Issues In The Criminal Trial

[martin II]

If your opinions are based on reality you would. What do you think happens to traces of blood on someone's shoe after they walk across grass and dirt to reach a location well over a hundred feet away?

bobaugust

If simpson left the south walkway where the leaves were and then left blood drops on the driveway inside the gate and in the foyer, why didn't he leave blood on the leaves where the glove was found.

There was blood where they should not have been blood and no blood where there should have been blood. "Something wrong"

martin II

[bobaugust]

If simpson left the south walkway where the leaves were and then left blood drops on the driveway inside the gate and in the foyer, why didn't he leave blood on the leaves where the glove was found.

There was blood where they should not have been blood and no blood where there should have been blood. "Something wrong"

martin II

The "something wrong" is your refusal to accept what the blood evidence and other evidence tells us. As to blood being where it should have been or where it shouldn't have been that's a ridiculous comment. The fact is that Simpson's finger wasn't continuously bleeding yet he still left his blood at Bundy, in his Bronco and mixed with both victims blood, on his driveway, and in his house. If Simpson wasn't involved in these murders his blood should never have been in any of these places. Simpson's blood and fibers found on the glove behind Kaelin's room tells us Simpson was the only person who handled that glove.

bobaugust

[tv]

Again
He could very well have taken they back there but i would think that they would not try to distrube the leaves and and thing else in the crime scene by kicking up the leaves.They would as they did at bundy enter the crime scene
being very careful not to change the scene.So i don't know what you are trying to say in your post.
martin III'll clarify it for you. You said it wasn't necessary for anyone to get close to the glove. I was saying that Fuhrman took Lange, VanNatter and the photographer to the glove. I agree that they would probably not disturb the scene so the broken leaf in the photo probably fell there when OJ Simpson climbed the fence.

[martin II]

I'll clarify it for you. You said it wasn't necessary for anyone to get close to the glove. I was saying that Fuhrman took Lange, VanNatter and the photographer to the glove. I agree that they would probably not disturb the scene so the broken leaf in the photo probably fell there when OJ Simpson climbed the fence.

I will try to help you again.

If a person would have pushed his way through all the hedges ,trees and vines at the fence to jump over it and on to the wall, i believe there would have been more than ONE SMALL green leaf found on the ground as evidence of this activity.
The photo of the scene could have been taken for several feet before reaching the actual glove.So it was not necessary to be standing OVER the glove to take that picture.
The ONE leaf could have fallen from the trees as a result of many causes but if a 200 lb man had forced his way through the brush and jumped from the fence to that wall there would have been many more small green leaves found on the ground on both sides of the fence.
When oj was suppose to have been running out of the walkway, did he stop and reset that broken gate. it did not close on its own.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*

If a person would have pushed his way through all the hedges ,trees and vines at the fence to jump over it and on to the wall

:confused: :shrug: Who said any of this happened?

[SaberGal]

I enjoy reading your well thought out posts and the debate over the time of the deaths only goes to show that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof on the issue they presented and that JC did a marvelous job of destroying that evidence. This is another manisfestation of his ingenious theme, "If it does not fit, you must acquit."

Thank you for your kind words. More than anything else, I want to know the truth about what happened that night and I don't think we got it from the prosecution. I agree that JC and the defense did an excellent job creating reasonable doubt - especially as it relates to exposing MF for what he was/is. If Fuhrman had not taken the 5th, I do believe we would have more information about his less than honorable background. Having said that, I don't believe that OJ is innocent but like every defendant, he had the right to a proper and thorough defense and he certainly received that - for that I am grateful.

[martin II]

I'll clarify it for you. You said it wasn't necessary for anyone to get close to the glove. I was saying that Fuhrman took Lange, VanNatter and the photographer to the glove. I agree that they would probably not disturb the scene so the broken leaf in the photo probably fell there when OJ Simpson climbed the fence.

Where did furhman say he TOOK others.How close to the glove.
When furhman did this where was Brad Roberts and Det. Phillips??

The leaf could have fallen on it's own very easily.
martin II

[bobaugust]

I will try to help you again.

If a person would have pushed his way through all the hedges ,trees and vines at the fence to jump over it and on to the wall, i believe there would have been more than ONE SMALL green leaf found on the ground as evidence of this activity.
The photo of the scene could have been taken for several feet before reaching the actual glove.So it was not necessary to be standing OVER the glove to take that picture.
The ONE leaf could have fallen from the trees as a result of many causes but if a 200 lb man had forced his way through the brush and jumped from the fence to that wall there would have been many more small green leaves found on the ground on both sides of the fence.
When oj was suppose to have been running out of the walkway, did he stop and reset that broken gate. it did not close on its own.

martin II

Of course there were leaves and broken twigs covering the ground on the Salinger's property from shrubbery that Simpson would have pushed his way through and around to get to his fence and no could later tell when or how they had fallen there. The photograph of the small blue wrapper stuck to the fence was taken by a photographer standing very near the glove showing more green leaves close to the fence. The second clearer photograph was taken after a white card was placed near the glove for identification. There is absolutely no way to tell when or how many people walked over those leaves from these photographs.

As to the broken gate, since Kaelin testified that the first time he went down the south path he had to pick up the broken gate to open it so yes after scaling his fence Simpson made his way down the south path and had picked up the gate to open it and then put it back to close it on his way to his driveway. Kaelin testified he did the same thing on both of his trips to the south path. It wasn't very hard to do.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Of course there were leaves and broken twigs covering the ground on the Salinger's property from shrubbery that Simpson would have pushed his way through and around to get to his fence and no could later tell when or how they had fallen there. The photograph of the small blue wrapper stuck to the fence was taken by a photographer standing very near the glove showing more green leaves close to the fence. The second clearer photograph was taken after a white card was placed near the glove for identification. There is absolutely no way to tell when or how many people walked over those leaves from these photographs.

As to the broken gate, since Kaelin testified that the first time he went down the south path he had to pick up the broken gate to open it so yes after scaling his fence Simpson made his way down the south path and had picked up the gate to open it and then put it back to close it on his way to his driveway. Kaelin testified he did the same thing on both of his trips to the south path. It wasn't very hard to do.

bobaugust

OJ running against time to get into the house comes upon the gate and says to himself " OH I HAD BETTER STOP RUNNING AND PLACE THIS GATE BACK IN POSITION"

HAHAHAHA

MARTIN ii

[socaldiva]

OJ running against time to get into the house comes upon the gate and says to himself " OH I HAD BETTER STOP RUNNING AND PLACE THIS GATE BACK IN POSITION"

HAHAHAHA

MARTIN ii

You forget that Simpson is a man that thought killing two people was a good idea. I'm sure his head is full of strange ideas. HAHAHAHA

[tv]

Where did furhman say he TOOK others.How close to the glove.
When furhman did this where was Brad Roberts and Det. Phillips??

The leaf could have fallen on it's own very easily.
martin III'm away from home right now but when I'm back I'll post it for you. I'm not sure why you question this. Why wouldn't one detective take other detectives to see evidence he's discovered? Especially the lead detectives on the case?

[William Anthony]

If your opinions are based on reality you would. What do you think happens to traces of blood on someone's shoe after they walk across grass and dirt to reach a location well over a hundred feet away?

bobaugust

I like the way you use the word "traces". It appears to me that your vocabulary is dependent upon to whom the evidence may point. The fact is that there is no evidence of any blood or impressions found in any grass or dirt that I know of, which was found near the location that MF allegedly found the glove.

[William Anthony]

That's funny. The same general far reaching interpretation of motive, means and opportunity you apply to Fuhrman can be also applied to Simpson as the killer. Good one William.

The reality is there was no second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there shortly after midnight. Simpson's right hand glove was already lying on the south path behind Kaelin's room where Simpson unknowingly dropped it when he returned to Rockingham a little more than an hour earlier after killing both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

Thank you for now admitting that the evidence of motive, means and opportunity to convict Simpson as the killer is "far reaching". You continue to speak of reality as though you were present and give undeniable truth to everything that LE said. What may be a reality to you, based upon what you have thus far posted, imho can be classified as a dream in which you arrested, prosecuted and convicted Simpson.

[tv]

OJ running against time to get into the house comes upon the gate and says to himself " OH I HAD BETTER STOP RUNNING AND PLACE THIS GATE BACK IN POSITION"

HAHAHAHA

MARTIN iiYou laugh at this theory but you believe OJ Simpson when he says he just happened to cut himself and deposit blood in several locations INCLUDING THE CRIME SCENE on the same night that his ex-wife and her friend were slaughtered with a knife? :D

[William Anthony]

Thank you for your kind words. More than anything else, I want to know the truth about what happened that night and I don't think we got it from the prosecution. I agree that JC and the defense did an excellent job creating reasonable doubt - especially as it relates to exposing MF for what he was/is. If Fuhrman had not taken the 5th, I do believe we would have more information about his less than honorable background. Having said that, I don't believe that OJ is innocent but like every defendant, he had the right to a proper and thorough defense and he certainly received that - for that I am grateful.


I do not know who the murderer is/was. I likewise believe that there was reasonable doubt as to Simpson's guilt. I remain uncertain on Simpson's guilt or innocence but remain convinced that he was not guilty.

[William Anthony]

You laugh at this theory but you believe OJ Simpson when he says he just happened to cut himself and deposit blood in several locations INCLUDING THE CRIME SCENE on the same night that his ex-wife and her friend were slaughtered with a knife? :D

To which CRIME SCENE do you refer? There is no evidence that Simpson deposited any blood at Bundy on the night of the murders. The evidence is that his blood was allegedly found in several locations by LE on the night of the murders.

[socaldiva]

You laugh at this theory but you believe OJ Simpson when he says he just happened to cut himself and deposit blood in several locations INCLUDING THE CRIME SCENE on the same night that his ex-wife and her friend were slaughtered with a knife? :D

I wonder what Martin thinks of the 'disguise' that Simpson had in the Bronco? Does he think that's normal, yet think it's odd to close a gate behind yourself? :tongue:

[bobaugust]

I like the way you use the word "traces". It appears to me that your vocabulary is dependent upon to whom the evidence may point. The fact is that there is no evidence of any blood or impressions found in any grass or dirt that I know of, which was found near the location that MF allegedly found the glove.

After committing the murders Simpson walked through blood when he left Bundy. As he walked down the long walkway to the rear of the condo he left bloody shoeprints that faded out about half way down to the rear gate. When he got into his Bronco any remaining blood up in the ridges of his left shoe was transferred to his Bronco carpet. After Simpson returned to Rockingham he could very well have walked across his neighbors property, walking across their grass and then the leaf and twig covered garden area, to get to his fence behind his guest house over a hundred feet away. After scaling his fence he continued down the leaf covered south path to get to his driveway. Any traces of blood remaining in the ridges on the bottom of his shoes would have been completely gone by that time.

The fact that no blood or shoe impressions were seen outside on the Salingers and Simpson's property is completely meaningless. The blood and shoe impressions that were found all point to Simpson as the killer.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Thank you for now admitting that the evidence of motive, means and opportunity to convict Simpson as the killer is "far reaching". You continue to speak of reality as though you were present and give undeniable truth to everything that LE said. What may be a reality to you, based upon what you have thus far posted, imho can be classified as a dream in which you arrested, prosecuted and convicted Simpson.

Funny. No I'm not the one using ridiculous far reaching interpretations of motive, means, and opportunity for Simpson that you have used regarding your false claims about Mark Fuhrman.

The physical evidence in this case proves Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. There isn't one shred of any kind of evidence to support your false claim that there was a second glove left at Bundy by the killer for Mark Fuhrman or anyone to later plant.

bobaugust

[martin II]

To which CRIME SCENE do you refer? There is no evidence that Simpson deposited any blood at Bundy on the night of the murders. The evidence is that his blood was allegedly found in several locations by LE on the night of the murders.

Considering what vanhatter did with simpsons blood on 6/13 and the missing simpson blood drawn by the nurse Paretis "sp" there is considerable doubt as to how certain blood was FOUND in cartain places.imo
mjartin II

[William Anthony]

After committing the murders Simpson walked through blood when he left Bundy. As he walked down the long walkway to the rear of the condo he left bloody shoeprints that faded out about half way down to the rear gate. When he got into his Bronco any remaining blood up in the ridges of his left shoe was transferred to his Bronco carpet. After Simpson returned to Rockingham he could very well have walked across his neighbors property, walking across their grass and then the leaf and twig covered garden area, to get to his fence behind his guest house over a hundred feet away. After scaling his fence he continued down the leaf covered south path to get to his driveway. Any traces of blood remaining in the ridges on the bottom of his shoes would have been completely gone by that time.

The fact that no blood or shoe impressions were seen outside on the Salingers and Simpson's property is completely meaningless. The blood and shoe impressions that were found all point to Simpson as the killer.

bobaugust

Do you plan to publish this work of fiction you created?

[William Anthony]

Funny. No I'm not the one using ridiculous far reaching interpretations of motive, means, and opportunity for Simpson that you have used regarding your false claims about Mark Fuhrman.

The physical evidence in this case proves Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. There isn't one shred of any kind of evidence to support your false claim that there was a second glove left at Bundy by the killer for Mark Fuhrman or anyone to later plant.

bobaugust

This is your statement.

"The same general far reaching interpretation of motive, means and opportunity you apply to Fuhrman can be also applied to Simpson as the killer. Good one William."

That is exactly what you and others have done, although the sophisticated criminal jury was able to see through the far reaching. However, there is one difference-MF admitted to his crimes.

[martin II]

I'm away from home right now but when I'm back I'll post it for you. I'm not sure why you question this. Why wouldn't one detective take other detectives to see evidence he's discovered? Especially the lead detectives on the case?

I have not questioned that furhman showed others the glove he says he "FOUND' i am saying based on the pictures he did not walk through the crime scene and distrube the leaves. The picture shows that no one walked back there and disturbed those leaves.
martin II

[bobaugust]

This is your statement.

"The same general far reaching interpretation of motive, means and opportunity you apply to Fuhrman can be also applied to Simpson as the killer. Good one William."

That is exactly what you and others have done, although the sophisticated criminal jury was able to see through the far reaching. However, there is one difference-MF admitted to his crimes.

The same far reaching interpretation of motive, means, and opportunity you applied to Fuhrman can also be applied to Simpson. The difference is that all the relevant physical evidence in this case points to Simpson as the killer. There is no evidence that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove at Rockingham.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have not questioned that furhman showed others the glove he says he "FOUND' i am saying based on the pictures he did not walk through the crime scene and distrube the leaves. The picture shows that no one walked back there and disturbed those leaves.
martin II

Wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about. Based on the crime scene photographs it is impossible to tell if someone or someone's walked or didn't walk across those leaves. The only way you could tell that is if there was a photograph taken of that area before the murders to compare with. We know that before the glove was photographed many people were taken there to see it. Mark Fuhrman testified that after seeing the glove he walked past it to the end of the path continuing to check the area out. Fuhrman then walked back down the south path passing the glove again to get back to the driveway. Fuhrman took Phillips back there to see the glove. Vannatter and Lange went back there to see the glove. The photographer went back there and photographed the glove. Dennis Fung went back there and more photographs were taken before the glove was collected.

bobaugust

[tv]

To which CRIME SCENE do you refer? There is no evidence that Simpson deposited any blood at Bundy on the night of the murders. The evidence is that his blood was allegedly found in several locations by LE on the night of the murders.

I'm referring to the BUNDY crime scene. Four blood drops on the walkway, three on the back gate and one near the victims were genetic matches to OJ Simpson according to the testimony of Dr. Robin Cotten. The chances of the blood belonging to anyone other than Simpson is 1 in 170 million.

[tv]

I have not questioned that furhman showed others the glove he says he "FOUND' i am saying based on the pictures he did not walk through the crime scene and distrube the leaves. The picture shows that no one walked back there and disturbed those leaves.
martin II

Yes, you did question whether or not Mark Fuhrman took others back to the glove. Here's your exact quote:

Where did furhman say he TOOK others.How close to the glove.
When furhman did this where was Brad Roberts and Det. Phillips??

The leaf could have fallen on it's own very easily.
martin II

If you're not questioning the fact that he took, led or otherwise directed the others to the glove then I won't bother with the link.

[tv]

This is your statement.

"The same general far reaching interpretation of motive, means and opportunity you apply to Fuhrman can be also applied to Simpson as the killer. Good one William."

That is exactly what you and others have done, although the sophisticated criminal jury was able to see through the far reaching. However, there is one difference-MF admitted to his crimes.

William, Mark Fuhrman was charged with only one crime and he didn't admit to guilt. He pled no contest. I'm sure you're aware that is the technical equivalent of a guilty plea but it allows the defendant to maintain his innocence while accepting the plea.

[tv]

I wonder what Martin thinks of the 'disguise' that Simpson had in the Bronco? Does he think that's normal, yet think it's odd to close a gate behind yourself? :tongue:Oh, come on, diva! You mean you don't keep a disguise in your car? :biggrin:

[martin II]

I'm referring to the BUNDY crime scene. Four blood drops on the walkway, three on the back gate and one near the victims were genetic matches to OJ Simpson according to the testimony of Dr. Robin Cotten. The chances of the blood belonging to anyone other than Simpson is 1 in 170 million.

Do Cotton testified that she did not collect any blood evidence.

[martin II]

Yes, you did question whether or not Mark Fuhrman took others back to the glove. Here's your exact quote:

Where did furhman say he TOOK others.How close to the glove.
When furhman did this where was Brad Roberts and Det. Phillips??

The leaf could have fallen on it's own very easily.
martin II

If you're not questioning the fact that he took, led or otherwise directed the others to the glove then I won't bother with the link.


the intent of my questuion is to ask did he say he took them right on top of the glove or did he take them up to some feet of the glove.
How far was the photographer when he took the picture.

If all of them did walk up to the glove they must have been quite careful not to distrube the leaves at the crime scene.
that is my opinion.


martin II

[martin II]

William, Mark Fuhrman was charged with only one crime and he didn't admit to guilt. He pled no contest. I'm sure you're aware that is the technical equivalent of a guilty plea but it allows the defendant to maintain his innocence while accepting the plea.

If he did then, are you saying that you accept his innocence on that issue?Do you reject the claimes of the people in the community about him, The Britten SP case, all the info put forth by BP. Furhmans conversation with the doctor when he tried to get a early retirement.
Are all of these issues non issues for you.

What is your opinion of a honeest cop that would agree to have his name connected to words about minorities and mixed couples as Furhman did when he made those tapes. you think the average cop would have done this.
martinII

[martin II]

Wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about. Based on the crime scene photographs it is impossible to tell if someone or someone's walked or didn't walk across those leaves. The only way you could tell that is if there was a photograph taken of that area before the murders to compare with. We know that before the glove was photographed many people were taken there to see it. Mark Fuhrman testified that after seeing the glove he walked past it to the end of the path continuing to check the area out. Fuhrman then walked back down the south path passing the glove again to get back to the driveway. Fuhrman took Phillips back there to see the glove. Vannatter and Lange went back there to see the glove. The photographer went back there and photographed the glove. Dennis Fung went back there and more photographs were taken before the glove was collected.

bobaugust

bob
from looking at the picture it does not appear that all of those cops just walked through the crime scene without any regard to disturbing the leaves as there are no distrubed leaves shown in the picturem as one would expect if a person had fallen against a wall and had to move his feet around to gain his balance. That picture does not lie.

martin II

[martin II]

Oh, come on, diva! You mean you don't keep a disguise in your car? :biggrin:


I don't know but it is my opinion that only celebrities that need a disguise
to evade the public when visiting a public place,would have reason to have one in a car.
If i remember those items were to be used at that (KNOX FARM ) visit with his children but don't remember the details.

[socaldiva]

I don't know but it is my opinion that only celebrities that need a disguise
to evade the public when visiting a public place,would have reason to have one in a car.
If i remember those items were to be used at that (KNOX FARM ) visit with his children but don't remember the details.

I guess you don't remember those that knew Simpson well saying he would NEVER use a disguise at any of those public places, as he LOVED being recognized & fawned over ;) I live in Los Angeles & have seen my fair share of celebs & I've yet to see ONE wearing a dopey disguise such as Simpson had. If anything, they wear their hair different (if they're a woman), & put on a baseball cap & sunglasses. :tongue:

btw: Perhaps in your stash of Simpson info, you have a photo of him wearing a disguise out in public, either before or after the murders? If so, please share.

[socaldiva]

Oh, come on, diva! You mean you don't keep a disguise in your car? :biggrin:

Yeah, it's right next to my stack of money & my weapon of choice for whatever dastardly deed I've decided to do on any given day, just like OJ :D

[tv]

Do Cotton testified that she did not collect any blood evidence.martin, this answer doesn't even deserve a response.

[tv]

If he did then, are you saying that you accept his innocence on that issue?Do you reject the claimes of the people in the community about him, The Britten SP case, all the info put forth by BP. Furhmans conversation with the doctor when he tried to get a early retirement.
Are all of these issues non issues for you.

What is your opinion of a honeest cop that would agree to have his name connected to words about minorities and mixed couples as Furhman did when he made those tapes. you think the average cop would have done this.
martinIII told you before that I no longer discuss racial issues with you.

[tv]

I guess you don't remember those that knew Simpson well saying he would NEVER use a disguise at any of those public places, as he LOVED being recognized & fawned over ;) I live in Los Angeles & have seen my fair share of celebs & I've yet to see ONE wearing a dopey disguise such as Simpson had. If anything, they wear their hair different (if they're a woman), & put on a baseball cap & sunglasses. :tongue:

btw: Perhaps in your stash of Simpson info, you have a photo of him wearing a disguise out in public, either before or after the murders? If so, please share.I'd love to see that picture! I recall also that he loved to be recognized. Kind of blows that excuse for having a disguise out of the water. :tongue:

[tv]

bob
from looking at the picture it does not appear that all of those cops just walked through the crime scene without any regard to disturbing the leaves as there are no distrubed leaves shown in the picturem as one would expect if a person had fallen against a wall and had to move his feet around to gain his balance. That picture does not lie.

martin IIIf the picture does not lie then you must believe that the glove was dropped exactly where the picture shows it was found. I'm glad you finally admitted that.

[martin II]

If the picture does not lie then you must believe that the glove was dropped exactly where the picture shows it was found. I'm glad you finally admitted that.

i think you have missunderstood my post on this issue.
My position is that no one, oj or the cops seem to have walked through that area next to the glove to disturb the leaves immediately next to the glove
as the picture does NOT show any disturbance of the leaves.
If the cops did walk back there they did make sure that they did not kick up or distrube the leaves next to the glove. Cops walked into the crime scene at bundy but said that they were sure not to distrub the crime scene so i assume they took the same care at rockingham.

The picture does not show any evidence of anyone falling, walking over or kicking up those leaves in the back walkway.

I never said the glove was not 'Dropped" where it was "found" i have said that there is no evidence that OJ 'Dropped" that glove where it was 'Found'

There is no physical evidence that oj was in that back walkway on 6/12.

If you have physical evidence that oj dropped anything back there you can offer it now. otherwise it is a opinion not backed with any proof.
imo
martinII

[martin II]

I told you before that I no longer discuss racial issues with you.

I see my post as talking about furhmans record not about the issue of race.
I am talking about his history and the accusaitons against him. But if you prefer not to comment on his history, fine.

You must know that BP accusation against furhman were also about his history as a lapd officer.
I was just asking you if , considering all the accusaiton againsr furhman
you still felt the need to support him and if so why?

martin II

[martin II]

If the picture does not lie then you must believe that the glove was dropped exactly where the picture shows it was found. I'm glad you finally admitted that.

I have not finally admitted to anything to you. I have made my position clear and it has not changed. you may have tried to give another meaning to my post that i did not make.

martin II

[William Anthony]

William, Mark Fuhrman was charged with only one crime and he didn't admit to guilt. He pled no contest. I'm sure you're aware that is the technical equivalent of a guilty plea but it allows the defendant to maintain his innocence while accepting the plea.

Simpson was not convicted of any crime and plead not guilty and did not have his voice on tape admitting to any crimes at the time of the trial.

[William Anthony]

I'm referring to the BUNDY crime scene. Four blood drops on the walkway, three on the back gate and one near the victims were genetic matches to OJ Simpson according to the testimony of Dr. Robin Cotten. The chances of the blood belonging to anyone other than Simpson is 1 in 170 million.

The questions is not who it belonged to but when and how it was deposited, imho.

[bobaugust]

bob
from looking at the picture it does not appear that all of those cops just walked through the crime scene without any regard to disturbing the leaves as there are no distrubed leaves shown in the picturem as one would expect if a person had fallen against a wall and had to move his feet around to gain his balance. That picture does not lie.

martin II

martin II, the two photographs I posted show the glove and leaves near the fence not near the guest room wall. There doesn't have to be a noticeable disturbance of leaves from Simpson hitting the wall based on what happened and evidently there wasn't since the detectives never noted it.

bobaugust

[martin II]

The questions is not who it belonged to but when and how it was deposited, imho.

Dr Cotton only tested the blood samples given to her.She had no idea as to how that blood was collected and deposited on the samples she was given so it means nothing to use her name in connection to questions of how the blood got on the samples she received.
martin II

[martin II]

martin II, the two photographs I posted show the glove and leaves near the fence not near the guest room wall. There doesn't have to be a noticeable disturbance of leaves from Simpson hitting the wall based on what happened and evidently there wasn't since the detectives never noted it.

bobaugust

The glove was "placed" "dropped" near the point of contact oj was suppose to have had with the wall. The space is only about 4-5 feet wide and there would have been much disturbance of the leaves if what you say happened
did happen but there is no proof that it did.

I have spent enough time on this issue.

martin II

[bobaugust]

The glove was "placed" "dropped" near the point of contact oj was suppose to have had with the wall. The space is only about 4-5 feet wide and there would have been much disturbance of the leaves if what you say happened
did happen but there is no proof that it did.

I have spent enough time on this issue.

martin II

I have just explained to you that there did not have to be any noticeable disturbance of leaves if Simpson did what we believe he did and evidently there wasn't. The fact is that the glove was found exactly opposite the place on the wall that Kaelin testified he heard the noises and exactly below the place on the fence where someone could have successfully scaled the fence. The blood and fiber evidence found on that glove points only to Simpson as handling it. As well as the evidence that Simpson was seen for the first time that night only minutes after Kaelin heard someone behind his room. Seen by a witness who had been unsuccessfully trying to contact Simpson for about the previous half hour.

There were only three people at Rockingham at that time. Kaelin, Park, and Simpson. Kaelin didn't make the noises on his wall. Park didn't make the noises on the wall. Simpson did.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

*snip*I was just asking you if , considering all the accusaiton againsr furhman
you still felt the need to support him and if so why?


Simpson has had a multitude of charges against him over the years & the majority of them far more serious than anything Fuhrman was ever accused of, yet you still feel the need to support Simpson on THREE message boards , 7 days a week :shrug:

[martin II]

I have just explained to you that there did not have to be any noticeable disturbance of leaves if Simpson did what we believe he did and evidently there wasn't. The fact is that the glove was found exactly opposite the place on the wall that Kaelin testified he heard the noises and exactly below the place on the fence where someone could have successfully scaled the fence. The blood and fiber evidence found on that glove points only to Simpson as handling it. As well as the evidence that Simpson was seen for the first time that night only minutes after Kaelin heard someone behind his room. Seen by a witness who had been unsuccessfully trying to contact Simpson for about the previous half hour.

There were only three people at Rockingham at that time. Kaelin, Park, and Simpson. Kaelin didn't make the noises on his wall. Park didn't make the noises on the wall. Simpson did.

bobaugust

BOB
you have just explained to me!!!!!!
What you think happened in the back walkway and you have indicated that all of this traffic could have taken place without any evidence of anyone doing what you think was done by the look of the leaves on the ground and i
completely reject all of what you have tried to state at fact as you have failed to offer any physical proof.
Only what you THINK happened and we know that is not acceptable evidence.
martin II

[bobaugust]

BOB
you have just explained to me!!!!!!
What you think happened in the back walkway and you have indicated that all of this traffic could have taken place without any evidence of anyone doing what you think was done by the look of the leaves on the ground and i
completely reject all of what you have tried to state at fact as you have failed to offer any physical proof.
Only what you THINK happened and we know that is not acceptable evidence.
martin II

martin II, in my previous post I again explained to you the evidence that tells us Simpson was the person Kaelin heard behind his room as well as the fact that all the physical evidence found on the glove points only to Simpson as handling it. If you can't accept the reality of that evidence and what it means that's your right and your problem.

bobaugust

[tv]

I see my post as talking about furhmans record not about the issue of race.
I am talking about his history and the accusaitons against him. But if you prefer not to comment on his history, fine.

You must know that BP accusation against furhman were also about his history as a lapd officer.
I was just asking you if , considering all the accusaiton againsr furhman
you still felt the need to support him and if so why?

martin III support the validity of the evidence he discovered because I think it shows OJ Simpson to be a double-murderer. I don't believe I've shown any personal support of him other than his role in this case as a police detective.

[tv]

Dr Cotton only tested the blood samples given to her.She had no idea as to how that blood was collected and deposited on the samples she was given so it means nothing to use her name in connection to questions of how the blood got on the samples she received.
martin IImartin, the blood that I listed that was collected was a genetic match to OJ Simpson. The forensic scientist wouldn't be expected to collect the samples. When you go to the doctor and have blood drawn he interprets the results but he doesn't do the actual drawing of the blood. This is a silly argument for you to make.

[tv]

Simpson was not convicted of any crime and plead not guilty and did not have his voice on tape admitting to any crimes at the time of the trial.William, you said that Mark Fuhrman had admitted to his crimes. I was clarifying for you that he admitted to nothing and wasn't chargeed with only one crime. Mark Fuhrman admitted to no crimes on tape.

[tv]

i think you have missunderstood my post on this issue.
My position is that no one, oj or the cops seem to have walked through that area next to the glove to disturb the leaves immediately next to the glove
as the picture does NOT show any disturbance of the leaves.
If the cops did walk back there they did make sure that they did not kick up or distrube the leaves next to the glove. Cops walked into the crime scene at bundy but said that they were sure not to distrub the crime scene so i assume they took the same care at rockingham.

The picture does not show any evidence of anyone falling, walking over or kicking up those leaves in the back walkway.

I never said the glove was not 'Dropped" where it was "found" i have said that there is no evidence that OJ 'Dropped" that glove where it was 'Found'

There is no physical evidence that oj was in that back walkway on 6/12.

If you have physical evidence that oj dropped anything back there you can offer it now. otherwise it is a opinion not backed with any proof.
imo
martinIII didn't misunderstand your post. I was teasing you.

[martin II]

martin, the blood that I listed that was collected was a genetic match to OJ Simpson. The forensic scientist wouldn't be expected to collect the samples. When you go to the doctor and have blood drawn he interprets the results but he doesn't do the actual drawing of the blood. This is a silly argument for you to make.

look at your post and try to understand what you posted.DrCoton could not testify that the sample she tested was from oj. only that she tested the sample she was given.

[martin II]

martin II, in my previous post I again explained to you the evidence that tells us Simpson was the person Kaelin heard behind his room as well as the fact that all the physical evidence found on the glove points only to Simpson as handling it. If you can't accept the reality of that evidence and what it means that's your right and your problem.

bobaugust

There is no physical evidence that oj was behind the house on 6/12 only opinions from people that believe he was

if you believe that oj made the noise that kato heard at 10:45 then you must not believe any of Heidstras testimony.
martinII

[bobaugust]

There is no physical evidence that oj was behind the house on 6/12 only opinions from people that believe he was

if you believe that oj made the noise that kato heard at 10:45 then you must not believe any of Heidstras testimony.
martinII

I do believe what Heidstra testified to regarding what he heard and saw that night as well as I believe what Kaelin testified to about hearing someone behind his room. Unlike you I understand the difference between estimated times and real times and the fact is that the times Kaelin testifed to were only estimated times. He never looked at a clock or a watch when this event happened. Based on Allan Park's telephone records and Kaelin and Park's testimony we know that Simpson was behind Kaelin's room shortly after 10:50 that night not 10:45.

bobaugust

[tv]

look at your post and try to understand what you posted.DrCoton could not testify that the sample she tested was from oj. only that she tested the sample she was given.

I understand exactly what I posted. You're the one twisting it around. Dr. Cotten testified that the samples were a genetic match to OJ Simpson. According to your statement, no forensic evidence should be admissable in any trial because the forensic scientist didn't collect the samples. Good grief, martin.

[Kate Sachel]

I do not understand why you call it dodging when my answer admitted that Sharpton used the word and, based upon what other Blacks have told me when they used the word at another Black, which could have been spoken in anger or in jest. The fact is that, if one loves the conduct of or excuses the conduct of all members of his own race irrespective of a member's character, I would call that person a racists. This is not to say that those here who excuse MF's conduct are racists as I am speaking in generalities.

I was responding to your questions or remarks about Sharpton and was only giving an answer in a general sense. I do not believe that Sharpton has ever made a comment that an entire race should be burned while using racial slurs. I think that all of a person's remarks should be taken into consideration before making a general statement about the possibility that the person was speaking in a general sense, imho.

I call it dodging when you're quick to condemn a white man for using a racial slur while at the same time going out of your way to explain how a black man that uses the same racial slur may have meant it when he used it.

If I recall correctly, we have no proof that Fuhrman claimed that an entire race should be burned. That was not on the tapes, but rather in a letter from Kathleen Bell who, by the way, has her own credibility issues. I recall a memo from her attorney that was sent to several news sources during the trial that stated that Kathleen Bell was in a financial hardship and needed money and would be willing to sell her story to the highest bidder. Obviously she had a story to sell and her motives had nothing to do with altruism. Frankly, it sounds a little off to me.

As such, I don't believe we should necessarily be speaking as though we know that Fuhrman said any such thing. Perhaps use of the words "alleged statement" would be in order.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

I sense some degree of aggitation in your comment. It was not my idea at all. The evidence presented was that MF harbored racial animus toward interracial couples and, whether one considers it bostering or not, admitted to planting/fabricating/manufactuing evidence on those infamous tapes. There are those here who rely heavily on circumstantial evidence as it relates to proving Simpson a murderer. I think that the same reliance should be given to the circumstantial evidence showing MF's motive, means and opportunity.

So you are saying that the motive is that Fuhrman is a racist detective who planted/tampered with evidence in an effort to frame a black man. That's what I'm getting out of this.

And no, there was no degree of aggitation in my comment, simply a desire to be clear on where you stand regarding motive.

Kate

[martin II]

I understand exactly what I posted. You're the one twisting it around. Dr. Cotten testified that the samples were a genetic match to OJ Simpson. According to your statement, no forensic evidence should be admissable in any trial because the forensic scientist didn't collect the samples. Good grief, martin.

you are having a hard time.
You are making up stuff that i did not say.
It was alleged that the samples given to Cotton came from oj simpson.

martin II

[tv]

you are having a hard time.
You are making up stuff that i did not say.
It was alleged that the samples given to Cotton came from oj simpson.

martin IIIf you had been present when the blood was collected and watched it every step of the way you still wouldn't believe it came from OJ Simpson. When blood is a 1 in 170 million match I'd say that's pretty overwhelming odds.

Don't accuse me of making things up. You said Dr. Cotton didn't collect the samples so she would have no way of knowing how it was collected. That tells me that you think if the person interpreting the results didn't collect the blood they can't make a determination on on a genetic match.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
That tells me that you think if the person interpreting the results didn't collect the blood they can't make a determination on on a genetic match.

Sounds like more smoke & mirrors to me :)

[martin II]

If you had been present when the blood was collected and watched it every step of the way you still wouldn't believe it came from OJ Simpson. When blood is a 1 in 170 million match I'd say that's pretty overwhelming odds.

Don't accuse me of making things up. You said Dr. Cotton didn't collect the samples so she would have no way of knowing how it was collected. That tells me that you think if the person interpreting the results didn't collect the blood they can't make a determination on on a genetic match.

If your hero furhman were to confess to planting evidence tomorrow it is my opinion that you would not believe him as it would upset every thing you BELIEVE you know about oj and the case.

If a lab tech were to confess to manipulating blood evidence in the lab,you would not believe it.

Cotton did nothing but test for dna of what she was given by the peosecution. She gave her opinion of what the test results said to her.

martin II

[martin II]

That tells me that you think if the person interpreting the results didn't collect the blood they can't make a determination on on a genetic match.


The above is your made up opinion of what you think i believe.

I never said that to you in any post therefore it was made up by you.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
That tells me that you think if the person interpreting the results didn't collect the blood they can't make a determination on on a genetic match.


From what I read, TV isn't making that claim, it's you. ;)

[William Anthony]

So you are saying that the motive is that Fuhrman is a racist detective who planted/tampered with evidence in an effort to frame a black man. That's what I'm getting out of this.

And no, there was no degree of aggitation in my comment, simply a desire to be clear on where you stand regarding motive.

Kate

Thank you for the clarification on the aggitation. No, what I am saying is that MF disliked interracial couples and the murder of a White woman, who had been married to a famous Black man, and his being called to the scene, along with the other evidence of the glove's Rockingham location, in conjunction with what Kato told MF and MF going to the location alone and his admissions on the tape add up to evidence of motive, means and opportunity. I do not know whether he thought if could be a chance to kill two birds with one stone, or he just wanted to make it arduous for a Black man. I do not know whether he planted the glove or not. I know that from the evidence I can draw a reasonable inference that he did.

[tv]

From what I read, TV isn't making that claim, it's you. ;)Thanks, diva. I was starting to think I was in an alternate universe. I don't know why martin can't see that is exactly what he's saying.

[William Anthony]

I call it dodging when you're quick to condemn a white man for using a racial slur while at the same time going out of your way to explain how a black man that uses the same racial slur may have meant it when he used it.

If I recall correctly, we have no proof that Fuhrman claimed that an entire race should be burned. That was not on the tapes, but rather in a letter from Kathleen Bell who, by the way, has her own credibility issues. I recall a memo from her attorney that was sent to several news sources during the trial that stated that Kathleen Bell was in a financial hardship and needed money and would be willing to sell her story to the highest bidder. Obviously she had a story to sell and her motives had nothing to do with altruism. Frankly, it sounds a little off to me.

As such, I don't believe we should necessarily be speaking as though we know that Fuhrman said any such thing. Perhaps use of the words "alleged statement" would be in order.

Kate

I think you may be mistaken about the tapes, as I recall. Not only was that remark made on the tapes, IIRC, but also one about the starvng peope in Ethiopia. The fact is that Kathleen Bell was not caught in any lie. We all know that MF was. The fact that she may have needed money and willing to sell her story sounds like she was acting in the same manner as members of the prosecution and others who have written books on the trial. I think the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming as to MF's character. I do not think that you should so quickly dismiss all those who testified to MF's character and credibility. The one thing that I can say is that an exmarine must have forgotten his honor when he took the 5th.

I have not condemened him for using the slur, so much as I have for lying about it. If I am not mistaken, you said that, because he used it did not mean he had hatred in a general sense. I do not know how a white can use it in the context he used it and not have hatred in a general sense. Please, enlighten me?

[tv]

William, as a student of the law, I'm surprised that you consider taking the Fifth amendment as dishonorable. It's a safeguard against brutal police tactics and interrogation techniques. It's a privilege under the law just as OJ Simpson not being required to testify at his criminal trial is a privilege.

[Kate Sachel]

I think you may be mistaken about the tapes, as I recall. Not only was that remark made on the tapes, IIRC, but also one about the starvng peope in Ethiopia. The fact is that Kathleen Bell was not caught in any lie. We all know that MF was. The fact that she may have needed money and willing to sell her story sounds like she was acting in the same manner as members of the prosecution and others who have written books on the trial. I think the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming as to MF's character. I do not think that you should so quickly dismiss all those who testified to MF's character and credibility. The one thing that I can say is that an exmarine must have forgotten his honor when he took the 5th.

I have not condemened him for using the slur, so much as I have for lying about it. If I am not mistaken, you said that, because he used it did not mean he had hatred in a general sense. I do not know how a white can use it in the context he used it and not have hatred in a general sense. Please, enlighten me?

No, I am not incorrect about the tapes. The alleged statement regarding burning an entire race was brought to the table by Kathleen Bell who claims that Fuhrman told her such.

Why do you believe that I so quickly dismiss all those who testified to Fuhrmans' character and credibility? I've done no such thing, in fact I have paid attention to each and every one, which also includes numerous minorities that worked with him, minorities that were victims of crimes in which they gave him testimony, and even includes minorities that were arrested by him who stated that Fuhrman treated them with nothing but respect. It is interesting to me to see how quickly you want to discount all of those and focus only on the few who claim the negative.

This is where your hypocrisy shows.

I fear that I cannot enlighten you regarding how a white can use that term and not have hatred in a general sense without you attempting to create your usual racial drama with it.

Kate

[martin II]

Thanks, diva. I was starting to think I was in an alternate universe. I don't know why martin can't see that is exactly what he's saying.

you have a preset idea and have missed my point from the beginning.
I have not expected cotton to do any more than what she did.Althought B Scheck dissagreed with her opinions, she only tested what they gave her.

The bigger issue is what Baker talked about in the civil trial. "We don't know if the samples collected on the ground were the same ones tested."

The focus on the validity of the samples tested has always been in the collecting and lab handing phases. not everyone has 100% confidence as you seem to have that there was no minipulation and mistakes made in that lab with the samples.
you cannot decide in your mind what you think my post means and then claim that i made that statement.

martin II

[William Anthony]

No, I am not incorrect about the tapes. The alleged statement regarding burning an entire race was brought to the table by Kathleen Bell who claims that Fuhrman told her such.

Why do you believe that I so quickly dismiss all those who testified to Fuhrmans' character and credibility? I've done no such thing, in fact I have paid attention to each and every one, which also includes numerous minorities that worked with him, minorities that were victims of crimes in which they gave him testimony, and even includes minorities that were arrested by him who stated that Fuhrman treated them with nothing but respect. It is interesting to me to see how quickly you want to discount all of those and focus only on the few who claim the negative.

This is where your hypocrisy shows.

I fear that I cannot enlighten you regarding how a white can use that term and not have hatred in a general sense without you attempting to create your usual racial drama with it.

Kate

Kate,

If I understand you correctly, it seems that you are not able to support the remark you made, because to do so would open it up to an intepretation that may lead to racial drama-interesting. I think that not being able to support one's statements by claiming others may misinterpret them is hypocrisy. I think you are articulate enough to state what you meant.

The problem as it pertains to dismissal of evidence is that none of those, who allegedly deny MF's racial hositility ever took the stand, and my statement was to the dismissal of testimony, i.e. statements given under oath and subject to cross examination. I will not argue about whether or not the remarks were made on the tapes or introduced through Kathleen Bell. The point is that she offered her testimony and was cross-examined on it.

[William Anthony]

William, as a student of the law, I'm surprised that you consider taking the Fifth amendment as dishonorable. It's a safeguard against brutal police tactics and interrogation techniques. It's a privilege under the law just as OJ Simpson not being required to testify at his criminal trial is a privilege.

Tv.

I think I must not have been clear as my comment about his less than honorable position was in connection with his status as a marine and not his legal rights or any inferences that should or should not have been drawn from them. I think the movie, "Men of Honor", would show the context in which my post was made. The point is that duty to an oath to uphold the law should have been his main focus and, as an ex-marine, I would think that his word meant more than what he demonstrated the value of his word to be on the stand.

[tv]

Tv.

I think I must not have been clear as my comment about his less than honorable position was in connection with his status as a marine and not his legal rights or any inferences that should or should not have been drawn from them. I think the movie, "Men of Honor", would show the context in which my post was made. The point is that duty to an oath to uphold the law should have been his main focus and, as an ex-marine, I would think that his word meant more than what he demonstrated the value of his word to be on the stand.I haven't seen "Men of Honor" but I've heard it's a very good movie. It doesn't change the fact that it's everyone's right to take the fifth amendment under the right circumstances.

[tv]

you have a preset idea and have missed my point from the beginning.
I have not expected cotton to do any more than what she did.Althought B Scheck dissagreed with her opinions, she only tested what they gave her.

The bigger issue is what Baker talked about in the civil trial. "We don't know if the samples collected on the ground were the same ones tested."

The focus on the validity of the samples tested has always been in the collecting and lab handing phases. not everyone has 100% confidence as you seem to have that there was no minipulation and mistakes made in that lab with the samples.
you cannot decide in your mind what you think my post means and then claim that i made that statement.

martin IIYou just said what I've been saying you said all along but have your way about it. I've made my point and am moving on. :chicken:

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

If I understand you correctly, it seems that you are not able to support the remark you made, because to do so would open it up to an intepretation that may lead to racial drama-interesting. I think that not being able to support one's statements by claiming others may misinterpret them is hypocrisy. I think you are articulate enough to state what you meant.

The problem as it pertains to dismissal of evidence is that none of those, who allegedly deny MF's racial hositility ever took the stand, and my statement was to the dismissal of testimony, i.e. statements given under oath and subject to cross examination. I will not argue about whether or not the remarks were made on the tapes or introduced through Kathleen Bell. The point is that she offered her testimony and was cross-examined on it.

Are you certain that she was cross examined? As I recall, she only testified to such in a sworn affidavit that was admitted by Judge Ito.

It is not hypocrisy when past discussion proves that regardless of how I articulate my viewpoint you want to spin it into something racially dramatic or make ludicrous remarks regarding how easily I dismiss testimony toward one's character.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I haven't seen "Men of Honor" but I've heard it's a very good movie. It doesn't change the fact that it's everyone's right to take the fifth amendment under the right circumstances.

I agree. In fact, OJ took the Fifth in the criminal trial as well when he chose not to testify in his defense and be subject to cross examination.

Kate

[martin II]

Kate,

If I understand you correctly, it seems that you are not able to support the remark you made, because to do so would open it up to an intepretation that may lead to racial drama-interesting. I think that not being able to support one's statements by claiming others may misinterpret them is hypocrisy. I think you are articulate enough to state what you meant.

The problem as it pertains to dismissal of evidence is that none of those, who allegedly deny MF's racial hositility ever took the stand, and my statement was to the dismissal of testimony, i.e. statements given under oath and subject to cross examination. I will not argue about whether or not the remarks were made on the tapes or introduced through Kathleen Bell. The point is that she offered her testimony and was cross-examined on it.

william
I do not remember one person testifying to what a good guy Furhman was. I remember some report that 2-3 black men that played basketball with him saying he was not a racist as far as they knew, but this is nothing compared the reports of his actions in the black community, his statements in his efforts to get a early retirement, his truthful claimes on the tapes, what he said at the recurting station and that he said to those two white women in their apartment.Not to mention to Britten sp case.

There may be another reason why some are willing to ignore this guys history
and accept his actions as no big deal.

martin II

[Kate Sachel]

william
I do not remember one person testifying to what a good guy Furhman was. I remember some report that 2-3 black men that played basketball with him saying he was not a racist as far as they knew, but this is nothing compared the reports of his actions in the black community, his statements in his efforts to get a early retirement, his truthful claimes on the tapes, what he said at the recurting station and that he said to those two white women in their apartment.Not to mention to Britten sp case.

There may be another reason why some are willing to ignore this guys history
and accept his actions as no big deal.

martin II

:rolleyes:

Kate

[William Anthony]

Are you certain that she was cross examined? As I recall, she only testified to such in a sworn affidavit that was admitted by Judge Ito.

It is not hypocrisy when past discussion proves that regardless of how I articulate my viewpoint you want to spin it into something racially dramatic or make ludicrous remarks regarding how easily I dismiss testimony toward one's character.

Kate

The fact is that she was on the stand and therefore available for cross. Perhaps, the prosecution knew the truthfulness of the statements in the affidavit and chose not to cross her about them. This is my statement

"The point is that she offered her testimony and was cross-examined on it."

It is not my fault that the prosecution did not cross her on the truthfulness of the afidavit, if they did not, and, as it stands, it is the truth.



As I have stated and see nothing ludicrous in the fact that I said "testimony/testified", when you want to rely on out of court statements. It seems that you want to spin my original post using the word "testified" to support your rationalization of the out of court statements allegedly made by some. The character evidence that was "testified" to was all negative, imho, as it pertains to MF. Perhaps, you will enlighten me if I am wong? I will not at this point engage in using adjectives that have a negative impact and ask again, due to what I see as the tone of your post if you are feeling aggitated.

[William Anthony]

I haven't seen "Men of Honor" but I've heard it's a very good movie. It doesn't change the fact that it's everyone's right to take the fifth amendment under the right circumstances.

I was talking about MF's word to uphold the law, given as an ex-marine and his acts admitted to on the tape and the lie he told in court. I think all marines would have expected him to say, yes, I lied. This has nothing to do with his legal right to take the 5th.

[William Anthony]

william
I do not remember one person testifying to what a good guy Furhman was. I remember some report that 2-3 black men that played basketball with him saying he was not a racist as far as they knew, but this is nothing compared the reports of his actions in the black community, his statements in his efforts to get a early retirement, his truthful claimes on the tapes, what he said at the recurting station and that he said to those two white women in their apartment.Not to mention to Britten sp case.

There may be another reason why some are willing to ignore this guys history
and accept his actions as no big deal.

martin II


Martin,

Neither, do I. I think that, if the prosecution had evidence to rebut the defense's position on MF's character they could have put it on. However, they may have been limited as they could not deny that was MF's voice on the tapes.

[martin II]

WILLIAM
k Bell
direct by Bailey
cross by Darden

MR. BAILEY: Do you have, as you sit there today, a clear recollection of the words uttered by Mark Fuhrman as you have described them in your testimony?

MS. BELL: Yes, I do.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. All right. If we can pull up the next paragraph, Mr. Douglas. If would you just read that first sentence and ask you whether or not you distinctly recall him using those words?

MS. BELL: "Officer Fuhrman went on to say that he would like nothing more than to see all ******s gathered together and killed. He said something about the burning"--excuse me--"About burning them or bombing them. I was too shaken to remember the exact words he used; however, I do not remember that what he"--wait. I'm sorry. "I do remember that what he said was probably the most horrible thing I had ever heard someone say. What frightened me even more was that he was a police officer."

MR. BAILEY: Now, Miss Bell, is all of that true, everything that you wrote there?

MS. BELL: I know now that he said "Gather together and burned."

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Next paragraph, please, Mr. Douglas. All right. You have said in your letter that you are almost sure you called the LAPD. What is your present recollection as to whether you did?

MS. BELL: I am positive I did.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And in the last full paragraph of information you say that now that you know that Mr. Fuhrman was the investigating officer. Are you relating that to the Simpson investigation?

MS. BELL: Yes, I am.

MR. BAILEY: And that information came to you because you saw him on television?

MS. BELL: Right.

MR. BAILEY: You said: "I'm certainly not a fan of Mr. Simpson, but I would hate to see anyone harm by Officer Fuhrman's



http://walraven.org/simpson/sep05.html

[martin II]

Martin,

Neither, do I. I think that, if the prosecution had evidence to rebut the defense's position on MF's character they could have put it on. However, they may have been limited as they could not deny that was MF's voice on the tapes.

Also there is no record of oj simpson either throught a lawyer or sitting the stand taking the 5th. That is just not true.
Also Ms Singer testified on the same day and she is the woman that Furhman
talked about blacks and mixed couples in his acrist language in her apartment. She told him to never come to her house again.

The odd thing is that the people that love and protect this racist guy seem to only talk about his use of the words on the tape when they know quite well this was not the only time he had done so.

Maby there is some kind of obligation to protect and support their own.
martin II
martinII

[Kate Sachel]

Also there is no record of oj simpson either throught a lawyer or sitting the stand taking the 5th. That is just not true.

martin II
martinII

Please educate yourself before making statements such as "that's just not true".

If you were to educate yourself, you would learn that when a defendant chooses not to take the stand to testify in their own defense it is exercising their Fifth Amendment right not to testify against themselves.

Even William will tell you that.

Kate

[martin II]

Martin,

Neither, do I. I think that, if the prosecution had evidence to rebut the defense's position on MF's character they could have put it on. However, they may have been limited as they could not deny that was MF's voice on the tapes.

William
There was too much garbage hidden behind Furhmans doors for the prosecution to try to put on character witnesses for him.If they had then all of his doors would have been opened for all to see. I agree with another poster that calimed that furhman talking the 5th was not just about the N word on those tapes. There was other stuff that furhman would have been
quesitoned about and the 5th was his only way to evade these issues.imo
martin II

[martin II]

It in my understanding that a lawyer finding no reason for his client to testify is not the same as the lawyer notifying the court that his client is formally taking the 5th .
I know if no entry in the court records that oj Simpson formally took the 5th as furhman did.
martin II

[martin II]

above is the direct and cross examination of K Bell.

martin II

[William Anthony]

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

[martin II]

Ms Singer testifying about Furhmans racist comments.
He was not making any tape at her apratment.


MR. BAILEY: Let me rephrase it if I may, your Honor. Did he make a reference to the African American race using a word we have discussed that begins with "N"?

MS. SINGER: And you are not referring to the first reference?

MR. BAILEY: No, no.

MS. SINGER: You are referring to that second kind of saying.

MR. BAILEY: Later in the conversation?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: What did he say?

MS. SINGER: It is okay to say that?

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

MS. SINGER: He said, "The only good ****** is a dead ******."

MR. BAILEY: Now, did he visit thereafter when you were in the apartment with--I assume Officer--

MS. SINGER: Yes, they stopped by whenever and I--and they were on duty at times. I know that. I can't be specific which time, was it the first time, was it the second time, but I do know that they were on duty.

MS. CLARK: Objection, speculation, no foundation.

--------------

MR. BAILEY: --did you thereafter look out the window?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: What did you see?

MS. SINGER: Well, I saw the two of them just coming out. I heard them coming out of their cars just chatting. I heard them.

MR. BAILEY: Did they have a vehicle?

MS. SINGER: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: How far from the window looking down would you say the vehicle was stopped when you saw them getting out?

MS. SINGER: Oh, God. Here is the window, they were--I'm not very good at footage and measurements so--

MR. BAILEY: Can you pick out something in the courtroom of the same approximate distance?

MS. SINGER: Right. Say I'm on the second floor, I'm looking out my window, this would be their car, say around where you are.

MR. BAILEY: Within twenty, thirty feet?

MS. SINGER: Yeah, close, you know, not three blocks away.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. As they emerged from the car did you say anything to either of them?

MS. SINGER: Well, I heard them chatting so I went to the bathroom window and I said, "Hey." I said, "Hi Tom."

MR. BAILEY: After you said, "Hi, Tom," did you hear Mark Fuhrman utter anything that caught your ear?

MS. SINGER: Immediately he started talking. He has got a pretty strong tone to his voice. He started saying something and it sounded angry and nasty. His normal tone of voice actually.

MS. CLARK: Objection, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: Just tell us what he said.

MS. CLARK: Motion to strike.

THE COURT: Excuse me. That answer is stricken. The jury is to disregard. Next question.

MR. BAILEY: Just tell us what he said.

THE COURT: Just tell us what he said.

MS. SINGER: And then he called me a--am I allowed to curse?

THE COURT: Yes, you are.

MS. SINGER: He called me a ****ing *****.

MR. BAILEY: All right. What did you do after he called you a ****ing *****?

http://walraven.org/simpson/sep05.html

[Kate Sachel]

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

Thank you William.

Would I be correct then that you agree that OJ invoked his Fifth Amendment right in deciding not to testify?

Kate

[martin II]

I am wondering if the name Furhman called Ms Singer would be called verbal abuse of a female by the abuse experts posting here or is it just not a big deal.
martin II

[William Anthony]

Thank you William.

Would I be correct then that you agree that OJ invoked his Fifth Amendment right in deciding not to testify?

Kate

I would suppose that by not testifying he did invoke that right. However, I do see a difference in the exercise of that right in the instant case between Simpson and MF. The interesting words in the Fifth are "no person" and "in a criminal case. "The difference is that a defendant is not required to assert any defense, as opposed to MF, who took the stand and was not charged with any crime but choose to take the 5th after he had testified. I suppose that the words "person" and "in a criminal case", even though he was not charged at the time afforded him the opportunity to take the 5th. I am not sure that was the intent of the 5th as it starts out with an indictment by a grand jury.

[martin II]

I would suppose that by not testifying he did invoke that right. However, I do see a difference in the exercise of that right in the instant case between Simpson and MF. The interesting words in the Fifth are "no person" and "in a criminal case. "The difference is that a defendant is not required to assert any defense, as opposed to MF, who took the stand and was not charged with any crime but choose to take the 5th after he had testified. I suppose that the words "person" and "in a criminal case", even though he was not charged at the time afforded him the opportunity to take the 5th. I am not sure that was the intent of the 5th as it starts out with an indictment by a grand jury.

William
Thanks, that i can understand and agree with.

martin II

[martin II]

More furhman.

MR. BAILEY: Yes, your Honor. She was in the hospital September 24, 1987, and within about three weeks thereafter, she has no means of ascertaining the exact date, these two men came into the apartment, Vettraino, to visit Miss Hannak, Fuhrman tagging along. During that conversation Officer Fuhrman gratuitously offered the fact upon been asking what he did that he and Vettraino were assigned to gangs and that as part of his business he would take "N" word people into and alley and he would hit them with a stick or baton, she is not sure which word he used, and then he would kick them until he could see them twitch and that relieved his tensions, and he smiled as he said it. The evidence will be that he came, when she was at home, she knows he came a number of times when she wasn't at home, but when she was at home, three or four more times. And when Officer Fuhrman came in she would leave the room so as not to be present when language of the kind she had heard on her very first encounter was uttered. After about the fourth occasion, and probably late in 1987, she was in the bathroom looking out the window of this second floor apartment when she saw a car pull up and Officer Vettraino pull up or get out of the car with Officer Fuhrman. They started up the walkway. And she said out the window, "Hello, Tom," and she saw Fuhrman with an angry face say something to Vettraino. The part she could hear was, "That ****ing *****." At which point she said, "That man is not coming in this house any more. Tom, you can come in if you like." Mr. Vettraino then came in and left she believes with Miss Hannak. She never saw Mr. Fuhrman in her apartment again. That is what she will testify to
http://walraven.org/simpson/sep05.html

[tv]

I would suppose that by not testifying he did invoke that right. However, I do see a difference in the exercise of that right in the instant case between Simpson and MF. The interesting words in the Fifth are "no person" and "in a criminal case. "The difference is that a defendant is not required to assert any defense, as opposed to MF, who took the stand and was not charged with any crime but choose to take the 5th after he had testified. I suppose that the words "person" and "in a criminal case", even though he was not charged at the time afforded him the opportunity to take the 5th. I am not sure that was the intent of the 5th as it starts out with an indictment by a grand jury.

The way I understand the wording of the fifth amendment it only states that you can't be charged with a 'capital, or otherwise infamous crime' unless you have an indictment or presentment by a grand jury. Do you understand it to me you can't take the fifth unless preceeded by a grand jury indictment?

[William Anthony]

More furhman.

MR. BAILEY: Yes, your Honor. She was in the hospital September 24, 1987, and within about three weeks thereafter, she has no means of ascertaining the exact date, these two men came into the apartment, Vettraino, to visit Miss Hannak, Fuhrman tagging along. During that conversation Officer Fuhrman gratuitously offered the fact upon been asking what he did that he and Vettraino were assigned to gangs and that as part of his business he would take "N" word people into and alley and he would hit them with a stick or baton, she is not sure which word he used, and then he would kick them until he could see them twitch and that relieved his tensions, and he smiled as he said it. The evidence will be that he came, when she was at home, she knows he came a number of times when she wasn't at home, but when she was at home, three or four more times. And when Officer Fuhrman came in she would leave the room so as not to be present when language of the kind she had heard on her very first encounter was uttered. After about the fourth occasion, and probably late in 1987, she was in the bathroom looking out the window of this second floor apartment when she saw a car pull up and Officer Vettraino pull up or get out of the car with Officer Fuhrman. They started up the walkway. And she said out the window, "Hello, Tom," and she saw Fuhrman with an angry face say something to Vettraino. The part she could hear was, "That ****ing *****." At which point she said, "That man is not coming in this house any more. Tom, you can come in if you like." Mr. Vettraino then came in and left she believes with Miss Hannak. She never saw Mr. Fuhrman in her apartment again. That is what she will testify to
http://walraven.org/simpson/sep05.html

Very interesting. Now, he has had access to entry into everyone's home via television. I think it is interesting how some members of society excuse this sort of behavior.

[socaldiva]

I am wondering if the name Furhman called Ms Singer would be called verbal abuse of a female by the abuse experts posting here or is it just not a big deal.
martin II

I don't know what the word is, as the portion I scanned had it edited out with these: ******

I don't know if Singer is credible.

In any case, we all know (imo) that Simpson is verbally abusive (in addition to being a batterer, murderer & robber), so what on earth is your point????

[William Anthony]

The way I understand the wording of the fifth amendment it only states that you can't be charged with a 'capital, or otherwise infamous crime' unless you have an indictment or presentment by a grand jury. Do you understand it to me you can't take the fifth unless preceeded by a grand jury indictment?

yes, when I look at it in the context that it appears, it appears to me that it is directed to the rights of an individual after he has been charged. However, the ambiguity of the wording allows for another interpretation. I think that precedent had allowed the 5th to be taken by those who have not been indicted, even though that may not have been the original intent of the amendment. I would think it is a function of case law to allow a person, who has not been charged to take the 5th.

[tv]

yes, when I look at it in the context that it appears, it appears to me that it is directed to the rights of an individual after he has been charged. However, the ambiguity of the wording allows for another interpretation. I think that precedent had allowed the 5th to be taken by those who have not been indicted, even though that may not have been the original intent of the amendment. I would think it is a function of case law to allow a person, who has not been charged to take the 5th.My interpretation is that the person taking the fifth doesn't have to be the defendant on trial but anyone testifying in a criminal trial.

[Kate Sachel]

I would suppose that by not testifying he did invoke that right. However, I do see a difference in the exercise of that right in the instant case between Simpson and MF. The interesting words in the Fifth are "no person" and "in a criminal case. "The difference is that a defendant is not required to assert any defense, as opposed to MF, who took the stand and was not charged with any crime but choose to take the 5th after he had testified. I suppose that the words "person" and "in a criminal case", even though he was not charged at the time afforded him the opportunity to take the 5th. I am not sure that was the intent of the 5th as it starts out with an indictment by a grand jury.

I'm quite surprised to see you respond any way other than in agreeing that it is fully correct that OJ Simpson invoked his Fifth Amendment right in deciding not to take the stand.

If the Fifth Amendment did not exist, a criminal defendant would be forced to testify in his own defense and thus you must invoke that Fifth Amendment right or you would be available for examination by the prosecution if they so chose.

Perhaps you see a difference between OJ and Fuhrman regarding the Fifth, but the law does not see any such difference.

Kate

[martin II]

My interpretation is that the person taking the fifth doesn't have to be the defendant on trial but anyone testifying in a criminal trial.

We know this has happened historically in incriminal trials. FURHMAN was not the first.
martin II

[tv]

We know this has happened historically in incriminal trials. FURHMAN was not the first.
martin II Did someone say he was? :shrug:

[martin II]

Did someone say he was? :shrug:

Why do you ask?
martin II

[weezer]

Simpson was not convicted of any crime and plead not guilty and did not have his voice on tape admitting to any crimes at the time of the trial.

you're almost right. He did, however, write about his guilt and how he did it in a book that he hoped to make money from. And, oh yeah, leave a 'legacy for my children.' What a legacy -- I killed your mama and this is how I did it. Geez Louise.

[martin II]

you're almost right. He did, however, write about his guilt and how he did it in a book that he hoped to make money from. And, oh yeah, leave a 'legacy for my children.' What a legacy -- I killed your mama and this is how I did it. Geez Louise.

Too sad this is all your opinions or examples of how you try to streatch and bend issue to make them be what you would like them to be.

hahaha

martin II

[tv]

Why do you ask?
martin II I asked because I want to know. :rolleyes:

[tv]

Too sad this is all your opinions or examples of how you try to streatch and bend issue to make them be what you would like them to be.

hahaha

martin IIWhat's too sad is how you make excuses for his outrageous, immoral behavior. What in the world makes you think it's acceptable for any reason or under any circumstances to write a book on how you murdered the mother of your children? Good heavens. :eek:

[martin II]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9083810]What's too sad is how you make excuses for his outrageous, immoral behavior. What in the world makes you think it's acceptable for any reason or under any circumstances to write a book on how you murdered the mother of your children? Good heavens. :eek:[/QUOTE

What i think is immoral is what women have testified that Furhman did and said to them.

Obviously you dissagree with them as they show your hero to be the immoral one.

martin II

[martin II]

What's too sad is how you make excuses for his outrageous, immoral behavior. What in the world makes you think it's acceptable for any reason or under any circumstances to write a book on how you murdered the mother of your children? Good heavens. :eek:

The guy selling the book now is the immoral one.

[weezer]

The guy selling the book now is the immoral one.

No, the guy selling the book now is a grieving father who believes that the murderer of his son is walking free and living in Florida.

You know martin, I shake my head at your logic and reasoning. You post tirelessly about injustice -- why is it so difficult for you to understand that Fred Goldman feels the same as you when it comes to dealing with injustice? Why do you feel so compelled to disrespect him?

[tv]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9083810]What's too sad is how you make excuses for his outrageous, immoral behavior. What in the world makes you think it's acceptable for any reason or under any circumstances to write a book on how you murdered the mother of your children? Good heavens. :eek:[/QUOTE

What i think is immoral is what women have testified that Furhman did and said to them.

Obviously you dissagree with them as they show your hero to be the immoral one.

martin IIYou honestly think that it wasn't immoral and just plain wrong for OJ Simpson to disgrace the memory of the mother of his children the way he has?

After reading some of the comments you've made about and to women on this forum I find your outrage at Mark Fuhrman's supposed feelings towards women to be hilarious. :biggrin:

[tv]

The guy selling the book now is the immoral one.
OMG.

[William Anthony]

My interpretation is that the person taking the fifth doesn't have to be the defendant on trial but anyone testifying in a criminal trial.

yes, and I guess that is how the courts have interpreted it. Howver, the courts also look to original intent. This is where I see the difference, because it talks about a person who has been indicted. I do not see the rights enumerated therein as a set of isolated rights but an enumeration of the rights of a person who is accused.

[William Anthony]

I'm quite surprised to see you respond any way other than in agreeing that it is fully correct that OJ Simpson invoked his Fifth Amendment right in deciding not to take the stand.

If the Fifth Amendment did not exist, a criminal defendant would be forced to testify in his own defense and thus you must invoke that Fifth Amendment right or you would be available for examination by the prosecution if they so chose.

Perhaps you see a difference between OJ and Fuhrman regarding the Fifth, but the law does not see any such difference.

Kate

I cannot disagree with what you said. However, you did not ask the legal view of taking the 5th but instead told Martin what William would say. I then said what William would say. Yes, I do see a difference, because Simpson never testified on direct and was not subject to recall on his given testimony. MF placed his own credibilty at issue when he took the stand. The difference is that MF could have been supoeaned to testify, whereas Simpson could not.

[William Anthony]

you're almost right. He did, however, write about his guilt and how he did it in a book that he hoped to make money from. And, oh yeah, leave a 'legacy for my children.' What a legacy -- I killed your mama and this is how I did it. Geez Louise.

The title of the book that Simpson wrote began with the phrase, "If I did it" and not "I did it". MF did not say, if I called BlacK a N. The court found that he lied under oath when he said he did not call a black a N in he last ten years. No court of law has entered a verdict stating Simpson is guilty of murder (a crime). However, a court of law has entered a verdict stating MF is guilty of perjury (a crime). Darn Donald.

[weezer]

The title of the book that Simpson wrote began with the phrase, "If I did it" and not "I did it". MF did not say, if I called BlacK a N. The court found that he lied under oath when he said he did not call a black a N in he last ten years. No court of law has entered a verdict stating Simpson is guilty of murder (a crime). However, a court of law has entered a verdict stating MF is guilty of perjury (a crime). Darn Donald.

I've never understood ito's ruling that the same timeframe used to impeach Fuhrman was considered too far removed from the event to allow the evidence of orenthal's abuse of Nicole.

It always comes down to race for you doesn't it? Too sad.

[Kate Sachel]

I cannot disagree with what you said. However, you did not ask the legal view of taking the 5th but instead told Martin what William would say. I then said what William would say. Yes, I do see a difference, because Simpson never testified on direct and was not subject to recall on his given testimony. MF placed his own credibilty at issue when he took the stand. The difference is that MF could have been supoeaned to testify, whereas Simpson could not.

Now I am aggitated. Could you attempt to be mature for the briefest of moments here William? You have a somewhat extensive knowlege of law, and thus when I advised martin that "even William will tell you that" it was because I assumed that your legal knowledge would include being able to verify something as simple as the fact that OJ Simpson did, in fact, invoke his Fifth Amendment right.

Again, the law sees no difference and thus it matters not if you do.

Kate

[socaldiva]

[QUOTE=martin II;9083819
What i think is immoral is what women have testified that Furhman did and said to them.
[/QUOTE]

What did women testify that Fuhrman did to them? :confused:

IIRC, I've seen you post far worse things about/to women than anything I've ever heard Fuhrman say to women. Specifically Kayleigho comes to mind.

[tv]

What did women testify that Fuhrman did to them? :confused:

IIRC, I've seen you post far worse things about/to women than anything I've ever heard Fuhrman say to women. Specifically Kayleigho comes to mind.I would be interested to read the answer to that. If he did something to women I've yet to read or hear about it. Maybe martin will enlighten us. :)

[tv]

I would be interested to read the answer to that. If he did something to women I've yet to read or hear about it. Maybe martin will enlighten us. :)I guess not. :tongue:

[socaldiva]

I guess not. :tongue:

Hey, it's only been 10 days since Martin made that claim. I'm sure he'll be back to support it shortly ;)

[weezer]

Hey, it's only been 10 days since Martin made that claim. I'm sure he'll be back to support it shortly ;)


riiiiiiiight -- just like he supports all of his other outrageous, distorted and untruthful posts. :punch:

[Heyes]

I've never understood ito's ruling that the same timeframe used to impeach Fuhrman was considered too far removed from the event to allow the evidence of orenthal's abuse of Nicole.

It always comes down to race for you doesn't it? Too sad.

Ito, lol, snort, lol
Ahhh, the memories. What a nut. I have never in my life and I seriously doubt I willl ever see again a judge, on the bench, cryin over his wife.
Unbelievable!
Not to mention the other thousand or so, irritating decisions the knucklehead made.
In my opinion of course!

[tv]

Ito, lol, snort, lol
Ahhh, the memories. What a nut. I have never in my life and I seriously doubt I willl ever see again a judge, on the bench, cryin over his wife.
Unbelievable!
Not to mention the other thousand or so, irritating decisions the knucklehead made.
In my opinion of course!Of course Ito was going to allow the stuff about Mark Fuhrman in because of the dislike that his wife had for Fuhrman. I think Ito should have recused himself or been removed from the trial because of the prior working relationship between Mark Fuhrman and his wife.

[weezer]

Of course Ito was going to allow the stuff about Mark Fuhrman in because of the dislike that his wife had for Fuhrman. I think Ito should have recused himself or been removed from the trial because of the prior working relationship between Mark Fuhrman and his wife.

I read this article and thought about Ito's ruling:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/02/poisoned.wife.ap/index.html?eref=rss_law

too bad this isn't the norm in all cases.

[William Anthony]

Now I am aggitated. Could you attempt to be mature for the briefest of moments here William? You have a somewhat extensive knowlege of law, and thus when I advised martin that "even William will tell you that" it was because I assumed that your legal knowledge would include being able to verify something as simple as the fact that OJ Simpson did, in fact, invoke his Fifth Amendment right.

Again, the law sees no difference and thus it matters not if you do.

Kate

As one who has some obvious legal training and one who associates with those in the profession, I think that you may be aware of the minute differences in the law and how it can be applied to similar situations. I am trying my best to be mature, especially when someone says what William will say, making the assumption that they know William's mind. I will acknowledge that you do have some familiarity with the way I think and I find that pleasurable. I have confirmed that Simpson did take the 5th but also enlightened Martin and anyone else with an open mind, who cared to have my sentiments expressed fully, as to the differences in the situations.

I fully agree that it matters not that I see the differences and it only matters as to what the law says. Thus, with the same holding true, it matters not what all those say who find Simpson to have committed murder-only that the law says he was proven not guilty. I hope this is a mature outlook that you can appreciate, :).

[William Anthony]

Of course Ito was going to allow the stuff about Mark Fuhrman in because of the dislike that his wife had for Fuhrman. I think Ito should have recused himself or been removed from the trial because of the prior working relationship between Mark Fuhrman and his wife.

I think that we need more judges, who can and are not afraid to show compassion. I do not understand when men are blamed for being Macho and criticized for gettin in touch with their feminine side. I think that the reason the MF stuff was let in was because it was relevant to judging his credibility.

[William Anthony]

I've never understood ito's ruling that the same timeframe used to impeach Fuhrman was considered too far removed from the event to allow the evidence of orenthal's abuse of Nicole.

It always comes down to race for you doesn't it? Too sad.

Perhaps, if you understood the law and the presumption of innocence and the rights of the accused and the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him, with the most important thing being the witness' credibilit, then you may have understood Ito's rulings and not been so quick to blame it on race as you did the jury's decision of not guilty.

[weezer]

Perhaps, if you understood the law and the presumption of innocence and the rights of the accused and the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him, with the most important thing being the witness' credibilit, then you may have understood Ito's rulings and not been so quick to blame it on race as you did the jury's decision of not guilty.

I dare to say that I have at least as much knowledge of the law as you do. Now as far as the accused, orenthal made certain that one of his accusers couldn't witness against him, didn't he? he slit her throat!

[William Anthony]

I dare to say that I have at least as much knowledge of the law as you do. Now as far as the accused, orenthal made certain that one of his accusers couldn't witness against him, didn't he? he slit her throat!

Perhaps, you do have as much knowledge as the law as I have, but you seem determined to place apples in with pears. The conversation was about your questioning of Ito's ruling in regard to the timing of past events and what he allowed and did not allow into evidence. I simply stated some legal principles that may have been involved in his decision making process. You seem to take everything, to which you do not agree as a matter of race and try to pin the race card on me and others.

I was simply pointing out that there were other legal principles, which were seemingly unrelated to race, that could have played a role in the evidence Ito decided to include or exclude.

[William Anthony]

I read this article and thought about Ito's ruling:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/02/poisoned.wife.ap/index.html?eref=rss_law

too bad this isn't the norm in all cases.

I have read your link but I did not see a United States Supreme Court case stating what the author of your article said. I did find a case that was similar and here is the link.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-9410

I think that this case reiterates the right to confrontation, unless the accused had a prior opportunity to cross the witness and failed.

[weezer]

I have read your link but I did not see a United States Supreme Court case stating what the author of your article said. I did find a case that was similar and here is the link.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-9410

I think that this case reiterates the right to confrontation, unless the accused had a prior opportunity to cross the witness and failed.

you need to re-read the article.

[William Anthony]

you need to re-read the article.

An article is an interpretation of what the author thinks was said. I read the case law, which is what courts of law call primary authority/resource.

[weezer]

An article is an interpretation of what the author thinks was said. I read the case law, which is what courts of law call primary authority/resource.

and it still has nothing to do with orenthal's current predicament! LOL

[William Anthony]

and it still has nothing to do with orenthal's current predicament! LOL

Perhaps, it may behoove Simpson to have a bench trial, where the trier of fact will be persuaded by legal precedents and not emotion.

[weezer]

Perhaps, it may behoove Simpson to have a bench trial, where the trier of fact will be persuaded by legal precedents and not emotion.

perhaps it would behoove orenthal to control his rage!

[Just Peachy]

perhaps it would behoove orenthal to control his rage!

He'd have to be a decent law abiding citizen first. Never gonna happen.

Morning!

:seeya:

[tv]

He'd have to be a decent law abiding citizen first. Never gonna happen.

Morning!

:seeya:


Morning, JP! You're right, it's never going to happen. Decent AND law-abiding...it's just too much to ask. :) After all, remember when a friend of Nicole's asked him why he cheated on her and he said "You don't know what it's like to be OJ." He thinks he's special. :punch:

[Just Peachy]

Morning, JP! You're right, it's never going to happen. Decent AND law-abiding...it's just too much to ask. :) After all, remember when a friend of Nicole's asked him why he cheated on her and he said "You don't know what it's like to be OJ." He thinks he's special. :punch:

A leopard never changes its spots. When he goes to hell, he'll find out just how special he never was. imo

Take that OJ :punch:

[YourHonor]

I dare to say that I have at least as much knowledge of the law as you do. Now as far as the accused, orenthal made certain that one of his accusers couldn't witness against him, didn't he? he slit her throat!
You really head your head in the sand...of course it was about race...93% of white Americans believe he was guilty...blacks don't count, because most have no mind of their own, and I can prove it...about 95% vote for the Democrat party, which tells you they follow wherever the handout is today, and that is currently the Democrat party...

...after the trial, some blacks said they felt OJ was just being discriminated against (you can expect that claim)...but other blacks said they thought he was guilt, but that the prosecution did not prove it...well, HELLO, if you thought he was guilty, the they DID prove it...it is really that simple...you can get all tied up in the nuances and vagueness of the law, but the law was meant to be vague to give a jury of even stupid people to do what they thought was right...it really has nothing to do with right and wrong, since the jury cannot even understand the judge's final deliberating instructions...hell, who can, when they are all open to interpretation, any, the biggest being a "doubt beyand a reasonable doubt"...no one in hell can even agree on what this means...what I am saying is that you can through out all that crap about legal technicalities, and just let the jury give us a verdict, but don't expect the verdict to be correct...and in this case, the verdict betrayed the agendas of the blacks and liberal legal beagles...to this day, all you hear about is the great lawyering, by Cochran, etc., well, I SAY WHAT ABOUT THE IDIOTIC EVIL PEOPLE THAT LET A KILLER LIKE OJ WALK FREE...

...really hope that he goes in for a time, so someone inside with nothing to lose, gets to this selfish, arrogant, monster with real justice...

[William Anthony]

perhaps it would behoove orenthal to control his rage!

Is there anything in the law that says a person cannot be enraged when retrieving his property?

[William Anthony]

You really head your head in the sand...of course it was about race...93% of white Americans believe he was guilty...blacks don't count, because most have no mind of their own, and I can prove it...about 95% vote for the Democrat party, which tells you they follow wherever the handout is today, and that is currently the Democrat party...

...after the trial, some blacks said they felt OJ was just being discriminated against (you can expect that claim)...but other blacks said they thought he was guilt, but that the prosecution did not prove it...well, HELLO, if you thought he was guilty, the they DID prove it...it is really that simple...you can get all tied up in the nuances and vagueness of the law, but the law was meant to be vague to give a jury of even stupid people to do what they thought was right...it really has nothing to do with right and wrong, since the jury cannot even understand the judge's final deliberating instructions...hell, who can, when they are all open to interpretation, any, the biggest being a "doubt beyand a reasonable doubt"...no one in hell can even agree on what this means...what I am saying is that you can through out all that crap about legal technicalities, and just let the jury give us a verdict, but don't expect the verdict to be correct...and in this case, the verdict betrayed the agendas of the blacks and liberal legal beagles...to this day, all you hear about is the great lawyering, by Cochran, etc., well, I SAY WHAT ABOUT THE IDIOTIC EVIL PEOPLE THAT LET A KILLER LIKE OJ WALK FREE...

...really hope that he goes in for a time, so someone inside with nothing to lose, gets to this selfish, arrogant, monster with real justice...


What does not count, imho, is your stereotypical opinion of Blacks and your above post.

[weezer]

Is there anything in the law that says a person cannot be enraged when retrieving his property?

yes there is actually -- as orenthal found out when he was charged with armed robbery, kidnapping, etc.

[William Anthony]

yes there is actually -- as orenthal found out when he was charged with armed robbery, kidnapping, etc.

I am certain that you are aware of the purposes of a trial and the presumption as it applies to one who has been charged. In case you are not, then review the criminal trial.

[weezer]

I am certain that you are aware of the purposes of a trial and the presumption as it applies to one who has been charged. In case you are not, then review the criminal trial.

a review of orenthal's criminal trial can shed no light on the justice system except to showcase a flaw -- racially biased, ignorant and uneducated people being allowed to serve. imo

as you must be aware, the presumption applies to the trial NOT to the public. I understand a trial to be a search for the truth -- obviously we have different perceptions.

the majority of the public are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that orenthal james simpson butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. imo

[William Anthony]

a review of orenthal's criminal trial can shed no light on the justice system except to showcase a flaw -- racially biased, ignorant and uneducated people being allowed to serve. imo

as you must be aware, the presumption applies to the trial NOT to the public. I understand a trial to be a search for the truth -- obviously we have different perceptions.

the majority of the public are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that orenthal james simpson butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. imo

No, I am not aware of the limitation of the presumption to the public, since jury members are chosen from the public, which would add some validity to your assertion that those who do not feel limited by the presumption, may be racially biased, ignorant and uneducated. This is also problematic for Simpson receiving a fair trial based on the new charges, if the majority feel him guilty even though he has been acquitted.

[weezer]

No, I am not aware of the limitation of the presumption to the public, since jury members are chosen from the public, which would add some validity to your assertion that those who do not feel limited by the presumption, may be racially biased, ignorant and uneducated. This is also problematic for Simpson receiving a fair trial based on the new charges, if the majority feel him guilty even though he has been acquitted.

oh I wouldn't worry about orenthal getting a fair trial in vegas -- I'm sure he will. The jury will get to hear orenthal running the 'sting' -- and ranting and raving.

[socaldiva]

I watched a show today about the criminal trial on A&E. Brenda Moran said "If he was going to kill her in 1994, why didn't he do it between 1985 & 1989"? Mind boggling.....:rolleyes:

[tv]

I watched a show today about the criminal trial on A&E. Brenda Moran said "If he was going to kill her in 1994, why didn't he do it between 1985 & 1989"? Mind boggling.....:rolleyes:

She's the one that made comments about going to another court if you want to have a trial about domestic violence. It's amazing that she claims not to see the connection. :shrug:

[Just Peachy]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/01/simpson.charges.ap/index.html

O.J. Simpson wants charges dropped in robbery case

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- O.J. Simpson filed court papers seeking dismissal of half the charges against him, saying prosecutors in Nevada failed to meet legal standards to prosecute him for kidnapping, robbery and conspiracy, his lawyer said Friday.

"We're challenging things that we think should never have been let go to the District Court," said the attorney, Gabriel Grasso.

Grasso filed court papers Thursday claiming prosecutors didn't meet the evidentiary standards to prosecute the former football star on six of the 12 charges against him.

"They're charging O.J. with ... the specific intent to commit robbery," Grasso said, citing Nevada law underlying the felony charge of robbery.

"He wasn't stealing from somebody else. He was taking back something that was his."

Simpson, 60, is accused of leading five other men in the gunpoint robbery of two memorabilia dealers who were peddling collectibles associated with Simpson, including the suit he wore the day he was acquitted in the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman. See a timeline of the case »

Simpson has denied any knowledge of guns being involved in the confrontation. He has said he intended only to retrieve items that had been stolen from him by a former agent.

"Simpson's indisputable sole intent to retrieve his own property negates the crime of robbery as charged," Grasso said in Thursday's court filing. He also contended that "the crime of kidnapping was not shown to exist to the slight or marginal extent required under Nevada law."

Grasso said Simpson would fight the other six charges against him at his trial, set to begin April 7. Those counts include burglary, coercion and assault with a deadly weapon.

A spokesman for Clark County District Attorney David Roger wouldn't comment Friday.

District Judge Jackie Glass has set a February 21 deadline for prosecutors to respond and a March 7 hearing on motions in the case.

Charles Ehrlich, Clarence Stewart are being tried with Simpson; three former co-defendants have pleaded guilty.

Stewart and Ehrlich have also challenged some of the charges and Ehrlich's attorneys have asked the judge to separate his trial from Simpson's.

Simpson, Stewart and Ehrlich are all free on bond after pleading not guilty to all charges.

[weezer]

I watched a show today about the criminal trial on A&E. Brenda Moran said "If he was going to kill her in 1994, why didn't he do it between 1985 & 1989"? Mind boggling.....:rolleyes:

yep -- there were some real 'bright' folks on that jury -- :eek: -- the DNA was too complicated so they didn't consider it but they knew the gloves fit and that Fuhrman was a 'skin head' before he ever testified -- thought that the blood at the murder scene could have come from one of orenthal's children -- oh geez, I could go on and on. :eek:

[William Anthony]

oh I wouldn't worry about orenthal getting a fair trial in vegas -- I'm sure he will. The jury will get to hear orenthal running the 'sting' -- and ranting and raving.

Those of us who are interested in the principles that formed the basis for our judicial system are always concerned with the accused's right to receive a fair trial, othewise justice would be a really primitive ordeal.

[William Anthony]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/01/simpson.charges.ap/index.html

O.J. Simpson wants charges dropped in robbery case

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- O.J. Simpson filed court papers seeking dismissal of half the charges against him, saying prosecutors in Nevada failed to meet legal standards to prosecute him for kidnapping, robbery and conspiracy, his lawyer said Friday.

"We're challenging things that we think should never have been let go to the District Court," said the attorney, Gabriel Grasso.

Grasso filed court papers Thursday claiming prosecutors didn't meet the evidentiary standards to prosecute the former football star on six of the 12 charges against him.

"They're charging O.J. with ... the specific intent to commit robbery," Grasso said, citing Nevada law underlying the felony charge of robbery.

"He wasn't stealing from somebody else. He was taking back something that was his."

Simpson, 60, is accused of leading five other men in the gunpoint robbery of two memorabilia dealers who were peddling collectibles associated with Simpson, including the suit he wore the day he was acquitted in the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman. See a timeline of the case »

Simpson has denied any knowledge of guns being involved in the confrontation. He has said he intended only to retrieve items that had been stolen from him by a former agent.

"Simpson's indisputable sole intent to retrieve his own property negates the crime of robbery as charged," Grasso said in Thursday's court filing. He also contended that "the crime of kidnapping was not shown to exist to the slight or marginal extent required under Nevada law."

Grasso said Simpson would fight the other six charges against him at his trial, set to begin April 7. Those counts include burglary, coercion and assault with a deadly weapon.

A spokesman for Clark County District Attorney David Roger wouldn't comment Friday.

District Judge Jackie Glass has set a February 21 deadline for prosecutors to respond and a March 7 hearing on motions in the case.

Charles Ehrlich, Clarence Stewart are being tried with Simpson; three former co-defendants have pleaded guilty.

Stewart and Ehrlich have also challenged some of the charges and Ehrlich's attorneys have asked the judge to separate his trial from Simpson's.

Simpson, Stewart and Ehrlich are all free on bond after pleading not guilty to all charges.

Thank you for this post. It seems that legal scholars/practitioners agree on my feelings of the mens rea and the questionablility of the kidnapping charge. I guess the legal training I had might be better than second class, as some have espoused. However, this does not mean that Simpson will win; only that there is a sound legal basis and argument that can be asserted.

[weezer]

Thank you for this post. It seems that legal scholars/practitioners agree on my feelings of the mens rea and the questionablility of the kidnapping charge. I guess the legal training I had might be better than second class, as some have espoused. However, this does not mean that Simpson will win; only that there is a sound legal basis and argument that can be asserted.

it's going to be hard for orenthal to explain away the tape recordings.

I notice you say "the legal training I had" -- does this mean you flunked out?

[William Anthony]

it's going to be hard for orenthal to explain away the tape recordings.

I notice you say "the legal training I had" -- does this mean you flunked out?

Well, I thought one of your intellectual capacity would realize that the study of law is an ongoing process. Hence, the courses on continuing education. Unlike the tendency is some to become stoic, the law is continually evolving. When I used the word had it was in regard to the training I completed with, all with the highest grade marks.The only courses that I flunked were those offered not by professors but by people on being rude and ignorant.

[weezer]

Well, I thought one of your intellectual capacity would realize that the study of law is an ongoing process. Hence, the courses on continuing education. Unlike the tendency is some to become stoic, the law is continually evolving. When I used the word had it was in regard to the training I completed with, all with the highest grade marks.The only courses that I flunked were those offered not by professors but by people on being rude and ignorant.

that's cool -- I didn't realize you could take law courses through continuing education classes. We call it adult ed here -- usually offered through the high school or community college.

[William Anthony]

that's cool -- I didn't realize you could take law courses through continuing education classes. We call it adult ed here -- usually offered through the high school or community college.

They are not law courses per se but they are seminars/classes held so that legal practitioners may be kept abreast of the changes in the law. I think CTV sponsored televised classes on continuing eductation for lawyers. By your last sentence, if it was not meant sarcasticall, I can understand why people where you hail from may not go far in furthering their educational endeavors. :)

[weezer]

They are not law courses per se but they are seminars/classes held so that legal practitioners may be kept abreast of the changes in the law. I think CTV sponsored televised classes on continuing eductation for lawyers. By your last sentence, if it was not meant sarcasticall, I can understand why people where you hail from may not go far in furthering their educational endeavors. :)

LOL -- ". . .may not go far in furthering their educational endeavors. . ." -- that's exactly why they are offered: it makes furthering your educational endeavors more affordable and accessible for more people.

So, you are not a practitioner but you do take the seminars/classes?

[William Anthony]

LOL -- ". . .may not go far in furthering their educational endeavors. . ." -- that's exactly why they are offered: it makes furthering your educational endeavors more affordable and accessible for more people.

So, you are not a practitioner but you do take the seminars/classes?

They are offered at community colleges and in high schools in your area and I was speaking of schools that are recognized by law schools. Those who have obtained their law degree and practice law are required to take training.

[weezer]

They are offered at community colleges and in high schools in your area and I was speaking of schools that are recognized by law schools. Those who have obtained their law degree and practice law are required to take training.

most -- if not all -- professionals are required to take CEU's.

[William Anthony]

most -- if not all -- professionals are required to take CEU's.

Then you must have been baiting me.

[weezer]

Then you must have been baiting me.

Really? I thought you were baiting me when you posted:

"I can understand why people where you hail from may not go far in furthering their educational endeavors."

[William Anthony]

Really? I thought you were baiting me when you posted:

"I can understand why people where you hail from may not go far in furthering their educational endeavors."

No, I was responding to your baiting remark about me flunking out. I think you may be engaged in derailment.

[weezer]

No, I was responding to your baiting remark about me flunking out. I think you may be engaged in derailment.

:no: :punch: :seeya:

[jotun]

No, I was responding to your baiting remark about me flunking out. I think you may be engaged in derailment.

OFF-TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THREAD DERAILMENT... Have complained over & over & over to the posters and the "moderator" about these OFF-TOPIC posts. This "trial" thread is mostly about the "news again" and that "news again" thread about the"trial".No wonder we only have 2 left. Doubt if it could be kept ON-TOPIC if there was only 1. AMAZING. It's really not that complicated. Choose a topic click and post.

IMO

jotun

[Just Peachy]

OFF-TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THREAD DERAILMENT... Have complained over & over & over to the posters and the "moderator" about these OFF-TOPIC posts. This "trial" thread is mostly about the "news again" and that "news again" thread about the"trial".No wonder we only have 2 left. Doubt if it could be kept ON-TOPIC if there was only 1. AMAZING. It's really not that complicated. Choose a topic click and post.

IMO

jotun

You weren't here before I left for vacation. Where did you come from?

Hello, if you're going to act like a self-proclaimed moderator around here, do provide a link to back up your statement on the other thread. Walker said what about O.J.?

[William Anthony]

You weren't here before I left for vacation. Where did you come from?

Hello, if you're going to act like a self-proclaimed moderator around here, do provide a link to back up your statement on the other thread. Walker said what about O.J.?

Thank you for getting me back on track. The issue, which is now the subject of a motion by the defense, is that, as I mentioned, the robbery and kidnapping charges may not stand, due to legal precedents. I am of the opinion that a logical but tentative legal argument may be successfully put forth.

[jotun]

Thank you for getting me back on track. The issue, which is now the subject of a motion by the defense, is that, as I mentioned, the robbery and kidnapping charges may not stand, due to legal precedents. I am of the opinion that a logical but tentative legal argument may be successfully put forth.

Back on Track ???

ALL---William:

Hope you are right on the charges.
You are NOT on track but still DERAILED.

This thread is:
ISSUES IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL.

That means from June 13 94 thru Jan 95 when the actual trial began, until the verdict was announced on OCT 3 95. O.J. was found 'NOT GUILTY" by a jury of 9 blacks-2 whites-1 latino.

O.J.IN THE NEWS AGAIN is & has always been the thread for this topic.Tho seems O.J.is always in the news.So was ill-named from the get-go.

Someone should have started a thread for "O.J.'s Sh!t" Retrivel or "Robbery" in September.

So there could be no confusion for the uninformed or for those here who are just plain______.Think you and I and most who have left because of it know who all of THEM are. Certainly is not any of US.

Then you would be very much on track.
IMO

jotun

[weezer]

Back on Track ???

ALL---William:

Hope you are right on the charges.
You are NOT on track but still DERAILED.

This thread is:
ISSUES IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL.

That means from June 13 94 thru Jan 95 when the actual trial began, until the verdict was announced on OCT 3 95. O.J. was found 'NOT GUILTY" by a jury of 9 blacks-2 whites-1 latino.

O.J.IN THE NEWS AGAIN is & has always been the thread for this topic.Tho seems O.J.is always in the news.So was ill-named from the get-go.

Someone should have started a thread for "O.J.'s Sh!t" Retrivel or "Robbery" in September.

So there could be no confusion for the uninformed or for those here who are just plain______.Think you and I and most who have left because of it know who all of THEM are. Certainly is not any of US.

Then you would be very much on track.
IMO

jotun

I believe even 'nuts' have a right to express their opinions but I don't believe you need to attack and name call. Seriously dude, you need to let someone know the meds aren't working. imo

[William Anthony]

Back on Track ???

ALL---William:

Hope you are right on the charges.
You are NOT on track but still DERAILED.

This thread is:
ISSUES IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL.

That means from June 13 94 thru Jan 95 when the actual trial began, until the verdict was announced on OCT 3 95. O.J. was found 'NOT GUILTY" by a jury of 9 blacks-2 whites-1 latino.

O.J.IN THE NEWS AGAIN is & has always been the thread for this topic.Tho seems O.J.is always in the news.So was ill-named from the get-go.

Someone should have started a thread for "O.J.'s Sh!t" Retrivel or "Robbery" in September.

So there could be no confusion for the uninformed or for those here who are just plain______.Think you and I and most who have left because of it know who all of THEM are. Certainly is not any of US.

Then you would be very much on track.
IMO

jotun

You seem determined to accuse and personally attack me for some reason unbeknown to me. You are correct that the title of this thread is issues in the criminal trial. The last time I looked robbery and kidnapping were criminal offenses. I simply addressed possible defenses to the criminal charges to a trial which most belief is upcoming. I do not think the title of the thread limits the conversation to only one criminal trial.

[tv]

You seem determined to accuse and personally attack me for some reason unbeknown to me. You are correct that the title of this thread is issues in the criminal trial. The last time I looked robbery and kidnapping were criminal offenses. I simply addressed possible defenses to the criminal charges to a trial which most belief is upcoming. I do not think the title of the thread limits the conversation to only one criminal trial.

:beer: :beer: :beer:

Jotun seems concerned only that everyone stay on topic and not concerned with the issues being discussed. I think Jotun wants to be a moderator when he/she grows up.

[William Anthony]

:beer: :beer: :beer:

Jotun seems concerned only that everyone stay on topic and not concerned with the issues being discussed. I think Jotun wants to be a moderator when he/she grows up.

:beer: :patriot: :)

[Kayleighjo]

OFF-TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THREAD DERAILMENT... Have complained over & over & over to the posters and the "moderator" about these OFF-TOPIC posts. This "trial" thread is mostly about the "news again" and that "news again" thread about the"trial".No wonder we only have 2 left. Doubt if it could be kept ON-TOPIC if there was only 1. AMAZING. It's really not that complicated. Choose a topic click and post.

IMO

jotun

Here's the kicker ... there's 2 left because this entire forum was supposed to go off the "air" on January 1 ... there's only 2 left because barely anyone posts here anymore, they've all moved on to another thread.

God, try to pull it together long enough to be on top of what's going on here.

[Kayleighjo]

You seem determined to accuse and personally attack me for some reason unbeknown to me. You are correct that the title of this thread is issues in the criminal trial. The last time I looked robbery and kidnapping were criminal offenses. I simply addressed possible defenses to the criminal charges to a trial which most belief is upcoming. I do not think the title of the thread limits the conversation to only one criminal trial.

For once you and me are in total agreement! Way to go :beer:

And if you don't like beer, just go ahead and turn it into whatever you prefer!

[William Anthony]

For once you and me are in total agreement! Way to go :beer:

And if you don't like beer, just go ahead and turn it into whatever you prefer!

We may be in agreement more than you realize. I prefer another beverage but I am too well raised to refuse a beer, :).

[limakey]

No judge could have have kept Mark Fuhrman out of this trial. In fact, that was what Mark Fuhrman was banking on. Mark Fuhrman had a duty to be up front with the DA's, he wasn't.

People forget that it was average citzens, both white and black who contacted all sides, including the court regarding Mark Fuhrman.

In regards to Judge Ito's wife, and what Judge Ito should have done...well what should have the LAPD done about Mark Fuhrman when he made it clear how he felt about Ito's wife? He didn't have to respect her because her because she was a woman? That she would never be considered a true cop because not only was she was a woman, but giving the reasons why she got her job?

And why did Captain York commit perjury---to protect Fuhrman? Was she ordered to?

Judge Ito's rulings were far more in favor in the DA's. He gave them every benefit of the doubt.

IMO.

[fgump2]

For those who would like to discuss issues encompassed in the criminal trial.

I think that Henry Lee should have been charged with perjury for his performance in the criminal trial. He told the truth, but not the whole truth; he deliberately mislead the jury and the public.
Before the criminal trial Henry Lee told the prosecution that the defense would give the prosecution only 2 or 3 hairs from the OJS, and would not tell the prosecution where on Mr. Simpson’s body the hairs came from. The prosecution then found a book written by Mr. Lee that said a to compare hair samples the criminologist should have over 20 hair samples from different parts of the body, from different parts of the head, and from the arms..
Mr. Lee probably couldn’t be charged with perjury on this, because he probably wasn’t under oath, but it shows a pattern of deception that continued in both the criminal trial and the civil trial.
I believe that Henry Lee should have been charged for perjury in the criminal trial for saying the struggle may have taken as long as 20 minutes while saying nothing about the shortest time the struggle might reasonably have taken; except ‘it was not a short time’. The shortest time it might reasonably have taken was clearly more important the longest time it might have reasonably have taken.
In the civil trial, he gave two time estimates for the shortest time of the struggle. First of all he claimed it had to take longer than one second. He then said the struggle could have lasted one minute.
Mr. Lee also made his famous claim of ‘something wrong, this should not be’. In the criminal trial he made no attempt to interpret this. He should have given the jury some interpretation. I believe he should have explained whether this mistake reduces the reliability of the blood evidence, and if so why. An important skill for a criminologist is explaining the laymen (lawyers, judges, juries, and the news media), the meaning of each piece of evidence. Henry Lee clearly fell short in this respect.
After the criminal trial the book ‘An American Tragedy’ by Schiller and Willwerth, reported that Henry Lee and Barry Scheck spent weeks working on the exact wording of this.
It is beyond strange to spend weeks on the wording, and then give the jury no advice on how to interpret this problem (something wrong).
Should they discard this particular piece of evidence? Should they discard all the blood evidence, or should they give the evidence less weight? Henry Lee didn’t say. Mr. Lee also made no attempt to ask the prosecution (D. Fung) about this situation. If he understood the situation, he should have explained it; if he didn’t understand it; he should have asked D. Fung. In the civil trial, he admitted that the problem didn’t affect the reliability of the evidence.
Henry Lee may have been correct in saying some of the blood evidence was improperly processed, but if the world’s best criminologist has trouble remembering what he wrote in a book, and can’t tell trowel marks in cement from foot prints, we should give the prosecution’s criminologist some slack on their mistakes.
I believe that Henry Lee deliberately mislead the jury, and should have been jailed for perjury. It is strange that backers of the dream team praise Henry Lee and harshly criticize Dennis Fung.

[William Anthony]

I think that Henry Lee should have been charged with perjury for his performance in the criminal trial. He told the truth, but not the whole truth; he deliberately mislead the jury and the public.
Before the criminal trial Henry Lee told the prosecution that the defense would give the prosecution only 2 or 3 hairs from the OJS, and would not tell the prosecution where on Mr. Simpson’s body the hairs came from. The prosecution then found a book written by Mr. Lee that said a to compare hair samples the criminologist should have over 20 hair samples from different parts of the body, from different parts of the head, and from the arms..
Mr. Lee probably couldn’t be charged with perjury on this, because he probably wasn’t under oath, but it shows a pattern of deception that continued in both the criminal trial and the civil trial.
I believe that Henry Lee should have been charged for perjury in the criminal trial for saying the struggle may have taken as long as 20 minutes while saying nothing about the shortest time the struggle might reasonably have taken; except ‘it was not a short time’. The shortest time it might reasonably have taken was clearly more important the longest time it might have reasonably have taken.
In the civil trial, he gave two time estimates for the shortest time of the struggle. First of all he claimed it had to take longer than one second. He then said the struggle could have lasted one minute.
Mr. Lee also made his famous claim of ‘something wrong, this should not be’. In the criminal trial he made no attempt to interpret this. He should have given the jury some interpretation. I believe he should have explained whether this mistake reduces the reliability of the blood evidence, and if so why. An important skill for a criminologist is explaining the laymen (lawyers, judges, juries, and the news media), the meaning of each piece of evidence. Henry Lee clearly fell short in this respect.
After the criminal trial the book ‘An American Tragedy’ by Schiller and Willwerth, reported that Henry Lee and Barry Scheck spent weeks working on the exact wording of this.
It is beyond strange to spend weeks on the wording, and then give the jury no advice on how to interpret this problem (something wrong).
Should they discard this particular piece of evidence? Should they discard all the blood evidence, or should they give the evidence less weight? Henry Lee didn’t say. Mr. Lee also made no attempt to ask the prosecution (D. Fung) about this situation. If he understood the situation, he should have explained it; if he didn’t understand it; he should have asked D. Fung. In the civil trial, he admitted that the problem didn’t affect the reliability of the evidence.
Henry Lee may have been correct in saying some of the blood evidence was improperly processed, but if the world’s best criminologist has trouble remembering what he wrote in a book, and can’t tell trowel marks in cement from foot prints, we should give the prosecution’s criminologist some slack on their mistakes.
I believe that Henry Lee deliberately mislead the jury, and should have been jailed for perjury. It is strange that backers of the dream team praise Henry Lee and harshly criticize Dennis Fung.

Welcome,

Dr. Lee was available for and underwent cross examination. The prosecution had it bite at the apple and Dr. Lee. If they felt things should have been cleared up about Lee's testimony, they had the chance on cross. Perhaps, the prosecution did not want to ask him, because they were afraid of his answer, as to what was wrong. There is nothing wrong with lawyers knowing the witnesses testimony and rehearsing it so that it will come across credible and understandable. If the jury was mislead, then the prosecution allowed that to happen. I do not believe he mislead them but tried to explain the science in a fashion that was easily understood. The reason DF is highly criticized is because of the evidence collecting job he or members of his team did and did not do and their sloppiness in what the did collect. I think there is no comparison when you try to compare the too. Dr. Lee was far more credible.

[tv]

Welcome,

Dr. Lee was available for and underwent cross examination. The prosecution had it bite at the apple and Dr. Lee. If they felt things should have been cleared up about Lee's testimony, they had the chance on cross. Perhaps, the prosecution did not want to ask him, because they were afraid of his answer, as to what was wrong. There is nothing wrong with lawyers knowing the witnesses testimony and rehearsing it so that it will come across credible and understandable. If the jury was mislead, then the prosecution allowed that to happen. I do not believe he mislead them but tried to explain the science in a fashion that was easily understood. The reason DF is highly criticized is because of the evidence collecting job he or members of his team did and did not do and their sloppiness in what the did collect. I think there is no comparison when you try to compare the too. Dr. Lee was far more credible.When the criminal jury was asked who they found most impressive and credible a witness they named Dr. Lee. Reason? He was charming and smiled at them when he testified. :biggrin:

[William Anthony]

When the criminal jury was asked who they found most impressive and credible a witness they named Dr. Lee. Reason? He was charming and smiled at them when he testified. :biggrin:

Tvdinner,

People tend to align themselves with people they feel comfortable and make them feel comfortable. I think the Dream Team made an excellent choice when it came to Dr. Lee. They did not want a witness, who frowned at the jury, or seemed like a deer trapped in the glare of headlights.

[tv]

Tvdinner,

People tend to align themselves with people they feel comfortable and make them feel comfortable. I think the Dream Team made an excellent choice when it came to Dr. Lee. They did not want a witness, who frowned at the jury, or seemed like a deer trapped in the glare of headlights.What does his charisma have to do with his credibility?

[weezer]

Tvdinner,

People tend to align themselves with people they feel comfortable and make them feel comfortable. I think the Dream Team made an excellent choice when it came to Dr. Lee. They did not want a witness, who frowned at the jury, or seemed like a deer trapped in the glare of headlights.

you may be on to something. dream team + orenthal + henry lee = birds of a feather.

I believe henry lee being declared 'not credible' in the spector case was just a case of a judge with enough cajones to call him on the carpet for his less than honest testimony/assertions/theories.

[weezer]

What does his charisma have to do with his credibility?

don't you know? if you've got charisma and are a snappy dresser, you're high the list. LOL

[William Anthony]

What does his charisma have to do with his credibility?

It has to do with to whom the audience will listen and give more credibility and the brilliance of the Dream Team or JC in realizing this.

[William Anthony]

you may be on to something. dream team + orenthal + henry lee = birds of a feather.

I believe henry lee being declared 'not credible' in the spector case was just a case of a judge with enough cajones to call him on the carpet for his less than honest testimony/assertions/theories.

Unless the judge had the same of more scientific credentials as Dr. Lee, I do not know how he could have found him less than credible, unless this was a bench trial. If it was not a bench trial, then it seems the judged usurped the jury's authority.

[tv]

Unless the judge had the same of more scientific credentials as Dr. Lee, I do not know how he could have found him less than credible, unless this was a bench trial. If it was not a bench trial, then it seems the judged usurped the jury's authority.

Here's how:

The judge in the Phil Spector murder trial said Wednesday that he had concluded Dr. Henry Lee, a defense expert and one of the country's most famous forensic scientists, hid or destroyed a piece of evidence from the scene of an actress's shooting...

http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/052307_ctv.html

[William Anthony]

Here's how:

The judge in the Phil Spector murder trial said Wednesday that he had concluded Dr. Henry Lee, a defense expert and one of the country's most famous forensic scientists, hid or destroyed a piece of evidence from the scene of an actress's shooting...

http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/052307_ctv.html

A very informative and interesting article. If the article is accurate, then I am almost positive that the judge usurped the function of the jury. This is another example of how the jury's function is being limited. The proper way in my opinion would be to call Kaplan in rebuttal and have the jury decided which witness they found more credible. It is interesting that the judge declined to tell the jury that he found Lee not to be credible. I would assume that is because the judge should not be judging credibility or the weight given to the evidence unless it is a bench trial. Personally, I am against declaratory judgments and summary judgments as they are means to take the case away from the jury.

[tv]

A very informative and interesting article. If the article is accurate, then I am almost positive that the judge usurped the function of the jury. This is another example of how the jury's function is being limited. The proper way in my opinion would be to call Kaplan in rebuttal and have the jury decided which witness they found more credible. It is interesting that the judge declined to tell the jury that he found Lee not to be credible. I would assume that is because the judge should not be judging credibility or the weight given to the evidence unless it is a bench trial. Personally, I am against declaratory judgments and summary judgments as they are means to take the case away from the jury.William, I don't think you get it. Henry Lee LIED and MANIPULATED evidence in the Spector case, he testified that a cement impression was a bloody footprint in the OJ Simpson case, he said in the Michael Peterson case that there was too much blood spatter to have been a beating...really, the list goes on and on. He's lost his credibility and the smile and charm just don't cut it anymore. In other words SOMETHING WRONG.

[Heyes]

William, I don't think you get it. Henry Lee LIED and MANIPULATED evidence in the Spector case, he testified that a cement impression was a bloody footprint in the OJ Simpson case, he said in the Michael Peterson case that there was too much blood spatter to have been a beating...really, the list goes on and on. He's lost his credibility and the smile and charm just don't cut it anymore. In other words SOMETHING WRONG.

Bingo!


too much blood spatter..... :rolleyes:
I honestly can't believe that idiot was hired again after that one.

[William Anthony]

William, I don't think you get it. Henry Lee LIED and MANIPULATED evidence in the Spector case, he testified that a cement impression was a bloody footprint in the OJ Simpson case, he said in the Michael Peterson case that there was too much blood spatter to have been a beating...really, the list goes on and on. He's lost his credibility and the smile and charm just don't cut it anymore. In other words SOMETHING WRONG.

I don't think you get it. You may find him to be not credible while others find him credible. If you are on a jury that is your call and the issue would be decided through deliberations. It is not for the judge to find a witness credible, unless it is a bench trial. Credibility in the public eye is a matter of personal choice.

[tv]

I don't think you get it. You may find him to be not credible while others find him credible. If you are on a jury that is your call and the issue would be decided through deliberations. It is not for the judge to find a witness credible, unless it is a bench trial. Credibility in the public eye is a matter of personal choice. I get it. You're making it sound like he wasn't allowed to testify due the judge not finding him credible. That's not the case at all. The judge ruled he could testify but the prosecution could present evidence to the jury that he found potentially important evidence and failed to hand it over to the prosecution as required by law.

[William Anthony]

I get it. You're making it sound like he wasn't allowed to testify due the judge not finding him credible. That's not the case at all. The judge ruled he could testify but the prosecution could present evidence to the jury that he found potentially important evidence and failed to hand it over to the prosecution as required by law.

It was not my intention to make it seem that he would not be allowed to testify. This is the part that concerns me.

"To say 'That Dr. Lee isn't credible' injects me into the case to a degree that is not appropriate," he said.

Prosecutor said they would call Caplan, White and Shapiro as witnesses in their rebuttal case to impugn Lee's honesty.

The judge said he would tell jurors that they could consider the testimony about the missing evidence only to evaluate Lee's credibility, but couldn't use it against Spector.

The judge's instruction implies that they should find that Lee was not credible. In my opinion, the testimony should have been entered without superfluous commentary, as the jury was obligated, without further instruction to judge the credibility of every witness.

[tv]

It was not my intention to make it seem that he would not be allowed to testify. This is the part that concerns me.

"To say 'That Dr. Lee isn't credible' injects me into the case to a degree that is not appropriate," he said.

Prosecutor said they would call Caplan, White and Shapiro as witnesses in their rebuttal case to impugn Lee's honesty.

The judge said he would tell jurors that they could consider the testimony about the missing evidence only to evaluate Lee's credibility, but couldn't use it against Spector.

The judge's instruction implies that they should find that Lee was not credible. In my opinion, the testimony should have been entered without superfluous commentary, as the jury was obligated, without further instruction to judge the credibility of every witness.I don't interpret it the same way you do.

[William Anthony]

I don't interpret it the same way you do.

What is your interpretation?

[tv]

What is your interpretation?See post #698.

[William Anthony]

See post #698.

Don't you think the judge's instruction to the jury that their finding on Lee's credibility should not be held against the defendant is a signal that they should find Lee not credible?

[weezer]

*Snipped*. . .The judge said he would tell jurors that they could consider the testimony about the missing evidence only to evaluate Lee's credibility, but couldn't use it against Spector.

The judge's instruction implies that they should find that Lee was not credible. In my opinion, the testimony should have been entered without superfluous commentary, as the jury was obligated, without further instruction to judge the credibility of every witness.

odd that you feel this way about lee but feel so differently about the witnesses in the simpson case.

[tv]

*Snipped*

odd that you feel this way about lee but feel so differently about the witnesses in the simpson case.I was thinking the same thing. Mark Fuhrman was the subject of a trial within a trial. How was that different and why was that okay and not so with Dr. Lee?

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

odd that you feel this way about lee but feel so differently about the witnesses in the simpson case.

Tv.

I would guess that Dr. Lee was called to the stand and gave his testimony, crossed on it and rebuttal witnesses were called to impugn his credibility. I think at that point it was the jury's call, without assistance from the judge.

In the case of MF, when he took the 5th it was outside the jury's presence. The judge then informed the jury that MF would not be available to testify, because he had taken the 5th. Had he taken the stand, answered question, been subject to cross, then I would feel the same way about a jury instruction, regarding MF's credibility.

[tv]

Tv.

I would guess that Dr. Lee was called to the stand and gave his testimony, crossed on it and rebuttal witnesses were called to impugn his credibility. I think at that point it was the jury's call, without assistance from the judge.

In the case of MF, when he took the 5th it was outside the jury's presence. The judge then informed the jury that MF would not be available to testify, because he had taken the 5th. Had he taken the stand, answered question, been subject to cross, then I would feel the same way about a jury instruction, regarding MF's credibility.Mark Fuhrman was asked in the jury's presence if he had used a racial epithet in the last ten years. That was extremely inflammatory and should never have been allowed. Once that idea was PLANTED in the minds of the jury it couldn't be removed as the defense well knew. Judge Ego allowed it so in effect he was undermining Mark Fuhrman's credibility with the jury.

[William Anthony]

Mark Fuhrman was asked in the jury's presence if he had used a racial epithet in the last ten years. That was extremely inflammatory and should never have been allowed. Once that idea was PLANTED in the minds of the jury it couldn't be removed as the defense well knew. Judge Ego allowed it so in effect he was undermining Mark Fuhrman's credibility with the jury.

Judge Ito allowed the question because it was relevant to a determination of MF's credibility, He could have said, yes I used the word. The idea that was planted in the jury's mind was that he was asked and denied the allegation. He could have taken the stand and tried to explain it away, saying that he was simply playing a role in a screen play and forgot he used the word. However, Bell, Sanger, and Hobbs would and did come in as witnesses. I think his taking of the 5th outside the presence of the jury had more to do with the allegation of planting, imho.

[weezer]

Judge Ito allowed the question because it was relevant to a determination of MF's credibility, He could have said, yes I used the word. The idea that was planted in the jury's mind was that he was asked and denied the allegation. He could have taken the stand and tried to explain it away, saying that he was simply playing a role in a screen play and forgot he used the word. However, Bell, Sanger, and Hobbs would and did come in as witnesses. I think his taking of the 5th outside the presence of the jury had more to do with the allegation of planting, imho.

if only the circumstances had been that simple. I think most people question the relevance to that line of questioning when Nicole's written diary which was written in the same timeframe was deemed too distant from the act.

have you ever wondered why orenthal didn't take the stand in the criminal trial? I know he didn't have to and I know that 'some' feel the case was the defense's to lose. My guess is that he didn't take the stand because of the latter.

[fgump2]

For those who would like to discuss issues encompassed in the criminal trial.

Press bias about OJS
Most pro OJS people say that the press was anti OJ. I think the press handled OJS and his lawyers with kid gloves during the two trials. The press failed to investigate some issues that probably would have made OJS look worse.
I will give several examples of this.
The first when OJS tried on the gloves and said they didn’t fit. I thought it was odd that the press didn’t investigate at that time the possibility that he wasn’t making an honest effort. After the trial some news people looked at an enlarged slow motion movie of it. The movie clearly showed that he was spreading his fingers, which meant he wasn’t making an honest attempt to put the gloves on. Am I supposed to think it takes a genius to think OJS might have been acting?
Another instance of the press handling the case with kid gloves is that when OJS was arrested he was behaving in a deranged manner and had some xanax with him that a doctor friend had prescribed for him in the name of a fictitious patient.
According to ‘Toxic Psychiatry’ by Peter Breggin, xanax can cause mental problems including violence. This was an issue that the press should have investigated, especially since Nicole had expressed apprehension about OJS illegally using drugs, including uppers and downers.
Another issue that the press handled with kid gloves is that OJS took a red eye special flight to Chicago, which got him to his hotel well past 4:00 am. He was supposed to be on a golf course to do some PR work with some high priced clients of Hertz a 9:00. This schedule didn’t give him much sleep.
I think there are two ways he could have done well with this schedule. One is if he needs much less sleep than most people. The other is if he was taking uppers and downers, such as xanax and cocaine. One problem with uppers and downers is that they can lead mental problems including psychotic anger and violence.
Another issue that the press should have investigated is the fact that he seemed to get very little support from his old team mates and coaches. They seemed to be saying neutral things like: ‘I feel terrible about this’. Even when prodded they usually didn’t give him much support. Football is a sport that generates great team loyalty, so this seemed quite odd.
Mark Fuhrman seemed to get more backing from his black coworkers at the LA PD Most of them explicitly backed him( MF), whereas OJS’s black coworkers turned the questions aside. Of course it may be that MF went out of his way to do favors for black people more often than OJS did.
During the civil trial there was something in the media about OJS trying to get Marcus Allen to write a letter of support to Time magazine, MA refused. I wondered why his former team mates and coaches also didn’t write letters for him; but the press never explained that.
I believe that some of OJS's problems were caused by uppers and downers, and that these contributed to the killings.
I believe there are other examples of the press failing to investigate unpleasant things about both OJS and his lawyers

[William Anthony]

if only the circumstances had been that simple. I think most people question the relevance to that line of questioning when Nicole's written diary which was written in the same timeframe was deemed too distant from the act.

have you ever wondered why orenthal didn't take the stand in the criminal trial? I know he didn't have to and I know that 'some' feel the case was the defense's to lose. My guess is that he didn't take the stand because of the latter.

First a document, unlike a witness, is not subject to cross examination. The relevance of the line of questioning is due to the fact that a witness' credibility is always at issue in a trial.

Since the defense did not loose, they made the right choice, imho.

[William Anthony]

Press bias about OJS
Most pro OJS people say that the press was anti OJ. I think the press handled OJS and his lawyers with kid gloves during the two trials. The press failed to investigate some issues that probably would have made OJS look worse.
I will give several examples of this.
The first when OJS tried on the gloves and said they didn’t fit. I thought it was odd that the press didn’t investigate at that time the possibility that he wasn’t making an honest effort. After the trial some news people looked at an enlarged slow motion movie of it. The movie clearly showed that he was spreading his fingers, which meant he wasn’t making an honest attempt to put the gloves on. Am I supposed to think it takes a genius to think OJS might have been acting?
Another instance of the press handling the case with kid gloves is that when OJS was arrested he was behaving in a deranged manner and had some xanax with him that a doctor friend had prescribed for him in the name of a fictitious patient.
According to ‘Toxic Psychiatry’ by Peter Breggin, xanax can cause mental problems including violence. This was an issue that the press should have investigated, especially since Nicole had expressed apprehension about OJS illegally using drugs, including uppers and downers.
Another issue that the press handled with kid gloves is that OJS took a red eye special flight to Chicago, which got him to his hotel well past 4:00 am. He was supposed to be on a golf course to do some PR work with some high priced clients of Hertz a 9:00. This schedule didn’t give him much sleep.
I think there are two ways he could have done well with this schedule. One is if he needs much less sleep than most people. The other is if he was taking uppers and downers, such as xanax and cocaine. One problem with uppers and downers is that they can lead mental problems including psychotic anger and violence.
Another issue that the press should have investigated is the fact that he seemed to get very little support from his old team mates and coaches. They seemed to be saying neutral things like: ‘I feel terrible about this’. Even when prodded they usually didn’t give him much support. Football is a sport that generates great team loyalty, so this seemed quite odd.
Mark Fuhrman seemed to get more backing from his black coworkers at the LA PD Most of them explicitly backed him( MF), whereas OJS’s black coworkers turned the questions aside. Of course it may be that MF went out of his way to do favors for black people more often than OJS did.
During the civil trial there was something in the media about OJS trying to get Marcus Allen to write a letter of support to Time magazine, MA refused. I wondered why his former team mates and coaches also didn’t write letters for him; but the press never explained that.
I believe that some of OJS's problems were caused by uppers and downers, and that these contributed to the killings.
I believe there are other examples of the press failing to investigate unpleasant things about both OJS and his lawyers

The part of my post that you left there said issues "in" the trial. The media did play a part in the trial as it relates to the issues surrounding Tracy Savage's source. These are all issues that you may want to discuss but the jurors were warned against listening to or reading in the media. I think for well deserved reasons. Other than the glove fitting incident, I do not see how any of this is relevant to the issues in the trial. I think that any opinion the media promulgated after any investigations of the types mentioned in your post, with that one exception were irrelevant to the issues in the case. I think this is why the media may have shown professional journalistic standards in this instance.

[Kate Sachel]

Tv.

I would guess that Dr. Lee was called to the stand and gave his testimony, crossed on it and rebuttal witnesses were called to impugn his credibility. I think at that point it was the jury's call, without assistance from the judge.

In the case of MF, when he took the 5th it was outside the jury's presence. The judge then informed the jury that MF would not be available to testify, because he had taken the 5th. Had he taken the stand, answered question, been subject to cross, then I would feel the same way about a jury instruction, regarding MF's credibility.

And yet you are aware that Judge Ito was not supposed to inform the jury as to why Mark Fuhrman was no longer available to testify but did so anyway?

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Judge Ito allowed the question because it was relevant to a determination of MF's credibility, He could have said, yes I used the word. The idea that was planted in the jury's mind was that he was asked and denied the allegation. He could have taken the stand and tried to explain it away, saying that he was simply playing a role in a screen play and forgot he used the word. However, Bell, Sanger, and Hobbs would and did come in as witnesses. I think his taking of the 5th outside the presence of the jury had more to do with the allegation of planting, imho.

I would guess that he invoked his Fifth amendment right for the same reason that OJ Simpson invoked his; which was to protect himself.

Kate

[William Anthony]

And yet you are aware that Judge Ito was not supposed to inform the jury as to why Mark Fuhrman was no longer available to testify but did so anyway?

Kate

If I am correct, the judge informs the jury that a defendant has opted not to testify in accordance with his 5th amendment rights, and the fact that the defendant did not testify can't be held against him.

I see no reason why the same instruction can not and should not be given about a witness with the baggage of MF.

[William Anthony]

I would guess that he invoked his Fifth amendment right for the same reason that OJ Simpson invoked his; which was to protect himself.

Kate

The issues are too different to make any comparison, imho. As a defendant, Simpson had an automatic right to take the 5th, which he did. Simpson answered no questions. When MF took the stand he took an oath to tell the truth, both on direct and cross.

[fgump2]

Forensic Memory and the OJ Simpson Trial
I believe that forensic memory is a subject that can help us understand the OJS criminal trial better.
People who have studied forensic memory believe that most people overestimate the accuracy of human memory; and that people have been unfairly convicted because of this. In the OJS trial, prosecution witnesses were unfairly made to look bad, and it helped OJS to get away with murder. Elizabeth Loftus, a psychology professor who is an expert on forensic memory; some people refer to her as the expert who puts human memory on trial; she has written several books on the subject. She has testified as a forensic memory expert in hundreds of courtroom cases.
Elizabeth Loftus wrote this about memory: My research shows that memory is malleable; and that it is a flimsy curtain indeed that separates memory from imagination. I've seen how false memories can destroy lives, especially when such mistakes in recollection work their way into the legal system. As a result of eyewitness accounts of imagined events, I've seen more than a few innocent people sent to prison.
I think her work shows that the memory mistakes that the OJS prosecution people made were within the range of ordinary human memory mistakes, and not a sign of either incompetence or a fraud. A book with a good introduction to forensic memory is Your Memory: a user’s manual by Alan Baddeley.
To give some examples of the unreliability of memory, try to describe the head side of a penny, a dime, and a quarter. In which direction are the three faces facing? Try to write down other details. Also try to describe, or draw the tail side of a dime. Most people aren’t very good at this, and most people can’t remember much about what is on a one dollar bill or a five dollar bill either.
The Simpson defense tried to make some prosecution people look bad because they had forgotten some details, such as Dennis Fung thinking he performed some tasks actually done by his assistant Andrea Mazzola. They criticized Andrea Mazzola because she thought she had initialed some envelopes, and had not done this.
These memory lapses impressed the public and the jury, but not forensic memory experts.
The study of forensic memory shows that human memory is unreliable, and simple observation shows that almost everyone makes lots of careless mistakes. If every driver and pedestrian had to go to traffic court each time they broke the law, the traffic courts would be overwhelmed; because of this the police and the courts try to focus their attention on the most serious mistakes. The same is true for the tax courts.
The police processed a mountain of evidence against OJS. A mountain of evidence will usually be accompanied by a large number of memory lapses and careless mistakes. Vincent Bugliosi wrote that there are always inconsistencies and loose ends in the evidence of any case.
To let accused criminals go free because the prosecution made mistakes processing the evidence would mean that the more evidence there is against a criminal, the easier it would be to get free. Most of the mistakes the defense talked about didn’t involve any loss of information. For example, the defense complained that D Fung thought he did some work done by Andrea Mazzola. So what?
Both Henry Lee and Orenthal Simpson made more serious memory mistakes than either D. Fung or A. Mazzola.
Henry Lee told the prosecution that they would give only two or three hairs from Orenthal and would not tell where these hairs come from. The prosecution then found a book written by H. Lee saying that for forensic hair checking the defendant should give more than 25 hairs coming from different parts of the body. I don’t think Henry Lee ever apologized or explained this memory error.
Orenthal also had major memory problems. He forgot he gave NBS savage beatings, and he also had trouble remembering how or where he cut his hand. First he thought he cut it in LA at about 10:30 pm. Then he remembered he cut it in Chicago the next morning. This change in memory probably occurred after J Cochran explained that there was a good chance nobody would remember seeing the cut finger before Monday morning.
Orenthal also had a memory problem in a road rage case in Florida. He claimed he never touched the broken glasses of another driver, but his finger prints were on these glasses, and as a result he was convicted. It is too bad he wasn’t convicted of perjury also.
Most dream team fans want to hammer the prosecution witnesses for minor memory lapses and careless mistakes, while ignoring the more serious mistakes of Henry Lee. This shows a lack of integrity.
I realize this is a bit off topic because I include things not in the criminal trial, but I believe that the subject of forensic memory can show that the defense had a lot of material that should have been ignored.

[Heyes]

fgump2, great points.
That was one of the things that bothers me through many of the high profile cases we watch. Most of what the defense dreams up when you break it down and look at it usually is a big, so what!

I've been highly suspecious about Henry Lee for a long time. He finally sunk his battleship on the spector case. Thankfully!
imo

[William Anthony]

Forensic Memory and the OJ Simpson Trial
I believe that forensic memory is a subject that can help us understand the OJS criminal trial better.
People who have studied forensic memory believe that most people overestimate the accuracy of human memory; and that people have been unfairly convicted because of this. In the OJS trial, prosecution witnesses were unfairly made to look bad, and it helped OJS to get away with murder. Elizabeth Loftus, a psychology professor who is an expert on forensic memory; some people refer to her as the expert who puts human memory on trial; she has written several books on the subject. She has testified as a forensic memory expert in hundreds of courtroom cases.
Elizabeth Loftus wrote this about memory: My research shows that memory is malleable; and that it is a flimsy curtain indeed that separates memory from imagination. I've seen how false memories can destroy lives, especially when such mistakes in recollection work their way into the legal system. As a result of eyewitness accounts of imagined events, I've seen more than a few innocent people sent to prison.
I think her work shows that the memory mistakes that the OJS prosecution people made were within the range of ordinary human memory mistakes, and not a sign of either incompetence or a fraud. A book with a good introduction to forensic memory is Your Memory: a user’s manual by Alan Baddeley.
To give some examples of the unreliability of memory, try to describe the head side of a penny, a dime, and a quarter. In which direction are the three faces facing? Try to write down other details. Also try to describe, or draw the tail side of a dime. Most people aren’t very good at this, and most people can’t remember much about what is on a one dollar bill or a five dollar bill either.
The Simpson defense tried to make some prosecution people look bad because they had forgotten some details, such as Dennis Fung thinking he performed some tasks actually done by his assistant Andrea Mazzola. They criticized Andrea Mazzola because she thought she had initialed some envelopes, and had not done this.
These memory lapses impressed the public and the jury, but not forensic memory experts.
The study of forensic memory shows that human memory is unreliable, and simple observation shows that almost everyone makes lots of careless mistakes. If every driver and pedestrian had to go to traffic court each time they broke the law, the traffic courts would be overwhelmed; because of this the police and the courts try to focus their attention on the most serious mistakes. The same is true for the tax courts.
The police processed a mountain of evidence against OJS. A mountain of evidence will usually be accompanied by a large number of memory lapses and careless mistakes. Vincent Bugliosi wrote that there are always inconsistencies and loose ends in the evidence of any case.
To let accused criminals go free because the prosecution made mistakes processing the evidence would mean that the more evidence there is against a criminal, the easier it would be to get free. Most of the mistakes the defense talked about didn’t involve any loss of information. For example, the defense complained that D Fung thought he did some work done by Andrea Mazzola. So what?
Both Henry Lee and Orenthal Simpson made more serious memory mistakes than either D. Fung or A. Mazzola.
Henry Lee told the prosecution that they would give only two or three hairs from Orenthal and would not tell where these hairs come from. The prosecution then found a book written by H. Lee saying that for forensic hair checking the defendant should give more than 25 hairs coming from different parts of the body. I don’t think Henry Lee ever apologized or explained this memory error.
Orenthal also had major memory problems. He forgot he gave NBS savage beatings, and he also had trouble remembering how or where he cut his hand. First he thought he cut it in LA at about 10:30 pm. Then he remembered he cut it in Chicago the next morning. This change in memory probably occurred after J Cochran explained that there was a good chance nobody would remember seeing the cut finger before Monday morning.
Orenthal also had a memory problem in a road rage case in Florida. He claimed he never touched the broken glasses of another driver, but his finger prints were on these glasses, and as a result he was convicted. It is too bad he wasn’t convicted of perjury also.
Most dream team fans want to hammer the prosecution witnesses for minor memory lapses and careless mistakes, while ignoring the more serious mistakes of Henry Lee. This shows a lack of integrity.
I realize this is a bit off topic because I include things not in the criminal trial, but I believe that the subject of forensic memory can show that the defense had a lot of material that should have been ignored.

So you want to convict on what someone may have forgotten and ignore the mistakes they made, correct. Our system of jurisprudence does not allow for the proposition that a person should be convicted on faulty memory and mistakes, IMO.

[tv]

So you want to convict on what someone may have forgotten and ignore the mistakes they made, correct. Our system of jurisprudence does not allow for the proposition that a person should be convicted on faulty memory and mistakes, IMO.I believe that what fgump2 is saying is that because some memories were lacking it doesn't mean there was a big conspiracy to frame OJ Simpson. There was enough DNA evidence and strong circumstantial evidence to convict him. Too bad ordinary mistakes and a fictional screenplay were blown completely out of proportion and gave the jury an excuse to set a double murderer free. I agree that Dr. Lee is given a pass far too often and other witnesses are demonized for honest mistakes.

[fgump2]

The fact that human memory is prone to error weakens both the prosecution and the defense; however I think it weakens the defense more. I give some instances below where the defense used some arguments that a person with a good knowledge of forensic memory would reject:
- Attacking D Fung because he thought he did some work actually done by A Mazzola.
- Attacking A Mazzola because she thought she initialed some work, but didn't. There was a lot of work the criminologists did, and some carelessness and absent mindedness is inevitable.
- Attacking the police nurse because he had trouble remembering how much blood he drew from OJS. The nurse had either a heart attack or a heart operation, maybe both, between the drawing of the blood and answering the question about the blood amount. Both heart attacks and heart operations often cause memory problems.
- Attacking the polivir photographer for having trouble remembering when he took crime scene photos. He had a problem with congestive heart failure which can cause memory problems.
These last two situations show the dream team as cheap shot artists. To subject two people with heart problems with public abuse without acknowledging that they had health problems that can cause memory problems is in poor taste.
The defense also used people who said the saw no evidence of OJS having a cut finger on the flight from LA to Chicago. This was legitimate, any lawyer would probably have done this. But in examining this testimony, we should remember that human memory is very fallible. In some introductory criminology classes (which I never took), the teacher shows students a photo or short video of a scene. The students learn that even after a few minutes, almost nobody remembers it perfectly, and the more time goes by, the more they forget.
- The defense tried to discredit the limo driver by showing that he had an imperfect memory of what he saw and heard that night. This is legitimate, lawyers often try to discredit witnesses for the other side; but we should remember that memory is often unrealiable. This applies to the details the limo driver remembered that indicated OJS guilt, and the memory mistakes he may have made.
There is no clear cut formula to decide how reliable each memory is.

[William Anthony]

I believe that what fgump2 is saying is that because some memories were lacking it doesn't mean there was a big conspiracy to frame OJ Simpson. There was enough DNA evidence and strong circumstantial evidence to convict him. Too bad ordinary mistakes and a fictional screenplay were blown completely out of proportion and gave the jury an excuse to set a double murderer free. I agree that Dr. Lee is given a pass far too often and other witnesses are demonized for honest mistakes.

The issue is not how much evidence there was but whether the evidence could withstand the scrutiny of cross examination, which, imho, it did not.

[tv]

The issue is not how much evidence there was but whether the evidence could withstand the scrutiny of cross examination, which, imho, it did not.It certainly was enough for the civil jury. Before you are kind enough to mention that the burden of proof is less in a civil trial than in a criminal trial I'll remind you that more evidence against Simpson was presented in the civil trial than the criminal trial.

[William Anthony]

The fact that human memory is prone to error weakens both the prosecution and the defense; however I think it weakens the defense more. I give some instances below where the defense used some arguments that a person with a good knowledge of forensic memory would reject:
- Attacking D Fung because he thought he did some work actually done by A Mazzola.
- Attacking A Mazzola because she thought she initialed some work, but didn't. There was a lot of work the criminologists did, and some carelessness and absent mindedness is inevitable.
- Attacking the police nurse because he had trouble remembering how much blood he drew from OJS. The nurse had either a heart attack or a heart operation, maybe both, between the drawing of the blood and answering the question about the blood amount. Both heart attacks and heart operations often cause memory problems.
- Attacking the polivir photographer for having trouble remembering when he took crime scene photos. He had a problem with congestive heart failure which can cause memory problems.
These last two situations show the dream team as cheap shot artists. To subject two people with heart problems with public abuse without acknowledging that they had health problems that can cause memory problems is in poor taste.
The defense also used people who said the saw no evidence of OJS having a cut finger on the flight from LA to Chicago. This was legitimate, any lawyer would probably have done this. But in examining this testimony, we should remember that human memory is very fallible. In some introductory criminology classes (which I never took), the teacher shows students a photo or short video of a scene. The students learn that even after a few minutes, almost nobody remembers it perfectly, and the more time goes by, the more they forget.
- The defense tried to discredit the limo driver by showing that he had an imperfect memory of what he saw and heard that night. This is legitimate, lawyers often try to discredit witnesses for the other side; but we should remember that memory is often unrealiable. This applies to the details the limo driver remembered that indicated OJS guilt, and the memory mistakes he may have made.
There is no clear cut formula to decide how reliable each memory is.

D. Fung should have been charged with perjury, imho.
A trainee was collecting evidence in a double murder case they knew would draw media attention? Both of these issues had to do with planting and contamination, imho.
People would have remembered him bleeding and their memories would be trustworthy, because of his celebrity status, imho.
Too many have been convicted on false memory, imho. I watched tru tv last night were a person was convicted and spent two years in the penitentiary for murder, because two police experts identified his fingerprints at the murder scene. The defense had two experts, one an FBI expert review the fingerprints and they were not his. This conflicting testimony was given at trial. The two defense experts then had the prosecutor send the fingerprints to an impartial outside agency, selected by the DA. The outside agency agreed that they were not his fingerprints. These are the type of mistakes that our system of jurisprudence is to safeguard against, imho.

[bobaugust]

D. Fung should have been charged with perjury, imho.
A trainee was collecting evidence in a double murder case they knew would draw media attention? Both of these issues had to do with planting and contamination, imho.
People would have remembered him bleeding and their memories would be trustworthy, because of his celebrity status, imho.
Too many have been convicted on false memory, imho. I watched tru tv last night were a person was convicted and spent two years in the penitentiary for murder, because two police experts identified his fingerprints at the murder scene. The defense had two experts, one an FBI expert review the fingerprints and they were not his. This conflicting testimony was given at trial. The two defense experts then had the prosecutor send the fingerprints to an impartial outside agency, selected by the DA. The outside agency agreed that they were not his fingerprints. These are the type of mistakes that our system of jurisprudence is to safeguard against, imho.

William Anthony, so you think that when a witness admits to being mistaken regarding something they testified to, that witness should be charged with perjury?

Your suggestion that people who would have remembered Simpson bleeding would be trustworthy because of Simpson's celebrity, is meaningless. There is no evidence Simpson was bleeding from the cut on his finger after he had time to care for the cut as well as keeping the cut out of sight from people he encountered. That is until later when Simpson intentionally recut his finger and then made sure everyone saw it bleeding.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

It certainly was enough for the civil jury. Before you are kind enough to mention that the burden of proof is less in a civil trial than in a criminal trial I'll remind you that more evidence against Simpson was presented in the civil trial than the criminal trial.

The issue is quality not quantity. The standard for the admissibility of the evidence in the staged political production was not only lower but biased, imho.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, so you think that when a witness admits to being mistaken regarding something they testified to, that witness should be charged with perjury?

Your suggestion that people who would have remembered Simpson bleeding would be trustworthy because of Simpson's celebrity, is meaningless. There is no evidence Simpson was bleeding from the cut on his finger after he had time to care for the cut as well as keeping the cut out of sight from people he encountered. That is until later when Simpson intentionally recut his finger and then made sure everyone saw it bleeding.

bobaugust

Your statement that he intentionally cut his finger is so close to being meaningless that it might cause me to become impolite and call it that and there is no evidence that he was sadistic, imho.

I mean that when a witness slants their testimony in a manner that displays a reckless disregard for the truth that witness should be charged with perjury.

[bobaugust]

Your statement that he intentionally cut his finger is so close to being meaningless that it might cause me to become impolite and call it that and there is no evidence that he was sadistic, imho.

I mean that when a witness slants their testimony in a manner that displays a reckless disregard for the truth that witness should be charged with perjury.

When the detectives asked Simpson how he cut his finger in Chicago he told them that his finger was cut before and that he opened it again. Do you honestly think it was simply a coincidence that he cut himself on some glass across the knuckle of the middle finger on his left hand exactly where he was cut before he went to Chicago? I don't think you're being impolite, I think you're being naive.

The fact is that Simpson cut his finger at Bundy. The proof of that is the fresh blood drops left by the killer that were seen there after the victims were found. Blood drops that when tested were found to be Simpson's blood.

The evidence is that Simpson didn't become aware of the cut on his finger until after he arrived back home from Bundy. From the time Simpson came out of his house to load his luggage in the limousine to when he checked into his room at the hotel in Chicago he kept the cut on his finger from being noticed by everyone he came in contact with. When detectives called Simpson's hotel room and spoke with him he learned that the murders had been discovered and realized the cut on his finger would be a big problem to try and explain. So what could he do? Simpson may not be very book smart but he is street smart clever. What he did was intentionally recut his finger making the cut very noticeable and when asked by the detectives how he cut his finger in Chicago, he said on a broken glass. That he "just kind of went bonkers for a little bit." But the fact is that Simpson wasn't even aware that he had left his blood drops at Bundy, or splattered around the interior of his Bronco, or on his driveway, or on his foyer floor and during his interview later that day when the detectives asked him if he remembered bleeding in his Bronco he made up a story and lied.

A lie that was contradicted by his previous answers to questions he was asked in that interview. A lie that was later contradicted by his testimony in the civil trial. A lie that was contradicted by testimony from Kato Kaelin and Allan Park.

It sounds like you're saying William that you do think a witness who admits to being mistaken should be charged with perjury, What about a witness whose testimony is impeached but refuses to admit they are wrong or mistaken. Do you think that witness should also be charged with perjury?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

When the detectives asked Simpson how he cut his finger in Chicago he told them that his finger was cut before and that he opened it again. Do you honestly think it was simply a coincidence that he cut himself on some glass across the knuckle of the middle finger on his left hand exactly where he was cut before he went to Chicago? I don't think you're being impolite, I think you're being naive.

The fact is that Simpson cut his finger at Bundy. The proof of that is the fresh blood drops left by the killer that were seen there after the victims were found. Blood drops that when tested were found to be Simpson's blood.

The evidence is that Simpson didn't become aware of the cut on his finger until after he arrived back home from Bundy. From the time Simpson came out of his house to load his luggage in the limousine to when he checked into his room at the hotel in Chicago he kept the cut on his finger from being noticed by everyone he came in contact with. When detectives called Simpson's hotel room and spoke with him he learned that the murders had been discovered and realized the cut on his finger would be a big problem to try and explain. So what could he do? Simpson may not be very book smart but he is street smart clever. What he did was intentionally recut his finger making the cut very noticeable and when asked by the detectives how he cut his finger in Chicago, he said on a broken glass. That he "just kind of went bonkers for a little bit." But the fact is that Simpson wasn't even aware that he had left his blood drops at Bundy, or splattered around the interior of his Bronco, or on his driveway, or on his foyer floor and during his interview later that day when the detectives asked him if he remembered bleeding in his Bronco he made up a story and lied.

A lie that was contradicted by his previous answers to questions he was asked in that interview. A lie that was later contradicted by his testimony in the civil trial. A lie that was contradicted by testimony from Kato Kaelin and Allan Park.

It sounds like you're saying William that you do think a witness who admits to being mistaken should be charged with perjury, What about a witness whose testimony is impeached but refuses to admit they are wrong or mistaken. Do you think that witness should also be charged with perjury?

bobaugust

Your relevant statement.

"But the fact is that Simpson wasn't even aware that he had left his blood drops at Bundy, or splattered around the interior of his Bronco, or on his driveway, or on his foyer floor..."

Why would he have reopened a cut if he was not aware that he left blood drops? I may be naive but I am not impolite or illogical. The evidence is that the blood from Bundy that was identified as Simpson's "appeared" to be fresh.
What about the lack of blood on his carpet leading to and in his bedroom, and bathroom?

[bobaugust]

Your relevant statement.

"But the fact is that Simpson wasn't even aware that he had left his blood drops at Bundy, or splattered around the interior of his Bronco, or on his driveway, or on his foyer floor..."

Why would he have reopened a cut if he was not aware that he left blood drops? I may be naive but I am not impolite or illogical. The evidence is that the blood from Bundy that was identified as Simpson's "appeared" to be fresh.
What about the lack of blood on his carpet leading to and in his bedroom, and bathroom?

Why would Simpson make that statement? Because he didn't know he had bled everywhere. He was trying to finesse the police by telling them half truths, lies mixed with the truth because he didn't know what they knew. He was only responding to their questions and this just came out.

June 13. 1994
Vannatter: How did you get the injury on your hand?
Simpson: I don't know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but at the house I was just running around.
Vannatter: How did you do it in Chicago?
Simpson: I broke a glass. One of you guys had just called me, and I was in the bathroom, and I just kind of went bonkers for a little bit.
Lange: Is that how you cut it?
Simpson: Mmm, it was cut before, but I think I just opened it again, I'm not sure.
Lange: Do you recall bleeding at all in your truck, in the Bronco?
Simpson: I recall bleeding at my house and then I went to the Bronco. The last thing I did before I left, when I was rushing, was went and got my phone out of the Bronco.

Simpson's last answer was a complete lie, contradicted by his previous answers, contradicted by his later civil trial testimony, and contradicted by testimony from Kato Kaelin and Allan Park. Why do you think Simpson lied to the police answering questions under oath to tell the truth?

The evidence is that the blood at Bundy appeared fresh because it was fresh blood. Old dried blood does not appear fresh. There is no evidence that the blood was not fresh, no evidence that blood was there before the murders, no evidence that the blood came from anyone else but Simpson.

Lack of blood on Simpson's carpet, in his bedroom and bathroom is not evidence that he wasn't cut only that he didn't drip blood there. There are many possible answers to your question why. Simpson may have became aware of the cut after putting his clothing in his washing machine and prevented it from dripping blood after that. The cut may have again formed a temporary clot and had stopped bleeding. Simpson may have been carrying his shoes with his left hand and if the cut was still bleeding it dripped blood in his shoes not on the carpet. No one knows for sure. All we know for sure it that the blood drops found at Bundy, in Simpson's Bronco, and outside and inside his home were all identified as his blood.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Why would Simpson make that statement? Because he didn't know he had bled everywhere. He was trying to finesse the police by telling them half truths, lies mixed with the truth because he didn't know what they knew. He was only responding to their questions and this just came out.

June 13. 1994
Vannatter: How did you get the injury on your hand?
Simpson: I don't know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but at the house I was just running around.
Vannatter: How did you do it in Chicago?
Simpson: I broke a glass. One of you guys had just called me, and I was in the bathroom, and I just kind of went bonkers for a little bit.
Lange: Is that how you cut it?
Simpson: Mmm, it was cut before, but I think I just opened it again, I'm not sure.
Lange: Do you recall bleeding at all in your truck, in the Bronco?
Simpson: I recall bleeding at my house and then I went to the Bronco. The last thing I did before I left, when I was rushing, was went and got my phone out of the Bronco.

Simpson's last answer was a complete lie, contradicted by his previous answers, contradicted by his later civil trial testimony, and contradicted by testimony from Kato Kaelin and Allan Park. Why do you think Simpson lied to the police answering questions under oath to tell the truth?

The evidence is that the blood at Bundy appeared fresh because it was fresh blood. Old dried blood does not appear fresh. There is no evidence that the blood was not fresh, no evidence that blood was there before the murders, no evidence that the blood came from anyone else but Simpson.

Lack of blood on Simpson's carpet, in his bedroom and bathroom is not evidence that he wasn't cut only that he didn't drip blood there. There are many possible answers to your question why. Simpson may have became aware of the cut after putting his clothing in his washing machine and prevented it from dripping blood after that. The cut may have again formed a temporary clot and had stopped bleeding. Simpson may have been carrying his shoes with his left hand and if the cut was still bleeding it dripped blood in his shoes not on the carpet. No one knows for sure. All we know for sure it that the blood drops found at Bundy, in Simpson's Bronco, and outside and inside his home were all identified as his blood.

bobaugust

This statement is not Simpson's but yours, "But the fact is that Simpson wasn't even aware that he had left his blood drops at Bundy, or splattered around the interior of his Bronco, or on his driveway, or on his foyer floor...". If he was unaware that he left blood drops, why purposefully cut himself? A cut could have easily been explained as he did.

The evidence is that the blood appeared fresh to someone who allegedly could not remember what he did at Bundy until the defense showed him photos and videos that contradicted what he said he had done.

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that "All we know for sure it that the blood drops found at Bundy, in Simpson's Bronco, and outside and inside his home were all identified as his blood."

[bobaugust]

This statement is not Simpson's but yours, "But the fact is that Simpson wasn't even aware that he had left his blood drops at Bundy, or splattered around the interior of his Bronco, or on his driveway, or on his foyer floor...". If he was unaware that he left blood drops, why purposefully cut himself? A cut could have easily been explained as he did.

The evidence is that the blood appeared fresh to someone who allegedly could not remember what he did at Bundy until the defense showed him photos and videos that contradicted what he said he had done.

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that "All we know for sure it that the blood drops found at Bundy, in Simpson's Bronco, and outside and inside his home were all identified as his blood."

You say a cut could have easily been explained as he did? Maybe it could have if Simpson hadn't dripped any blood after the murders, but he did. When Simpson was in Chicago he didn't really know if he had left his blood anywhere after the murders. He may have hoped he didn't just as he may have hoped he had wiped up all the blood in his Bronco, He hoped he did but he didn't know for sure. When the detectives called Simpson in his hotel room he learned that the murders had been discovered and realized that he didn't have an innocent explanation for a knife cut across his knuckle so had to create one by purposely using a broken glass to turn a clean knife cut into a jagged glass cut.

Later that day after returning to Rockingham when Simpson went with the detectives downtown to give his statement he was aware that the police had found blood on his driveway and he knew he would be asked about it and would have to admit he was bleeding before he went to Chicago. When the detectives asked him how he cut his finger in Chicago, he said "Mmm, it was cut before, but I think I just opened it again, I'm not sure."

When the detectives then asked Simpson if he recalled bleeding in his Bronco, his worse fears were confirmed that he probably didn't see all the blood in his Bronco and he started telling lies.

Lange: Do you recall bleeding at all in your truck, in the Bronco?
Simpson: I recall bleeding at my house and then I went to the Bronco. The last thing I did before I left, when I was rushing, was went and got my phone out of the Bronco.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You say a cut could have easily been explained as he did? Maybe it could have if Simpson hadn't dripped any blood after the murders, but he did. When Simpson was in Chicago he didn't really know if he had left his blood anywhere after the murders. He may have hoped he didn't just as he may have hoped he had wiped up all the blood in his Bronco, He hoped he did but he didn't know for sure. When the detectives called Simpson in his hotel room he learned that the murders had been discovered and realized that he didn't have an innocent explanation for a knife cut across his knuckle so had to create one by purposely using a broken glass to turn a clean knife cut into a jagged glass cut.

Later that day after returning to Rockingham when Simpson went with the detectives downtown to give his statement he was aware that the police had found blood on his driveway and he knew he would be asked about it and would have to admit he was bleeding before he went to Chicago. When the detectives asked him how he cut his finger in Chicago, he said "Mmm, it was cut before, but I think I just opened it again, I'm not sure."

When the detectives then asked Simpson if he recalled bleeding in his Bronco, his worse fears were confirmed that he probably didn't see all the blood in his Bronco and he started telling lies.

Lange: Do you recall bleeding at all in your truck, in the Bronco?
Simpson: I recall bleeding at my house and then I went to the Bronco. The last thing I did before I left, when I was rushing, was went and got my phone out of the Bronco.

bobaugust

So, it is your explanation that he cut himself to hide the knife cut. Where is the evidence of a knife cut?

He had just received information that the mother of two of his children and ex-wife was murdered. I think he would not have been paying attention as to whether he had a fresh cut or reopened an existing one.

I do not see a "lie" as to what he recalled.

[bobaugust]

So, it is your explanation that he cut himself to hide the knife cut. Where is the evidence of a knife cut?

He had just received information that the mother of two of his children and ex-wife was murdered. I think he would not have been paying attention as to whether he had a fresh cut or reopened an existing one.

I do not see a "lie" as to what he recalled.

The evidence of a knife cut is the blood trail the killer left at Bundy, in Simpson's Bronco, and outside and inside Simpson's house.

Simpson had not just been notified of his ex wife's death when he gave his statement to the police. When Simpson was asked if he recalled bleeding in his Bronco his answer was a lie.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The evidence of a knife cut is the blood trail the killer left at Bundy, in Simpson's Bronco, and outside and inside Simpson's house.

Simpson had not just been notified of his ex wife's death when he gave his statement to the police. When Simpson was asked if he recalled bleeding in his Bronco his answer was a lie.

bobaugust

There is only evidence that he bled at sometime before the police found the blood drops.

He had just been notified of the death of the mother of his two young children when he cut his finger in Chicago. I do not know how a person can call what someone else recalls a lie.

[tv]

There is only evidence that he bled at sometime before the police found the blood drops.

He had just been notified of the death of the mother of his two young children when he cut his finger in Chicago. I do not know how a person can call what someone else recalls a lie.William, OJ Simpson is a neat-freak. Do you think he would have left visible blood in his home for any length of time if he knew it was there? Either he didn't have time to clean up the blood drops because he had to get to the airport or he didn't know he had left a blood trail. Either one of those possibilities means he bled close to the time he left for the airport. Nothing else makes sense.

[bobaugust]

There is only evidence that he bled at sometime before the police found the blood drops.

He had just been notified of the death of the mother of his two young children when he cut his finger in Chicago. I do not know how a person can call what someone else recalls a lie.

The evidence is that the blood drops found at Bundy were left there by the killer at the time of the murders. There is no evidence that contradicts that fact.

In his statement when Simpson was asked if he recalled bleeding in his Bronco, he said he recalled bleeding in his house and the last thing he did before leaving for the airport was he went to his Bronco to get his phone.

Just before that question Simpson was asked about his car parked at a funny angle, stuck out in the street and Simpson answered, "Well, it's parked because...I don't know if it's a funny angle or what. It's parked because when I was hustling at the end of the day to get all my stuff, and I was getting my PHONE and everything off it, when I just pulled it out of the gate there, it's like it's a tight turn."

Later after Simpson learned his telephone records documented the 10:04 call he made on his cell phone to Paula Barbieri he changed his story in his deposition and civil trial testimony saying that he went to his Bronco to get his cell phone accessories, not his phone, and then he went into his house where he saw some blood on his finger. Another change that contradicted the fact that he told the police he first saw some blood in his house and the last thing he did was go to his Bronco.

The fact is there is no evidence Simpson went to his Bronco before leaving for the airport. During the ten or so minutes after he came out of his house to load his luggage to the time he left for the airport in the limousine either Kato Kaelin or Allan Park was with him or near him the entire time. Neither Kaelin or Park ever saw Simpson go to his Bronco. Neither Kaelin or Park ever saw or heard the Rockingham gate open and close during that entire time. Simpson created that lie during his statement to account for blood in his Bronco and he continued telling that lie refusing to admit it never happened.

In his statement when Simpson was asked about blood on his driveway and in his house he said, "If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave." Later in his deposition and civil trial testimony Simpson denied he was cut or bleeding before he went to Chicago. He denied that he had dripped blood on his driveway, in his house, or in his Bronco. When Simpson was reminded that Dr. Baden had even testified that Simpson told him he cut himself before leaving for Chicago, Simpson said that was what he believed at the time he told him that.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

William, OJ Simpson is a neat-freak. Do you think he would have left visible blood in his home for any length of time if he knew it was there? Either he didn't have time to clean up the blood drops because he had to get to the airport or he didn't know he had left a blood trail. Either one of those possibilities means he bled close to the time he left for the airport. Nothing else makes sense.

I don't believe that he was so neat as to clean blood at Bundy. I do not know how long he planned to be in Chicago and could have expected the maid to clean it as he was rushing preparing for his trip. The evidence could mean that he did not notice the blood drops until it was close to the time for him to leave for the airport.

[William Anthony]

The evidence is that the blood drops found at Bundy were left there by the killer at the time of the murders. There is no evidence that contradicts that fact.

In his statement when Simpson was asked if he recalled bleeding in his Bronco, he said he recalled bleeding in his house and the last thing he did before leaving for the airport was he went to his Bronco to get his phone.

Just before that question Simpson was asked about his car parked at a funny angle, stuck out in the street and Simpson answered, "Well, it's parked because...I don't know if it's a funny angle or what. It's parked because when I was hustling at the end of the day to get all my stuff, and I was getting my PHONE and everything off it, when I just pulled it out of the gate there, it's like it's a tight turn."

Later after Simpson learned his telephone records documented the 10:04 call he made on his cell phone to Paula Barbieri he changed his story in his deposition and civil trial testimony saying that he went to his Bronco to get his cell phone accessories, not his phone, and then he went into his house where he saw some blood on his finger. Another change that contradicted the fact that he told the police he first saw some blood in his house and the last thing he did was go to his Bronco.

The fact is there is no evidence Simpson went to his Bronco before leaving for the airport. During the ten or so minutes after he came out of his house to load his luggage to the time he left for the airport in the limousine either Kato Kaelin or Allan Park was with him or near him the entire time. Neither Kaelin or Park ever saw Simpson go to his Bronco. Neither Kaelin or Park ever saw or heard the Rockingham gate open and close during that entire time. Simpson created that lie during his statement to account for blood in his Bronco and he continued telling that lie refusing to admit it never happened.

In his statement when Simpson was asked about blood on his driveway and in his house he said, "If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave." Later in his deposition and civil trial testimony Simpson denied he was cut or bleeding before he went to Chicago. He denied that he had dripped blood on his driveway, in his house, or in his Bronco. When Simpson was reminded that Dr. Baden had even testified that Simpson told him he cut himself before leaving for Chicago, Simpson said that was what he believed at the time he told him that.

bobaugust

There are no facts except that blood drops were found at Bundy and testified to be that of Simpson's.

Because he used the phone does not mean he did not place it back in the Bronco to be charged.

I don't understand the meaning of you third paragraph. He very well could have gone to the car to get his phone and accessories.

Before leaving for the airport, does not mean that he went to the gate while in anyone's sight.

All the rest of your post tells me is that he was not paying attention as he was in a rush to prepare to leave for Chicago and that his memory was not infallible as to what he recalled.

[tv]

I don't believe that he was so neat as to clean blood at Bundy. I do not know how long he planned to be in Chicago and could have expected the maid to clean it as he was rushing preparing for his trip. The evidence could mean that he did not notice the blood drops until it was close to the time for him to leave for the airport.William, do you think he expected the maid to clean the blood at Bundy? I was talking only about the Rockingham blood as you well know.

[William Anthony]

William, do you think he expected the maid to clean the blood at Bundy? I was talking only about the Rockingham blood as you well know.

I was talking about the blood at Bundy in regard to his neat-freak tendency, if he noticed he bled, and the probability that would not have caused him to clean it and the probability that he expected the maid to clean the blood at Rockingham.

[tv]

I was talking about the blood at Bundy in regard to his neat-freak tendency, if he noticed he bled, and the probability that would not have caused him to clean it and the probability that he expected the maid to clean the blood at Rockingham.For pete's sake, William. :punch:

[bobaugust]

There are no facts except that blood drops were found at Bundy and testified to be that of Simpson's.

Because he used the phone does not mean he did not place it back in the Bronco to be charged.

I don't understand the meaning of you third paragraph. He very well could have gone to the car to get his phone and accessories.

Before leaving for the airport, does not mean that he went to the gate while in anyone's sight.

All the rest of your post tells me is that he was not paying attention as he was in a rush to prepare to leave for Chicago and that his memory was not infallible as to what he recalled.

The evidence is that the blood drops found at Bundy were fresh blood left there by the killer at the time of the murders. There is no evidence that contradicts that fact. Yes the blood at Bundy was found to be Simpson's and that fact not only proves Simpson was at Bundy when the victims were killed it is evidence that Simpson was the killer.

Neither Simpson or his attorneys ever said what you have imagined. Simpson told the police in his statement and later testified that the last time he was at Nicole's house was about a week before the murders and he wasn't bleeding then. Simpson told the police the last thing he did was go to his Bronco. That was a lie.

If Simpson had gone out to his Bronco before leaving for the airport yes Kaelin or Park would have seen him do that. At the very least they would have seen or heard the Rockingham gate swing open and close and then swing open and close again when Simpson came back in. Neither Kaelin or Park saw or heard Simpson go out or come back through that gate.

What my post explains are only some of the many contradictions and lies Simpson told under oath. He never said he was mistaken he simply changed his story and told lies.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

For pete's sake, William. :punch:

You said blood trial. Many say the blood trail started at Bundy. I apologize if I incorrectly included you in that group.

[tv]

You said blood trial. Many say the blood trail started at Bundy. I apologize if I incorrectly included you in that group.William, you're twisting again. This is the part of my post that refers to the blood. It's obvious that I'm talking about his home on Rockingham.

"...Do you think he would have left visible blood in his home for any length of time if he knew it was there?.. "

[William Anthony]

William, you're twisting again. This is the part of my post that refers to the blood. It's obvious that I'm talking about his home on Rockingham.


"...Do you think he would have left visible blood in his home for any length of time if he knew it was there?.. "

I am not twisting. I was showing you what I responded to.

[William Anthony]

The evidence is that the blood drops found at Bundy were fresh blood left there by the killer at the time of the murders. There is no evidence that contradicts that fact. Yes the blood at Bundy was found to be Simpson's and that fact not only proves Simpson was at Bundy when the victims were killed it is evidence that Simpson was the killer.

Neither Simpson or his attorneys ever said what you have imagined. Simpson told the police in his statement and later testified that the last time he was at Nicole's house was about a week before the murders and he wasn't bleeding then. Simpson told the police the last thing he did was go to his Bronco. That was a lie.

If Simpson had gone out to his Bronco before leaving for the airport yes Kaelin or Park would have seen him do that. At the very least they would have seen or heard the Rockingham gate swing open and close and then swing open and close again when Simpson came back in. Neither Kaelin or Park saw or heard Simpson go out or come back through that gate.

What my post explains are only some of the many contradictions and lies Simpson told under oath. He never said he was mistaken he simply changed his story and told lies.

bobaugust

Recall means that is a person's memory of events. Everyone's memory of events is subject to change. Unlike the police he was not keeping a log of his activities, even a haphazard one like they did. The fact that the police haphazardly kept records combined with other events raises my suspicions.

[tv]

I am not twisting. I was showing you what I responded to.We spent eight posts discussing what we meant in our posts because instead of just discussing the case in a straightforward manner you have to deliberately twist other's posts so they feel compelled to defend and explain their statements...have a good day and say hi to Ms. Chi for me. :seeya:

[The R]

IMO that whole criminal 'trial' was a travesty at best. Ito should've been placed in a circus afterwards; he was certainly a clown.:biggrin:

I don't fault Johnny Cochran at all, he did what he was supposed to do.

However the prosecution...wow....how many bad things can you say about them? They took a gamble with the goodwill of the people and lost.

The whole thing was a sad day in the life of the courts and exemplifies what naysayers state about criminal trials: those with money go free, those that don't have the means go to prison.

ALLMO,
R

[bobaugust]

Recall means that is a person's memory of events. Everyone's memory of events is subject to change. Unlike the police he was not keeping a log of his activities, even a haphazard one like they did. The fact that the police haphazardly kept records combined with other events raises my suspicions.

Let me get this straight. A suspect in a murder is questioned under oath the day after the murder by the police regarding blood evidence and if that person prefaces his answers with the word "recall" he can then later change his story and contradict the answers he gave in that statement and you believe that's not only acceptable but it's not lying?

Is that what you believe?

bobaugust

[martin II]

This statement is not Simpson's but yours, "But the fact is that Simpson wasn't even aware that he had left his blood drops at Bundy, or splattered around the interior of his Bronco, or on his driveway, or on his foyer floor...". If he was unaware that he left blood drops, why purposefully cut himself? A cut could have easily been explained as he did.

The evidence is that the blood appeared fresh to someone who allegedly could not remember what he did at Bundy until the defense showed him photos and videos that contradicted what he said he had done.

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that "All we know for sure it that the blood drops found at Bundy, in Simpson's Bronco, and outside and inside his home were all identified as his blood."

And no one knows for a fact how that blood got there.imo
martin II

[tv]

And no one knows for a fact how that blood got there.imo
martin IISure we do. It was OJ Simpson's blood so it came from his body where the skin wasn't intact. Since he had cuts on his hand, most notably on his left middle finger, then it's logical that the blood left his body that way and went drip, drip, drip everywhere that it was found.

[William Anthony]

Let me get this straight. A suspect in a murder is questioned under oath the day after the murder by the police regarding blood evidence and if that person prefaces his answers with the word "recall" he can then later change his story and contradict the answers he gave in that statement and you believe that's not only acceptable but it's not lying?

Is that what you believe?

bobaugust

I think he sat through the criminal trial listening to the answers given and learned how to respond. It is the same as saying IIRC, imho. Thano Peratis, Fung and the prosecution could have written a treatise on how to change your answers. If it is acceptable for witnesses for the prosecution to have problems with their recall, the fairness dictates that it is acceptable for a defendant, imho. I repeat that you have repeatedly repeated that witnesses for the prosecution made mistakes and human error. Are they lying?