went against policy, knowing why the policy is in place. So what does this tell us? The lead detectives did, again, ignored official policy and the only reason why they ignored this is because they knew very earlier on who their prime suspect was.

3. The hair in the knit cap, at least two people wore that hat. No way to determine who those hairs belonged to. However, if the other samples could not be linked to anyone in Simpson's family---this tells us that a stranger may have worn the hat.

4. The hair sample, any hair sample can't tell us much--it can't tell us how old the person is, what the gender of the person is nor can it tell us how long it has been inside the hat.

5. Schreck may have made a mistake in regards to when the CSI guy took a sample of Simpson's hair, however, he was not mistaken that his hair samples were taken by his own team a couple of days after the murder.

6. Never has it been proved that Simpson's Bronco was locked. Simpson was known not to lock it.

7. On the glove at Rockingham, there is more evidence to support that it was planted then it wasn't. The unidentified hair plays a role hear. Was this hair consistent with Goldman? Nicole? If it was not either of them, then this supports that the glove was planted but not necessarily that it was Fuhrman.

[William Anthony]

Let me begin at the end since that last sentence confirms you lack of knowledge of at least one legal concept. Your sentence is "There was no evidence in this case ever presented that eliminated Simpson from being the killer." There did not need to be any evidence presented that Simpson was eliminated as the killer. There need to be evidence presented beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the killer. There was evidence that the blood appeared fresh and the it was not collected until several hours after the murders. We must not forget our commons sense dictates when we evaluate the evidence, nor the fact that the convicted perjurer gave some questionable testimony.

Correction-Let me begin at the end since that last sentence confirms your lack of knowledge of at least one legal concept. Your sentence is "There was no evidence in this case ever presented that eliminated Simpson from being the killer." There did not need to be any evidence presented that Simpson was eliminated as the killer. There needed to be evidence presented beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the killer. There was evidence that the blood appeared fresh and then it was not collected until several hours after the murders. We must not forget our commons sense dictates when we evaluate the evidence, nor the fact that the convicted perjurer gave some questionable testimony.[/QUOTE]

[martin II]

Mr. August,

A few points:

1. Regarding the detectives notifying the corner's office. Isn't it fair to say that there are several reasons why the the Coroner is supposed to be called in a certain time frame?

2. The detectives again went against policy, knowing why the policy is in place. So what does this tell us? The lead detectives did, again, ignored official policy and the only reason why they ignored this is because they knew very earlier on who their prime suspect was.

3. The hair in the knit cap, at least two people wore that hat. No way to determine who those hairs belonged to. However, if the other samples could not be linked to anyone in Simpson's family---this tells us that a stranger may have worn the hat.

4. The hair sample, any hair sample can't tell us much--it can't tell us how old the person is, what the gender of the person is nor can it tell us how long it has been inside the hat.

5. Schreck may have made a mistake in regards to when the CSI guy took a sample of Simpson's hair, however, he was not mistaken that his hair samples were taken by his own team a couple of days after the murder.

6. Never has it been proved that Simpson's Bronco was locked. Simpson was known not to lock it.

7. On the glove at Rockingham, there is more evidence to support that it was planted then it wasn't. The unidentified hair plays a role hear. Was this hair consistent with Goldman? Nicole? If it was not either of them, then this supports that the glove was planted but not necessarily that it was Fuhrman.

Not calling the coronor in time is not the only time Vanhatter went against protocol. If called in time the coronor can establish time of death and make notes on the body. Not calling the coronor allowed le to manipulate the bodies and the scene.

I don't think the rear wheels being 2 inches from the curb constitutes a erratically parked Bronco.

Le testified that no one climbed that fence and came through the heavy vines
to enter the south walkway.

1. I believe if someone had jumped from the fence and fell against the wall he would have fallen down on the ground. NOT BOUNCED AGAINST THE WALL THREE TIMES.

2. If someone had bounced against the wall and fell to the ground why were there no distrubed leaves on the ground.

3. The glove could have been tossed from the Salingers side of the fence, from the area of the fence in the walkway behind the garage or from the window at the walkway but not by OJ Simpson.

[weezer]

Not calling the coronor in time is not the only time Vanhatter went against protocol. If called in time the coronor can establish time of death and make notes on the body. Not calling the coronor allowed le to manipulate the bodies and the scene.

I don't think the rear wheels being 2 inches from the curb constitutes a erratically parked Bronco.

Le testified that no one climbed that fence and came through the heavy vines
to enter the south walkway.

1. I believe if someone had jumped from the fence and fell against the wall he would have fallen down on the ground. NOT BOUNCED AGAINST THE WALL THREE TIMES.

2. If someone had bounced against the wall and fell to the ground why were there no distrubed leaves on the ground.

3. The glove could have been tossed from the Salingers side of the fence, from the area of the fence in the walkway behind the garage or from the window at the walkway but not by OJ Simpson.

martin, if there is no evidence that anyone was behind there, how do you propose to support your theory that Fuhrman was able to do that and not leave a trace BUT if orenthal had been back there, it would be all messed up?

[martin II]

martin, if there is no evidence that anyone was behind there, how do you propose to support your theory that Fuhrman was able to do that and not leave a trace BUT if orenthal had been back there, it would be all messed up?

Weezer
i offered three ways the glove could get back there without anyone walking in the pathway. Furhman as a detective, when he stood near the garage area and saw the glove was careful not to distrube the ground leaves i guess.
The prosecutions theory was that oj bounced against the wall THREE times(not likely ) and then he ran out of the walkway in the pitch dark, removed and replaced the two gates,(WHICH ACCORDING TO kATO HAD NOT BEEN MOVED) and ran to the front of the house. If this had happened there would have been broken vines and distrubed leaves seen on the ground in the photos.imo

[weezer]

Weezer
i offered three ways the glove could get back there without anyone walking in the pathway. Furhman as a detective, when he stood near the garage area and saw the glove was careful not to distrube the ground leaves i guess.
The prosecutions theory was that oj bounced against the wall THREE times(not likely ) and then he ran out of the walkway in the pitch dark, removed and replaced the two gates,(WHICH ACCORDING TO kATO HAD NOT BEEN MOVED) and ran to the front of the house. If this had happened there would have been broken vines and distrubed leaves seen on the ground in the photos.imo

I just think it's odd that you believe Fuhrman could move around that area planting evidence and what-not but orenthal would have left a mess. . . LOL

Soooooooooo, now you've found something to believe Kato about? LOL

[William Anthony]

Weezer
i offered three ways the glove could get back there without anyone walking in the pathway. Furhman as a detective, when he stood near the garage area and saw the glove was careful not to distrube the ground leaves i guess.
The prosecutions theory was that oj bounced against the wall THREE times(not likely ) and then he ran out of the walkway in the pitch dark, removed and replaced the two gates,(WHICH ACCORDING TO kATO HAD NOT BEEN MOVED) and ran to the front of the house. If this had happened there would have been broken vines and distrubed leaves seen on the ground in the photos.imo

The evidence was that MF did not see any disturbance in the area. Therefore, any disturbance noted in the area was a result of his and LE's conduct.

[martin II]

I just think it's odd that you believe Fuhrman could move around that area planting evidence and what-not but orenthal would have left a mess. . . LOL

Soooooooooo, now you've found something to believe Kato about? LOL


Saying Furhman had to be moving around as oj would have had to be is not
what i said, that is what you are saying.

No one has said that furhman jumped the fence bounced against the wall three times collected himself from the ground and ran through the leaves and vines to the front yard.

Kato went to the garage area and saw the placement of the first fence and looked at the second fence and saw neither had been moved from their regular position.So the question becomes how did OJ, in the black of night get past those fence running without distrubing and of the ground leaves.

Then tell me why vanhatter said no one came over the fense and three other detrectives said they investigated the fence area and saw no sign that anyone jumped the fence.

Maby you can explain how this happened.

I believe Kato when his testimony sounds reasonable and he is not changing it.

[martin II]

I just think it's odd that you believe Fuhrman could move around that area planting evidence and what-not but orenthal would have left a mess. . . LOL

Soooooooooo, now you've found something to believe Kato about? LOL

weezer

kato

How does a person stand on a fence,jump forward, hit a wall three times to make three seperate 'BUMPS,THUMPS" in the act of falling to the ground from the fence and not distrube and of the many leaves on the ground?

[fgump2]

The prosecution never said that OJS ran into the wall three times. Kato said he heard three bumps. The air conditioner falling down may have added 1 or two bumps, probably at least one. OJS might have made 2 bumps by hitting both the air conditioner and the wall; although this seems unlikely to make 2 distinct bumps.
Two objects would have hit the ground, OJS and the air condtioner. One or both of them could have made a bump that could have been heard in the room.
The whole complex where OJS lived has been torn down, so it isn't possible to do any experiments on it.
The study of forensic memory shows that people overestimate the accuracy of their memories. If a group of people were making a phone call were suddenly distracted by two bumps, some of them would probably thought they heard three bumps. If people are startled, as Kato was, their memories are probably less reliable than usual.
I also don't think it is possible to tell disturbed leaves from undisturbed leaves.

[martin II]

The prosecution never said that OJS ran into the wall three times. Kato said he heard three bumps. The air conditioner falling down may have added 1 or two bumps, probably at least one. OJS might have made 2 bumps by hitting both the air conditioner and the wall; although this seems unlikely to make 2 distinct bumps.
Two objects would have hit the ground, OJS and the air condtioner. One or both of them could have made a bump that could have been heard in the room.
The whole complex where OJS lived has been torn down, so it isn't possible to do any experiments on it.
The study of forensic memory shows that people overestimate the accuracy of their memories. If a group of people were making a phone call were suddenly distracted by two bumps, some of them would probably thought they heard three bumps. If people are startled, as Kato was, their memories are probably less reliable than usual.
I also don't think it is possible to tell disturbed leaves from undisturbed leaves.


Who said the air conditioner fell to the ground? Pictures of the south walkway
Show the air conditioner in place in the wall. Experiments were done with two people in Katos room and three men outside falling against the wall. No picture moved.

Kato told his girlfriend while on the phone at 10:40 pm, told oj at about 10:50
and furhman at about 6 am that he heard three thumps on his wall and the picture moved. Not much time passed there.

It is quite possible to tell distured leaves in the south walkway if someone had done what oj is accused of doing.Falling against the wall and to the ground and running out of the walkway as M Clarke claimed. That is if you have viewed the pictures of the walkway as it was found on 6/13.

Four le detectives testified that they saw no evidence that anyone came througfh the heavy growth and vines at the fence where the glove was found.
If you look at the pictures of the walkway you will see that the air conditioner is several feet east of the spot where the glove was "found" and there was nothing found on the air conditioner to indicate anyone had bounced on it .
imo

[weezer]

Who said the air conditioner fell to the ground? Pictures of the south walkway
Show the air conditioner in place in the wall. Experiments were done with two people in Katos room and three men outside falling against the wall. No picture moved.

Kato told his girlfriend while on the phone at 10:40 pm, told oj at about 10:50
and furhman at about 6 am that he heard three thumps on his wall and the picture moved. Not much time passed there.

It is quite possible to tell distured leaves in the south walkway if someone had done what oj is accused of doing.Falling against the wall and to the ground and running out of the walkway as M Clarke claimed. That is if you have viewed the pictures of the walkway as it was found on 6/13.

Four le detectives testified that they saw no evidence that anyone came througfh the heavy growth and vines at the fence where the glove was found.
If you look at the pictures of the walkway you will see that the air conditioner is several feet east of the spot where the glove was "found" and there was nothing found on the air conditioner to indicate anyone had bounced on it .
imo

what about the blood on the wiring?

[martin II]

what about the blood on the wiring?

As i understand it after some months the hedges were cut back by a trimming company and one spot of blood was found. No one knows who that blood spot belonged to.

Do you know who it came from?

[martin II]

what about the blood on the wiring?

i think you mean one spot of blood on one wire.

[bobaugust]

Correction-Let me begin at the end since that last sentence confirms your lack of knowledge of at least one legal concept. Your sentence is "There was no evidence in this case ever presented that eliminated Simpson from being the killer." There did not need to be any evidence presented that Simpson was eliminated as the killer. There needed to be evidence presented beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the killer. There was evidence that the blood appeared fresh and then it was not collected until several hours after the murders. We must not forget our commons sense dictates when we evaluate the evidence, nor the fact that the convicted perjurer gave some questionable testimony.

I didn’t say there was a need for evidence to be presented that would eliminate Simpson from being the killer; I said there was no evidence presented that eliminated Simpson form being the killer. If the prosecution had evidence that that would have eliminated Simpson it was their responsibility to make it known. If the defense had evidence that would have eliminated Simpson they would have presented it. But the fact is there was no evidence presented that eliminated Simpson because there was none. The blood on the walkway appeared to be fresh blood when it was first seen less than two hours after the murders and it still appeared to be fresh blood when it was collected hours later.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The blood should not have appeared fresh after 7-8 hours on a warn la night.
imo

martin II, according to who, you? That may be your belief but you’re certainly no expert regarding this issue and you’re claim is contradicted by the evidence in this case.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

A few points:

1. Regarding the detectives notifying the corner's office. Isn't it fair to say that there are several reasons why the the Coroner is supposed to be called in a certain time frame?

2. The detectives again went against policy, knowing why the policy is in place. So what does this tell us? The lead detectives did, again, ignored official policy and the only reason why they ignored this is because they knew very earlier on who their prime suspect was.

3. The hair in the knit cap, at least two people wore that hat. No way to determine who those hairs belonged to. However, if the other samples could not be linked to anyone in Simpson's family---this tells us that a stranger may have worn the hat.

4. The hair sample, any hair sample can't tell us much--it can't tell us how old the person is, what the gender of the person is nor can it tell us how long it has been inside the hat.

5. Schreck may have made a mistake in regards to when the CSI guy took a sample of Simpson's hair, however, he was not mistaken that his hair samples were taken by his own team a couple of days after the murder.

6. Never has it been proved that Simpson's Bronco was locked. Simpson was known not to lock it.

7. On the glove at Rockingham, there is more evidence to support that it was planted then it wasn't. The unidentified hair plays a role hear. Was this hair consistent with Goldman? Nicole? If it was not either of them, then this supports that the glove was planted but not necessarily that it was Fuhrman.

The detectives didn’t go against policy. Circumstances determined when the first call to the coroner was made. All the naturally shed hairs found in and on the knit cap were microscopically consistent with Simpson’s hair samples. They tell us Simpson wore that knit cap. The older hair fragments, some treated, found in the knit cap tells us someone else had previously worn that knit cap.

Neither Scheck nor anyone else in this case ever inferred or claimed that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders. No lawyer or witness in this case ever said anything about Simpson’s hair samples taken before he was arrested.

I don’t know what leads you to believe that Simpson was known not to lock his Bronco but the fact is that Bernie Douroux, the tow truck driver who picked the Bronco up from Rockingham and took it to the print shed testified that the Bronco was locked when he picked it up and still locked when he left it.

There is no evidence that the glove was planted at Rockingham. Deedrick testified that the naturally shed light brown Caucasian hair found on the killer’s right hand glove had an area of the hair that had some of the same microscopic characteristics as Ron Goldman’s hair sample nearest the root. Deedrick testified he was never provided naturally shed hairs from the coroner’s office for Ron Goldman for comparison.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, according to who, you? That may be your belief but you’re certainly no expert regarding this issue and you’re claim is contradicted by the evidence in this case.

bobaugust

I believe the few drops of blood on the rockingham glove would have started to coagulate sp after 7-8 hours and would not have appeared to be fresh.

[martin II]

The prosecution never said that OJS ran into the wall three times. Kato said he heard three bumps. The air conditioner falling down may have added 1 or two bumps, probably at least one. OJS might have made 2 bumps by hitting both the air conditioner and the wall; although this seems unlikely to make 2 distinct bumps.
Two objects would have hit the ground, OJS and the air condtioner. One or both of them could have made a bump that could have been heard in the room.
The whole complex where OJS lived has been torn down, so it isn't possible to do any experiments on it.
The study of forensic memory shows that people overestimate the accuracy of their memories. If a group of people were making a phone call were suddenly distracted by two bumps, some of them would probably thought they heard three bumps. If people are startled, as Kato was, their memories are probably less reliable than usual.
I also don't think it is possible to tell disturbed leaves from undisturbed leaves.



From Mark Fuhrman's testimony of March 14, 1995:

Q: DID YOU NOTICE THAT WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE THERE WAS AN OBJECT EQUIDISTANT FROM THE FENCE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE THAT WAS VERY PLAINLY VISIBLE THROUGH IT?

A: YES.

Q: SO THAT PRESUMABLY IF YOU HAD CHOSEN TO DO IT YOU COULD HAVE HAD THE DETECTIVE LOOK THROUGH THE FENCE AND HAD THE SAME VANTAGE POINTS WITH RESPECT TO THE GLOVE, COULDN'T YOU?

A: NO.

Q: COULD NOT?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

A: IT WAS VERY OVERGROWN, VERY DIRTY. THE LEAVES WERE VERY THICK IN THE FLOWER BED AREA ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. IT WAS VERY HARD TO EVEN GET IN THERE. I PERSONALLY TRIED TO GET INTO THAT AREA AND IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT, VERY DIRTY.

[bobaugust]

I believe the few drops of blood on the rockingham glove would have started to coagulate sp after 7-8 hours and would not have appeared to be fresh.

martin II, the post you responded to regarding fresh blood was referring to Simpson’s blood drops found on the walkway at Bundy, not the glove found at Rockingham. The appearance of fresh blood is far different than the appearance of old blood. The blood on the glove was described as dry or drying.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I didn’t say there was a need for evidence to be presented that would eliminate Simpson from being the killer; I said there was no evidence presented that eliminated Simpson form being the killer. If the prosecution had evidence that that would have eliminated Simpson it was their responsibility to make it known. If the defense had evidence that would have eliminated Simpson they would have presented it. But the fact is there was no evidence presented that eliminated Simpson because there was none. The blood on the walkway appeared to be fresh blood when it was first seen less than two hours after the murders and it still appeared to be fresh blood when it was collected hours later.

bobaugust

I am fully aware of what you said and the fact is that what you said misplaces the concept of the burden of proof and reasonable doubt. That is why I ask you to educate yourself and to stop embarrassing yourself, imho. The prosecution did turn over evidence that tended to exculpate Simpson, which was the evidence about the hairs allegedly found in and on the cap and Martz's EDTA results. The fact is that there was no need/duty for the defense to produce any evidence and the prosecution's duty was to present evidence that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the murderer, which they failed miserably to do.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution never said that OJS ran into the wall three times. Kato said he heard three bumps. The air conditioner falling down may have added 1 or two bumps, probably at least one. OJS might have made 2 bumps by hitting both the air conditioner and the wall; although this seems unlikely to make 2 distinct bumps.
Two objects would have hit the ground, OJS and the air condtioner. One or both of them could have made a bump that could have been heard in the room.
The whole complex where OJS lived has been torn down, so it isn't possible to do any experiments on it.
The study of forensic memory shows that people overestimate the accuracy of their memories. If a group of people were making a phone call were suddenly distracted by two bumps, some of them would probably thought they heard three bumps. If people are startled, as Kato was, their memories are probably less reliable than usual.
I also don't think it is possible to tell disturbed leaves from undisturbed leaves.

With all due respect, MF testified that he did not seen any and this testimony was from a trained detective.

[bobaugust]

I am fully aware of what you said and the fact is that what you said misplaces the concept of the burden of proof and reasonable doubt. That is why I ask you to educate yourself and to stop embarrassing yourself, imho. The prosecution did turn over evidence that tended to exculpate Simpson, which was the evidence about the hairs allegedly found in and on the cap and Martz's EDTA results. The fact is that there was no need/duty for the defense to produce any evidence and the prosecution's duty was to present evidence that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the murderer, which they failed miserably to do.

The fact is there is no evidence that eliminates Simpson from being the killer. This not about the burden of proof it is statement of fact. Hair evidence and Martz’s EDTA results do not eliminate Simpson from being the killer. The fact is that if there was any evidence that eliminated Simpson from being the killer then the defense would have presented it. They didn’t because there was none.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The fact is there is no evidence that eliminates Simpson from being the killer. This not about the burden of proof it is statement of fact. Hair evidence and Martz’s EDTA results do not eliminate Simpson from being the killer. The fact is that if there was any evidence that eliminated Simpson from being the killer then the defense would have presented it. They didn’t because there was none.

bobaugust

Again, you continue to embarrass yourself by stating as fact things you know are not true. For instance, the prosecution did not call Martz as a witness, because his EDTA results were consistent with planting and the defense did call him. Like it or not, when evidence of evidence planting is presented, it tends to exculpate the defendant.

[martin II]

The fact is there is no evidence that eliminates Simpson from being the killer. This not about the burden of proof it is statement of fact. Hair evidence and Martz’s EDTA results do not eliminate Simpson from being the killer. The fact is that if there was any evidence that eliminated Simpson from being the killer then the defense would have presented it. They didn’t because there was none.

bobaugust

BOB
What are you talking about. ALL of the trial is about the burden of proof. It is always on the prosecution never on the defense.
Your idea that the defense had to try to prove anything may be a popular concept with some with biased opinions but that has nothing to do with Crinminal trial responsibilities. imo

[William Anthony]

BOB
What are you talking about. ALL of the trial is about the burden of proof. It is always on the prosecution never on the defense.
Your idea that the defense had to try to prove anything may be a popular concept with some with biased opinions but that has nothing to do with Crinminal trial responsibilities. imo

Excellent post and I completely agree. It seems that some want to dismiss our system of jurisprudence and resort to a system that has no resemblance to any historical ideology upon which our current systems of legal concepts are based, at least as they apply to this particular trial. They seem to think that Simpson had to have been eliminated/proven innocent as the killer in order to be found not guilty. They do not want to apply the standard that is currently being used in trials, which is whether or not the evidence presented and the statements and arguments pertaining thereto are sufficient to prove guilt and, if not, there must be a finding, if the process is fair, of not guilty.

[William Anthony]

BOB
What are you talking about. ALL of the trial is about the burden of proof. It is always on the prosecution never on the defense.
Your idea that the defense had to try to prove anything may be a popular concept with some with biased opinions but that has nothing to do with Crinminal trial responsibilities. imo

As to your first sentence, I believe legal scholars and practitioners are lost in an endless maze, expressing those same sentiments.;):cool:

[limakey]

The detectives didn’t go against policy. Circumstances determined when the first call to the coroner was made. All the naturally shed hairs found in and on the knit cap were microscopically consistent with Simpson’s hair samples. They tell us Simpson wore that knit cap. The older hair fragments, some treated, found in the knit cap tells us someone else had previously worn that knit cap.

Neither Scheck nor anyone else in this case ever inferred or claimed that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders. No lawyer or witness in this case ever said anything about Simpson’s hair samples taken before he was arrested.

I don’t know what leads you to believe that Simpson was known not to lock his Bronco but the fact is that Bernie Douroux, the tow truck driver who picked the Bronco up from Rockingham and took it to the print shed testified that the Bronco was locked when he picked it up and still locked when he left it.

There is no evidence that the glove was planted at Rockingham. Deedrick testified that the naturally shed light brown Caucasian hair found on the killer’s right hand glove had an area of the hair that had some of the same microscopic characteristics as Ron Goldman’s hair sample nearest the root. Deedrick testified he was never provided naturally shed hairs from the coroner’s office for Ron Goldman for comparison.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

The "circumstances" do not matter when it comes to calling the coroner. The circumstances does eliminate the fact that the longer you wait to call the coroner, the more risk you take that valuable evidence will be lost or will be destroyed by both nature as well as by humans. I found it galling that Lange and Vanatter complained so bitterly regarding the press. They made the choice to leave Ron and Nicole out in the open while the team was at Rockingham. They determined that it was more important to collect a glove at Rockingham rather then the humans at Bundy.

In American Tragedy, it says that Simpson was known to not lock the Bronco door. Because the tow truck driver said the Bronco was locked only means that someone locked it, not who locked it. There was testimony regarding a police report that indicated that they were inside in the Bronco when they had to prepare it for being impounded. I think the officer's name was Alverez (sp?)

The fact that hair found on the glove at Rockingham had "some" characteristics of Ron's hair does not mean it was Ron. Why wasn't Deedrick provided with a sample of Ron's hair to compare? The police had access to Ron's apartment. They had access to Ron's body, they could not snip a few hairs from him to compare?

Are you saying that a hair that has been naturally shed means the characteristics of it will change if the hair is not shed naturally?

The other hair samples found the hat do mean a lot---if they do not have the same charactersitics of a member of Simpon's family, then this evidence is useless in regards to hat it was, who wore it and when was it worn. There was no blood found on the hat--how is that possible? How is it possible the hat flew off side ways and landed under a plant?

The DA's had to prove that Simpson did not have dandruff that night and they could not do it. The defense simply countered their claims why they hat was not worn by Simpson. And again, do you really think any juror would believe that Simpson wore that hat to try to conceal or disguise his identity?

In regards to the fibers found on the hat--again, how did the hat come in contact with the floor of the Bronco? If Simpson planned to ware the hat, why would he throw it on the floor and not just put on the seat next to him?

All the evidence is questionable and the reasons why have been testified to and been posted many times. IMO, any CSI teams who sends out or receives samples using a different numbering system is not trustworthy evidence.

Agent Martz did not use the correct the test to determine EDTA, however, even by using the wrong test, he still found EDTA in the samples. Why was EDTA found in only two samples? Why on the only pieces of evidence that was found three weeks later and two months later? Why wasn't EDTA found the first 12 items of clothing the CSI team tested but it was found on the 13 item that was tested over two months later---the socks?

What were the first 12 items, to include a shirt and a scrarf be tested for blood but they stopped at the socks and waited over two months later?

The blue bag found in the neighbor's yard, how is it that was the only piece of garbage was found in that area? They had a pretty big yard and in all the places that trash could have ended up, it was right by the exact location Kato heard the thumps?

You have Simpson bleeding from his Bronco to his front door, yet he stops bleeding while he is climbing over a fence? While he is crashing into walls? It makes no sense at all, IMO.

[martin II]

Consider, also, the situation that is confronted by the hypothetical Simpson bent on getting over the fence from the Salingers' side. No matter whether he comes down the walk beside Rosa Lopez' window or up the Salingers' driveway, by the time he gets to the back end of their house he is at a point opposite his utility area, and he can see (if he was not already familiar with the fact) that the hedge is only about 7 feet high in that place. But, if he goes a few feet farther, to the Salingers' carport, the hedge is suddenly 20' high, and relatively untended and wild. From the position at the back of the Salingers' house, it would be an irrational and senseless choice for Simpson to go farther -- to negotiate the uncertainties of the carport AND confront a much taller and unruly hedge than was there at hand.

The idea that Simpson could have (much less would have) come through that hedge of trees and vines from the Salingers' back yard is completely incredible to anyone who has confronted such a hedge.

WAGNER

[martin II]

Notice that the rangy vines growing through the hedge are untended and sweep down onto and across the walk; one of them is even creeping up Simpson's outside wall. It must have been a harrowing experience for anybody to go down that walk at night, in pitch darkness. It is little wonder to me that if Simpson lost the glove back there in the dark, he would consider that it was hopelessly gone, and would not try much to find it. Furthermore, from the vine covered entrapments on the walk in that area, there certainly was no "running" by Simpson or anybody else, as Marcia Clark asserted. A running person would have been flat on his face before he got this far. (Did Clark not bother to look at the crime scene photos before she concocted her "crashing into the air conditioner" idea? Or was it just that she figured the jury had not seen that picture, and so would not know any better?)

WAGNER

[martin II]

Mr. August,

The "circumstances" do not matter when it comes to calling the coroner. The circumstances does eliminate the fact that the longer you wait to call the coroner, the more risk you take that valuable evidence will be lost or will be destroyed by both nature as well as by humans. I found it galling that Lange and Vanatter complained so bitterly regarding the press. They made the choice to leave Ron and Nicole out in the open while the team was at Rockingham. They determined that it was more important to collect a glove at Rockingham rather then the humans at Bundy.

In American Tragedy, it says that Simpson was known to not lock the Bronco door. Because the tow truck driver said the Bronco was locked only means that someone locked it, not who locked it. There was testimony regarding a police report that indicated that they were inside in the Bronco when they had to prepare it for being impounded. I think the officer's name was Alverez (sp?)

The fact that hair found on the glove at Rockingham had "some" characteristics of Ron's hair does not mean it was Ron. Why wasn't Deedrick provided with a sample of Ron's hair to compare? The police had access to Ron's apartment. They had access to Ron's body, they could not snip a few hairs from him to compare?

Are you saying that a hair that has been naturally shed means the characteristics of it will change if the hair is not shed naturally?

The other hair samples found the hat do mean a lot---if they do not have the same charactersitics of a member of Simpon's family, then this evidence is useless in regards to hat it was, who wore it and when was it worn. There was no blood found on the hat--how is that possible? How is it possible the hat flew off side ways and landed under a plant?

The DA's had to prove that Simpson did not have dandruff that night and they could not do it. The defense simply countered their claims why they hat was not worn by Simpson. And again, do you really think any juror would believe that Simpson wore that hat to try to conceal or disguise his identity?

In regards to the fibers found on the hat--again, how did the hat come in contact with the floor of the Bronco? If Simpson planned to ware the hat, why would he throw it on the floor and not just put on the seat next to him?

All the evidence is questionable and the reasons why have been testified to and been posted many times. IMO, any CSI teams who sends out or receives samples using a different numbering system is not trustworthy evidence.

Agent Martz did not use the correct the test to determine EDTA, however, even by using the wrong test, he still found EDTA in the samples. Why was EDTA found in only two samples? Why on the only pieces of evidence that was found three weeks later and two months later? Why wasn't EDTA found the first 12 items of clothing the CSI team tested but it was found on the 13 item that was tested over two months later---the socks?

What were the first 12 items, to include a shirt and a scrarf be tested for blood but they stopped at the socks and waited over two months later?

The blue bag found in the neighbor's yard, how is it that was the only piece of garbage was found in that area? They had a pretty big yard and in all the places that trash could have ended up, it was right by the exact location Kato heard the thumps?

You have Simpson bleeding from his Bronco to his front door, yet he stops bleeding while he is climbing over a fence? While he is crashing into walls? It makes no sense at all, IMO.

'No blood where there should be blood and too much blood where there should be no blood.":cool:

[martin II]

The detectives didn’t go against policy. Circumstances determined when the first call to the coroner was made. All the naturally shed hairs found in and on the knit cap were microscopically consistent with Simpson’s hair samples. They tell us Simpson wore that knit cap. The older hair fragments, some treated, found in the knit cap tells us someone else had previously worn that knit cap.

Neither Scheck nor anyone else in this case ever inferred or claimed that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders. No lawyer or witness in this case ever said anything about Simpson’s hair samples taken before he was arrested.

I don’t know what leads you to believe that Simpson was known not to lock his Bronco but the fact is that Bernie Douroux, the tow truck driver who picked the Bronco up from Rockingham and took it to the print shed testified that the Bronco was locked when he picked it up and still locked when he left it.

There is no evidence that the glove was planted at Rockingham. Deedrick testified that the naturally shed light brown Caucasian hair found on the killer’s right hand glove had an area of the hair that had some of the same microscopic characteristics as Ron Goldman’s hair sample nearest the root. Deedrick testified he was never provided naturally shed hairs from the coroner’s office for Ron Goldman for comparison.

bobaugust


bob
In case you don't know it 'CIRCUMSTANCES' is what caused the policy book to be written in the first place. Vanhatter ran this invesitgation from his HIP POCKET in many ways. Rules and protocols were ignored in so many instances
and this caused them and the DA to look like ten handed fools.
imo

[bobaugust]

Again, you continue to embarrass yourself by stating as fact things you know are not true. For instance, the prosecution did not call Martz as a witness, because his EDTA results were consistent with planting and the defense did call him. Like it or not, when evidence of evidence planting is presented, it tends to exculpate the defendant.

The prosecution didn’t call Martz because they knew the defense was going to call him. Martz’s testimony was very clear that that the gate and sock blood did not come from EDTA preserved blood. A trace contamination of EDTA found only in the last of three tests Martz performed is not consistent with planting. It was consistent with a carryover contamination in the instruments based on the procedure Martz used conducting that third test. There was no evidence that eliminates Simpson from being the killer.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

BOB
What are you talking about. ALL of the trial is about the burden of proof. It is always on the prosecution never on the defense.
Your idea that the defense had to try to prove anything may be a popular concept with some with biased opinions but that has nothing to do with Crinminal trial responsibilities. imo

martin II, the reality is that there was no evidence that eliminated Simpson from being the killer. Not before the trials, not during the trials, and not after the trials. That is a statement of fact and has nothing to do with the burden of proof.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

The "circumstances" do not matter when it comes to calling the coroner. The circumstances does eliminate the fact that the longer you wait to call the coroner, the more risk you take that valuable evidence will be lost or will be destroyed by both nature as well as by humans. I found it galling that Lange and Vanatter complained so bitterly regarding the press. They made the choice to leave Ron and Nicole out in the open while the team was at Rockingham. They determined that it was more important to collect a glove at Rockingham rather then the humans at Bundy.

In American Tragedy, it says that Simpson was known to not lock the Bronco door. Because the tow truck driver said the Bronco was locked only means that someone locked it, not who locked it. There was testimony regarding a police report that indicated that they were inside in the Bronco when they had to prepare it for being impounded. I think the officer's name was Alverez (sp?)

The fact that hair found on the glove at Rockingham had "some" characteristics of Ron's hair does not mean it was Ron. Why wasn't Deedrick provided with a sample of Ron's hair to compare? The police had access to Ron's apartment. They had access to Ron's body, they could not snip a few hairs from him to compare?

Are you saying that a hair that has been naturally shed means the characteristics of it will change if the hair is not shed naturally?

The other hair samples found the hat do mean a lot---if they do not have the same charactersitics of a member of Simpon's family, then this evidence is useless in regards to hat it was, who wore it and when was it worn. There was no blood found on the hat--how is that possible? How is it possible the hat flew off side ways and landed under a plant?

The DA's had to prove that Simpson did not have dandruff that night and they could not do it. The defense simply countered their claims why they hat was not worn by Simpson. And again, do you really think any juror would believe that Simpson wore that hat to try to conceal or disguise his identity?

In regards to the fibers found on the hat--again, how did the hat come in contact with the floor of the Bronco? If Simpson planned to ware the hat, why would he throw it on the floor and not just put on the seat next to him?

All the evidence is questionable and the reasons why have been testified to and been posted many times. IMO, any CSI teams who sends out or receives samples using a different numbering system is not trustworthy evidence.

Agent Martz did not use the correct the test to determine EDTA, however, even by using the wrong test, he still found EDTA in the samples. Why was EDTA found in only two samples? Why on the only pieces of evidence that was found three weeks later and two months later? Why wasn't EDTA found the first 12 items of clothing the CSI team tested but it was found on the 13 item that was tested over two months later---the socks?

What were the first 12 items, to include a shirt and a scrarf be tested for blood but they stopped at the socks and waited over two months later?

The blue bag found in the neighbor's yard, how is it that was the only piece of garbage was found in that area? They had a pretty big yard and in all the places that trash could have ended up, it was right by the exact location Kato heard the thumps?

You have Simpson bleeding from his Bronco to his front door, yet he stops bleeding while he is climbing over a fence? While he is crashing into walls? It makes no sense at all, IMO.

Limakey, the testimony was that a homicide is a situation where the coroner is not immediately needed. Phillips testified that a homicide investigation requires the services of a specialized detective to come out to the crime scene and many things have to be done before they bring in the coroner’s office and attempt to move the bodies. A first call notification is made to alert the coroner of the situation for the purpose of eliminating downtime of the coroner’s office standing around at a crime scene for four or five hours when they could be doing something else at another area that is ready for them so they don’t have bodies and crime scenes backed up all over the county of Los Angeles.

Alverez? There was no witness by that name. Maybe you’re thinking about John Meraz, a tow truck driver at the police impound garage who admitted he stole things from Simpson’s Bronco. Meraz was called to pick up the Bronco from the print shed on June 15 after the Bronco had been fingerprinted and the blood evidence had been collected.

Deedrick testified hairs are either forcibly removed or naturally shed. The difference may be how much of the root is on the sample.

How is it possible for the knit cap to have landed under a plant? Dropped? Kicked? We don’t know exactly how it happened and it’s not necessary to know. It’s evident there was a struggle and a fight.

The DA’s did not have to prove that Simpson did not have dandruff the night of the murders because there was no allegation by the defense that he did. It is not unusual for a criminal to wear dark clothing for concealment at night or to wear something on his head to help conceal his identity.

The knit cap had a fiber found on it that was consistent with Simpson’s Bronco carpet. How did it get on there? It got there because the knit cap was on the Bronco carpet before it was found at Bundy.

There are numbers assigned to photographs and numbers assigned to evidence. There are numbers assigned to entries on the property report. The numbers assigned do not change the evidence.

Martz did not find any EDTA preserved blood in any of the two blood evidence samples he tested. It was only in the last of three tests he conducted that a small trace of EDTA showed up in the two blood evidence samples as well as in his own non-preserved blood sample. That trace amount was found to be the result of a contamination in the instruments based on the procedure Martz used to conduct that last test. Martz testified that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood contained EDTA preserved blood. Later other evidence conclusively proved that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood was planted from EDTA preserved blood and confirmed Martz’s conclusion.

There was no blue bag found on Simpson’s neighbor’s yard. There was a small blue plastic wrapper found stuck to the other side of the chain link fence just opposite where the glove was found on the south path behind Kaelin’s room.

Simpson’s doctor, Dr. Huizenga, testified that the kind of cut Simpson had across his knuckle would bleed, form a temporary clot, reopen and bleed again. This cycle would continue until time was taken to allow the permanent mechanism of healing to take place.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The prosecution didn’t call Martz because they knew the defense was going to call him. Martz’s testimony was very clear that that the gate and sock blood did not come from EDTA preserved blood. A trace contamination of EDTA found only in the last of three tests Martz performed is not consistent with planting. It was consistent with a carryover contamination in the instruments based on the procedure Martz used conducting that third test. There was no evidence that eliminates Simpson from being the killer.

bobaugust

Again, your last sentence is a constant state of confusion to those who understand the burden of proof and legal concepts in a TRIAL. Even the layperson understands this and, for you to continue to post it, you redundantly embarrass yourself, imho. Martz's testimony was only clear to those such as yourself, who, imho, operate from a prejudicial and biased vantage point that begins with the premise that Simpson is guilty and must consequently be eliminated as having been the killer. Even those who have only briefly or tangentially been accustomed to trial, understand that an expert is not called by the side who hired him, if the expert's testimony is damaging to that side's case, such as Martz's was to the prosecution. Of course the defense called him, because his testimony was advantageous to the theory of evidence planting for the defense.

[William Anthony]

How is it possible for the knit cap to have landed under a plant? Dropped? Kicked? We don’t know exactly how it happened and it’s not necessary to know. It’s evident there was a struggle and a fight.

The DA’s did not have to prove that Simpson did not have dandruff the night of the murders because there was no allegation by the defense that he did.
bobaugust

In regard to the cap you forgot on method on how that neatly arranged cap could have gotten there-planted.

The cap had hair that was allegedly consistent with Simpson's minus the dandruff from the exemplar they took. Ergo, the prosecution did have to show that Simpson did not have dandruff on June 12th. Why do you think Clark asked Deedrick about his assumptions on inmates getting dandruff? I know you probably think she was making small talk. I guess Deedrick's answers reduced her questions to small talk.;):cool: I know that Simpson was happy to have a sophisticated jury that understood that assumptions are not scientific or even reasonable explanations.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

So basically, Phillips and Vanatter determined that the coroners' didn't even know their own job and that the timing of the coroner's arrival really means nothing. When did they get their medical degrees?

Again, you ignore the obvious question--does the manner of which hair is shed change the microscopic characteriscs of the hair sample? Also, did Deedrick ask for a hair sample so he could compare that hair found on the Rockingham glove? If he did, why didn't the DA's provide a sample of it? And if didn't ask for a sample, then he is right up there with Martz, IMO.

Martz made claims that he could not prove. He did not use the correct test for the EDTA. However, why is when something is consistent with any thing to do with Simpson, you automatically claim that it is conclusive proof, yet when Martz testified that what he was found was 'consistent' with EDTA, that all the sudden the word "consistent" has a different mean to you?

I remember what Dr. H testified to regarding cuts. However, it makes no sense that Simpson would reopen the wound by just closing the Bronco door so softly yet he does not reopen it while climbing a tree to get get over a fence and crash into a wall.

And if you do believe Dr. H regarding the reopening of cuts, then why the refusal to believe that Simpson did not reopen the wound when he smashed a glass in this hotel room?

[William Anthony]

In regard to the cap you forgot on method on how that neatly arranged cap could have gotten there-planted.

The cap had hair that was allegedly consistent with Simpson's minus the dandruff from the exemplar they took. Ergo, the prosecution did have to show that Simpson did not have dandruff on June 12th. Why do you think Clark asked Deedrick about his assumptions on inmates getting dandruff? I know you probably think she was making small talk. I guess Deedrick's answers reduced her questions to small talk.;):cool: I know that Simpson was happy to have a sophisticated jury that understood that assumptions are not scientific or even reasonable explanations.

Correction-In regard to the cap you forgot one method on how that neatly arranged cap could have gotten there-planted.

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

So basically, Phillips and Vanatter determined that the coroners' didn't even know their own job and that the timing of the coroner's arrival really means nothing. When did they get their medical degrees?

Again, you ignore the obvious question--does the manner of which hair is shed change the microscopic characteriscs of the hair sample? Also, did Deedrick ask for a hair sample so he could compare that hair found on the Rockingham glove? If he did, why didn't the DA's provide a sample of it? And if didn't ask for a sample, then he is right up there with Martz, IMO.

Martz made claims that he could not prove. He did not use the correct test for the EDTA. However, why is when something is consistent with any thing to do with Simpson, you automatically claim that it is conclusive proof, yet when Martz testified that what he was found was 'consistent' with EDTA, that all the sudden the word "consistent" has a different mean to you?

I remember what Dr. H testified to regarding cuts. However, it makes no sense that Simpson would reopen the wound by just closing the Bronco door so softly yet he does not reopen it while climbing a tree to get get over a fence and crash into a wall.

And if you do believe Dr. H regarding the reopening of cuts, then why the refusal to believe that Simpson did not reopen the wound when he smashed a glass in this hotel room?

I wonder what the delay in having the coroner at the scene had upon the effect of narrowing the time of death.

Deedrick asked and received-hair with dandruff, imho. He credits the testimony of a dead expert. He believes in ghosts, including the one in the machine.

Common sense seems to be a rare commodity.

Common sense seems to be a rare commodity.

[William Anthony]

Martz did not find any EDTA preserved blood in any of the two blood evidence samples he tested. It was only in the last of three tests he conducted that a small trace of EDTA showed up in the two blood evidence samples as well as in his own non-preserved blood sample. That trace amount was found to be the result of a contamination in the instruments based on the procedure Martz used to conduct that last test. Martz testified that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood contained EDTA preserved blood. Later other evidence conclusively proved that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood was planted from EDTA preserved blood and confirmed Martz’s conclusion.

bobaugust

Martz's conclusion was based on erroneous results as the prosecution was forced to call another expert to attempt to rehabilitate him. There was no evidence that conclusively proved the blood was not planted. What was conclusively proved was that Cotton's lab had made prior mistakes and there was evidence of contamination and cross contamination presented. MF even testified, whether true or not, that he was concerned about cross contamination.

[William Anthony]

Martz's conclusion was based on erroneous results as the prosecution was forced to call another expert to attempt to rehabilitate him. There was no evidence that conclusively proved the blood was not planted. What was conclusively proved was that Cotton's lab had made prior mistakes and there was evidence of contamination and cross contamination presented. MF even testified, whether true or not, that he was concerned about cross contamination.

Correction for clarity-Martz's conclusions was based on alleged erroneous results. However, the evidence was that his results, which some call trace amounts of EDTA, were enough to show that the blood stains were from preserved blood. Although the case was based on human error/mistakes/ lies, some still believe that Simpson should have been found guilty, even though they previously admitted that a defendant should not have been found guilty based on human error/mistakes/lies.

[martin II]

If the coronor had been called as required, we would not be depending on the barking dog to guess at the time of death.Obviously Vanhatter was finished with the bodies when he took the top detectives from Bundy to Rockingham to 'NOTIFY' or try to catch oj doing something.
After learning that oj had left for a previously planned trip,some claim that Lang did not communicate this to vanhatter before vanhatter asked for the search warrant. This is a instance of Vanhatter/Lang/Furhman ignoring protocol or policy.imo

[bobaugust]

Again, your last sentence is a constant state of confusion to those who understand the burden of proof and legal concepts in a TRIAL. Even the layperson understands this and, for you to continue to post it, you redundantly embarrass yourself, imho. Martz's testimony was only clear to those such as yourself, who, imho, operate from a prejudicial and biased vantage point that begins with the premise that Simpson is guilty and must consequently be eliminated as having been the killer. Even those who have only briefly or tangentially been accustomed to trial, understand that an expert is not called by the side who hired him, if the expert's testimony is damaging to that side's case, such as Martz's was to the prosecution. Of course the defense called him, because his testimony was advantageous to the theory of evidence planting for the defense.

The fact is that there is no evidence that eliminates Simpson from being the killer. Not before the trials, not during the trials, and not after the trials. That is statement of fact. Martz’s testimony was clear to anyone who understands the difference between a small trace amount of EDTA and the large amount of EDTA contained in preserved blood. The results of all the tests Martz conducted were documented and clearly showed that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from EDTA preserved blood reference samples.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

In regard to the cap you forgot on method on how that neatly arranged cap could have gotten there-planted.

The cap had hair that was allegedly consistent with Simpson's minus the dandruff from the exemplar they took. Ergo, the prosecution did have to show that Simpson did not have dandruff on June 12th. Why do you think Clark asked Deedrick about his assumptions on inmates getting dandruff? I know you probably think she was making small talk. I guess Deedrick's answers reduced her questions to small talk.;):cool: I know that Simpson was happy to have a sophisticated jury that understood that assumptions are not scientific or even reasonable explanations.

The knit cap was covered by plant leaves. It wasn’t neatly arranged.

The only evidence in this case of Simpson having dandruff was on July 13 a month after the murders. That is what the prosecution responded to with a reasonable explanation. If the defense had made the claim that you keep making then the prosecution would have called Simpson’s doctor who examined Simpson days after the murders to testify as to what Simpson’s hair condition was before he was arrested. But since the defense never made that allegation the prosecution never responded to it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

So basically, Phillips and Vanatter determined that the coroners' didn't even know their own job and that the timing of the coroner's arrival really means nothing. When did they get their medical degrees?

Again, you ignore the obvious question--does the manner of which hair is shed change the microscopic characteriscs of the hair sample? Also, did Deedrick ask for a hair sample so he could compare that hair found on the Rockingham glove? If he did, why didn't the DA's provide a sample of it? And if didn't ask for a sample, then he is right up there with Martz, IMO.

Martz made claims that he could not prove. He did not use the correct test for the EDTA. However, why is when something is consistent with any thing to do with Simpson, you automatically claim that it is conclusive proof, yet when Martz testified that what he was found was 'consistent' with EDTA, that all the sudden the word "consistent" has a different mean to you?

I remember what Dr. H testified to regarding cuts. However, it makes no sense that Simpson would reopen the wound by just closing the Bronco door so softly yet he does not reopen it while climbing a tree to get get over a fence and crash into a wall.

And if you do believe Dr. H regarding the reopening of cuts, then why the refusal to believe that Simpson did not reopen the wound when he smashed a glass in this hotel room?

Limakey, Phillips and Vannatter explained when and why the first notification was made to the coroner. No, the hair samples do not change; some may show more of the root than other’s do.

Martz did not make claims he could not prove. Martz conducted three different tests and offered his opinion based on the documented results from those tests. Consistent with EDTA is not significant; it is the amount of EDTA that is significant. If the two evidence stains came from EDTA preserved blood reference samples as the defense claimed then the amount of EDTA in those evidence stains would have been the same as the amount in the reference samples. But they were not. In the first tests Martz conducted there was no EDTA found in either of the evidence samples. It was only after the third test that a small trace amount appeared, not only in the two evidence samples but also in Martz’s own non-preserved blood sample that he tested at that time. Martz said, "If the blood on the rear gate and the socks had come from the preserved tube, the EDTA indicators would have been just as high. Instead they're about a hundredth the size."

What makes you think Simpson climbed a tree? Simpson could very well have dripped small drops of blood on the Salinger’s property making his way through the summer growth bushes to get to his fence. No blood was ever seen on any natural surface except near the bodies.

Yes I do believe Simpson intentionally reopened the cut on his knuckle with a piece of glass after telling the police he would return to LA.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Martz's conclusion was based on erroneous results as the prosecution was forced to call another expert to attempt to rehabilitate him. There was no evidence that conclusively proved the blood was not planted. What was conclusively proved was that Cotton's lab had made prior mistakes and there was evidence of contamination and cross contamination presented. MF even testified, whether true or not, that he was concerned about cross contamination.

Martz testified in the criminal trial that the small trace amount of EDTA he found in the two evidence samples and his own non-preserved blood sample after conducting a third test could have been from an artifact in the instrument. In the civil trial Dr. Terrie Lee confirmed that contamination in the instrument based on Martz’s procedures was the cause of the small trace amount of EDTA.

Seven witnesses testified to seeing blood on the rear gate at Bundy the morning after the murders. In the criminal trial a crime scene photograph taken the morning of the murders was entered into evidence that when enlarged clearly showed one of Simpson’s blood stains on the bottom of the rear gate at Bundy proving the defense gate blood planting theory false. In the civil trial Dr. Cotton testified that it was impossible for Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock to have come from her reference sample again proving that defense sock blood planting theory false.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The knit cap was covered by plant leaves. It wasn’t neatly arranged.

The only evidence in this case of Simpson having dandruff was on July 13 a month after the murders. That is what the prosecution responded to with a reasonable explanation. If the defense had made the claim that you keep making then the prosecution would have called Simpson’s doctor who examined Simpson days after the murders to testify as to what Simpson’s hair condition was before he was arrested. But since the defense never made that allegation the prosecution never responded to it.

bobaugust

The fact that the cap was underneath some leaves has nothing to do with its arrangement. The cap neither appeared to be kicked or lost during a struggle, imho. It appeared to be neatly arranged underneath the leaves, imho.

The defense does not make claims. The prosecution called an expert, who testified to unscientific assumptions attempting to explain why the hairs in and on the cap did not fit the prosecution's case. The magnificent one handled those unscientific explanations with Ms. Moore's testimony and his theme, "If it does not fit...."

[William Anthony]

The fact is that there is no evidence that eliminates Simpson from being the killer. Not before the trials, not during the trials, and not after the trials. That is statement of fact. Martz’s testimony was clear to anyone who understands the difference between a small trace amount of EDTA and the large amount of EDTA contained in preserved blood. The results of all the tests Martz conducted were documented and clearly showed that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from EDTA preserved blood reference samples.

bobaugust

Again you are wrong. There need not be any evidence in any trial to eliminate a defendant. All the evidence that the defense presented tended to eliminate Simpson. Those are the facts. The results were written down but the underlying data was destroyed. The results showed that the blood had to have been preserved and showed evidence of planting. Those trace amounts were a thousand times more than what should have been found in unpreserved blood.

[William Anthony]

Martz testified in the criminal trial that the small trace amount of EDTA he found in the two evidence samples and his own non-preserved blood sample after conducting a third test could have been from an artifact in the instrument. In the civil trial Dr. Terrie Lee confirmed that contamination in the instrument based on Martz’s procedures was the cause of the small trace amount of EDTA.

Seven witnesses testified to seeing blood on the rear gate at Bundy the morning after the murders. In the criminal trial a crime scene photograph taken the morning of the murders was entered into evidence that when enlarged clearly showed one of Simpson’s blood stains on the bottom of the rear gate at Bundy proving the defense gate blood planting theory false. In the civil trial Dr. Cotton testified that it was impossible for Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock to have come from her reference sample again proving that defense sock blood planting theory false.

bobaugust

Unlike the common saying in a courtroom there is no safety in numbers. You are under the assumption that the planting on the magical socks was contradicted by Cotton's uncontested testimony, which it was not. Please do not forget that the prosecution espoused the theory that the blood underneath Ms. Nicole's fingernails degraded.

[martin II]

CONCLUSION: I had quite frankly hoped that the result of these experiments would be to show that the cap could not have come under the agapanthus plant (as the investigators found it) as a result of having been lost in a nearby struggle. The experiment does not show that. Since we do not know whether the "Toss" or the "Drop" series approximates the situation that might have existed, I take the average of the two and find that there is a 33% probability that a cap lost in a struggle can fall through the leaves of the plant and end up "under" the plant. Correspondingly, there is a 67% probability that a cap lost in this way will not give the appearance seen. That is, it is twice as likely that a cap lost in a struggle will not give the indication ("cap under the plant") seen as that it will. However, it is virtually certain that if a person deliberately "flings" the cap at the ground beneath the leaves, it will show the indication seen.

Furthermore, we conclude that because the agapanthus plant is as fragile as crystal, the fact that it showed no damage after the crime indicates that it was not touched during the attack on Goldman. Considering the close quarters in the vicinity of the plant, this leads to the further conclusion that the attack did not proceed into the alcove.

Does this "prove" anything? No. But it should make us suspicious that the cap was not under the agapanthus because it fell there during a nearby fight. It is more likely that it was there because it was deliberately planted to frame Simpson.

It is just one more reason to slow down, and think again.

WAGNER

[bobaugust]

The fact that the cap was underneath some leaves has nothing to do with its arrangement. The cap neither appeared to be kicked or lost during a struggle, imho. It appeared to be neatly arranged underneath the leaves, imho.

The defense does not make claims. The prosecution called an expert, who testified to unscientific assumptions attempting to explain why the hairs in and on the cap did not fit the prosecution's case. The magnificent one handled those unscientific explanations with Ms. Moore's testimony and his theme, "If it does not fit...."

Post the testimony where any witness said what you are claiming about the appearance of the knit cap. Be sure to include the right date please.

The defense called Simpson’s barber, Juanita Moore, to testify that Simpson did not treat his hair. Moore could not and did not testify to what the condition of Simpson’s hair was on the night of the murders. Your inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 based only on Moore’s testimony that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn’t is nothing but unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Again you are wrong. There need not be any evidence in any trial to eliminate a defendant. All the evidence that the defense presented tended to eliminate Simpson. Those are the facts. The results were written down but the underlying data was destroyed. The results showed that the blood had to have been preserved and showed evidence of planting. Those trace amounts were a thousand times more than what should have been found in unpreserved blood.

You are mistaken; in the first two tests Martz conducted on the evidence stains there was no indication of any EDTA in those stains. The results from the third test Martz conducted showed a possible trace amount of EDTA in the evidence stains as well as in Martz’s own non-preserved blood sample. A small trace amount that was not consistent with the large amount of EDTA tests results showed the two reference samples contained. Based on all the tests Martz conducted he concluded that the evidence stains did not come from the EDTA preserved blood reference samples.

You comment that the trace amount was a thousand times more than what should have been found in unpreserved blood is meaningless since the small trace amount was the result of a contamination in the instrument. A contamination resulting from the procedure Martz used to conduct the third test by first running the reference samples through the instrument before running the evidence stains through. The important fact is that the small trace amount of EDTA was a thousand times less than what was found in the preserved blood reference samples. Other evidence later proved the defense theories false that those two evidence stains were planted from the reference samples and supported Martz’s conclusions.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Unlike the common saying in a courtroom there is no safety in numbers. You are under the assumption that the planting on the magical socks was contradicted by Cotton's uncontested testimony, which it was not. Please do not forget that the prosecution espoused the theory that the blood underneath Ms. Nicole's fingernails degraded.

No you are mistaken. Based on the comparisons Dr. Cotton made of degradation levels she found that Nicole’s blood on Simpson’s sock was less degraded then her blood in her autopsy reference sample. That made it impossible for Nicole’ blood found on Simpson’s sock to have come from her autopsy reference sample proving the defense theory false that Nicole’s blood was taken from her autopsy reference sample and planted on Simpson’s sock. That fact supported Martz’s conclusion that neither the gate blood nor the sock came from EDTA preserved blood reference samples.

bobaugust

[limakey]

The prosecution didn’t call Martz because they knew the defense was going to call him. Martz’s testimony was very clear that that the gate and sock blood did not come from EDTA preserved blood. A trace contamination of EDTA found only in the last of three tests Martz performed is not consistent with planting. It was consistent with a carryover contamination in the instruments based on the procedure Martz used conducting that third test. There was no evidence that eliminates Simpson from being the killer.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

The reasons you have given for the DA's not calling Martz is simply unacceptable. The DA's had to prove that the blood was not planted, it was their responsibilty to call this witness---unless, like the coroner, they were afraid of his testimony.

It is clear that Martz's results were not trustworthy nor does it answer the simple question of why he destroyed some of the results, why he decided to be more "truthful" after the break, etc. Martz claimed he was an expert on this when he wasn't.

Martz's testimony also does not address why all the samples did not contain EDTA nor does it address when and why the blood was collected on the back gate as well as on the socks.

Also, Agent Martz is not a doctor nor is he expert, the defense had an expert witness.

[limakey]

No you are mistaken. Based on the comparisons Dr. Cotton made of degradation levels she found that Nicole’s blood on Simpson’s sock was less degraded then her blood in her autopsy reference sample. That made it impossible for Nicole’ blood found on Simpson’s sock to have come from her autopsy reference sample proving the defense theory false that Nicole’s blood was taken from her autopsy reference sample and planted on Simpson’s sock. That fact supported Martz’s conclusion that neither the gate blood nor the sock came from EDTA preserved blood reference samples.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

First, Dr. Cotton's later testimony in the civil trial is not relevant to what she testified to in the criminal trial. However, she could not counter the state's other witness, Dr. Gary Sims regarding the socks. He did not and could not testifiy how and when the blood got on the socks. He could not testify on why no one saw the blood on socks when he was able to see it in normal light.

Dr. Cotton's testimony did not counter why the blood bled through three sides of the socks. Her testimony does not counter the testimony of the defense's witness (can't remember his name right now) who testified on why the blood was planted, something to do with the "blood balls". Clark would only counter with the slim possibilty that Nicole reached up, inside the plant leg and grabed Simpson's ankle.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Here is a question for you. Very early on, in open Court, Shapiro and Clark battled about the number of hairs they could take in regards to Simpson's hair. According to Vanatter and Lange, they all knew that the defense was going to fight every piece of evidence.

So why did the DA's wait until Mr. Simpson was in jail well over a month before they took the samples? Again, Deedrick made assumptions, assumptions are nothing more, according to your lexicon, unsupported speculation.

The CSI team also booked another hat found in Simpson's car. Where are the comparisons between the hair samples? They also found the exact same type of hat inside the condo. Yet, Lange's excuse for not booking the cap was he said it was a child's. Yet, clearly it was the same type of "one size fits all" twin of the hat they claimed Simpson wore.

The defense presented reasonable doubt about who the hat belonged to, who wore it and when it was worn. They presented a witness who has taken care of his hair for 16 years. She testified honestly on when it seemed that Mr. Simpson had dandruff and when he didn't. When Mr. Simpson had dandruff, she said it was when he was in the sun and playing golf. Which Mr. Simpson did almost everyday.

It was up to the DA's to prove that he didn't have dandruff that night, however, they knew they couldn't, but they did know how get around this. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Post the testimony where any witness said what you are claiming about the appearance of the knit cap. Be sure to include the right date please.

The defense called Simpson’s barber, Juanita Moore, to testify that Simpson did not treat his hair. Moore could not and did not testify to what the condition of Simpson’s hair was on the night of the murders. Your inference that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 based only on Moore’s testimony that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn’t is nothing but unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

I have already posted the argument.

Ms. Moore's testimony was circumstantial evidence that Simpson's hair would have had dandruff. We have debated this and you obstinately claim to know more about evidence and law than the Supreme Court, Judge Ito and the lawyers in this case.

[William Anthony]

No you are mistaken. Based on the comparisons Dr. Cotton made of degradation levels she found that Nicole’s blood on Simpson’s sock was less degraded then her blood in her autopsy reference sample. That made it impossible for Nicole’ blood found on Simpson’s sock to have come from her autopsy reference sample proving the defense theory false that Nicole’s blood was taken from her autopsy reference sample and planted on Simpson’s sock. That fact supported Martz’s conclusion that neither the gate blood nor the sock came from EDTA preserved blood reference samples.

bobaugust

Your are laboring under the false assumption that the blood could have only come from her autopsy sample. We have had this discussion and I posted the testimony on cross.

[William Anthony]

You are mistaken; in the first two tests Martz conducted on the evidence stains there was no indication of any EDTA in those stains. The results from the third test Martz conducted showed a possible trace amount of EDTA in the evidence stains as well as in Martz’s own non-preserved blood sample. A small trace amount that was not consistent with the large amount of EDTA tests results showed the two reference samples contained. Based on all the tests Martz conducted he concluded that the evidence stains did not come from the EDTA preserved blood reference samples.

You comment that the trace amount was a thousand times more than what should have been found in unpreserved blood is meaningless since the small trace amount was the result of a contamination in the instrument. A contamination resulting from the procedure Martz used to conduct the third test by first running the reference samples through the instrument before running the evidence stains through. The important fact is that the small trace amount of EDTA was a thousand times less than what was found in the preserved blood reference samples. Other evidence later proved the defense theories false that those two evidence stains were planted from the reference samples and supported Martz’s conclusions.

bobaugust

Your conclusion is based on the testimony of a dead expert, by the DNA results, and the ghost in the machine. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

First, Dr. Cotton's later testimony in the civil trial is not relevant to what she testified to in the criminal trial. However, she could not counter the state's other witness, Dr. Gary Sims regarding the socks. He did not and could not testifiy how and when the blood got on the socks. He could not testify on why no one saw the blood on socks when he was able to see it in normal light.

Dr. Cotton's testimony did not counter why the blood bled through three sides of the socks. Her testimony does not counter the testimony of the defense's witness (can't remember his name right now) who testified on why the blood was planted, something to do with the "blood balls". Clark would only counter with the slim possibilty that Nicole reached up, inside the plant leg and grabed Simpson's ankle.

Excellent post and right on point. bobaugust does not understand evidence, inferences or reasonable doubt and will stray off topic in an attempt to prove himself right, imho.

[martin II]

If Martz was asked to do some DNA investigation on the socks and back gate stain by the prosecution, why is it that he was not called by the prosecution to give his results?

[weezer]

Mr. August,

The reasons you have given for the DA's not calling Martz is simply unacceptable. The DA's had to prove that the blood was not planted, it was their responsibilty to call this witness---unless, like the coroner, they were afraid of his testimony.

It is clear that Martz's results were not trustworthy nor does it answer the simple question of why he destroyed some of the results, why he decided to be more "truthful" after the break, etc. Martz claimed he was an expert on this when he wasn't.

Martz's testimony also does not address why all the samples did not contain EDTA nor does it address when and why the blood was collected on the back gate as well as on the socks.

Also, Agent Martz is not a doctor nor is he expert, the defense had an expert witness.

it's almost scarey to think that there are still people out there that after all of the evidence that proves orenthal james simpson murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, continue to believe the unsupported, outrageous, and often outright distortions of the defense.

[martin II]

it's almost scarey to think that there are still people out there that after all of the evidence that proves orenthal james simpson murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, continue to believe the unsupported, outrageous, and often outright distortions of the defense.

What is very very odd is how easy it is for some, because of certain bias, to buy into the myth that there was a mountain of evidence and that the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Neither was true.

The judge gave the jury the legal jury instructions,The jury followed those instructions and voted the only verdict possible. NOT GUILTY

hahaha

[weezer]

What is very very odd is how easy it is for some, because of certain bias, to buy into the myth that there was a mountain of evidence and that the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Neither was true.

The judge gave the jury the legal jury instructions,The jury followed those instructions and voted the only verdict possible. NOT GUILTY

hahaha

oh martin -- here you go hiding behind 'us against them' again. I had no bias against orenthal but I am smart enough to understand that a man tormented, abused, stalked, and threatened for 17 years left his blood, hair, fiber, hat, glove, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the murder scene. An ignorant and racially biased jury elected to ignore the rules of law and take care of 'one of their own.'

the jury did not follow legal jury instructions or they could not have delivered the verdict in the short amount of time they did. orenthal is only not guilty to those who believe they have been able to 'spit in the eye' of a society that they believe has wronged them.

in the real world, orenthal james simpson murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. on the night orenthal james simpson murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, he left his hair, blood, fiber, hat, glove, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the murder scene.

[martin II]

oh martin -- here you go hiding behind 'us against them' again. I had no bias against orenthal but I am smart enough to understand that a man tormented, abused, stalked, and threatened for 17 years left his blood, hair, fiber, hat, glove, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the murder scene. An ignorant and racially biased jury elected to ignore the rules of law and take care of 'one of their own.'

the jury did not follow legal jury instructions or they could not have delivered the verdict in the short amount of time they did. orenthal is only not guilty to those who believe they have been able to 'spit in the eye' of a society that they believe has wronged them.

in the real world, orenthal james simpson murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. on the night orenthal james simpson murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, he left his hair, blood, fiber, hat, glove, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the murder scene.


As i said previously, bias regardless of what type, did, cause some to buy into the m. clarke hype of a mountain of proof and then call the jury all kinds of names for doing their duty. Some STILL believe there was as mountain of evidence and that the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable dout and that is, in my opinion, very sad.

imo

[martin II]

Weezer

I think one has to be careful when calling adult jurors ignorant especially when one, you, did not sit in the court room and hear the case
as the jurors did. This imo shows bias against the jurors, defendant and the defense lawyers that did prove that the prosecution did not prove their calims as required by law.imo

[weezer]

Weezer

I think one has to be careful when calling adult jurors ignorant especially when one, you, did not sit in the court room and hear the case
as the jurors did. This imo shows bias against the jurors, defendant and the defense lawyers that did prove that the prosecution did not prove their calims as required by law.imo

martin, I didn't have to be in the courtroom to understand that the jurors were ignorant and biased -- I only had to listen to their statements after their verdict to understand that.

[martin II]

martin, I didn't have to be in the courtroom to understand that the jurors were ignorant and biased -- I only had to listen to their statements after their verdict to understand that.

Well, you just continue to concentrate on what you call ignorant statements and i will concentrate on how the defense destroyed the prosecutions claims in the court room which caused the jury to render the NOT GUILTY verdict.
hahaha:cool:

[weezer]

Well, you just continue to concentrate on what you call ignorant statements and i will concentrate on how the defense destroyed the prosecutions claims in the court room which caused the jury to render the NOT GUILTY verdict.
hahaha:cool:

all the defense had to do was show up -- an ignorant and biased jury set orenthal free based on nothing but their mindset of 'us against them' --

I've never quite understood your 'hahaha' to end your posts -- surely you don't think any of this is funny? or maybe you do. how sad.

[weezer]

Weezer

I think one has to be careful when calling adult jurors ignorant especially when one, you, did not sit in the court room and hear the case
as the jurors did. This imo shows bias against the jurors, defendant and the defense lawyers that did prove that the prosecution did not prove their calims as required by law.imo

MORAN: To be honest, after I listened to all the evidence, all the people that came to testify ... after all of that was over with ... that's when I came up with my decision. After I got deliberated ... in the back room, in jury deliberations.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Here is a question for you. Very early on, in open Court, Shapiro and Clark battled about the number of hairs they could take in regards to Simpson's hair. According to Vanatter and Lange, they all knew that the defense was going to fight every piece of evidence.

So why did the DA's wait until Mr. Simpson was in jail well over a month before they took the samples? Again, Deedrick made assumptions, assumptions are nothing more, according to your lexicon, unsupported speculation.

The CSI team also booked another hat found in Simpson's car. Where are the comparisons between the hair samples? They also found the exact same type of hat inside the condo. Yet, Lange's excuse for not booking the cap was he said it was a child's. Yet, clearly it was the same type of "one size fits all" twin of the hat they claimed Simpson wore.

The defense presented reasonable doubt about who the hat belonged to, who wore it and when it was worn. They presented a witness who has taken care of his hair for 16 years. She testified honestly on when it seemed that Mr. Simpson had dandruff and when he didn't. When Mr. Simpson had dandruff, she said it was when he was in the sun and playing golf. Which Mr. Simpson did almost everyday.

It was up to the DA's to prove that he didn't have dandruff that night, however, they knew they couldn't, but they did know how get around this. IMO.

Limakey you may think the reason I posted is unacceptable but you were not a lawyer in this case. Marcia Clark explained this in her book. Clark wrote,
“Since the defense had done no tests of their own, we knew they would have to call
Agent Martz as their own witness - after all, he had performed the case's only EDTA
testing. Only he could give the testimony that would get the results into evidence.”

Based on your comment, “it is clear that Martz’s results were not trustworthy” I’m not sure you even know what Martz actually testified to. When Martz said he had decided that he had to be more truthful, he was referring to giving yes and no answers that did not tell the whole truth.

What samples are you referring to when you say Martz’s testimony also doesn’t address why all the samples did not contain EDTA? When and why the blood was collected on the back gate and on the socks had nothing to do with the tests Martz conducted. Martz was asked to determine whether or not he could determine whether the two bloodstains, the gate and sock blood, originated from purple topped test tubes or test tubes that were preserved with EDTA. And that’s what he did and he concluded that the two bloodstains did not come from preserved blood.

The defense expert Dr. Rieders never conducted any testing on the blood samples in this case, he only offered his opinion on the documented results that Martz obtained. And even then Dr. Rieders never even mentioned the possibility of contamination in the instruments. Rieders was either not very knowledgeable about this or he intentionally avoided that explanation. In the civil trial Dr. Terrie Lee reviewed all of Martz’s work as well as both Martz and Dr. Rieder’s criminal trial testimony. Dr. Lee gave a reasonable logical explanation based on his extensive experience with the instruments Martz was using and concluded that the small trace amount of EDTA that Martz found in the evidence samples and Martz’s own non-preserved blood in the third test he conducted was the result of a carryover contamination in the instruments. He explained that this was not an uncommon problem based on the procedure that Martz used by first running the reference samples containing a large quantity of EDTA through the instruments before running the two evidence stains and his own blood sample that didn’t contain any EDTA.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

First, Dr. Cotton's later testimony in the civil trial is not relevant to what she testified to in the criminal trial. However, she could not counter the state's other witness, Dr. Gary Sims regarding the socks. He did not and could not testifiy how and when the blood got on the socks. He could not testify on why no one saw the blood on socks when he was able to see it in normal light.

Dr. Cotton's testimony did not counter why the blood bled through three sides of the socks. Her testimony does not counter the testimony of the defense's witness (can't remember his name right now) who testified on why the blood was planted, something to do with the "blood balls". Clark would only counter with the slim possibilty that Nicole reached up, inside the plant leg and grabed Simpson's ankle.

The fact that Dr. Cotton testified in the civil trial that it was impossible for Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock to have come from her autopsy sample destroys the defense claim that Nicole’s blood was planted on Simpson’s sock from her autopsy sample.

The Prosecution Responds, Hank Goldberg
"The defense contended that no one was wearing the socks when Nicole's blood was splashed on them.

This theory had been expounded by Dr. Herbert MacDonell. He had testified that Nicole's bloodstain had penetrated one side of Simpson's sock and had transferred to the other side. The defense theorized that this could not have happened if someone had been wearing the socks at the time because blood cannot go through someone's ankle. They claimed that the idea that no one was wearing the socks when the blood was deposited on them supported their planting theory. The implication was that someone deposited Nicole's blood while the socks were lying flat on a table. Interestingly the stain that would have traveled through the wearer's ankle was only a microscopic speck.

I easily dispatched this issue with Dr. Lee. I asked him whether the microscopic stain could have been caused if the socks were inside out and the toe of the sock was touching the ankle. I knew from photographs that this was, indeed, how the socks were recovered. However the defense only provided Dr. Lee with second generation photographs. From his photographs of the socks, he would not been able to see that the socks were recovered in this condition. I asked Dr. Lee whether this could account for the questioned microscopic stain.

"I cannot rule out," he replied. (Emphasis added)
"The scenario that I just gave you?" I asked.
"Yes," he replied.

After Dr. Lee admitted that my scenario could account for the questioned stain, I produced my photograph. It clearly showed that the scenario I outlined to Dr. Lee was, in fact, what had happened. The socks were collected inside out, with the toe touching the ankle, showing how blood got from one side of the sock to the other.

I also elicited evidence from the forensic science literature that a single drop of blood on nylon material could take from seventy five minutes to nine hours to dry. The socks were nylon. Therefore, the blood could also have transferred from one side to the other after Simpson returned to Rockingham and took his socks off.

In short, Dr Lee's testimony showed logical, rational explanations for how blood got from one side of the sock to the other."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Here is a question for you. Very early on, in open Court, Shapiro and Clark battled about the number of hairs they could take in regards to Simpson's hair. According to Vanatter and Lange, they all knew that the defense was going to fight every piece of evidence.

So why did the DA's wait until Mr. Simpson was in jail well over a month before they took the samples? Again, Deedrick made assumptions, assumptions are nothing more, according to your lexicon, unsupported speculation.

The CSI team also booked another hat found in Simpson's car. Where are the comparisons between the hair samples? They also found the exact same type of hat inside the condo. Yet, Lange's excuse for not booking the cap was he said it was a child's. Yet, clearly it was the same type of "one size fits all" twin of the hat they claimed Simpson wore.

The defense presented reasonable doubt about who the hat belonged to, who wore it and when it was worn. They presented a witness who has taken care of his hair for 16 years. She testified honestly on when it seemed that Mr. Simpson had dandruff and when he didn't. When Mr. Simpson had dandruff, she said it was when he was in the sun and playing golf. Which Mr. Simpson did almost everyday.

It was up to the DA's to prove that he didn't have dandruff that night, however, they knew they couldn't, but they did know how get around this. IMO.

Simpson’s lawyers used tactics to prolong every phase of the case against Simpson. That’s why it took so long to obtain Simpson’s hair sample.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E3DA143CF93AA15755C0A9629582 60

Knit caps come in different sizes. Simpson had a very large head but the knit cap that was found in Nicole’s condo was evidently a noticeably smaller size.

Juanita Moore did not say that Simpson always had dandruff when he played golf in the sun only sometimes he did and sometimes he didn’t. She said when Simpson used oil he would not get dandruff and that he used over the counter dandruff shampoos. Moore did not say Simpson had dandruff on May 23, the last time she saw him and she could not and did not testify as to what Simpson’s hair condition was on June 12. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff before the murders, on the night of the murders, or in days following the murders and no defense lawyer in this case ever claimed he did.

The claim that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 is nothing more than some unsupported speculation by a poster on this discussion group. A claim that was never made any lawyer in either trial.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have already posted the argument.

Ms. Moore's testimony was circumstantial evidence that Simpson's hair would have had dandruff. We have debated this and you obstinately claim to know more about evidence and law than the Supreme Court, Judge Ito and the lawyers in this case.

You posted something a lawyer said. No witness ever testified to that.

Moore testified that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn’t. That is not evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12, it is only evidence that Simpson sometimes had dandruff. The fact is there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff before the murders, on the night of the murders, or in the days after the murders. The only evidence in this case that Simpson had dandruff was on July 13 a month after the murders.

There is nothing to debate. No lawyer in this case in either trial ever claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. You’re the only one who has done that and your claim is nothing but unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Your are laboring under the false assumption that the blood could have only come from her autopsy sample. We have had this discussion and I posted the testimony on cross.

The defense theory was that Nicole’s blood was taken from her autopsy sample and planted on Simpson’s sock sometime after the sock was collected. Dr. Cotton’s degradation tests proved that theory false. Your speculation that Nicole’s blood could have come from somewhere other than her autopsy sample is nothing more than unsupported speculation and contradicted by Dr. Cotton’s testimony that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock had little or no degradation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Your conclusion is based on the testimony of a dead expert, by the DNA results, and the ghost in the machine. ;):cool:

My conclusions are based on Dr. Terry Lee’s experience and testimony, photographic evidence, and degradation evidence. Who is the dead expert?

bobaugust

[martin II]

My conclusions are based on Dr. Terry Lee’s experience and testimony, photographic evidence, and degradation evidence. Who is the dead expert?

bobaugust

bob
Dr T Lee is the 'EXPERT" that invented the GHOST in the machine to cover Martz confusion.imo

[martin II]

MORAN: To be honest, after I listened to all the evidence, all the people that came to testify ... after all of that was over with ... that's when I came up with my decision. After I got deliberated ... in the back room, in jury deliberations.

You seem to be more interested in discussing a persons use of a word unlike how you may use it.This means what.Absolutely nothing.Your expertise seem to be in the area of name calling and making mean spirited comments about others that you have never met and that have opinions that differ from yours.

Moran who was in the courtroom for 9 months understood the trial better than some that were not present and formed their opinions from media sound bites.

Your opinions of the jury means little as none had any effect on the verdict.Some times i think you forget that fact. hahaha:cool:

[weezer]

You seem to be more interested in discussing a persons use of a word unlike how you may use it.This means what.Absolutely nothing.Your expertise seem to be in the area of name calling and making mean spirited comments about others that you have never met and that have opinions that differ from yours.

Moran who was in the courtroom for 9 months understood the trial better than some that were not present and formed their opinions from media sound bites.

Your opinions of the jury means little as none had any effect on the verdict.Some times i think you forget that fact. hahaha:cool:

my opinion of the jury as being ignorant and racially biased is based on their ignorant and embarrassing statements after their verdict.

[martin II]

my opinion of the jury as being ignorant and racially biased is based on their ignorant and embarrassing statements after their verdict.

Not everyone use language as you may. "when i was deliberated" does not make the user ignorant. it does not mean that the user did not understand testimony. It only means that the user deliberated with 11 other jurors and voted not guilty.imo

[bobaugust]

bob
Dr T Lee is the 'EXPERT" that invented the GHOST in the machine to cover Martz confusion.imo

martin II, You’re wrong. William Anthony came up the word “ghost” evidently trying to be funny. And it was funny, dumb, but funny.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, You’re wrong. William Anthony came up the word “ghost” evidently trying to be funny. And it was funny, dumb, but funny.

bobaugust

Are you sure about that?

[martin II]

Another issue about money

The biggest beneficiary of the sales was Lou Brown, who has said he received $162,500 to narrate Nicole and O.J.'s wedding video for the syndicated TV show ""A Current Affair.'' He also said he received $100,000 for the sale of Nicole's diary to the National Enquirer. He has said it was his to sell because he found the diary in Nicole's condo in an envelope addressed to him.

Nicole's sister Dominique also benefited. She has said that she sold a series of pictures to the National Enquirer for $32,000. One of the pictures was of a topless Nicole in Mexico. She also helped set up a picture by alerting an Enquirer friend when Justin was placing flowers on his mother's grave. She has explained that she needed the money in the event Sydney ever came to live with her.

A child psychiatrist, say sources, depicted the Browns as so filled with grief and hostility toward Simpson that it was damaging the children. The expert said the Browns refused to discuss their father with the kids and made them use the last name Brown instead of Simpson. They wouldn't allow Simpson to attend Justin's first communion. And they wouldn't allow Simpson to enter their home. Two weeks ago Stock again criticized the Browns for ""unabated and unrestrained public expression of ill feelings toward the father.''

[William Anthony]

The defense theory was that Nicole’s blood was taken from her autopsy sample and planted on Simpson’s sock sometime after the sock was collected. Dr. Cotton’s degradation tests proved that theory false. Your speculation that Nicole’s blood could have come from somewhere other than her autopsy sample is nothing more than unsupported speculation and contradicted by Dr. Cotton’s testimony that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock had little or no degradation.

bobaugust

Contrary to your assertion, the defense did not limit the source of the planting of the blood on the magical socks as Ms. Nicole's autopsy sample. I posted the testimony and Cotton's testimony is off topic for this thread.

[William Anthony]

My conclusions are based on Dr. Terry Lee’s experience and testimony, photographic evidence, and degradation evidence. Who is the dead expert?

bobaugust

Your conclusions are based on what you believe is credible as was the jury's. The dead expert is Martz.

[William Anthony]

You posted something a lawyer said. No witness ever testified to that.

Moore testified that sometimes Simpson had dandruff in the summer and sometimes he didn’t. That is not evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12, it is only evidence that Simpson sometimes had dandruff. The fact is there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff before the murders, on the night of the murders, or in the days after the murders. The only evidence in this case that Simpson had dandruff was on July 13 a month after the murders.

There is nothing to debate. No lawyer in this case in either trial ever claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. You’re the only one who has done that and your claim is nothing but unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

I posted the argument. We shall let the community decide. The fact that you do not understand inferences, imho, should not preclude the rest of the community from attaining that knowledge and understanding, imho.

[William Anthony]

martin II, You’re wrong. William Anthony came up the word “ghost” evidently trying to be funny. And it was funny, dumb, but funny.

bobaugust

I see you have resorted to a tactic used by some losers, who do not have a valid contradictory argument, by using negative comments. I will not take offense at your statement that something is dumb but funny for there have been quite a few comedians, who have made a lucrative living at being dumb but funny. It is quite another thing to be dumb and people find you (all inclusive) funny because of the degree of your dumbness. ;):cool:

[weezer]

Another issue about money

The biggest beneficiary of the sales was Lou Brown, who has said he received $162,500 to narrate Nicole and O.J.'s wedding video for the syndicated TV show ""A Current Affair.'' He also said he received $100,000 for the sale of Nicole's diary to the National Enquirer. He has said it was his to sell because he found the diary in Nicole's condo in an envelope addressed to him.

Nicole's sister Dominique also benefited. She has said that she sold a series of pictures to the National Enquirer for $32,000. One of the pictures was of a topless Nicole in Mexico. She also helped set up a picture by alerting an Enquirer friend when Justin was placing flowers on his mother's grave. She has explained that she needed the money in the event Sydney ever came to live with her.

A child psychiatrist, say sources, depicted the Browns as so filled with grief and hostility toward Simpson that it was damaging the children. The expert said the Browns refused to discuss their father with the kids and made them use the last name Brown instead of Simpson. They wouldn't allow Simpson to attend Justin's first communion. And they wouldn't allow Simpson to enter their home. Two weeks ago Stock again criticized the Browns for ""unabated and unrestrained public expression of ill feelings toward the father.''

martin, who are you quoting?

[weezer]

Not everyone use language as you may. "when i was deliberated" does not make the user ignorant. it does not mean that the user did not understand testimony. It only means that the user deliberated with 11 other jurors and voted not guilty.imo

are you saying that the criminal jury 'got deliberated' in the four or so hours they were in the jury room?

[martin II]

are you saying that the criminal jury 'got deliberated' in the four or so hours they were in the jury room?

I am saying that the jury listened to testimony for 9 months in the court room
as opossed to some that heard none in person. That the prosecution, according to many, screwed up the presentation of their case under the pressure of the Dream Team attack. That after the jury received clear instructions from the judge, they deliberated according to the law to the point that they decided to take a vote. That when they did take this vote they found that all 12 were in agreement for a not guilty verdict.

That those that had not recognized how effective the defense had been in attacking the prosecutions case, believed that the verdict would be what they thought they were entitled to get. That the jury of average citizens that had no dog in that fight gave a just verdict according to the law.
imo::cool:

[weezer]

I am saying that the jury listened to testimony for 9 months in the court room
as opossed to some that heard none in person. That the prosecution, according to many, screwed up the presentation of their case under the pressure of the Dream Team attack. That after the jury received clear instructions from the judge, they deliberated according to the law to the point that they decided to take a vote. That when they did take this vote they found that all 12 were in agreement for a not guilty verdict.

That those that had not recognized how effective the defense had been in attacking the prosecutions case, believed that the verdict would be what they thought they were entitled to get. That the jury of average citizens that had no dog in that fight gave a just verdict according to the law.
imo::cool:

how silly to think that the only people who could draw conclusions as to guilt or innocence had to be in the courtroom. the fact is, the criminal jury violated the justice system when they 'got deliberated' in time before the case was concluded and their were to deliberate. and, btw, the jury was below average and their dog happened to be black. imo

[bobaugust]

Contrary to your assertion, the defense did not limit the source of the planting of the blood on the magical socks as Ms. Nicole's autopsy sample. I posted the testimony and Cotton's testimony is off topic for this thread.

Wrong. Once again you have imagined something that no lawyer in this case ever said, inferred, or claimed.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Your conclusions are based on what you believe is credible as was the jury's. The dead expert is Martz.

How do you know that Roger Martz is dead?

[bobaugust]

I posted the argument. We shall let the community decide. The fact that you do not understand inferences, imho, should not preclude the rest of the community from attaining that knowledge and understanding, imho.

No lawyer in this case ever inferred or claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. Only you have made that claim William and your claim is nothing more than unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I see you have resorted to a tactic used by some losers, who do not have a valid contradictory argument, by using negative comments. I will not take offense at your statement that something is dumb but funny for there have been quite a few comedians, who have made a lucrative living at being dumb but funny. It is quite another thing to be dumb and people find you (all inclusive) funny because of the degree of your dumbness. ;):cool:

You shouldn’t take offense at my comment since you’re the one who came up with the word ghost by distorting what Baker actually said. It was funny because it was dumb, unless you actually believe in ghosts. Do you believe in ghosts William?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Wrong. Once again you have imagined something that no lawyer in this case ever said, inferred, or claimed.

bobaugust

As I have said I posted the testimony. Because you do not understand it, does not mean it isn't so.

[William Anthony]

How do you know that Roger Martz is dead?

It was explained, as you know, that a person could not live with the amount of
EDTA that Martz claimed he found in his own unpreserved blood. Hence, enter the artifact/ghosting effect/carry over result in the machine of Terri Lee in his effort to explain away the problem with Martz's results.

[William Anthony]

No lawyer in this case ever inferred or claimed that Simpson had dandruff on June 12. Only you have made that claim William and your claim is nothing more than unsupported speculation.

bobaugust

See my response in post #5874.

[William Anthony]

You shouldn’t take offense at my comment since you’re the one who came up with the word ghost by distorting what Baker actually said. It was funny because it was dumb, unless you actually believe in ghosts. Do you believe in ghosts William?

bobaugust

I think I said before that I believe in the Holy Ghost. However, you credit Terri Lee's and Martz's testimony so it seems that you believe in ghosts. Because I believe in the Bible, I do believe in ghosts, or spirits, if you will. However, I do not think that Martz was able to return from the dead. Do you? Do you think a ghost resided in the machine or somehow got in the machine and was identified as an artifact? Do you believe the preposterous testimony of Terri Lee that he had seen the ghost over a hundred times and did nothing to alert the scientific community or to have that community take steps to eliminate the ghost in the machine?

[William Anthony]

Any one know the number of below average White juries that acquitted White defendant's, who murdered Blacks?

[martin II]

how silly to think that the only people who could draw conclusions as to guilt or innocence had to be in the courtroom. the fact is, the criminal jury violated the justice system when they 'got deliberated' in time before the case was concluded and their were to deliberate. and, btw, the jury was below average and their dog happened to be black. imo


Your bias would cause you to make the above comment.
What is silly is you think you getting your info about the case by media sound
bites is equal to evaluating all aspects of witnesses testimony by sitting in the jurty box for 9 mo.

You have confirmed to me why you missed what happened in the case.

With that said. see ya.:seeya::cool:

[martin II]

Any one know the number of below average White juries that acquitted White defendant's, who murdered Blacks?

I am Thinking that Weezer may know since she decides what below average is according to something.I think she may use looks.imo

[martin II]

are you saying that the criminal jury 'got deliberated' in the four or so hours they were in the jury room?

According to Mrs Morans use of the word as you reported, absolutely yes.

[martin II]

Weezer
If you evaluate intelligence by ones command of the english language, what is your opinion of our president?

[fgump2]

Who said the air conditioner fell to the ground? Pictures of the south walkway
Show the air conditioner in place in the wall. Experiments were done with two people in Katos room and three men outside falling against the wall. No picture moved.

Kato told his girlfriend while on the phone at 10:40 pm, told oj at about 10:50
and furhman at about 6 am that he heard three thumps on his wall and the picture moved. Not much time passed there.

It is quite possible to tell distured leaves in the south walkway if someone had done what oj is accused of doing.Falling against the wall and to the ground and running out of the walkway as M Clarke claimed. That is if you have viewed the pictures of the walkway as it was found on 6/13.

Four le detectives testified that they saw no evidence that anyone came througfh the heavy growth and vines at the fence where the glove was found.
If you look at the pictures of the walkway you will see that the air conditioner is several feet east of the spot where the glove was "found" and there was nothing found on the air conditioner to indicate anyone had bounced on it .
imo
Martin, I think you are probably correct about the air conditioner. I couldn’t find any evidence that the prosecution said OJS knocked down the air conditioner.
I think that you are partly wrong also. For one thing the prosecution never said that OJS ran into a wall three times. Kato said that he heard three thumps, but he was obviously afraid at the time, of both earthquakes and criminals. Human memory is inaccurate in the best of circumstances, and even more inaccurate when a person is afraid; but I think that something bumped against the wall at that time, although not necessarily three times. There is no evidence that Kato was suffering from hallucinations.
To believe that OJS wasn’t the cause of the noise that Kato heard would be to add to the number of coincidences that we must buy into to believe in OJS’s innocence.
First of all we must think that the noise was unrelated to OJS, it would have been an amazing coincidence to happen just a few minutes before the limo drive first saw OJS.
Secondly the police theory of what caused the bumps and how the right hand glove got to the Rockingham estate is amazingly similar to a story that Al Cowlings told at the civil trial. The Dec 3, 1996 transcript has the following internet address: http://walraven.org/simpson/dec03-96.html
AC said that OJS had went back to his estate, when NBS called the police, and hid a bag of something (drugs or jewelry) in the garbage can of a neighbor, and dropped a set of keys belonging to a friend. OJS described to AC how to retrace the route, which involved a route that was unlikely to be seen by others. The route involved going into a neighbor’s yard, and vaulting a fence into his (OJS) yard. AC found the keys close the fence that OJS had vaulted over. It is obvious that AC’s story of OJS dropping the keys is very similar to the police theory of OJS dropping the glove,
I don’t thing these coincidences alone are enough to convict or even arrest OJS, but there were a lot of other coincidences unrelated to this. I thought one of the most important statements about the case against OJS was: There are too many coincidences here for OJS to be innocent. Some things like grapes and bananas naturally come in bunches, coincidences don’t.
I also found some convincing evidence (URL) that OJS illegally had xanax with him when he was arrested. I’ll get back to that later.

[martin II]

Martin, I think you are probably correct about the air conditioner. I couldn’t find any evidence that the prosecution said OJS knocked down the air conditioner.
I think that you are partly wrong also. For one thing the prosecution never said that OJS ran into a wall three times. Kato said that he heard three thumps, but he was obviously afraid at the time, of both earthquakes and criminals. Human memory is inaccurate in the best of circumstances, and even more inaccurate when a person is afraid; but I think that something bumped against the wall at that time, although not necessarily three times. There is no evidence that Kato was suffering from hallucinations.
To believe that OJS wasn’t the cause of the noise that Kato heard would be to add to the number of coincidences that we must buy into to believe in OJS’s innocence.

M Clarke claimed that oj jumped the fense and RAN out of the south walkway to the front driveway. Vanhatter and two other le testified that they saw no evidence that anyone came over the fense after they investigated that area. There was no evidence found that oj simpson was in the south walkway. to assume that he was is nothing but a opinion not proof as required in a court. Kato testified that the two gates in the south walkway were in their original place not moved by anyone. The Salingers property was search for evidence that oj could have been there to jump the fense.No evidence was found. Clarke put Kato on to describe what he heard in a effort to suggest that this was oj bouncing against the wall three times, but her problem was that she could not prove that oj was actually there and that anyone jumped that fence.Especially since le said no one jumped that fence. B]


First of all we must think that the noise was unrelated to OJS, it would have been an amazing coincidence to happen just a few minutes before the limo drive first saw OJS.
Secondly the police theory of what caused the bumps and how the right hand glove got to the Rockingham estate is amazingly similar to a story that Al Cowlings told at the civil trial. The Dec 3, 1996 transcript has the following internet address: http://walraven.org/simpson/dec03-96.html
AC said that OJS had went back to his estate, when NBS called the police, and hid a bag of something (drugs or jewelry) in the garbage can of a neighbor, and dropped a set of keys belonging to a friend. OJS described to AC how to retrace the route, which involved a route that was unlikely to be seen by others. The route involved going into a neighbor’s yard, and vaulting a fence into his (OJS) yard. AC found the keys close the fence that OJS had vaulted over. It is obvious that AC’s story of OJS dropping the keys is very similar to the police theory of OJS dropping the glove,

[B]I think you(ac) are talking about another fence in the east end of ojs property the gloove was found in the south walkway fence.
I don’t thing these coincidences alone are enough to convict or even arrest OJS, but there were a lot of other coincidences unrelated to this. I thought one of the most important statements about the case against OJS was: There are too many coincidences here for OJS to be innocent. Some things like grapes and bananas naturally come in bunches, coincidences don’t.
I also found some convincing evidence (URL) that OJS illegally had xanax with him when he was arrested. I’ll get back to that later.

Let me know if you have testimony that Zanax was found on oj when he was
arrested.