Issues In The Criminal Trial [Archive] - Page 4

bobaugust

04-24-2008, 01:17 PM

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?

Fairness has nothing to do with Simpson's lies. Peratis and Fung did not lie. They made mistakes and admitted they were mistaken.

When Simpson was asked by the police if he recalled bleeding the night of the murders he said, "Yeah, I mean, I knew I was bleeding, but it was no big deal. I bleed all the time."

When Simpson was asked by the police if he cut his finger the night of the murders after the recital, Simpson said, "Yeah," "Somewhere when I was rushing to get out of my house."

When Simpson was asked about blood at his house in the driveway and about blood found in his house he didn't say "recall" in his answer, he said, "If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave."

Those are Simpson's words under oath less than 24 hours after the murders. Two years later in the civil trial when Simpson testified he completely changed his story. He didn't say he was mistaken he denied he had a cut or that he was bleeding not only contradicting what he first told the police under oath but even contradicting what Cochran told the criminal trial jury.

Your refusal to give a direct answer to my question is understandable. It seems your defense of Simpson's criminal behavior is more important to you than your own personal integrity.

bobaugust

William Anthony

04-25-2008, 07:53 AM

All Ms. Chi had to do was look at the infraction thread to find out if anyone complained about her. No mystery there. I hope she won't allow her paranoia to get out of hand. :)

Back to the blood -- OJ Simpson bled on June 12, 1994. He admitted he bled at his house on that evening so that's not in dispute. It wasn't cell phone AND accessories. First it was his cell phone and then cell phone accessories. He changed his story to make it look like the cell phone wasn't in the Bronco when he made the call to Paula Barbieri at 10:03.

I hope you do not let your rudeness get out of hand. Alpha is not paranoid. There was no reason why she her postings were taken off the board, except that other posters could not stand the information and logicalness of her posts, imho. There seem to be some who want to come to this board with the intention to to bait, respond uncivilly, and rudely. Alpha's posts and thread were removed and she received no infractions. I would ask that those posters who come here to continue to bait, respond uncivilly and rudely go back to the other board where such activity is condoned for some posters by the moderator.

I know that I walk and talk on my cell phone and, if I am near my car, I plug it into my phone charger when I am done with the call.

William Anthony

04-25-2008, 07:54 AM

ehhhhh - wrong! orenthal said he was bleeding THAT night AT Rockingham. Actually, the blood trail was from the murdered victims to the back gate to orenthal's Bronco to the drive at Rockingham to the foyer of orenthal's house and to orenthal saying he put a napkin on his finger when he noticed he was bleeding in the kitchen and finally to orenthal's Chicago hotel room bed -- not the bathroom but the bed.

I disagree.

William Anthony

04-25-2008, 07:56 AM

ahh yes -- the great conspiracy. I've wondered how 'they' knew where orenthal would be that night, where they kept his hat, gloves, hair, fiber, blood and size 12 BM pigeon-toed footprints until they could 'set him up'? and wasn't it just lucky for them that orenthal 'happened' to cut his finger on his left hand that very night -- in chicago? I mean, how did 'they' know he was going to do that and know to leave blood drops on the sidewalk at Bundy to the left of the footprints? :eek:

I will discuss the evidence when you post the true evidence.

William Anthony

04-25-2008, 07:57 AM

Peratis and Fung did not lie. They made mistakes and admitted they were mistaken.

bobaugust

The same applies to Simpson.

William Anthony

04-25-2008, 08:00 AM

Hi. I absolutely agree. Contamination etc doesn't explain his blood being at the murder site. His latest hijinks in LV demonstrate what a vile temper he has (as if you don't have the photos of Nicole showing the results of his handiwork). Why is this still being debated? The joker got off and he shouldn't have. Enough said.

Bye

He got off after a trial and a verdict of not guilty. It is being debated because some can not accept the verdict, imho.

Jayme K

04-25-2008, 08:55 AM

He got off after a trial and a verdict of not guilty. It is being debated because some can not accept the verdict, imho.

I suppose it's hard for people to accept a verdict from a group of people who didn't have justice in mind. And, who also are idiots.

Birds of a feather flock together. And those jurors were definitely little birdies.

04-25-2008, 09:43 AM

I hope you do not let your rudeness get out of hand. Alpha is not paranoid. There was no reason why she her postings were taken off the board, except that other posters could not stand the information and logicalness of her posts, imho. There seem to be some who want to come to this board with the intention to to bait, respond uncivilly, and rudely. Alpha's posts and thread were removed and she received no infractions. I would ask that those posters who come here to continue to bait, respond uncivilly and rudely go back to the other board where such activity is condoned for some posters by the moderator.

I know that I walk and talk on my cell phone and, if I am near my car, I plug it into my phone charger when I am done with the call.William, I sent a hello to Ms. Chi -- I didn't ask for the low-down on what happened to her on the other board. Whatever happened is between her and the moderators. If she wants to believe she was unfairly treated that's her choice. :shrug:

BTW, thank you for the fascinating information regarding your cell phone habits. :)

weezer

04-25-2008, 12:57 PM

I hope you do not let your rudeness get out of hand. Alpha is not paranoid. There was no reason why she her postings were taken off the board, except that other posters could not stand the information and logicalness of her posts, imho. There seem to be some who want to come to this board with the intention to to bait, respond uncivilly, and rudely. Alpha's posts and thread were removed and she received no infractions. I would ask that those posters who come here to continue to bait, respond uncivilly and rudely go back to the other board where such activity is condoned for some posters by the moderator.

I know that I walk and talk on my cell phone and, if I am near my car, I plug it into my phone charger when I am done with the call.

you cannot compare today's cell phones with those in use back then

weezer

04-25-2008, 01:01 PM

I disagree.

then your disagreement is with orenthal and not me. I simply posted the credible evidence.

bobaugust

04-25-2008, 03:28 PM

The same applies to Simpson.

Neither Peratis nor Fung were suspects in a murder. Neither Peratis nor Fung were questioned by the police under oath less than 24 hours after the murders and then later changed their answers regarding incriminating evidence against them. And you William, still haven't the integrity to admit when you are wrong.

bobaugust

William Anthony

04-26-2008, 07:52 AM

I suppose it's hard for people to accept a verdict from a group of people who didn't have justice in mind. And, who also are idiots.

Birds of a feather flock together. And those jurors were definitely little birdies.

I agree that birds of a feather flock together. It is obvious by those that do not like and accept the criminal verdict and as a result call the jury names. Those little birdies find it hard to except what most legal scholars agree upon, the prosecution did a lousy job presenting the evidence. Those little birdies fail to blame the prosecution but want to blame the mostly black jury.

William Anthony

04-26-2008, 08:00 AM

William, I sent a hello to Ms. Chi -- I didn't ask for the low-down on what happened to her on the other board. Whatever happened is between her and the moderators. If she wants to believe she was unfairly treated that's her choice. :shrug:

BTW, thank you for the fascinating information regarding your cell phone habits. :)

What you did was mention Alpha's paranoia, which she is not. That was rude, impolite and uncivil. I know that comments like those made by certain people on the other board are condoned by the moderator, while others who post information, respond civilly and ask logical questions are punished by the head moderator. I think this is because of the moderator's favoritism. The community that moderator built is a biased one and those posters the moderator favors should be thankful to be a part of such a community, if they feel that it was only between the moderator and the poster, imho. The truth is that the poster may receive the same unequal treatment if they fall out of the moderator's favor, imho.

I do not think the cell phone habits I posted are unique to me.

William Anthony

04-26-2008, 08:01 AM

you cannot compare today's cell phones with those in use back then

I was comparing tendencies not cell phones.

William Anthony

04-26-2008, 08:02 AM

then your disagreement is with orenthal and not me. I simply posted the credible evidence.

I said the true evidence. I disagree with your posts.

William Anthony

04-26-2008, 08:05 AM

Neither Peratis nor Fung were suspects in a murder. Neither Peratis nor Fung were questioned by the police under oath less than 24 hours after the murders and then later changed their answers regarding incriminating evidence against them. And you William, still haven't the integrity to admit when you are wrong.

bobaugust

Peratis and Fung gave testimony under oath which they changed, as you claim Simpson did. I have never known the police to administer the oath before or while questioning a suspect. It seem that when I post on inequities you always call me wrong.

04-26-2008, 11:17 AM

What you did was mention Alpha's paranoia, which she is not. That was rude, impolite and uncivil. I know that comments like those made by certain people on the other board are condoned by the moderator, while others who post information, respond civilly and ask logical questions are punished by the head moderator. I think this is because of the moderator's favoritism. The community that moderator built is a biased one and those posters the moderator favors should be thankful to be a part of such a community, if they feel that it was only between the moderator and the poster, imho. The truth is that the poster may receive the same unequal treatment if they fall out of the moderator's favor, imho.

I do not think the cell phone habits I posted are unique to me.William, I'm not going to continue to indulge you in this off-topic rant. I might suggest to you that following the rules instead of flaunting them time after time may serve you better than blaming your woes on others. I think it's time you stopped insulting me. So far you've called me rude, impolite, uncivil, and insinuated that I'm here (with others, whoever they may be) with the intention to bait. I'm sure everyone gets that you feel unfairly treated and victimized. It's enough already. If you want to discuss OJ Simpson that's fine. If you want to continue with this count me out.

04-26-2008, 11:22 AM

I agree that birds of a feather flock together. It is obvious by those that do not like and accept the criminal verdict and as a result call the jury names. Those little birdies find it hard to except what most legal scholars agree upon, the prosecution did a lousy job presenting the evidence. Those little birdies fail to blame the prosecution but want to blame the mostly black jury.William, I don't think the prosecution did an outstanding job but they did what is required -- they presented solid scientific and circumstantial evidence against OJ Simpson that proved he is a double-murderer. They didn't realize that they would have to convince a jury looking for any reason to acquit and go up against a defense team willing to do anything to win.

bobaugust

04-26-2008, 05:37 PM

Peratis and Fung gave testimony under oath which they changed, as you claim Simpson did. I have never known the police to administer the oath before or while questioning a suspect. It seem that when I post on inequities you always call me wrong.

Peratis and Fung were not suspects in a murder or defendants in a trial. They were witnesses who admitted to giving some mistaken testimony and then corrected it. Simpson was a suspect in the murders who gave his statement to the police less than 24 hours after the murders after being read his Miranda rights who later while testifying as the defendant in a trial contradicted what he had told the police. And you think these are equal situations?

bobaugust

William Anthony

04-26-2008, 11:11 PM

William, I'm not going to continue to indulge you in this off-topic rant. I might suggest to you that following the rules instead of flaunting them time after time may serve you better than blaming your woes on others. I think it's time you stopped insulting me. So far you've called me rude, impolite, uncivil, and insinuated that I'm here (with others, whoever they may be) with the intention to bait. I'm sure everyone gets that you feel unfairly treated and victimized. It's enough already. If you want to discuss OJ Simpson that's fine. If you want to continue with this count me out.

The discussion of the Simpson case and the criminal jury is, imho, an example of inequality. Let's get certain things clear. You mentioned Alpha and it was clear that your salutation was not heart felt, imho. You then accused her of being paranoid. She has not accused you of anything. I do follow the rules and expect to be treated equally. There are those, who fail to follow the rules on the other board, imho, and are not disciplined, imho. I have not insulted you. I do not know how you can feel insulted if you are not one of those who came to this board with the intention to bait. I have discussed the Simpson trial with those who wish to discuss the trial. If extraneous matters are brought into the discussion by others, then I think they deserve a response from me, particularly when they accuse someone I love of being something she is not. If you chose not to continue the discussion of the Simpson case with me, then that is your choice.

William Anthony

04-26-2008, 11:14 PM

William Anthony

04-26-2008, 11:22 PM

Peratis and Fung were not suspects in a murder or defendants in a trial. They were witnesses who admitted to giving some mistaken testimony and then corrected it. Simpson was a suspect in the murders who gave his statement to the police less than 24 hours after the murders after being read his Miranda rights who later while testifying as the defendant in a trial contradicted what he had told the police. And you think these are equal situations?

bobaugust

No, I do not think the situations are equal. I think that, if the witnesses can change their testimony given under oath and be mistaken, then a defendant can be mistaken about what he recalls and that the defendant was not under oath when he gave his statement to the police. I do not think his statement to the police was introduced in the criminal trial. I think the consensus of opinion is that there was nothing incriminating in the statement.
I think the inequality is that a witness who changes his testimony under oath is considered mistaken by some but a defendant, who gives a statement that was not sworn to about what he recalls and then under oath recalls something different is called a liar by some.

04-27-2008, 01:15 AM

The discussion of the Simpson case and the criminal jury is, imho, an example of inequality. Let's get certain things clear. You mentioned Alpha and it was clear that your salutation was not heart felt, imho. You then accused her of being paranoid. She has not accused you of anything. I do follow the rules and expect to be treated equally. There are those, who fail to follow the rules on the other board, imho, and are not disciplined, imho. I have not insulted you. I do not know how you can feel insulted if you are not one of those who came to this board with the intention to bait. I have discussed the Simpson trial with those who wish to discuss the trial. If extraneous matters are brought into the discussion by others, then I think they deserve a response from me, particularly when they accuse someone I love of being something she is not. If you chose not to continue the discussion of the Simpson case with me, then that is your choice.First of all, you don't know what's in my heart. Second, I have been accused by Alpha Chi of being impolite, uncivil and rude. Third, I didn't say I felt insulted -- just tired of the same old accusations. Last but not least, there's no doubt in my mind that Alpha Chi is a person you love. ;)

It's true that I brought AC up in the discussion -- believe me when I say that I regret opening this can of worms and getting you started. Bye. :seeya:

martin II

04-27-2008, 08:18 AM

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.

Thanks for your information.

I think written protocal and training, when followed, has the goal of diminishing the reliance on memory of evidence collection personnel.

Fung kept some records but not accurate records of what he collected
as opposed to what Mazzola collected.Why? Other lab techs kept a log of what they did when handeling evidence in the lab,why not Mazzola?( her initials issue) How could a nurse be allowed to take blood samples without any regard to how much he drew.He did use a syringe that had calibraitons on it to indicate the amouint he drew. Why would he ignore this? There had to be or should have been protocol controlling his activity. Why should the we/the jury have to rely on his changing memory of the amount of blood he says he drew?

After the trial the lapd lab underwent a redo to bring it up to national standards so obviously there were protocol issues that had to be corrected.

What was the defense to do. Ignore these issues at trial?
martin II

William Anthony

04-27-2008, 08:32 AM

What does his charisma have to do with his credibility?

"People tend to align themselves with people they feel comfortable and make them feel comfortable. "

That was part of my post. When I say tend to align, I mean find more credible.

William Anthony

04-27-2008, 08:43 AM

Forensic

For example, the defense complained that D Fung thought he did some work done by Andrea Mazzola. So what?

What about the time he collected the socks?

martin II

04-27-2008, 08:56 AM

William, I don't think the prosecution did an outstanding job but they did what is required -- they presented solid scientific and circumstantial evidence against OJ Simpson that proved he is a double-murderer. They didn't realize that they would have to convince a jury looking for any reason to acquit and go up against a defense team willing to do anything to win.

tv
I think the prosecution had the responsibility to present a case that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury that oj was guilty of the crimes as charged.
This includes what they knew would be defense chalanges to their evidence.
If they miscalculated or ignored problems with their case that allowed the defense to attack these issues, mistakes, changing prosecution witness testimony or what ever one wants to call them, they were legitimate issues for the jury to consider and decide what to believe.

I believe the criminal jury gave a verdict based on what they believed the prosecution did not do and that was prove to THEM beyond a reasonmable
doubt that oj Simpson was guilty.To assign a lot of negative reasons as to why they came to the verdict that they did is unfair to them.

I believe the prosecution did not cover themselves or could not cover themselves on some important issues in their charge and this caused the jury to decide they failed in their duty.

I believe that both sides did anything they could to win. It is just that the proecutions efforts failed to convince the jury.

imo
martin II

04-27-2008, 01:53 PM

Thanks for your information.

I think written protocal and training, when followed, has the goal of diminishing the reliance on memory of evidence collection personnel.

Fung kept some records but not accurate records of what he collected
as opposed to what Mazzola collected.Why? Other lab techs kept a log of what they did when handeling evidence in the lab,why not Mazzola?( her initials issue) How could a nurse be allowed to take blood samples without any regard to how much he drew.He did use a syringe that had calibraitons on it to indicate the amouint he drew. Why would he ignore this? There had to be or should have been protocol controlling his activity. Why should the we/the jury have to rely on his changing memory of the amount of blood he says he drew?

After the trial the lapd lab underwent a redo to bring it up to national standards so obviously there were protocol issues that had to be corrected.

What was the defense to do. Ignore these issues at trial?
martin IImartin, I've said before that drawing up blood is not done with an exact amount in mind. I don't know why Peratis allowed them to pin him down to an exact amount. I would have said between such and such cc's and let it go at that. There was no wrong-doing or ulterior motives on his part. If there are vacuum tubes that are calibrated I've never seen them but I don't work in the lab so maybe I haven't seen everything.

Nothing the lab did changed the outcome of the tests that were performed. The defense presented no evidence that showed the tests were compromised. They merely planted the idea that the DNA results were compromised. The defense created the issues so of course they weren't going to ignore them but they fell short of proving any problems with the tests results. Before you tell me, I know the defense doesn't have to prove anything.

martin II

04-27-2008, 03:59 PM

martin, I've said before that drawing up blood is not done with an exact amount in mind. I don't know why Peratis allowed them to pin him down to an exact amount. I would have said between such and such cc's and let it go at that. There was no wrong-doing or ulterior motives on his part. If there are vacuum tubes that are calibrated I've never seen them but I don't work in the lab so maybe I haven't seen everything.

Nothing the lab did changed the outcome of the tests that were performed. The defense presented no evidence that showed the tests were compromised. They merely planted the idea that the DNA results were compromised. The defense created the issues so of course they weren't going to ignore them but they fell short of proving any problems with the tests results. Before you tell me, I know the defense doesn't have to prove anything.

tv

My post attempted to address the issues brought up by another poster.
Good police departmend labs have set protocols and procedures for almost all activity.Especially evidence colleciton. Lab tech go to school to learn technics and correct procedures and they undergo additional training seminars
to keep them up to date and to make sure they follow protocol and procedures. Meaning the set way things are to be done to take the guess work out of the activity and to maintain records of ones activity for accuracy when needed when activity is reviewed.

Obviously this was not the case with Fung and Mazzola, so there were problems and legitimate quesitons about what and how they did their work.

We had a high profile celebrity case on hand and the suspect offered his blood to be taken for evidence if le needed it.A lapd nurse was called to take the blood for the lab and it seems that no one instructed the nurse to make a record of the amount of blood he drew or told him to be sure you follow protocol and he said he did not think it was necessary to make a simple notation of the amount of blood he drew.

The results of his non actions were the defense rightly quesitons the missing blood and the missing initials of Mazzloa.

If there were no protocols to direct them in their work, there should have been. If there were and they simply did not follow them, it is reasonable for a defense or jury to ask WHY. As these were not small issues that could be overlooked. imo
martin II

04-27-2008, 04:04 PM

martin II

04-27-2008, 04:21 PM

martin, I've said before that drawing up blood is not done with an exact amount in mind. I don't know why Peratis allowed them to pin him down to an exact amount. I would have said between such and such cc's and let it go at that. There was no wrong-doing or ulterior motives on his part. If there are vacuum tubes that are calibrated I've never seen them but I don't work in the lab so maybe I haven't seen everything.

Nothing the lab did changed the outcome of the tests that were performed. The defense presented no evidence that showed the tests were compromised. They merely planted the idea that the DNA results were compromised. The defense created the issues so of course they weren't going to ignore them but they fell short of proving any problems with the tests results. Before you tell me, I know the defense doesn't have to prove anything.

You are correct, vacuum tubes do not have calibrations but he did not use a vacuum tube as he should have. If he had used a vacumm tube the question of whether blood was taken out for some use would not be a question.

But he did used a syringe which does have calibraitons on the blood tube/tank
to tell one how much blood was drawn. The use of the syringe would allow for easy transfer of blood to another container. But he testified that he did not look at the calibration on the syringe to see how much blood he drew and he made no record of taking the blood.

So we were left with him saying he took one amount at first, but when the defense brought up the issue of some missing blood some time later,the prosecution ran to his house with a video camera without the defense being present and got him to say he drew another amount or he didn not know how much he drew.

If there were no written set protocols covering the drawing of blood, there should have been. If there were and he simply ignored then, he should not have been talking the blood in the first place.

He is the one that caused the missing blood to become a issue not the defense.
imo
martin II

martin II

04-27-2008, 04:28 PM

Whatever, martin. The fact is that nothing affected the outcome of the tests and that's all that really matters when determining his guilt or innocence. Luckily, the civil jury wasn't bogged down with all this meaningless stuff and could focus on what was really important -- all the evidence and where it led them.

If Mazzloa did put her initials on the envelopes/samples as she testified that she did, and they were not present at trial when shown to her, the legitimate question is, what happened to the envelopes and samples that she did initial? Are these envelopes and samples the same ones that she handeled in the lab?

i believe the jury would or should have had questions about this issue.
imo
MARTINII

bobaugust

04-27-2008, 04:47 PM

No, I do not think the situations are equal. I think that, if the witnesses can change their testimony given under oath and be mistaken, then a defendant can be mistaken about what he recalls and that the defendant was not under oath when he gave his statement to the police. I do not think his statement to the police was introduced in the criminal trial. I think the consensus of opinion is that there was nothing incriminating in the statement.
I think the inequality is that a witness who changes his testimony under oath is considered mistaken by some but a defendant, who gives a statement that was not sworn to about what he recalls and then under oath recalls something different is called a liar by some.

You say you don't think the situations are equal and then you go on to say that if a witness can change testimony given under oath and be mistaken then Simpson should be allowed to change what he said. Wrong. Mistakes witness may make under oath and then correct have absolutely nothing to do with what a suspect in a murder tells the police in a sworn statement after being read his rights and then two years later as a defendant contradicts what he told the police when he testifies. The fact is that Simpson lied to the police and he lied to the jury.

You say the consensus of opinion is that there was nothing incriminating in the statement Simpson gave? A consensus of opinion by whom, other criminals, murderers, and Simpson apologists like you? I've already pointed out some of Simpson's contradictions to you just as Petrocelli pointed them out to the civil trial jury.

bobaugust

bobaugust

04-27-2008, 04:58 PM

You are correct, vacuum tubes do not have calibrations but he did not use a vacuum tube as he should have. If he had used a vacumm tube the question of whether blood was taken out for some use would not be a question.

But he did used a syringe which does have calibraitons on the blood tube/tank
to tell one how much blood was drawn. The use of the syringe would allow for easy transfer of blood to another container. But he testified that he did not look at the calibration on the syringe to see how much blood he drew and he made no record of taking the blood.

So we were left with him saying he took one amount at first, but when the defense brought up the issue of some missing blood some time later,the prosecution ran to his house with a video camera without the defense being present and got him to say he drew another amount or he didn not know how much he drew.

If there were no written set protocols covering the drawing of blood, there should have been. If there were and he simply ignored then, he should not have been talking the blood in the first place.

He is the one that caused the missing blood to become a issue not the defense.
imo
martin II

martin II, the only missing blood form Simpson's reference sample was blood that was used for testing. The insinuations by Simpson's defense that blood was taken from Simpson's reference sample to plant as evidence were false and had absolutely no basis in fact.

bobaugust

bobaugust

04-27-2008, 05:16 PM

If Mazzloa did put her initials on the envelopes/samples as she testified that she did, and they were not present at trial when shown to her, the legitimate question is, what happened to the envelopes and samples that she did initial? Are these envelopes and samples the same ones that she handeled in the lab?

i believe the jury would or should have had questions about this issue.
imo
MARTINII

martin II, Mazzola did not testify in the criminal trial that she initialed the envelopes. She testified that she was mistaken when she previously had thought she had initialed the envelopes. Her initials or lack of initials on the envelopes does not call into question anything. Mazzola testified that she recognized her and Fung's handwriting of the item numbers on the bindles that contained the collected blood samples that were inside the envelopes. She identified the bindles as the original bindles she and Fung had created.

bobaugust

04-27-2008, 07:01 PM

You are correct, vacuum tubes do not have calibrations but he did not use a vacuum tube as he should have. If he had used a vacumm tube the question of whether blood was taken out for some use would not be a question.

But he did used a syringe which does have calibraitons on the blood tube/tank
to tell one how much blood was drawn. The use of the syringe would allow for easy transfer of blood to another container. But he testified that he did not look at the calibration on the syringe to see how much blood he drew and he made no record of taking the blood.

So we were left with him saying he took one amount at first, but when the defense brought up the issue of some missing blood some time later,the prosecution ran to his house with a video camera without the defense being present and got him to say he drew another amount or he didn not know how much he drew.

If there were no written set protocols covering the drawing of blood, there should have been. If there were and he simply ignored then, he should not have been talking the blood in the first place.

He is the one that caused the missing blood to become a issue not the defense.
imo
martin IImartin, you say he didn't use the vacuum tube as he should have. It's perfectly acceptable to draw blood and then transfer it to the vial which is what Peratis did. I did the same thing the other day...nothing mysterious or underhanded about my reasons for doing so. He made an estimate as to how much blood he drew and for some reason he allowed the defense to pin him down to an exact amount. He didn't cause the blood to become an issue. The defense raised this issue with the false assertion that there was missing blood. Unfortunately for the victims and their families the ploy worked. What is someone going to do with 1.5cc of blood? It would only amount to a small fraction of OJ Simpson's blood that was found.

martin II

04-27-2008, 08:17 PM

martin II, Mazzola did not testify in the criminal trial that she initialed the envelopes. She testified that she was mistaken when she previously had thought she had initialed the envelopes. Her initials or lack of initials on the envelopes does not call into question anything. Mazzola testified that she recognized her and Fung's handwriting of the item numbers on the bindles that contained the collected blood samples that were inside the envelopes. She identified the bindles as the original bindles she and Fung had created.

bobaugust

OK
which prodeeding was it that she first testified that she initialed the envelopes if you know.
martin II

martin II

04-27-2008, 08:30 PM

martin, you say he didn't use the vacuum tube as he should have. It's perfectly acceptable to draw blood and then transfer it to the vial which is what Peratis did. I did the same thing the other day...nothing mysterious or underhanded about my reasons for doing so. He made an estimate as to how much blood he drew and for some reason he allowed the defense to pin him down to an exact amount. He didn't cause the blood to become an issue. The defense raised this issue with the false assertion that there was missing blood. Unfortunately for the victims and their families the ploy worked. What is someone going to do with 1.5cc of blood? It would only amount to a small fraction of OJ Simpson's blood that was found.

If he had used a vacutainer tube it would have filled and there would be no rerason to tranfer the persons blood to another container.If one wanted to take blood from the syringe to put it into one or two new containers a sysringe would be the item to use. If one wanted to be accurate of how much blood he drew and show that there was no additional transfer to unknown vials for other use, the butterfly and vacutainer would be trhe item to use.

Even if he used a syringe there is no excuse for him to ignore the calloibrations on the tube that told him how much blood he had drawn
and i can think of no reason why a experienced nurse that worked for lapd would not make one record of how much blood he had drawn.

I doubt you drew blood that was to be used in a criminal trial as evidence but i don't know.
imo
martin II

martin II

04-27-2008, 08:32 PM

William Anthony

04-27-2008, 08:55 PM

You say you don't think the situations are equal and then you go on to say that if a witness can change testimony given under oath and be mistaken then Simpson should be allowed to change what he said. Wrong. Mistakes witness may make under oath and then correct have absolutely nothing to do with what a suspect in a murder tells the police in a sworn statement after being read his rights and then two years later as a defendant contradicts what he told the police when he testifies. The fact is that Simpson lied to the police and he lied to the jury.

You say the consensus of opinion is that there was nothing incriminating in the statement Simpson gave? A consensus of opinion by whom, other criminals, murderers, and Simpson apologists like you? I've already pointed out some of Simpson's contradictions to you just as Petrocelli pointed them out to the civil trial jury.

bobaugust

As I indicated the statement to the police was not sworn. That is the difference and why they are not equal. The witnesses broke their oath. The fact is that prosecution witnesses lied to the jury, imho.

The consensus of opinion was by legal scholars who thought that the statement was self-serving. Please refrain from calling me a criminal, a murderer and a Simpson apologist, as I am neither. You have pointed out nothing to me about this case except your opinions and Petrocelli's opinion of what he believed he pointed out. You have demonstrated certain other things to me by your name calling.

William Anthony

04-27-2008, 09:36 PM

martin, you say he didn't use the vacuum tube as he should have. It's perfectly acceptable to draw blood and then transfer it to the vial which is what Peratis did. I did the same thing the other day...nothing mysterious or underhanded about my reasons for doing so. He made an estimate as to how much blood he drew and for some reason he allowed the defense to pin him down to an exact amount. He didn't cause the blood to become an issue. The defense raised this issue with the false assertion that there was missing blood. Unfortunately for the victims and their families the ploy worked. What is someone going to do with 1.5cc of blood? It would only amount to a small fraction of OJ Simpson's blood that was found.

This is his testimony from July 7th

"BY MR. SHAPIRO:
08 Q How much blood did you withdraw from
09 Mr. Simpson?
10 A Approximately 8 C.C.'s.
11 Q When you say, "approximately," you did not
12 measure the amount?
13 A Well, it could have been 7.9 or it could have
14 been 8.1. I just looked at the syringe and it looked
15 at about 8 C.C.'s. I withdrew the needle from his arm.
16 Q Nobody asked you to take a precise amount of
17 blood.
18 A No.
19 Q And you did not record the amount of blood you
20 took.
21 A No. It's just routinely that's about the
22 amount I usually draw."

04-28-2008, 01:58 AM

This is his testimony from July 7th

"BY MR. SHAPIRO:
08 Q How much blood did you withdraw from
09 Mr. Simpson?
10 A Approximately 8 C.C.'s.
11 Q When you say, "approximately," you did not
12 measure the amount?
13 A Well, it could have been 7.9 or it could have
14 been 8.1. I just looked at the syringe and it looked
15 at about 8 C.C.'s. I withdrew the needle from his arm.
16 Q Nobody asked you to take a precise amount of
17 blood.
18 A No.
19 Q And you did not record the amount of blood you
20 took.
21 A No. It's just routinely that's about the
22 amount I usually draw."

Like I said, it was an inexact approximate amount.

04-28-2008, 02:20 AM

If he had used a vacutainer tube it would have filled and there would be no rerason to tranfer the persons blood to another container.If one wanted to take blood from the syringe to put it into one or two new containers a sysringe would be the item to use. If one wanted to be accurate of how much blood he drew and show that there was no additional transfer to unknown vials for other use, the butterfly and vacutainer would be trhe item to use.

Even if he used a syringe there is no excuse for him to ignore the calloibrations on the tube that told him how much blood he had drawn
and i can think of no reason why a experienced nurse that worked for lapd would not make one record of how much blood he had drawn.

I doubt you drew blood that was to be used in a criminal trial as evidence but i don't know.
imo
martin IImartin, obviously he wasn't concerned with the amount, only that it was approximately a syringe full. If Peratis had been required to record the amount I'm sure he would have. I don't understand why you're surprised that Peratis didn't record the amount when it had probably never been done before. I'm sure it didn't enter the nurse's mind that he would be accused of lying about the blood draw. A butterfly and vacuum tube wouldn't have solved the problem. A butterfly is only a needle and catheter. There would have been no way to measure. You're right that I haven't collected blood for criminal evidence but I have collected urine for drug testing and I've never recorded the amount, been asked to record the amount or even thought to do so. This thing with the nurse is a red herring and means nothing.

martin II

04-28-2008, 07:24 AM

martin, obviously he wasn't concerned with the amount, only that it was approximately a syringe full. If Peratis had been required to record the amount I'm sure he would have. I don't understand why you're surprised that Peratis didn't record the amount when it had probably never been done before. I'm sure it didn't enter the nurse's mind that he would be accused of lying about the blood draw. A butterfly and vacuum tube wouldn't have solved the problem. A butterfly is only a needle and catheter. There would have been no way to measure. You're right that I haven't collected blood for criminal evidence but I have collected urine for drug testing and I've never recorded the amount, been asked to record the amount or even thought to do so. This thing with the nurse is a red herring and means nothing.

tv

The problem with your position as i see it is;

The issus of missing blood came up.If Peratis had recorded the amount of blood he drew, there would have been proof of what he did and the defense would not have been able to make his actions a issue.Since he did not it became a issue.

Either there were no protocols or he ignored them.

This is just sloppy work by the nurse in a major criminal case and it is difficult to prove a case supported by sloppy non professions work as the prosecution found out.

We are talking about what Peratis did for a criminal murder case not anyone else.

bobaugust

04-28-2008, 07:30 AM

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9096686]As I indicated the statement to the police was not sworn. That is the difference and why they are not equal. The witnesses broke their oath. The fact is that prosecution witnesses lied to the jury, imho.

You're wrong, witnesses did not break their oath. They admitted they were mistaken and corrected their testimony. Simpson lied to the police in his statement and he later lied to the civil trial jurors when he testified under oath. Your claim is untrue that there was a consensus of opinion that there was nothing incriminating in the statement Simpson gave. I've already pointed out some of his incriminating answers. Answers that Simpson changed two years later when he testified in the civil trial because they were incriminating. The fact is that before Simpson answered any questions from the police during that interrogation he understood that he had the right to remain silent and if he gave up that right anything he said could and would be held against him in a court of law. And the court of law was the civil trial.

I didn't call you a criminal or a murderer. I called you a Simpson apologist because that's exactly what you are.

bobaugust

martin II

04-28-2008, 07:35 AM

martin, obviously he wasn't concerned with the amount, only that it was approximately a syringe full. If Peratis had been required to record the amount I'm sure he would have. I don't understand why you're surprised that Peratis didn't record the amount when it had probably never been done before. I'm sure it didn't enter the nurse's mind that he would be accused of lying about the blood draw. A butterfly and vacuum tube wouldn't have solved the problem. A butterfly is only a needle and catheter. There would have been no way to measure. You're right that I haven't collected blood for criminal evidence but I have collected urine for drug testing and I've never recorded the amount, been asked to record the amount or even thought to do so. This thing with the nurse is a red herring and means nothing.

A butterfly needle and cathyeter is usually used to draw blood when the person inserts a vial to catch the blood.It fills the vial quickly and you them remove it. This gives one a full vial of blood and in a enclosed vial.No need to be transfering blood from a syringe to different vials.

martin II

martin II

04-28-2008, 07:39 AM

martin II

04-28-2008, 07:50 AM

martin, obviously he wasn't concerned with the amount, only that it was approximately a syringe full. If Peratis had been required to record the amount I'm sure he would have. I don't understand why you're surprised that Peratis didn't record the amount when it had probably never been done before. I'm sure it didn't enter the nurse's mind that he would be accused of lying about the blood draw. A butterfly and vacuum tube wouldn't have solved the problem. A butterfly is only a needle and catheter. There would have been no way to measure. You're right that I haven't collected blood for criminal evidence but I have collected urine for drug testing and I've never recorded the amount, been asked to record the amount or even thought to do so. This thing with the nurse is a red herring and means nothing.

tv

My point is that he should have been concerned
as he was taking blood evidence for a criminal trial not a drug test or some other non important reason.With no set procedures to follow people just do what the want to do.I don't think he was employed as a nurse and allowed to
do whatever he thinks is proper.
martin II

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 08:12 AM

Like I said, it was an inexact approximate amount.

You overlook the fact that he routinely drew approximately 8 c.c.s, give or take 1/10 of a c.c.. Therefore he was used to estimating the amount and he could have drawn over 8 c.c.s.

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 08:19 AM

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 08:23 AM

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9096701]

bob

If true then does that mean that supporters of the civil trial can be called Petrocelli apologist or people that try to defend Furhmans actions, Furhman Apologist?
martin II

I am sure that anyone who has been here long enough know that I only defend the criminal jury's verdict based upon the evidence they heard. It is just a ploy to try to upset me, which will not work, by calling me names. That other community and the moderator gave some free reign to act in that fashion, imho. I am sure that some are emailing her now.:)

04-28-2008, 09:39 AM

tv

The problem with your position as i see it is;

The issus of missing blood came up.If Peratis had recorded the amount of blood he drew, there would have been proof of what he did and the defense would not have been able to make his actions a issue.Since he did not it became a issue.

Either there were no protocols or he ignored them.

This is just sloppy work by the nurse in a major criminal case and it is difficult to prove a case supported by sloppy non professions work as the prosecution found out.
We are talking about what Peratis did for a criminal murder case not anyone else.martin, this is ridiculous. You can't call Peratis unprofessional or sloppy if he performed the procedure according to guidelines that were in place. It's ridiculous to place responsibility for bogus missing blood on the shoulders of this man. This is another of the defense's made up theories to get Simpson off. Unfortunately, this fairy tale helped set a murderer free.

04-28-2008, 09:42 AM

You overlook the fact that he routinely drew approximately 8 c.c.s, give or take 1/10 of a c.c.. Therefore he was used to estimating the amount and he could have drawn over 8 c.c.s.I highly doubt that he had ever been asked how much he drew before. He knew the size of the syringe so it was guessing on his part. This is nothing but a product of the underhanded defense tactics employed by Cochran and his defense associates.

04-28-2008, 09:46 AM

tv

My point is that he should have been concerned
as he was taking blood evidence for a criminal trial not a drug test or some other non important reason.With no set procedures to follow people just do what the want to do.I don't think he was employed as a nurse and allowed to
do whatever he thinks is proper.
martin IIWas Peratis disciplined or sanctioned otherwise for not following procedure? Do you have a copy of this procedure that he should have followed or are you only guessing that there was a procedure for recording the amount of blood drawn from someone to be used in a criminal investigation? This would be a very serious offense IMO if he ignored established procedures and should have been disciplined, fired or faced revocation of his nursing license. Did any of these things occur?

04-28-2008, 09:50 AM

A butterfly needle and cathyeter is usually used to draw blood when the person inserts a vial to catch the blood.It fills the vial quickly and you them remove it. This gives one a full vial of blood and in a enclosed vial.No need to be transfering blood from a syringe to different vials.

martin IIIt doesn't matter that the vial is closed. It has a rubber stopper that can be easily removed. It's not sealed only closed.

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 10:27 AM

I highly doubt that he had ever been asked how much he drew before. He knew the size of the syringe so it was guessing on his part. This is nothing but a product of the underhanded defense tactics employed by Cochran and his defense associates.

Neither the defense nor the brilliant Cochran put the words in Peratis' mouth that he routinely drew approximately 8 C.C.s give or take 1/10 of a C.C. They simply pointed out that there was approximately 1.6 C.C.s missing based on his testimony.

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 10:29 AM

It doesn't matter that the vial is closed. It has a rubber stopper that can be easily removed. It's not sealed only closed.

That is the problem and raises suspicion, or reasonable inferences, if you will, and calls into question Vannatter's decision to take the vial to the crime scene.

martin II

04-28-2008, 10:30 AM

It doesn't matter that the vial is closed. It has a rubber stopper that can be easily removed. It's not sealed only closed.

i understand that but one can easily fill the vial quickly and know the cc amount in the vilal and no transfer from on item to another is required as some may belive Vanhatter did with the vials he carried around on his person
without giving it to SID which was where he was when the blood was drawn.

So we have a nurse that drew some amount of blood, gave it to vanhatter who did not register it at SID and carried it around on his person and then to a active crime scene where other blood was suppose to be on the ground
and gave it to Fung who i think said he had never been given blood from another place at a crime scene and then when the lab determined they received less than what the nurse had claimed he drew,there was a missing blood problem.

The defense claims were legitimate question to be asked.imo
all my opinions.
martin II

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 10:36 AM

i understand that but one can easily fill the vial quickly and know the cc amount in the vilal and no transfer from on item to another is required as some may belive Vanhatter did with the vials he carried around on his person
without giving it to SID which was where he was when the blood was drawn.

So we have a nurse that drew some amount of blood, gave it to vanhatter who did not register it at SID and carried it around on his person and then to a active crime scene where other blood was suppose to be on the ground
and gave it to Fung who i think said he had never been given blood from another place at a crime scene and then when the lab determined they received less than what the nurse had claimed he drew,there was a missing blood problem.

The defense claims were legitimate question to be asked.imo
all my opinions.
martin II

The defense would have been grossly negligent if they did not ask the question. peratis changed/lied/or, as some say, /innocently changed his testimony.

04-28-2008, 10:41 AM

martin II

04-28-2008, 10:41 AM

Was Peratis disciplined or sanctioned otherwise for not following procedure? Do you have a copy of this procedure that he should have followed or are you only guessing that there was a procedure for recording the amount of blood drawn from someone to be used in a criminal investigation? This would be a very serious offense IMO if he ignored established procedures and should have been disciplined, fired or faced revocation of his nursing license. Did any of these things occur?

I think you are missing my pont. most well run police departments use written protocols and procedures that govern all work activity.Looking at how the lapd was run i assume there were no protocols or maby Peratis a long time employee had just formed the habit of ignoring procedures and was getting away with it. In some departments he would have been brought up on charges or fired.But lapd who knows.
imo
martin II

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 10:46 AM

martin and William, this argument could go on forever. The only thing I blame Peratis for is letting himself be pinned down to an exact amount that he withdrew. Other than that this is a non-issue for me unless either one of you wants to post the policy that was in place at the time of the blood draw and what disciplinary action Peratis suffered as a consequence of not following policy/procedure.

He was not pinned down to an exact amount, as you point out. He answered about the amount he drew based on his routine practice. Martin is discussing policy. I am interested in the lies, imho, he told when he changed his testimony in the staged and improper exparte video.

04-28-2008, 10:58 AM

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 11:03 AM

If either one of you can post a link or other source that shows what the policy or procedure was in regard to drawing blood I'd be interested in reading it. Until then, I'm going to say that Thano Peratis did his job properly. End of story for me.

I have no issue with how he preformed his job. My issue concerns the amount of blood he drew and the lies, imho, he told to cover up that amount. He lied, imho. End of story for me.

04-28-2008, 11:31 AM

*snip*... End of story for me.Good.

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 11:35 AM

04-28-2008, 11:39 AM

Now that it is established that the end of the story is that Peratis lied, it becomes important to ask why the prosecution went to such great lengths to produced the staged exparte video in which he lied, imho.The end of your story is that Peratis lied. Please be kind enough not to start twisting my words.

martin II

04-28-2008, 11:43 AM

If either one of you can post a link or other source that shows what the policy or procedure was in regard to drawing blood I'd be interested in reading it. Until then, I'm going to say that Thano Peratis did his job properly. End of story for me.

I have posted that if there were protocols he did not follow then.If there were no protocols There should have been some

So why are you suggesting that i have a link to something i am not sure existed.

PS I am not sure which time i believe Peratis lied, his first testimony or the one he gave at night for the prosecution video.But he did lie and i assume the jury was taking all of this in.imo
martin II

martin II

04-28-2008, 11:50 AM

The end of your story is that Peratis lied. Please be kind enough not to start twisting my words.

tv
here is a regular question that prosecutors and defense lawyers ask a witness caught in a lie.

"Mr Peratis were you lying when you testified before that you drew about 8 cc of blood or are you lying now in your video when you say you drew some other amount?"
:cool:
martin II

04-28-2008, 11:51 AM

tv
here is a regular question that prosecutors and defense lawyers ask a witness caught in a lie.

"Mr Peratis were you lying when you testified before that you drew about 8 cc of blood or are you lying now in your video when you say you drew some other amount?"
:cool:
martin IIWhat was his answer? :cool:

04-28-2008, 11:52 AM

I have posted that if there were protocols he did not follow then.If there were no protocols There should have been some

So why are you suggesting that i have a link to something i am not sure existed.

PS I am not sure which time i believe Peratis lied, his first testimony or the one he gave at night for the prosecution video.But he did lie and i assume the jury was taking all of this in.imo
martin IIIf there were no written policies and procedures then he can't be held to standards that don't exist.

martin II

04-28-2008, 11:52 AM

He was not pinned down to an exact amount, as you point out. He answered about the amount he drew based on his routine practice. Martin is discussing policy. I am interested in the lies, imho, he told when he changed his testimony in the staged and improper exparte video.

Thanks william
for at least 4 post i have tried to discuss policy issues as my main point.

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 11:53 AM

The end of your story is that Peratis lied. Please be kind enough not to start twisting my words.

You replied good to the end of my story, which was the Peratis lied. I have never said that you agreed with me. It has been established for me and I asked the question in regard to the staged exparte video in regard to those who agree with my end of the story. Why do you want to say that I am twisting your words? I suspect I know why.

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 11:55 AM

Thanks william

No thanks necessary. I just want to point out what is really being posted and not what may be thought to have been posted.

04-28-2008, 12:00 PM

You replied good to the end of my story, which was the Peratis lied. I have never said that you agreed with me. It has been established for me and I asked the question in regard to the staged exparte video in regard to those who agree with my end of the story. Why do you want to say that I am twisting your words? I suspect I know why.Suspect all you like. You twisted my words to mean that I think Peratis lied which I don't think.

04-28-2008, 12:05 PM

Thanks william
for at least 4 post i have tried to discuss policy issues as my main point.martin, there has to be a policy in place for it to have been violated. There's no point in discussing a policy that may or may not exist.

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 12:08 PM

Suspect all you like. You twisted my words to mean that I think Peratis lied which I don't think.

Show me where I posted that tvdinner said Peratis lied. I do not think you will ever say that.

04-28-2008, 12:18 PM

Now that it is established that the end of the story is that Peratis lied, it becomes important to ask why the prosecution went to such great lengths to produced the staged exparte video in which he lied, imho.That implies a consensus. It doesn't matter because I've made it clear I don't think Peratis lied.

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 12:55 PM

That implies a consensus. It doesn't matter because I've made it clear I don't think Peratis lied.

You replied good and I took that to mean that you understood my feeling that he lied. I never indicated that you agreed. It was established that it was my feeling and I sought responses from those who agreed. End of Story.

04-28-2008, 01:04 PM

You replied good and I took that to mean that you understood my feeling that he lied. I never indicated that you agreed. It was established that it was my feeling and I sought responses from those who agreed. End of Story.Good.

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 01:06 PM

Why do you think the prosecution took such a clandestine effort to produce the video, in which I believed he lied?

04-28-2008, 01:12 PM

Why do you think the prosecution took such a clandestine effort to produce the video, in which I believed he lied?Clandestine is your word. I don't see it that way at all.

weezer

04-28-2008, 01:16 PM

you know, I had to have blood work done last week and it struck me that the technician drawing the blood didn't write down how much she took. :eek:

weezer

04-28-2008, 01:18 PM

Why do you think the prosecution took such a clandestine effort to produce the video, in which I believed he lied?

one of the things that the prosecution can be accused of is knee jerk reactions to the defense -- this being one of them. And WA, there was nothing clandestine about the video. No boogey ment there.

weezer

04-28-2008, 01:20 PM

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 02:07 PM

[QUOTE=martin II;9096703]

nope -- that means we can be called victim rights advocates!

MF was not a victim, although there were people who were victimized by his admitted corrupt activities.

bobaugust

04-28-2008, 04:12 PM

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9096701]

The witnesses took the oath told their lies and when caught tried to say that they were mistaken. The court of law that could prove him a murderer was the criminal trial. I have told you that I was neither. Yet you still engage in name calling. That tactic is for another community, imho. Your comments will be well received there and will be rewarded, imho.

William, the witnesses in the criminal trial did not try to say they were mistaken, they said they were mistaken. Your argument that because these witnesses in the criminal trial were able to do that then Simpson in the civil trial should be able to change what he first told the police is completely ridiculous. You evidently still can't understand the difference between witnesses who admitted to being mistaken and a defendant who when forced to testify contradicted what he originally told the police after being read his rights and whose denials regarding other incriminating evidence was impeached. That's was the major difference between the criminal trial and the civil trial. Simpson confirmed his guilt with his story changes, fabrications, and outright lies. Nnothing you have ever argued or can argue changes that reality.

bobaugust

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 04:26 PM

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9096706]

William, the witnesses in the criminal trial did not try to say they were mistaken, they said they were mistaken. Your argument that because these witnesses in the criminal trial were able to do that then Simpson in the civil trial should be able to change what he first told the police is completely ridiculous. You evidently still can't understand the difference between witnesses who admitted to being mistaken and a defendant who when forced to testify contradicted what he originally told the police after being read his rights and whose denials regarding other incriminating evidence was impeached. That's was the major difference between the criminal trial and the civil trial. Simpson confirmed his guilt with his story changes, fabrications, and outright lies. Nnothing you have ever argued or can argue changes that reality.

bobaugust

Your concept of reality will never be shared by me. The witnesses lied after taking an oath. Simpson never took an oath until the Civil trial in depositions and when he was a witness. To claim that they were mistaken and have you believe it is your reality and not mine. Your claim that certain people lied and others were mistaken is your reality and not mine. The major difference between the civil and criminal trial is that the civil trial was a staged political production to appease the majority of the court of public opinion, who were displeased with the criminal verdict, which is my reality and not yours.

bobaugust

04-28-2008, 04:31 PM

Neither the defense nor the brilliant Cochran put the words in Peratis' mouth that he routinely drew approximately 8 C.C.s give or take 1/10 of a C.C. They simply pointed out that there was approximately 1.6 C.C.s missing based on his testimony.

When Peratis realized his mistake of estimating that amount since he really didn't know the measured quantity of blood he took from Simpson, only that it looked like enough, he attempted to set the record straight. The fact that Peratis contradicted his preliminary hearing testimony after reviewing the procedure he used and finding that he only drew 6.5 milliliters, not approximately 8 milliliters means his prior testimony should be distrusted. There was no missing blood. Only a mistaken estimate the defense tried to argue as an exact amount to support their proven false blood planting theory.

bobaugust

bobaugust

04-28-2008, 04:35 PM

He was not pinned down to an exact amount, as you point out. He answered about the amount he drew based on his routine practice. Martin is discussing policy. I am interested in the lies, imho, he told when he changed his testimony in the staged and improper exparte video.

No it wasn't an improper video according to California law

04-28-2008, 04:40 PM

you know, I had to have blood work done last week and it struck me that the technician drawing the blood didn't write down how much she took. :eek:You better watch out -- the next thing you know your DNA will be found at a crime scene -- those pesky technicians just can't be trusted. :tongue:

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 04:49 PM

When Peratis realized his mistake of estimating that amount since he really didn't know the measured quantity of blood he took from Simpson, only that it looked like enough, he attempted to set the record straight. The fact that Peratis contradicted his preliminary hearing testimony after reviewing the procedure he used and finding that he only drew 6.5 milliliters, not approximately 8 milliliters means his prior testimony should be distrusted. There was no missing blood. Only a mistaken estimate the defense tried to argue as an exact amount to support their proven false blood planting theory.

bobaugust

Peratis claimed to have made a mistake when the prosecution brought it to his attention that they needed him to testify he drew a lessor amount. Therefore, they clandestinely, without the defense being present, made the staged video. The law concerning the admissibility of the video was placed on the other board and it was clear from that post that the video was improperly admitted, imho. It was also clear that Ito was upset with Neufield for not being able to form an argument based on the law, imho. The staged video was what was distrusted.

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 04:50 PM

You better watch out -- the next thing you know your DNA will be found at a crime scene -- those pesky technicians just can't be trusted. :tongue:

In this case the pesky technician could be trusted to lie, imho.

bobaugust

04-28-2008, 04:52 PM

Why do you think the prosecution took such a clandestine effort to produce the video, in which I believed he lied?

There was no clandestine effort to produce the video. It was made because Peratis was recuperating from heart surgery and his doctor would not let him testify. That made him legally unavailable as a witness. The prosecution had an impartial investigator accompany them who made a simultaneous audio tape just in case their was any problem with the video tape.

bobaugust

04-28-2008, 04:57 PM

In this case the pesky technician could be trusted to lie, imho.Just another unfair character assassination from a Simpson supporter.

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 04:57 PM

There was no clandestine effort to produce the video. It was made because Peratis was recuperating from heart surgery and his doctor would not let him testify. That made him legally unavailable as a witness. The prosecution had an impartial investigator accompany them who made a simultaneous audio tape just in case their was any problem with the video tape.

bobaugust

If there was nothing clandestine about the video, then why didn't the prosecution inform the defense of their intentions prior to staging it. The fact is that, if a witness is unavailable, the law provides that his prior testimony be read to the jury. He was a witness in the video. It was simply an attempt to prevent cross examination as the prosecution saw how thoroughly Neufield destroyed him.

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 04:59 PM

Just another unfair character assassination from a Simpson supporter.

Not at all. I do not hear you protesting when others are called liars but the prosecution witnesses are said to have made human errors and mistakes.

bobaugust

04-28-2008, 05:03 PM

Your concept of reality will never be shared by me. The witnesses lied after taking an oath. Simpson never took an oath until the Civil trial in depositions and when he was a witness. To claim that they were mistaken and have you believe it is your reality and not mine. Your claim that certain people lied and others were mistaken is your reality and not mine. The major difference between the civil and criminal trial is that the civil trial was a staged political production to appease the majority of the court of public opinion, who were displeased with the criminal verdict, which is my reality and not yours.

It isn't a concept of reality that when Simpson testified over two years after the murders he changed what he had told the police less than 24 hours after the murders, it's reality. It isn't a concept of reality that when Simpson testified he lied under oath and was impeached by authenticated photographs, telephone records, and even a defense doctor's notes, it's reality. Your so called reality is based only on your imagination. My reality is based on what actually happened.

bobaugust.

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 05:06 PM

It isn't a concept of reality that when Simpson testified over two years after the murders he changed what he had told the police less than 24 hours after the murders, it's reality. It isn't a concept of reality that when Simpson testified he lied under oath and was impeached by authenticated photographs, telephone records, and even a defense doctor's notes, it's reality. Your so called reality is based only on your imagination. My reality is based on what actually happened.

bobaugust.

You mean like Peratis changed his story. Oh yes, your reality says he was mistaken. I did not imagine Peratis changed his story but you imagine he did because he was mistaken, imho. The fact is that the reality is that Peratis changed his story after evidence that Vannatter took the blood to the crime scene and there was a theory that some blood was planted. That is the reality.

04-28-2008, 05:11 PM

Not at all. I do not hear you protesting when others are called liars but the prosecution witnesses are said to have made human errors and mistakes.I haven't trashed a large number of people to make excuses for one.

bobaugust

04-28-2008, 05:12 PM

Peratis claimed to have made a mistake when the prosecution brought it to his attention that they needed him to testify he drew a lessor amount. Therefore, they clandestinely, without the defense being present, made the staged video. The law concerning the admissibility of the video was placed on the other board and it was clear from that post that the video was improperly admitted, imho. It was also clear that Ito was upset with Neufield for not being able to form an argument based on the law, imho. The staged video was what was distrusted.

You're wrong again William.

The Prosecution responds, Hank Goldberg

"About a week before John Gerdes's testimony and while I was preparing for Henry Lee, Neufeld asked me to stipulate that Thano (Peratis) was unavailable. This would make his transcript admissible. In court that day I stated that the prosecution would be willing to agree that Thano was unavailable as a witness if Judge Ito would allow us to introduce an interview with Thano in which he contradicted his previous testimony. I said that Evidence Code section 1202 allowed this. Neufeld apparently didn't know what I was talking about. "Well, it's this unique little thing we have in California called the Evidence Code," Judge Ito said sarcastically.

Interestingly, weeks earlier Gerald Uelmen had conceded that the prosecution could introduce an interview with Thano. He said, If the prosecution wanted to introduce an interview of Peratis "to rebut or impeach (Peratis's prior testimony), they can do that during their rebuttal case." Apparently, Uelmen and Neufeld disagreed on this point. The media experts, who were shocked that the judge allowed the videotape interview, also must have missed Uelmen's concession."

bobaugust

bobaugust

04-28-2008, 05:30 PM

If there was nothing clandestine about the video, then why didn't the prosecution inform the defense of their intentions prior to staging it. The fact is that, if a witness is unavailable, the law provides that his prior testimony be read to the jury. He was a witness in the video. It was simply an attempt to prevent cross examination as the prosecution saw how thoroughly Neufield destroyed him.

You're having a hard time with this William, maybe how Hank Goldberg explained it to Marcia Clark might make it clear for you.

The Prosecution Responds, Hank Goldberg

"By mid July well into the defense case, the defense informed us that they wanted to call Peratis. However I learned that Thano was at home recuperating from heart surgery. His doctor would not let him testify. That made him legally unavailable as a witness.

One afternoon, I discussed the issue with Marcia and Brian Kelberg in Marcia's office. This was at around the time the defense was presenting EDTA evidence. After I explained the situation, I said, "this isn't a problem. Since Thano is legally not available, the defense will be able to introduce his prior testimony from the preliminary hearing.
All we need to do is go out and reinterview Thano about what happened. We can then introduce this interview as an inconsistent statement to impeach Thano's preliminary testimony.
"Are you sure?" Marcia asked.
"Positive, " I answered. "This issue has come up with me before."
Brian said, "I don't know that we can do that. Let's look." Brian took a copy of the Evidence Code from Marcia's bookcase and quickly turned to section 1202, entitled "Credibility of Hearsay Declarant." This is the code section that tells lawyers what they can do to attack the credibility of a witness who is not present in court but whose prior testimony is read to the jury from the transcript.

After reading the code section, Brian said, "Hank is right. This means the if we reinterview Thano and he says things which contradict what he previously testified to during the preliminary hearing, it's admissible.
Marcia seemed distracted, "I'm not following."
"Okay," I said. "Thano previously testified at the prelim that he drew approximately eight milliliters. Right? But he made an consistent statement to me. He told me he drew approximately 6.5 milliliters. So if the defense puts in the prior testimony about drawing eight milliliters, we get to put in the contradictory statement that he only drew 6.5 milliliters."
"Right, right, " Marcia said,
Brian added, "But it's only admissible to prove that his prior testimony about drawing eight milliliters should be distrusted."
"But that would be good for us," I added. "Because we aren't asking the jury to believe that Thano really did draw only 6.5 milliliters. The real point is that this guy doesn't know how much he drew because he didn't measure it and he never does." We agreed that I would go to Thano's home to reinterview him with a defense investigator and that I would video tape the interview."

Later that afternoon, I spoke with Bill Hodgman. I wanted to ask Bill for his take on the Thano Peratis interview. Bill said, "You can take any investigator you want to take with you." I wanted someone whose credibility would be beyond approach and who would stand up to the unfair cross examinations that were routine in this trial. "How about Steve Oppler. He impresses me as being very sharp, very credible."

Although still preparing for Dr. Lee's testimony, I went to Thano's house with Steve Oppler and Teresa Ramirez, a video camera operator with our office."

bobaugust

bobaugust

04-28-2008, 05:57 PM

You mean like Peratis changed his story. Oh yes, your reality says he was mistaken. I did not imagine Peratis changed his story but you imagine he did because he was mistaken, imho. The fact is that the reality is that Peratis changed his story after evidence that Vannatter took the blood to the crime scene and there was a theory that some blood was planted. That is the reality.

Peratis corrected his testimony when he learned that the defense was trying to use his estimation as an exact amount. The fact is that when Vannatter gave Simpson's blood sample to Fung all the blood evidence found at Rockingham had already been collected. That is the reality.

bobaugust

martin II

04-28-2008, 05:58 PM

one of the things that the prosecution can be accused of is knee jerk reactions to the defense -- this being one of them. And WA, there was nothing clandestine about the video. No boogey ment there.

Then why was the Peratis interrogated about the amount of blood at his home
without the defense being notified and allowed to be present?

martin II

martin II

04-28-2008, 06:02 PM

You're having a hard time with this William, maybe how Hank Goldberg explained it to Marcia Clark might make it clear for you.

The Prosecution Responds, Hank Goldberg

"By mid July well into the defense case, the defense informed us that they wanted to call Peratis. However I learned that Thano was at home recuperating from heart surgery. His doctor would not let him testify. That made him legally unavailable as a witness.

One afternoon, I discussed the issue with Marcia and Brian Kelberg in Marcia's office. This was at around the time the defense was presenting EDTA evidence. After I explained the situation, I said, "this isn't a problem. Since Thano is legally not available, the defense will be able to introduce his prior testimony from the preliminary hearing.
All we need to do is go out and reinterview Thano about what happened. We can then introduce this interview as an inconsistent statement to impeach Thano's preliminary testimony.
"Are you sure?" Marcia asked.
"Positive, " I answered. "This issue has come up with me before."
Brian said, "I don't know that we can do that. Let's look." Brian took a copy of the Evidence Code from Marcia's bookcase and quickly turned to section 1202, entitled "Credibility of Hearsay Declarant." This is the code section that tells lawyers what they can do to attack the credibility of a witness who is not present in court but whose prior testimony is read to the jury from the transcript.

After reading the code section, Brian said, "Hank is right. This means the if we reinterview Thano and he says things which contradict what he previously testified to during the preliminary hearing, it's admissible.
Marcia seemed distracted, "I'm not following."
"Okay," I said. "Thano previously testified at the prelim that he drew approximately eight milliliters. Right? But he made an consistent statement to me. He told me he drew approximately 6.5 milliliters. So if the defense puts in the prior testimony about drawing eight milliliters, we get to put in the contradictory statement that he only drew 6.5 milliliters."
"Right, right, " Marcia said,
Brian added, "But it's only admissible to prove that his prior testimony about drawing eight milliliters should be distrusted."
"But that would be good for us," I added. "Because we aren't asking the jury to believe that Thano really did draw only 6.5 milliliters. The real point is that this guy doesn't know how much he drew because he didn't measure it and he never does." We agreed that I would go to Thano's home to reinterview him with a defense investigator and that I would video tape the interview."

Later that afternoon, I spoke with Bill Hodgman. I wanted to ask Bill for his take on the Thano Peratis interview. Bill said, "You can take any investigator you want to take with you." I wanted someone whose credibility would be beyond approach and who would stand up to the unfair cross examinations that were routine in this trial. "How about Steve Oppler. He impresses me as being very sharp, very credible."

Although still preparing for Dr. Lee's testimony, I went to Thano's house with Steve Oppler and Teresa Ramirez, a video camera operator with our office."

bobaugust

bob
This is hanks public version of what they did.
They found a excuse not to have the defense present.
martin II

martin II

04-28-2008, 06:10 PM

you know, I had to have blood work done last week and it struck me that the technician drawing the blood didn't write down how much she took. :eek:

weezer
I will go out on a limb here and guess that your tech knew he/she did not work for a major big city police department and was not drawing your blood to be used in a major celebrity murder investigation where there should have been protocols in place to govern blood drawing activity and records made.
imo:cool:
martin II

martin II

04-28-2008, 06:39 PM

You mean like Peratis changed his story. Oh yes, your reality says he was mistaken. I did not imagine Peratis changed his story but you imagine he did because he was mistaken, imho. The fact is that the reality is that Peratis changed his story after evidence that Vannatter took the blood to the crime scene and there was a theory that some blood was planted. That is the reality.

Peratis doctor told Hank that Peratis could not tesfify because he was very sick with cancer.Hank got a camera man and went to this many house anyway. Explained the problem i assume, and Peritas lied to help the prosecution. Sick from cancer and cancer treatment how could he have instant recall of how much blood he had taken some time ago.:cool:
Not believable.imo
martin II

martin II

04-28-2008, 06:46 PM

Peratis corrected his testimony when he learned that the defense was trying to use his estimation as an exact amount. The fact is that when Vannatter gave Simpson's blood sample to Fung all the blood evidence found at Rockingham had already been collected. That is the reality.

bobaugust

bob
So many of the prosecutions witnesses "CORRECTED" their testimony or made 'MISTAKES' or had better "RECALL" . Unbelievable
martin II

martin II

04-28-2008, 06:50 PM

I haven't trashed a large number of people to make excuses for one.

There has been firece protection and support for Furhman by some.:cool:

bobaugust

04-28-2008, 07:39 PM

bob
This is hanks public version of what they did.
They found a excuse not to have the defense present.
martin II

martin II, that's right the version of what actually happened not what you and others keep imagining. The defense was represented by an impartial investigator, Steve Oppler, who made a simultaneous audio tape just in case there was any problem with the video tape.

bobaugust

bobaugust

04-28-2008, 07:48 PM

bob
So many of the prosecutions witnesses "CORRECTED" their testimony or made 'MISTAKES' or had better "RECALL" . Unbelievable
martin II

martin II, that's right many witness corrected mistaken testimony including defense witnesses. Nothing those witnesses testified to was incriminating to them. But not Simpson. When he testified two years after the murders he changed what he had told the police less than 24 hours after the murders contradicting his answers that were incriminating to him.

bobaugust

martin II

04-28-2008, 08:29 PM

:cool: martin II, that's right the version of what actually happened not what you and others keep imagining. The defense was represented by an impartial investigator, Steve Oppler, who made a simultaneous audio tape just in case there was any problem with the video tape.

bobaugust

bob
Based on hanks interest i believe his story would be biased and slanted.He sure did not have much concern for Paertas to go to his house and jack him up for some answers he desperately needed.:cool:
The defense had no representation of their choice.

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 08:34 PM

I haven't trashed a large number of people to make excuses for one.

No, but you stand by while large numbers are trashed but say nothing when an equal number or more are said to have simply made mistakes. Why?

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 08:48 PM

You're having a hard time with this William, maybe how Hank Goldberg explained it to Marcia Clark might make it clear for you.

The Prosecution Responds, Hank Goldberg

"By mid July well into the defense case, the defense informed us that they wanted to call Peratis. However I learned that Thano was at home recuperating from heart surgery. His doctor would not let him testify. That made him legally unavailable as a witness.

One afternoon, I discussed the issue with Marcia and Brian Kelberg in Marcia's office. This was at around the time the defense was presenting EDTA evidence. After I explained the situation, I said, "this isn't a problem. Since Thano is legally not available, the defense will be able to introduce his prior testimony from the preliminary hearing.
All we need to do is go out and reinterview Thano about what happened. We can then introduce this interview as an inconsistent statement to impeach Thano's preliminary testimony.
"Are you sure?" Marcia asked.
"Positive, " I answered. "This issue has come up with me before."
Brian said, "I don't know that we can do that. Let's look." Brian took a copy of the Evidence Code from Marcia's bookcase and quickly turned to section 1202, entitled "Credibility of Hearsay Declarant." This is the code section that tells lawyers what they can do to attack the credibility of a witness who is not present in court but whose prior testimony is read to the jury from the transcript.

After reading the code section, Brian said, "Hank is right. This means the if we reinterview Thano and he says things which contradict what he previously testified to during the preliminary hearing, it's admissible.
Marcia seemed distracted, "I'm not following."
"Okay," I said. "Thano previously testified at the prelim that he drew approximately eight milliliters. Right? But he made an consistent statement to me. He told me he drew approximately 6.5 milliliters. So if the defense puts in the prior testimony about drawing eight milliliters, we get to put in the contradictory statement that he only drew 6.5 milliliters."
"Right, right, " Marcia said,
Brian added, "But it's only admissible to prove that his prior testimony about drawing eight milliliters should be distrusted."
"But that would be good for us," I added. "Because we aren't asking the jury to believe that Thano really did draw only 6.5 milliliters. The real point is that this guy doesn't know how much he drew because he didn't measure it and he never does." We agreed that I would go to Thano's home to reinterview him with a defense investigator and that I would video tape the interview."

Later that afternoon, I spoke with Bill Hodgman. I wanted to ask Bill for his take on the Thano Peratis interview. Bill said, "You can take any investigator you want to take with you." I wanted someone whose credibility would be beyond approach and who would stand up to the unfair cross examinations that were routine in this trial. "How about Steve Oppler. He impresses me as being very sharp, very credible."

Although still preparing for Dr. Lee's testimony, I went to Thano's house with Steve Oppler and Teresa Ramirez, a video camera operator with our office."

bobaugust

Here is section 1202.

"1202. Evidence of a statement or other conduct by a declarant that
is inconsistent with a statement by such declarant received in
evidence as hearsay evidence is not inadmissible for the purpose of
attacking the credibility of the declarant though he is not given and
has not had an opportunity to explain or to deny such inconsistent
statement or other conduct. Any other evidence offered to attack or
support the credibility of the declarant is admissible if it would
have been admissible had the declarant been a witness at the hearing.
For the purposes of this section, the deponent of a deposition taken
in the action in which it is offered shall be deemed to be a hearsay
declarant."

The fact that the original statement was not hearsay means that the declarant (peratis) was a witness at the preliminary hearing. It would be admissible only if he had not testified. This section does not address testimony and only addresses statements. The only time a statement given under oath is addressed is when the declarant gave the statement in a deposition and that would make it hearsay. As I have said, Ito allowed the video only because Neufield was unprepared to argue against it.

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 08:48 PM

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 08:49 PM

There has been firece protection and support for Furhman by some.:cool:

Ditto.

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 08:50 PM

bob
So many of the prosecutions witnesses "CORRECTED" their testimony or made 'MISTAKES' or had better "RECALL" . Unbelievable
martin II

Ditto.

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 08:51 PM

Peratis doctor told Hank that Peratis could not tesfify because he was very sick with cancer.Hank got a camera man and went to this many house anyway. Explained the problem i assume, and Peritas lied to help the prosecution. Sick from cancer and cancer treatment how could he have instant recall of how much blood he had taken some time ago.:cool:
Not believable.imo
martin II

Ditto.

weezer

04-28-2008, 09:09 PM

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;9096767]

MF was not a victim, although there were people who were victimized by his admitted corrupt activities.

and those people are?

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 09:13 PM

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9096774]

and those people are?

He wasn't dumb enough to give their names. Too bad.

weezer

04-28-2008, 09:32 PM

In this case the pesky technician could be trusted to lie, imho.

really? and she looked so honest!

weezer

04-28-2008, 09:35 PM

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9096778]

Your concept of reality will never be shared by me. The witnesses lied after taking an oath. Simpson never took an oath until the Civil trial in depositions and when he was a witness. To claim that they were mistaken and have you believe it is your reality and not mine. Your claim that certain people lied and others were mistaken is your reality and not mine. The major difference between the civil and criminal trial is that the civil trial was a staged political production to appease the majority of the court of public opinion, who were displeased with the criminal verdict, which is my reality and not yours.

your reality is skewed and wrong.

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 09:37 PM

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9096779]

your reality is skewed and wrong.

That is your opinion and I have my opinion of your opinion.

weezer

04-28-2008, 09:37 PM

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 09:38 PM

really? and she looked so honest!

What case was "she" in?

William Anthony

04-28-2008, 09:40 PM

if the interview was clandestine or unlawful, why wasn't there sanctions against the prosecution like there was against the defense when they lied about a witness and the evidence?

I gave you the answer. I do not feel like repeating it and do not forget that the prosecution was not allowed to appeal. The defense won in case you have forgotten.

weezer

04-28-2008, 10:24 PM

I gave you the answer. I do not feel like repeating it and do not forget that the prosecution was not allowed to appeal. The defense won in case you have forgotten.

oh I have not forgotten the criminal trial or its verdict. the plaintiffs won in the civil trial and your hero lost in case you have forgotten.

martin II

04-28-2008, 11:07 PM

oh I have not forgotten the criminal trial or its verdict. the plaintiffs won in the civil trial and your hero lost in case you have forgotten.

Again the civil trial was a procedure to extract money as all civil trials are.

martin II

04-28-2008, 11:10 PM

really? and she looked so honest!

"she" being who?

William Anthony

04-29-2008, 06:09 AM

oh I have not forgotten the criminal trial or its verdict. the plaintiffs won in the civil trial and your hero lost in case you have forgotten.

My hero was not involved in a civil trial. He was involved in a criminal trial and died on the cross for the sins of the world.

William Anthony

04-29-2008, 06:12 AM

Hi. I know the burden of proof is less in a civil trial than a criminal. Let's speculate. What would have happened if you could have swapped both juries? Interesting, yes?

Bye

The verdicts would have been the same and the outcry would have been the same, only there would be no insinuations that the criminal verdict was due to the race of the jury. The jury would simply be called uneducated and ignorant by some. This is simply my speculation.

martin II

04-29-2008, 06:50 AM

Hi. I know the burden of proof is less in a civil trial than a criminal. Let's speculate. What would have happened if you could have swapped both juries? Interesting, yes?

Bye

Joseph hi
yes
Based on the prosecutions failures in the criminal trial, the verdict would have been the same.I am not sure but believe based on how the civil trial judge restrained and restricted the defense the verdict may well have been the same.

William Anthony

04-29-2008, 07:06 AM

Joseph hi
yes
Based on the prosecutions failures in the criminal trial, the verdict would have been the same.I am not sure but believe based on how the civil trial judge restrained and restricted the defense the verdict may well have been the same.

Great minds think alike. I would only add that the criminal jury, if reversed, would have deliberated longer, because they did not have the same experiences with LE as those who lived in the inner city, imho.

bobaugust

04-29-2008, 07:41 AM

:cool:

bob
Based on hanks interest i believe his story would be biased and slanted.He sure did not have much concern for Paertas to go to his house and jack him up for some answers he desperately needed.:cool:
The defense had no representation of their choice.

martin II, The fact is that Peratis contacted the prosecutors about this not the other way around. Peratis had phoned the prosecutors and told them he had something to tell Clark or whoever was the appropriate person but he didn't want to talk about it over the phone. So Goldberg went to Parker Center and met with him. Peratis told Goldberg that the testimony he gave in the preliminary hearing about drawing approximately eight milliliters of blood from Simpson was mistaken.
The Prosecution Responds, Hank Goldberg
"When Thano told me that this testimony was mistaken, I asked, simply, "Oh? How so?"
"Well, I heard from a friend that Johnnie Cochran had claimed during opening statements, that I drew precisely eight milliliters of blood and that blood was missing." He added haltingly, "I--I thought to myself, Thano--Thano, you screwed up. So I came to work the next day, and I did a little experiment."

Peratis showed Goldberg the experiment he did filling a syringe with water one milliliter at a time until he got to how full the blood was of Simpson's blood. By looking at it. Goldberg asked him how much was in it and Peratis told him 6.5 milliliters and that it could have been more or less. As high as seven milliliters or as low as only six milliliters.

Goldberg wrote,
"I thought. This guy doesn't really have any clear idea of how much he drew. "Thano, let me ask you something. Have you ever measured how much blood you drew before?"
"No. We don't measure it," he said.
"Did you write down anywhere how much you drew from Simpson, on a form, maybe? or maybe even on some personal notes somewhere?"
"No."

After asking some follow up questions, I thanked him for his time and walked , almost jogged, back to my office. During the walk I thought. I found the so called missing blood. I immediately began the process of mentally calculating the impact of this discovery. Let's see. The entire defense contention that there's blood missing from Simpson's vial presupposes that we know precisely how much blood was in the vial to begin with. IF it were only 6.5 milliliters rather than 8 milliliters, there would be no missing blood."

That's the bottom line. The claim that blood was missing From Simpson's reference sample has no credibility since no one knows precisely how much blood was in the vial to begin with.

bobaugust

bobaugust

04-29-2008, 08:01 AM

Here is section 1202.

"1202. Evidence of a statement or other conduct by a declarant that
is inconsistent with a statement by such declarant received in
evidence as hearsay evidence is not inadmissible for the purpose of
attacking the credibility of the declarant though he is not given and
has not had an opportunity to explain or to deny such inconsistent
statement or other conduct. Any other evidence offered to attack or
support the credibility of the declarant is admissible if it would
have been admissible had the declarant been a witness at the hearing.
For the purposes of this section, the deponent of a deposition taken
in the action in which it is offered shall be deemed to be a hearsay
declarant."

The fact that the original statement was not hearsay means that the declarant (peratis) was a witness at the preliminary hearing. It would be admissible only if he had not testified. This section does not address testimony and only addresses statements. The only time a statement given under oath is addressed is when the declarant gave the statement in a deposition and that would make it hearsay. As I have said, Ito allowed the video only because Neufield was unprepared to argue against it.

If Peratis had be available to be called as a witness he would have testified to the same thing he said on the video tape. The fact is that this issue was discussed in the criminal trial and Judge Ito ruled that the video interview could be introduced for Peratis to contradict his previous testimony. One of the most knowledgeable attorneys regarding California law, Gerald Uelmen, agreed with the ruling.

bobaugust

William Anthony

04-29-2008, 09:30 AM

If Peratis had be available to be called as a witness he would have testified to the same thing he said on the video tape. The fact is that this issue was discussed in the criminal trial and Judge Ito ruled that the video interview could be introduced for Peratis to contradict his previous testimony. One of the most knowledgeable attorneys regarding California law, Gerald Uelmen, agreed with the ruling.

bobaugust

Gerald Ulemen should not have been in the role of a lawyer. He is an attorney and a professor on the law. The evidence code is clear. It says at a HEARING. They were in a TRIAL. Peratis testified at the preliminary HEARING. The fact is that Ito was annoyed because Neufield was not prepared to argue the point. I think Neufield, as I believe most legal scholars and practitioners would have thought, thought it was a non-issue. I think the only reason Ito allowed it was because of his annoyance with Neufield's unpreparedness. The defense did not need to appeal the ruling since they won.

William Anthony

04-29-2008, 09:31 AM

martin II, The fact is that Peratis contacted the prosecutors about this not the other way around. Peratis had phoned the prosecutors and told them he had something to tell Clark or whoever was the appropriate person but he didn't want to talk about it over the phone. So Goldberg went to Parker Center and met with him. Peratis told Goldberg that the testimony he gave in the preliminary hearing about drawing approximately eight milliliters of blood from Simpson was mistaken.
The Prosecution Responds, Hank Goldberg
"When Thano told me that this testimony was mistaken, I asked, simply, "Oh? How so?"
"Well, I heard from a friend that Johnnie Cochran had claimed during opening statements, that I drew precisely eight milliliters of blood and that blood was missing." He added haltingly, "I--I thought to myself, Thano--Thano, you screwed up. So I came to work the next day, and I did a little experiment."

Peratis showed Goldberg the experiment he did filling a syringe with water one milliliter at a time until he got to how full the blood was of Simpson's blood. By looking at it. Goldberg asked him how much was in it and Peratis told him 6.5 milliliters and that it could have been more or less. As high as seven milliliters or as low as only six milliliters.

Goldberg wrote,
"I thought. This guy doesn't really have any clear idea of how much he drew. "Thano, let me ask you something. Have you ever measured how much blood you drew before?"
"No. We don't measure it," he said.
"Did you write down anywhere how much you drew from Simpson, on a form, maybe? or maybe even on some personal notes somewhere?"
"No."

After asking some follow up questions, I thanked him for his time and walked , almost jogged, back to my office. During the walk I thought. I found the so called missing blood. I immediately began the process of mentally calculating the impact of this discovery. Let's see. The entire defense contention that there's blood missing from Simpson's vial presupposes that we know precisely how much blood was in the vial to begin with. IF it were only 6.5 milliliters rather than 8 milliliters, there would be no missing blood."

That's the bottom line. The claim that blood was missing From Simpson's reference sample has no credibility since no one knows precisely how much blood was in the vial to begin with.

bobaugust

This from a member of the prosecution team.:)

bobaugust

04-29-2008, 03:10 PM

Gerald Ulemen should not have been in the role of a lawyer. He is an attorney and a professor on the law. The evidence code is clear. It says at a HEARING. They were in a TRIAL. Peratis testified at the preliminary HEARING. The fact is that Ito was annoyed because Neufield was not prepared to argue the point. I think Neufield, as I believe most legal scholars and practitioners would have thought, thought it was a non-issue. I think the only reason Ito allowed it was because of his annoyance with Neufield's unpreparedness. The defense did not need to appeal the ruling since they won.

Gerald Uelmen should not have been in the role of a lawyer? That's funny. I'm sorry but I have no respect for any of your opinions regarding your interpretations of the law. As far as I'm concerned you have no credibility since your ridiculous arguments and false claims based on Fuhrman's answer to an improper compound question. Something you still have never admitted you were wrong about. The fact is that Hank Goldberg made his argument, Ito ruled, and Uelmen agreed.

bobaugust

bobaugust

04-29-2008, 03:13 PM

This from a member of the prosecution team.:)

That's right a real lawyer who argued this issue in the criminal trial. The reality is the defense claim that blood was missing from Simpson's reference sample had no credibility since no one knew precisely how much blood was in the vial to begin with.

bobaugust

William Anthony

04-29-2008, 03:48 PM

Gerald Uelmen should not have been in the role of a lawyer? That's funny. I'm sorry but I have no respect for any of your opinions regarding your interpretations of the law. As far as I'm concerned you have no credibility since your ridiculous arguments and false claims based on Fuhrman's answer to an improper compound question. Something you still have never admitted you were wrong about. The fact is that Hank Goldberg made his argument, Ito ruled, and Uelmen agreed.

bobaugust

As you are well aware, Uelmen had not stepped into a courtroom to argue a case in years. The definition of a lawyer is someone who practices law. An attorney is simply someone with a Juris Doctorate degree and has passed the bar. In order for anyone's statement that they have no respect for my opinions to matter to me, that person must have first shown me that he/she knows what respectable means. You may choose to believe that MF answered a compound question and, if he did, he answered yes to both parts. The fact is that it mattered not that Uelmen agreed, since at the time the argument was made, Neufield was the lawyer to argue the admissibility of the staged video. The fact is that Ito was annoyed because Neufield was unprepared and allowed the video. I respect your disrespect to me because I and others know that the catalyst behind it is the inability to argue logically without showing disrespect at a challenge.

William Anthony

04-29-2008, 03:50 PM

William Anthony

04-29-2008, 04:24 PM

William Anthony

04-29-2008, 04:45 PM

That's right a real lawyer who argued this issue in the criminal trial. The reality is the defense claim that blood was missing from Simpson's reference sample had no credibility since no one knew precisely how much blood was in the vial to begin with.

bobaugust

Here is a link with Ito's instructions.

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9-23/instructions.html

Here is what he said about Peratis.

Testimony given by a witness at a prior proceeding, who was unavailable at this trial, has been read to you from the reporters transcript of that proceeding. You must consider such testimony as if it had been given before you in this trial. With the exception of Nurse Thano Peratis, evidence that on some former occasion, a witness made a statement or statements that were inconsistent or consistent with his or her testimony in this trial, may be considered by you, not only for the purpose of testing the credibility of the witness, but also as evidence of the truth of the facts, as stated by the witness on such former occasion. Evidence of the Thano Peratis video tape statement, which is People's exhibit 615, which may include statements that were consistent or inconsistent with his former testimony, presented by reading the transcript of his former testimony, given before both- excuse me, given at the preliminary hearing, may be considered by you solely for the purpose of testing the credibility of Mr. Peratis's former testimony. If you disbelieve a witness testimony that he or she no longer remember a certain event, such testimony is inconsistent with a prior statement or statements by him or her, describing that event. Every person who testifies under oath is a witness. You are the sole judges of the believability of a witness and the weight to be given the testimony of each witness. In determining the believability of a witness, you may consider anything that has a tendency and reason to prove or disprove the truthfulness or the testimony of the witness including, but not limited to any of the following. The extent of the opportunity or the ability of the witness to see or hear or otherwise become aware of any matter about which the witness has testified. The affects, if any from the use of consumption of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicants, by the witness at the time of the events about which the witness has testified, or at the time of his or her testimony The ability of the witness to remember or to communicate any matter about which the witness has testified. The character and quality of that testimony. The demeanor and manner of the witness while testifying. The existence of nonexistence of a biased interest or other motive. Evidence of the existence or non-existence of any fact testified to by the witness. The attitude of the witness toward this action or toward the giving of testimony. A statement previously made by the witness that is consistent or inconsistent with the testimony of the witness. The character of the witness for honesty or truthfulness or their opposites. An admission by the witness of untruthfulness.

Notice that he said evidence of the truth on a former occasion.

martin II

04-29-2008, 04:56 PM

martin, there has to be a policy in place for it to have been violated. There's no point in discussing a policy that may or may not exist.

I dissageee

If there was a procedure in placeeratis ignored it. If there was no procedures there should have been one.

William Anthony

04-29-2008, 04:59 PM

here is another link that show the prosecution had to give notice before deposing Peratis.

http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/getcode.html?file=./ccp/02001-03000/2025.210-2025.280

weezer

04-29-2008, 05:15 PM

I dissageee

If there was a procedure in placeeratis ignored it. If there was no procedures there should have been one.

and IF a frog had wings. . . . .

bobaugust

04-29-2008, 06:33 PM

As you are well aware, Uelmen had not stepped into a courtroom to argue a case in years. The definition of a lawyer is someone who practices law. An attorney is simply someone with a Juris Doctorate degree and has passed the bar. In order for anyone's statement that they have no respect for my opinions to matter to me, that person must have first shown me that he/she knows what respectable means. You may choose to believe that MF answered a compound question and, if he did, he answered yes to both parts. The fact is that it mattered not that Uelmen agreed, since at the time the argument was made, Neufield was the lawyer to argue the admissibility of the staged video. The fact is that Ito was annoyed because Neufield was unprepared and allowed the video. I respect your disrespect to me because I and others know that the catalyst behind it is the inability to argue logically without showing disrespect at a challenge.

Here we go again. You now say that when Mark Fuhrman answered an improper compound question with a one word answer he answered both part parts of the question? Unbelievable. You are evidently still unable to comprehend why a one word answer to an improper compound question is unreliable. Bailey understood this and followed up with a specific question that Fuhrman answered. His answer as well as all the evidence in this case contradicts your ridiculous, illogical, false claim that Mark Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy. That's why I have no respect for your opinions.
bobaugust

William Anthony

04-29-2008, 09:50 PM

Here we go again. You now say that when Mark Fuhrman answered an improper compound question with a one word answer he answered both part parts of the question? Unbelievable. You are evidently still unable to comprehend why a one word answer to an improper compound question is unreliable. Bailey understood this and followed up with a specific question that Fuhrman answered. His answer as well as all the evidence in this case contradicts your ridiculous, illogical, false claim that Mark Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy. That's why I have no respect for your opinions.
bobaugust

Let me do it this way so you can respect his answer. In regard to a question about one glove, Bailey said that he was asked that question in the preliminary hearing, his tongue slipped and he said them He replied, yes. The proof that he understood the question is the fact that he claimed to have been referring to the hat and the glove. Bailey then reminded him that it was clear on the tape that he said the word them and asked again if that was a slip of the tongue. When he was trapped, he said, no. The fact that he admitted it was not a slip of the tongue meant he saw two gloves at Bundy. That is why Bailey responded, it was not, Okay. As I have said, it would matter if someone had no respect for my opinion, if the person was knowledgeable about trial practice and the law and knew what respectable was.

William Anthony

04-29-2008, 10:07 PM

bobaugust

04-30-2008, 12:14 AM

Let me do it this way so you can respect his answer. In regard to a question about one glove, Bailey said that he was asked that question in the preliminary hearing, his tongue slipped and he said them He replied, yes. The proof that he understood the question is the fact that he claimed to have been referring to the hat and the glove. Bailey then reminded him that it was clear on the tape that he said the word them and asked again if that was a slip of the tongue. When he was trapped, he said, no. The fact that he admitted it was not a slip of the tongue meant he saw two gloves at Bundy. That is why Bailey responded, it was not, Okay. As I have said, it would matter if someone had no respect for my opinion, if the person was knowledgeable about trial practice and the law and knew what respectable was.

You're outright wrong and you're still making your same old ridiculous, illogical, false claims. First of all in the preliminary hearing when Uelmen asked Fuhrman about seeing one glove Fuhrman answered him using the words "the glove." Fuhrman never said "two gloves" and he never said "gloves."

July 5, 1994
Q How far would you say you were from where the bodies were located?
A I was directly above the female victim, which was probably three feet. The male victim would have
been ten feet, twelve feet.
Q All right. And from that vantage point, you first observed the glove that you told us about?
A Not first, no.
Q When did you first observe it?

A We had flashlights. We were looking at the female victim. We looked at the male victim. I noticed the glove when I walked around to the -- after I exited the residence the first time and walked around to the side -- or the north side, north perimeter of 875 Bundy.

Fuhrman continued to explain what he saw.
There's an iron fence and through that iron fence you can get very close to the male victim. And looking there I could see them down at his feet.
Q All right. The glove was located at the feet of the male victim?
A Yes.

When Fuhrman used the word "them" he was referring to the evidence he could see at the feet of the male victim, a glove and a knit cap. Uelmen understood that as well as every one else in the court room understood that.

On February 14, 1995 in the criminal trial Bailey first asked Fuhrman about his use of the word "them" in his preliminary hearing testimony and Fuhrman explained to him what he meant.

DID YOU USE THE WORD "THEM" IN YOUR ANSWER ON JULY 5TH?
A YES, SIR. YES, SIR.
Q AND WAS THE LAST ITEM TO WHICH "THEM" COULD HAVE APPLIED IN YOUR NARRATIVE THE WORD "GLOVE"?
A SINGULAR, YES.
Q I'M SIMPLY ASKING WHETHER GLOVE, LINE 14, WAS THE ITEM YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT JUST PRIOR TO SAYING "I SAW THEM AT HIS FEET"?
A "THEM," I WAS REFERRING TO THE KNIT CAP, THE GLOVE.

On February 14, 1995 in the criminal trial Bailey asked Fuhrman specifically about one glove.

Q BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. YOU SAW ONE GLOVE THERE, CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q DID YOU LOOK AROUND THE AREA AT ALL IN ANY WAY?
A WHAT AREA IS THIS, SIR?
Q THE AREA NEAR THE FENCE. THE GLOVE WAS ALMOST AT THE FENCE, WAS IT NOT?
A NO, IT WASN'T. IT WASN'T EVEN CLOSE TO THE FENCE, SIR.
Q WHAT WAS IT CLOSE TO?
A IT WAS CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK.
Q ALL RIGHT. BUT WASN'T THERE SOME RAILINGS NEARBY NEAR GOLDMAN'S BODY?
A YES, BY MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY BUT NOT BY THE GLOVE AND THE HAT.
Q DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT LEAVES WERE CASCADING DOWN OVER THE GLOVE MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO SEE?
A YES. THERE WAS A PLANT THAT HAD LEAVES THAT WENT UP AND THEN FELL DOWN, A BROAD LEAVE PLANT, AND YET COVERED PORTIONS OF IT STILL VISIBLE, BUT IT WAS CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE NORTH FENCE.
Q ALL RIGHT. COULD YOU SEE THAT WITHOUT THE AID OF THE FLASHLIGHT?
A YOU COULD SEE THE OBJECTS BUT NOT AS WELL AS YOU COULD WITH THE FLASHLIGHT.
Q ALL RIGHT. IF YOU HAD SHINED THAT FLASHLIGHT ON THAT GLOVE, THE LEFT-HAND GLOVE, WOULD IT HAVE ILLUMINATED IT BETTER THAN THE AMBIENT LIGHT WAS DOING?
A YES, SIR.

On March 13 in the criminal trial Bailey asked Fuhrman again about his preliminary testimony.

Q WELL, LOOK, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT TESTIMONY, ISN'T THERE, THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VIEW THROUGH THE FENCE?
A NO, THERE ISN'T.
Q THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, ISN'T THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A NO.

Bailey then asked an improper question, a compound question.

Q WHEN DISCUSSING THIS EVENT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVE, YOUR TONGUE SLIPPED AND YOU SAID "THEM," DIDN'T YOU?

Fuhrman answered yes, because he did say the word them. He never testified his tongue slipped..

A YES.
Q AND YOU HAVE EXAMINED THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, HAVEN'T YOU?
A YES.
Q AND YOU KNOW IT HAS BEEN PLAYED ON VIDEO TO THE JURY? THE WORD "THEM" IS CLEAR?
A YES.

Bailey understood that he had asked a improper question and that Fuhrman's "yes" answer was not clear. Any lawyer would know that. So Bailey attempted to clarify it by asking Fuhrman specifically if he had a slip of the tongue and Fuhrman answered "no" because he did not have a slip of the tongue since he was referring to the glove and the knit cap when he said the word "them" just as he previously testified.

Q THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?
A NO.
Q IT WAS NOT? OKAY.

Bailey then changed the subject and this issue was never spoken about again by either Bailey or any other of Simpson's defense attorneys. You William, who is supposedly studying to be a lawyer, are the only person besides your wife who has ever made the ridiculous, illogical, false claim that Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron Goldman's feet. A claim that is contradicted by every witness who testified regarding what the evidence was under the plant leaves including the witnesses who were at Bundy two hours before Fuhrman ever arrived there. Not only are you wrong you refuse to admit you are wrong just as you have refused to admit to being wrong about other ridiculous arguments you've attempted to make. That's why I have no respect for you.

The funny thing about your ridiculous argument is that if Fuhrman had answered "no" to Bailey's compound question you would be arguing that Fuhrman lied by denying he said the word "them." That's why compound questions are improper and one word answers to them unreliable. You don't have to thank me for pointing this out to you.

bobaugust

bobaugust

04-30-2008, 12:15 AM

Here is a perfect example of MF displaying that he knew how to answer a compound question.

"Q: IT MIGHT NOT. UNLESS IT WAS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE AND IF YOU IN FACT SAID IT, YOU HAVE NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER FOR THAT MISTAKE? IS THAT THE WAY YOU WISH TO LEAVE IT?

A: NO. I WISH TO LEAVE IT TO SAY THAT THERE WAS NO BLOOD THAT I OBSERVED INSIDE THE BRONCO PRIOR TO GOING INTO THE RESIDENCE THAT MORNING. "

I hope you can now respect MF's knowledge and answers. I do even though I find him not worthy of my respect. I believe you are aware of what Bailey got him to admit after this response. He probably felt disrespect for Bailey after Bailey logically trapped him.

You and your word "trapped" again. Funny. I see no trap. Fuhrman had simply misspoke and never realized he had used the word "in" instead of "on" referring to the blood that was seen on the outside of the Bronco before the police entered Simpson's estate.

There was no trap and it wasn't a slip of the tongue. None of the detectives saw blood inside the Bronco before they entered Simpson's estate. It wasn't until it got light outside that blood was seen inside the car by looking through the windows.

bobaugust

William Anthony

04-30-2008, 07:11 AM

You're outright wrong and you're still making your same old ridiculous, illogical, false claims. First of all in the preliminary hearing when Uelmen asked Fuhrman about seeing one glove Fuhrman answered him using the words "the glove." Fuhrman never said "two gloves" and he never said "gloves."

July 5, 1994
Q How far would you say you were from where the bodies were located?
A I was directly above the female victim, which was probably three feet. The male victim would have
been ten feet, twelve feet.
Q All right. And from that vantage point, you first observed the glove that you told us about?
A Not first, no.
Q When did you first observe it?

A We had flashlights. We were looking at the female victim. We looked at the male victim. I noticed the glove when I walked around to the -- after I exited the residence the first time and walked around to the side -- or the north side, north perimeter of 875 Bundy.

Fuhrman continued to explain what he saw.
There's an iron fence and through that iron fence you can get very close to the male victim. And looking there I could see them down at his feet.
Q All right. The glove was located at the feet of the male victim?
A Yes.

When Fuhrman used the word "them" he was referring to the evidence he could see at the feet of the male victim, a glove and a knit cap. Uelmen understood that as well as every one else in the court room understood that.

On February 14, 1995 in the criminal trial Bailey first asked Fuhrman about his use of the word "them" in his preliminary hearing testimony and Fuhrman explained to him what he meant.

DID YOU USE THE WORD "THEM" IN YOUR ANSWER ON JULY 5TH?
A YES, SIR. YES, SIR.
Q AND WAS THE LAST ITEM TO WHICH "THEM" COULD HAVE APPLIED IN YOUR NARRATIVE THE WORD "GLOVE"?
A SINGULAR, YES.
Q I'M SIMPLY ASKING WHETHER GLOVE, LINE 14, WAS THE ITEM YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT JUST PRIOR TO SAYING "I SAW THEM AT HIS FEET"?
A "THEM," I WAS REFERRING TO THE KNIT CAP, THE GLOVE.

On February 14, 1995 in the criminal trial Bailey asked Fuhrman specifically about one glove.

Q BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. YOU SAW ONE GLOVE THERE, CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q DID YOU LOOK AROUND THE AREA AT ALL IN ANY WAY?
A WHAT AREA IS THIS, SIR?
Q THE AREA NEAR THE FENCE. THE GLOVE WAS ALMOST AT THE FENCE, WAS IT NOT?
A NO, IT WASN'T. IT WASN'T EVEN CLOSE TO THE FENCE, SIR.
Q WHAT WAS IT CLOSE TO?
A IT WAS CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK.
Q ALL RIGHT. BUT WASN'T THERE SOME RAILINGS NEARBY NEAR GOLDMAN'S BODY?
A YES, BY MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY BUT NOT BY THE GLOVE AND THE HAT.
Q DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT LEAVES WERE CASCADING DOWN OVER THE GLOVE MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO SEE?
A YES. THERE WAS A PLANT THAT HAD LEAVES THAT WENT UP AND THEN FELL DOWN, A BROAD LEAVE PLANT, AND YET COVERED PORTIONS OF IT STILL VISIBLE, BUT IT WAS CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE NORTH FENCE.
Q ALL RIGHT. COULD YOU SEE THAT WITHOUT THE AID OF THE FLASHLIGHT?
A YOU COULD SEE THE OBJECTS BUT NOT AS WELL AS YOU COULD WITH THE FLASHLIGHT.
Q ALL RIGHT. IF YOU HAD SHINED THAT FLASHLIGHT ON THAT GLOVE, THE LEFT-HAND GLOVE, WOULD IT HAVE ILLUMINATED IT BETTER THAN THE AMBIENT LIGHT WAS DOING?
A YES, SIR.

On March 13 in the criminal trial Bailey asked Fuhrman again about his preliminary testimony.

Q WELL, LOOK, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT TESTIMONY, ISN'T THERE, THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VIEW THROUGH THE FENCE?
A NO, THERE ISN'T.
Q THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, ISN'T THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A NO.

Bailey then asked an improper question, a compound question.

Q WHEN DISCUSSING THIS EVENT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVE, YOUR TONGUE SLIPPED AND YOU SAID "THEM," DIDN'T YOU?

Fuhrman answered yes, because he did say the word them. He never testified his tongue slipped..

A YES.
Q AND YOU HAVE EXAMINED THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, HAVEN'T YOU?
A YES.
Q AND YOU KNOW IT HAS BEEN PLAYED ON VIDEO TO THE JURY? THE WORD "THEM" IS CLEAR?
A YES.

Bailey understood that he had asked a improper question and that Fuhrman's "yes" answer was not clear. Any lawyer would know that. So Bailey attempted to clarify it by asking Fuhrman specifically if he had a slip of the tongue and Fuhrman answered "no" because he did not have a slip of the tongue since he was referring to the glove and the knit cap when he said the word "them" just as he previously testified.

Q THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?
A NO.
Q IT WAS NOT? OKAY.

Bailey then changed the subject and this issue was never spoken about again by either Bailey or any other of Simpson's defense attorneys. You William, who is supposedly studying to be a lawyer, are the only person besides your wife who has ever made the ridiculous, illogical, false claim that Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron Goldman's feet. A claim that is contradicted by every witness who testified regarding what the evidence was under the plant leaves including the witnesses who were at Bundy two hours before Fuhrman ever arrived there. Not only are you wrong you refuse to admit you are wrong just as you have refused to admit to being wrong about other ridiculous arguments you've attempted to make. That's why I have no respect for you.

The funny thing about your ridiculous argument is that if Fuhrman had answered "no" to Bailey's compound question you would be arguing that Fuhrman lied by denying he said the word "them." That's why compound questions are improper and one word answers to them unreliable. You don't have to thank me for pointing this out to you.

bobaugust

I am used to speaking with people who have some knowledge of the law and q and a sessions. The question was whether his tongue slipped or not and MF said yes and then changed it to no and claimed to have been speaking of the hat and the glove when he was not asked about a hat in five pages of testimony before he was asked about a glove. Contrary, to your interpretation, Bailey asked questions about MF's marine training and being able to transport items in his socks, under his trousers and wrapped up in baggies. The defense did in fact speak of the glove being planted and indicated that MF had a reason for going behind Kato's quarters alone, and then possibly disturbing the scene by taking the detectives back there one by one. When asked after being reminded that there was a taped of MF saying the word them (it seems that tapes always trap MF) did his tongue slip, MF said No. Bailey responded Okay, because he realized that MF had admitted that he saw more than one glove when he answered the original question about one glove. The same thing with the word in, except MF tried to blame it on the court reporter. I posted the testimony showing that MF knew how to answer a compound question.
The respectable thing for someone to do would be to admit that they had little knowledge of the law or the art of cross exmination, but based on their understanding, they did not believe MF was trapped or claim that the matter was dropped by the defense, but to admit, that they either forgot or did not connect the questions about what MF did behind the quarters and his marine training with the other testimony.

William Anthony

04-30-2008, 09:47 AM

On February 14, 1995 in the criminal trial Bailey first asked Fuhrman about his use of the word "them" in his preliminary hearing testimony and Fuhrman explained to him what he meant.

DID YOU USE THE WORD "THEM" IN YOUR ANSWER ON JULY 5TH?
A YES, SIR. YES, SIR.
Q AND WAS THE LAST ITEM TO WHICH "THEM" COULD HAVE APPLIED IN YOUR NARRATIVE THE WORD "GLOVE"?
A SINGULAR, YES.
Q I'M SIMPLY ASKING WHETHER GLOVE, LINE 14, WAS THE ITEM YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT JUST PRIOR TO SAYING "I SAW THEM AT HIS FEET"?
A "THEM," I WAS REFERRING TO THE KNIT CAP, THE GLOVE.

On February 14, 1995 in the criminal trial Bailey asked Fuhrman specifically about one glove.

Q BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. YOU SAW ONE GLOVE THERE, CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q DID YOU LOOK AROUND THE AREA AT ALL IN ANY WAY?
A WHAT AREA IS THIS, SIR?
Q THE AREA NEAR THE FENCE. THE GLOVE WAS ALMOST AT THE FENCE, WAS IT NOT?
A NO, IT WASN'T. IT WASN'T EVEN CLOSE TO THE FENCE, SIR.
Q WHAT WAS IT CLOSE TO?
A IT WAS CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK.
Q ALL RIGHT. BUT WASN'T THERE SOME RAILINGS NEARBY NEAR GOLDMAN'S BODY?
A YES, BY MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY BUT NOT BY THE GLOVE AND THE HAT.
Q DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT LEAVES WERE CASCADING DOWN OVER THE GLOVE MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO SEE?
A YES. THERE WAS A PLANT THAT HAD LEAVES THAT WENT UP AND THEN FELL DOWN, A BROAD LEAVE PLANT, AND YET COVERED PORTIONS OF IT STILL VISIBLE, BUT IT WAS CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE NORTH FENCE.
Q ALL RIGHT. COULD YOU SEE THAT WITHOUT THE AID OF THE FLASHLIGHT?
A YOU COULD SEE THE OBJECTS BUT NOT AS WELL AS YOU COULD WITH THE FLASHLIGHT.
Q ALL RIGHT. IF YOU HAD SHINED THAT FLASHLIGHT ON THAT GLOVE, THE LEFT-HAND GLOVE, WOULD IT HAVE ILLUMINATED IT BETTER THAN THE AMBIENT LIGHT WAS DOING?
A YES, SIR.

On March 13 in the criminal trial Bailey asked Fuhrman again about his preliminary testimony.

Q WELL, LOOK, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT TESTIMONY, ISN'T THERE, THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VIEW THROUGH THE FENCE?
A NO, THERE ISN'T.
Q THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, ISN'T THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A NO.

Bailey then asked an improper question, a compound question.

Q WHEN DISCUSSING THIS EVENT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVE, YOUR TONGUE SLIPPED AND YOU SAID "THEM," DIDN'T YOU?

Fuhrman answered yes, because he did say the word them. He never testified his tongue slipped..

A YES.
Q AND YOU HAVE EXAMINED THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, HAVEN'T YOU?
A YES.
Q AND YOU KNOW IT HAS BEEN PLAYED ON VIDEO TO THE JURY? THE WORD "THEM" IS CLEAR?
A YES.

Bailey understood that he had asked a improper question and that Fuhrman's "yes" answer was not clear. Any lawyer would know that. So Bailey attempted to clarify it by asking Fuhrman specifically if he had a slip of the tongue and Fuhrman answered "no" because he did not have a slip of the tongue since he was referring to the glove and the knit cap when he said the word "them" just as he previously testified.

Q THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?
A NO.
Q IT WAS NOT? OKAY.

That's why I have no respect for you.

bobaugust

There was no testimony from MF on February 14th; there was testimony from MF on March 14th. Out of respect for this community, I will post the relevant portion that you did not include in your post.

"Q: BY MR. BAILEY: NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IN CROSS-EXAMINATION MR. UELMEN DIRECTED SOME QUESTIONS TO YOU ABOUT YOUR ACTIVITIES AT BUNDY AND YOU DESCRIBED, AS YOU DID FOR US -- PAGE 64 AT THE TOP -- THAT: "HAVING BEEN UNABLE TO SEE THE BODIES FROM YOUR ORIGINAL POSITION TO A SATISFACTORY DEGREE, RISKE TOOK YOU AROUND DOROTHY UP THE ALLEY AND IN THROUGH THE HOUSE SO YOU COULD COME OUT THE FRONT DOOR AND HAVE A BETTER VANTAGE POINT AT THE TOP OF THE STEPS WITHOUT WALKING THROUGH THE BLOOD," CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AT THE TOP OF PAGE 64 YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT, AREN'T YOU?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: OKAY. "QUESTION: HOW FAR WOULD YOU SAY YOU WERE FROM WHERE THE BODIES WERE LOCATED? "ANSWER: I WAS DIRECTLY ABOVE THE FEMALE VICTIM WHICH WAS PROBABLY THREE FEET. THE MALE VICTIM WOULD HAVE BEEN TEN FEET, TWELVE FEET. "QUESTION: ALL RIGHT. AND FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT YOU FIRST OBSERVED THE GLOVE THAT YOU TOLD US ABOUT? "ANSWER: NOT FIRST, NO. "QUESTION: WHEN DID YOU FIRST OBSERVE IT? "ANSWER: WE HAD FLASHLIGHTS. WE WERE LOOKING AT THE FEMALE VICTIM. WE LOOKED AT THE MALE VICTIM. I NOTICED THE GLOVE WHEN I WALKED AROUND TO THE -- AFTER I EXITED THE RESIDENCE THE FIRST TIME AND WALKED AROUND TO THE SIDE OR THE NORTH SIDE, NORTH PERIMETER OF BUNDY OF 875 BUNDY, THERE IS AN IRON FENCE AND THROUGH THAT IRON FENCE YOU CAN GET VERY CLOSE TO THE MALE VICTIM, AND LOOKING THERE I COULD SEE THEM AT HIS FEET." DID YOU USE THE WORD "THEM" IN YOUR ANSWER ON JULY 5TH?

A: YES, SIR. YES, SIR.

Q: AND WAS THE LAST ITEM TO WHICH "THEM" COULD HAVE APPLIED IN YOUR NARRATIVE THE WORD "GLOVE"?

A: SINGULAR, YES.

Q: I'M SIMPLY ASKING WHETHER GLOVE, LINE 14, WAS THE ITEM YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT JUST PRIOR TO SAYING "I SAW THEM AT HIS FEET"?

A: "THEM," I WAS REFERRING TO THE KNIT CAP, THE GLOVE.

Q: SHOW ME ANYWHERE ON THAT PAGE WHERE THE KNIT CAP IS MENTIONED? CAN YOU?

A: THAT PAGE, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU SEE ANYTHING ON THE PRIOR PAGE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, ABOUT THE KNIT CAP?

A: DO YOU WANT ME TO LOOK AT THAT PRIOR PAGE?

Q: SURE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT. 63.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) I DO NOT.

Q: PAGE 65, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: THE COURT REPORTER NEEDS TO CHANGE HER PAPER.

MR. BAILEY: OKAY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: PAGE 65, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, LINE 8: "DOES THAT PHOTO," REFERRING TO A PHOTO "ACCURATELY DEPICT THE GLOVE AT THE LOCATION WHERE YOU SAW IT? "TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES. "QUESTION: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY PICK UP THE GLOVE TO EXAMINE IT, DID YOU? "ANSWER: NOT AT THAT TIME, NO." DID YOU GIVE THAT ANSWER?

A: YES.

Q: AT WHAT TIME DID YOU PICK UP THE GLOVE?

A: I DIDN'T. I TURNED THE GLOVE OVER WITH A PEN WHEN I RETURNED TO THE BUNDY SCENE AFTER BEING AT ROCKINGHAM.

Q: AND THAT IS WHAT YOU MEANT WHEN YOU SAID, "DIDN'T PICK UP THE GLOVE AT THAT TIME"? YOU HAD IN MIND TURNING IT OVER WITH A PEN?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS MR. UELMEN'S WORDS AND THE QUESTION. I DIDN'T USE THE WORD "PICK UP."

Q: BUT THE QUESTION WAS PUT TO YOU, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. HE SAID: "AND YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY PICK THE GLOVE UP TO EXAMINE IT, DID YOU?" AND YOUR ANSWER WAS: "NOT AT THAT TIME, NO." DO YOU SEE ANYTHING IN THAT ANSWER THAT REFERS TO TURNING IT OVER WITH A PEN AT ANY TIME.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NOT ON THAT PAGE, NO.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU SEE ANOTHER PAGE WHERE YOU INDICATED THAT THAT IS WHAT YOU MEANT BY LATER PICKING UP THE GLOVE?

A: NO, SIR.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, HE WASN'T ASKED. THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. SPEAKING OBJECTION, COUNSEL.

MS. CLARK: SORRY. "

Do you understand the reason for the admonition for the speaking objection?

William Anthony

04-30-2008, 10:06 AM

That's why I have no respect for you.

bobaugust

You have now overstepped the limit. Your lack of respect for me is met with a greater amount of no respect for you. Here is why. You sprue your hatred across the board without any respect for the truth. You couch your dislike for certain people by claiming they lied but claiming others of a different race where mistaken or made human error. Please, do not try to say that you called one white person a liar, because you did not do so until I pointed out the race of the people you called liars. You take things out of context and delete some things, blaming it on your spell checker. Why would you be spell checking an article when it was supposed to be posted as a quote of the article? The moderator of this board at that time accepted that facade of an excuse. you posted a lie as to what the civil verdict meant. You posted ole black joe on your website, according to another poster. Imho, most of your theories are as dumb as a box of rocks. The only thing that surpasses my contempt for your disrespect for me is your assumed and undeserved arrogance. You used the term legitimate evidence but try to mock my achievements toward becoming a lawyer. I take the statement back about the only thing that surpasses my contempt for your disrespect for me and include your ignorance of the law and your rude comments as exceeding my contempt for your disrespect. Not only do you disrespect me but also this community when you post what the civil verdict meant without any regard, if you had knowledge, of its true meaning.

martin II

04-30-2008, 10:43 AM

You have now overstepped the limit. Your lack of respect for me is met with a greater amount of no respect for you. Here is why. You sprue your hatred across the board without any respect for the truth. You couch your dislike for certain people by claiming they lied but claiming others of a different race where mistaken or made human error. Please, do not try to say that you called one white person a liar, because you did not do so until I pointed out the race of the people you called liars. You take things out of context and delete some things, blaming it on your spell checker. Why would you be spell checking an article when it was supposed to be posted as a quote of the article? The moderator of this board at that time accepted that facade of an excuse. you posted a lie as to what the civil verdict meant. You posted ole black joe on your website, according to another poster. Imho, most of your theories are as dumb as a box of rocks. The only thing that surpasses my contempt for your disrespect for me is your assumed and undeserved arrogance. You used the term legitimate evidence but try to mock my achievements toward becoming a lawyer. I take the statement back about the only thing that surpasses my contempt for your disrespect for me and include your ignorance of the law and your rude comments as exceeding my contempt for your disrespect. Not only do you disrespect me but also this community when you post what the civil verdict meant without any regard, if you had knowledge, of its true meaning.

I agree
martin II

weezer

04-30-2008, 12:55 PM

William Anthony

04-30-2008, 03:45 PM

over-reacting just a little? :tongue:

No, I am not overacting. When someone says they disrespect you it is entirely different from say they disrespect your opinion. I am of the opinion that respect is not earned but is innately part of being human. Everyone is deserving of respect until they act or speak disrespectfully toward you. It is not earned but is lost, as in the example of the poster who disrespected me and others on this board.

weezer

04-30-2008, 04:41 PM

No, I am not overacting. When someone says they disrespect you it is entirely different from say they disrespect your opinion. I am of the opinion that respect is not earned but is innately part of being human. Everyone is deserving of respect until they act or speak disrespectfully toward you. It is not earned but is lost, as in the example of the poster who disrespected me and others on this board.

You have been so disrespectful of bobaugust -- I'm surprised that he maintained his cool as long as he did. The part of your post that you should read slowly and carefully is the sentence that says ". . .It is not earned but is lost. . ." ;)

William Anthony

04-30-2008, 04:56 PM

You have been so disrespectful of bobaugust -- I'm surprised that he maintained his cool as long as he did. The part of your post that you should read slowly and carefully is the sentence that says ". . .It is not earned but is lost. . ." ;)

You need not fear and I was not disrespectful of anyone until they disrespected me. I do remember a time, when I rushed to respond in kind to those who were uncivil, impolite and disrespectful to me. Since that time and I learned through the moderator at that time that the world was still unequal, that, if I wanted to remain on this board, I should not fight fire with fire. The poster you refer to has a proclivity to call people's post ridiculous, and make other incendiary comments.
I held my tongue while he said he had no respect for my opinions and stated that the opinions of those who may not know what respectable meant did not matter to me. He has shown that he has no respect for my or certain other posters' opinions on many occasions. He then responded that he had no respect for me. I think that has been shown to me and others many times by this particular poster. I have done nothing to loose anyone's respect and I can recall when a certain member tried to turn another poster against me. However, that poster was wise enough to inform the board that she would make her own opinion of me and that I had responded to her cordially. We still communicate today and have had some strong disagreements. We have remained civil and cordial. I can do this with anyone who respects me. I pay close attention to what I posted and I am under no obligation and refuse to respect anyone who states emphatically that they do not respect me. You are entitled to your opinion and I will respect it, so long as you continue to post it respectfully.

bobaugust

04-30-2008, 07:26 PM

bobaugust

04-30-2008, 07:36 PM

There was no testimony from MF on February 14th; there was testimony from MF on March 14th. Out of respect for this community, I will post the relevant portion that you did not include in your post.

"Q: BY MR. BAILEY: NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IN CROSS-EXAMINATION MR. UELMEN DIRECTED SOME QUESTIONS TO YOU ABOUT YOUR ACTIVITIES AT BUNDY AND YOU DESCRIBED, AS YOU DID FOR US -- PAGE 64 AT THE TOP -- THAT: "HAVING BEEN UNABLE TO SEE THE BODIES FROM YOUR ORIGINAL POSITION TO A SATISFACTORY DEGREE, RISKE TOOK YOU AROUND DOROTHY UP THE ALLEY AND IN THROUGH THE HOUSE SO YOU COULD COME OUT THE FRONT DOOR AND HAVE A BETTER VANTAGE POINT AT THE TOP OF THE STEPS WITHOUT WALKING THROUGH THE BLOOD," CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AT THE TOP OF PAGE 64 YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT, AREN'T YOU?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: OKAY. "QUESTION: HOW FAR WOULD YOU SAY YOU WERE FROM WHERE THE BODIES WERE LOCATED? "ANSWER: I WAS DIRECTLY ABOVE THE FEMALE VICTIM WHICH WAS PROBABLY THREE FEET. THE MALE VICTIM WOULD HAVE BEEN TEN FEET, TWELVE FEET. "QUESTION: ALL RIGHT. AND FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT YOU FIRST OBSERVED THE GLOVE THAT YOU TOLD US ABOUT? "ANSWER: NOT FIRST, NO. "QUESTION: WHEN DID YOU FIRST OBSERVE IT? "ANSWER: WE HAD FLASHLIGHTS. WE WERE LOOKING AT THE FEMALE VICTIM. WE LOOKED AT THE MALE VICTIM. I NOTICED THE GLOVE WHEN I WALKED AROUND TO THE -- AFTER I EXITED THE RESIDENCE THE FIRST TIME AND WALKED AROUND TO THE SIDE OR THE NORTH SIDE, NORTH PERIMETER OF BUNDY OF 875 BUNDY, THERE IS AN IRON FENCE AND THROUGH THAT IRON FENCE YOU CAN GET VERY CLOSE TO THE MALE VICTIM, AND LOOKING THERE I COULD SEE THEM AT HIS FEET." DID YOU USE THE WORD "THEM" IN YOUR ANSWER ON JULY 5TH?

A: YES, SIR. YES, SIR.

Q: AND WAS THE LAST ITEM TO WHICH "THEM" COULD HAVE APPLIED IN YOUR NARRATIVE THE WORD "GLOVE"?

A: SINGULAR, YES.

Q: I'M SIMPLY ASKING WHETHER GLOVE, LINE 14, WAS THE ITEM YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT JUST PRIOR TO SAYING "I SAW THEM AT HIS FEET"?

A: "THEM," I WAS REFERRING TO THE KNIT CAP, THE GLOVE.

Q: SHOW ME ANYWHERE ON THAT PAGE WHERE THE KNIT CAP IS MENTIONED? CAN YOU?

A: THAT PAGE, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU SEE ANYTHING ON THE PRIOR PAGE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, ABOUT THE KNIT CAP?

A: DO YOU WANT ME TO LOOK AT THAT PRIOR PAGE?

Q: SURE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT. 63.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) I DO NOT.

Q: PAGE 65, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: THE COURT REPORTER NEEDS TO CHANGE HER PAPER.

MR. BAILEY: OKAY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: PAGE 65, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, LINE 8: "DOES THAT PHOTO," REFERRING TO A PHOTO "ACCURATELY DEPICT THE GLOVE AT THE LOCATION WHERE YOU SAW IT? "TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES. "QUESTION: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY PICK UP THE GLOVE TO EXAMINE IT, DID YOU? "ANSWER: NOT AT THAT TIME, NO." DID YOU GIVE THAT ANSWER?

A: YES.

Q: AT WHAT TIME DID YOU PICK UP THE GLOVE?

A: I DIDN'T. I TURNED THE GLOVE OVER WITH A PEN WHEN I RETURNED TO THE BUNDY SCENE AFTER BEING AT ROCKINGHAM.

Q: AND THAT IS WHAT YOU MEANT WHEN YOU SAID, "DIDN'T PICK UP THE GLOVE AT THAT TIME"? YOU HAD IN MIND TURNING IT OVER WITH A PEN?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS MR. UELMEN'S WORDS AND THE QUESTION. I DIDN'T USE THE WORD "PICK UP."

Q: BUT THE QUESTION WAS PUT TO YOU, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. HE SAID: "AND YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY PICK THE GLOVE UP TO EXAMINE IT, DID YOU?" AND YOUR ANSWER WAS: "NOT AT THAT TIME, NO." DO YOU SEE ANYTHING IN THAT ANSWER THAT REFERS TO TURNING IT OVER WITH A PEN AT ANY TIME.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NOT ON THAT PAGE, NO.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU SEE ANOTHER PAGE WHERE YOU INDICATED THAT THAT IS WHAT YOU MEANT BY LATER PICKING UP THE GLOVE?

A: NO, SIR.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, HE WASN'T ASKED. THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. SPEAKING OBJECTION, COUNSEL.

MS. CLARK: SORRY. "

Do you understand the reason for the admonition for the speaking objection?

Thank you for the date correction. I was mistaken about the date but that doesn't change the fact that Fuhrman clearly explained that when he said the word "them" in his preliminary hearing testimony he was referring to the knit cap and the glove that he saw under the plant leaves at Ron's feet.

bobaugust

martin II

04-30-2008, 08:08 PM

Thank you for the date correction. I was mistaken about the date but that doesn't change the fact that Fuhrman clearly explained that when he said the word "them" in his preliminary hearing testimony he was referring to the knit cap and the glove that he saw under the plant leaves at Ron's feet.

bobaugust

bob
you are not ignoring Furhmans actual words about not "picking up the glove at that time" are you? The conversation on the previous and after page
was not about glove and hat. It was about glove only.so how can you say the "them" was about cap and glove?The conversation was about glove.
your position makes no sense if you accept furhmans words.imo
martin II

bobaugust

04-30-2008, 08:21 PM

William Anthony

04-30-2008, 10:04 PM

Thank you for the date correction. I was mistaken about the date but that doesn't change the fact that Fuhrman clearly explained that when he said the word "them" in his preliminary hearing testimony he was referring to the knit cap and the glove that he saw under the plant leaves at Ron's feet.

bobaugust

The fact that you give credit to a convicted perjurer's, one who is false under oath about a material fact , explanation speaks volumes. I respect myself enough to not respond to any more of you disrespectful tactics. I will let the lamp of the history of your past tactics guide my footsteps away from engaging in tactics that resemble yours.

bobaugust

04-30-2008, 10:35 PM

The fact that you give credit to a convicted perjurer's, one who is false under oath about a material fact , explanation speaks volumes. I respect myself enough to not respond to any more of you disrespectful tactics. I will let the lamp of the history of your past tactics guide my footsteps away from engaging in tactics that resemble yours.

The fact William that you make ridiculous, illogical, false claims also speaks volumes about you. Hopefully the lamp of history on your rants of distortion, misinformation, and false accusations will guide you to use some self control. But be advised if you continue to post false claims regarding Mark Fuhrman, the physical evidence, or any witness in this case I will be sure to respond to set the record straight.

bobaugust

William Anthony

04-30-2008, 10:46 PM

The fact William that you make ridiculous, illogical, false claims also speaks volumes about you. Hopefully the lamp of history on your rants of distortion, misinformation, and false accusations will guide you to use some self control. But be advised if you continue to post false claims regarding Mark Fuhrman, the physical evidence, or any witness in this case I will be sure to respond to set the record straight.

bobaugust

Be advised that to give credit to the explanation of a convicted perjurer is ridiculous, illogical, bordering on insanity, delusional, stupefying, and grossly irrational, imho. However, I will respectfully defend your right to engage in that activity. I see it as his words admitting that his tongue did not slip when he was asked about a glove and admitted to seeing them, meaning more than one glove. As I have said, even though I disagree and see my view of his testimony as the correct interpretation, based on his demonstrated ability to answer a compound question clearly, I will defend your right to credit the explanation of a convicted perjurer, despite my advisement.

bobaugust

05-01-2008, 02:18 AM

Be advised that to give credit to the explanation of a convicted perjurer is ridiculous, illogical, bordering on insanity, delusional, stupefying, and grossly irrational, imho. However, I will respectfully defend your right to engage in that activity. I see it as his words admitting that his tongue did not slip when he was asked about a glove and admitted to seeing them, meaning more than one glove. As I have said, even though I disagree and see my view of his testimony as the correct interpretation, based on his demonstrated ability to answer a compound question clearly, I will defend your right to credit the explanation of a convicted perjurer, despite my advisement.

Both of your beliefs are false. The reality is that when Fuhrman answered Uelmen's question he never said "two gloves," he never said "gloves," he said "the glove." Continuing his explanation as to what he saw Fuhrman used the word "them" referring to the evidence he saw under the plant leaves, the knit cap and the glove. The same two things Fuhrman consistently testified to seeing every time he was asked.

The reality is that Fuhrman's one word answer to Bailey's improper compound question was not clear or reliable and it made no difference if he had answered yes or no. Either way he answered it someone like you could falsely accuse him of lying. If he answered yes that he did say the word "them" you accuse him of admitting to having a slip of the tongue. If he had said no that he didn't have a slip of the tongue then you would accuse him of denying he said the word "them." That's why a compound question is an improper question and why any one word answer is not a clear answer.

Bailey understood that Fuhrman's answer was not clear and followed it up with a specific proper question asking Fuhrman if it was a slip of the tongue and Fuhrman answered no. That alone should clue you in that Fuhrman's yes answer to Bailey's compound question was responding to saying the word "them" which he always admitted he had said, not if his tongue slipped.

Another clue that your interpretation is wrong and the claim you make based on that wrong interpretation is false is the fact that after this questioning neither Bailey or any of Simpson's defense attorneys ever raised this subject again. Not when they later questioned Fuhrman when he took the fifth and not in any closing argument. And please don't belittle yourself by saying Simpson's attorneys didn't have to say anything more about this, that the jury understood Fuhrman was caught in some kind of a trap. That's bull crap. There was no trap only a failed attempt by Bailey to make Fuhrman say something that was not true. If Simpson's attorneys believed that Mark Fuhrman had been caught in some kind of trap admitting to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy they would have shouted it from the roof tops and repeated as many times as they could for the jury. But that never happened because they knew it wasn't true.

And the last clue that should tell you that your claim is false is the fact that every other witness in this case who testified to seeing the evidence under the plant leaves at Ron's feet testified there was only one glove and a knit cap. Including witnesses who were at Bundy two hours before Fuhrman even arrived there.

I would think that any law student understands the fact that a compound question is improper for exactly the reason your false claims have so clearly demonstrated. Any one word answer to a compound question is not clear or reliable to use to make any claim other than the question should have been objected to.

bobaugust

martin II

05-01-2008, 05:25 AM

martin II, no my position is supported by the documented evidence in this case and all of the witnesses who testified including Mark Fuhrman. Are you now saying that you believe that Mark Fuhrman testified to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet?

bobaugust

bob
i am referring to furhmans words in his testimony at post # 299.

William Anthony

05-01-2008, 07:53 AM

Both of your beliefs are false. The reality is that when Fuhrman answered Uelmen's question he never said "two gloves," he never said "gloves," he said "the glove." Continuing his explanation as to what he saw Fuhrman used the word "them" referring to the evidence he saw under the plant leaves, the knit cap and the glove. The same two things Fuhrman consistently testified to seeing every time he was asked.

The reality is that Fuhrman's one word answer to Bailey's improper compound question was not clear or reliable and it made no difference if he had answered yes or no. Either way he answered it someone like you could falsely accuse him of lying. If he answered yes that he did say the word "them" you accuse him of admitting to having a slip of the tongue. If he had said no that he didn't have a slip of the tongue then you would accuse him of denying he said the word "them." That's why a compound question is an improper question and why any one word answer is not a clear answer.

Bailey understood that Fuhrman's answer was not clear and followed it up with a specific proper question asking Fuhrman if it was a slip of the tongue and Fuhrman answered no. That alone should clue you in that Fuhrman's yes answer to Bailey's compound question was responding to saying the word "them" which he always admitted he had said, not if his tongue slipped.

Another clue that your interpretation is wrong and the claim you make based on that wrong interpretation is false is the fact that after this questioning neither Bailey or any of Simpson's defense attorneys ever raised this subject again. Not when they later questioned Fuhrman when he took the fifth and not in any closing argument. And please don't belittle yourself by saying Simpson's attorneys didn't have to say anything more about this, that the jury understood Fuhrman was caught in some kind of a trap. That's bull crap. There was no trap only a failed attempt by Bailey to make Fuhrman say something that was not true. If Simpson's attorneys believed that Mark Fuhrman had been caught in some kind of trap admitting to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy they would have shouted it from the roof tops and repeated as many times as they could for the jury. But that never happened because they knew it wasn't true.

And the last clue that should tell you that your claim is false is the fact that every other witness in this case who testified to seeing the evidence under the plant leaves at Ron's feet testified there was only one glove and a knit cap. Including witnesses who were at Bundy two hours before Fuhrman even arrived there.

I would think that any law student understands the fact that a compound question is improper for exactly the reason your false claims have so clearly demonstrated. Any one word answer to a compound question is not clear or reliable to use to make any claim other than the question should have been objected to.

bobaugust

Let me say this, if he admitted his tongue slipped, because he was responding to the knit cap and the glove, he was asked about seeing, his explanation would have been reasonable, although I would not have credited the explanation, because when he was asked did he plant evidence in this case, he took the fifth. Pardon my compound complex sentence.

The fact that upon further questioning he responded that his tongue had not slipped when asked about seeing the gloveand Bailey responded okay tells me, as Bailey and any person with any understanding of the English language could understand, that MF meant to say he saw them, more than one glove, when he was specifically asked about seeing one glove. I think all the jurors' first language was English.

The fact that he answered another compound question posed by Bailey and made his response clear tells me that he knew how to recognize and answer a compound question. This further tells me that he admitted to seeing more than one glove. I have limited it to two gloves, because there were two in evidence.

The fact that Bailey asked him about the size of baggies in the vehicle in which he was riding explains to me that Bailey did not drop the subject but showed to the jury that the glove could have been transported by MF to Rockingham in one of those baggies. The fact that questions were asked about whether placing items in baggies would make them appear shinny or keep them moist explained to me why the glove could have appeared as it did when it was seen by others several hours after the time of the murders.

The evidence of MF's racial animus and his admissions on the tapes to planting/fabricating/inventing evidence and his willingness to lie under oath tells me that he had more than one reason to lie and one could have been to hide his motive for planting evidence.

The more damming statement he made on the tape is that, if he goes down, the case goes down. This tells me he had something to hide in this case. The jury did not hear this statement. However, I do believe they had demonstrated enough understanding of the English language to allow them to be selected as jurors. Some people are capable of connecting the dots and do not need an exact verbal picture painted of events, which is what the prosecution was obligated to do. The defense only had to present evidence to allow them to connect the dots, [[I]I]draw a reasonable inference[/I,] that when the dots are connected they do not make the image the prosecution wanted to create.

Those, who do not understand the connection of the dots analogy, should not be members of any jury or serve in the legal field, imho, because they may want to fully credit the explanations of a convicted perjurer, which is their right, but when I try a case, I would design questions to weed out those with that proclivity so that justice might be served. I would still respectfully defend their right voice opinions even though I believe they had not properly connected the dots.

William Anthony

05-01-2008, 09:47 AM

Both of your beliefs are false.

Another clue that your interpretation is wrong and the claim you make based on that wrong interpretation is false is the fact that after this questioning neither Bailey or any of Simpson's defense attorneys ever raised this subject again. Not when they later questioned Fuhrman when he took the fifth and not in any closing argument.

bobaugust

Perhaps, you failed to connect the dots in the magnificent JC's closing argument of September 27th. Here is the relevant portion.

"He gets all the way down here where this air conditioner is out here by Kato Kaelin's room. You'll see this right here. They have him running into this air conditioner. So he doesn't know his own house. He's all the way back here. And she says the reason he's back here is because he's going to go back here and he's going to bury the knife and the clothes. Isn't that something? How does she know that? She just makes that up out of hole cloth. Do you believe that's reasonable? Is that reasonable to you? Does anybody on this jury believe that? That's what you were told yesterday. He runs in this air conditioner and then, you know, bumps in, drops his glove. That's what she told you. Doesn't make any sense at all, does it, ladies and gentlemen? Doesn't make any sense at all. No sound from Kato Kaelin. Then what kind of--you know, the sound has always been very confusing. Maybe not to you, but to me. Kato Kaelin goes (Indicating), more like a signal than anything else, "Come out here" or whatever. But those are the facts of Kato Kaelin and what happened. And that's her theory. That's her reasonable rational theory that you have to buy into, which I think that you will find to be totally ridiculous. Remember, down this same way, there is a door in that side room there. If Mr. Simpson wanted to get in his house, what would stop him from going in that side door--who knows this house better--if he wanted to be not seen? I suppose he would know better than anybody else. Doesn't make any sense. Doesn't make any sense at all. What they are now trying to tell you--and here's something else that's equally implausible. She tells you that the reason why Mr. Simpson couldn't stop and hide these clothes is because he's too famous or too well-known. Remember that? She said O.J. Simpson is too famous and too well-known to stop and try to hide clothes or whatever that nature. Well, let's take that just a little bit further. Part of what makes their theory so ridiculous is, is O.J. Simpson going to get in a white Bronco that's well-known in Brentwood, drive over to his ex-wife's house, park the Bronco in this well-lit alleyway that you've just seen, leave the car there? Everybody knows him, knows that car. That's equally preposterous. So she can't have it both ways. He's too famous to stop and try to throw things in a dumpster the way she put it. He is equally too famous to drive this car, go there under these circumstances. That is preposterous. So if you believe the Prosecution's theory--and they told you all this about a bloody trail--where's the blood back there, ladies and gentlemen? There's not one drop of blood. Where's the blood back there? Where's the trail that leads to that glove? And further, look at this. Look at this, ladies and gentlemen. That's not something I'm making up. You see this with your own eyes. Look at the glove. Now, when that glove is picked up, remember seeing any blood on the ground? No blood on that shrubbery, no blood on anything there. Where's the blood? Fuhrman and Vannatter, as we discuss them later, will say that when they get that glove after 6:00 o'clock in the morning, it's still moist and sticky. Remember their testimony? Where's the blood on the ground? Where's the blood on the leaves around there? Where's any of that? That glove looks as though it's been placed there. That glove looks as though it's been placed there. "

It seems that something is false, in regard to the defense never mentioning it again in argument.

William Anthony

05-01-2008, 12:04 PM

Another clue that your interpretation is wrong and the claim you make based on that wrong interpretation is false is the fact that after this questioning neither Bailey or any of Simpson's defense attorneys ever raised this subject again. Not when they later questioned Fuhrman when he took the fifth and not in any closing argument.

bobaugust

Here is a portion of the magnificent JC's closing argument from September 28th.

"He says he took the photograph at Rockingham after seven o'clock A.M., after they returned from Rockingham. You know they all go over to Bundy after five o'clock. Strike that. At Bundy. They all go over to Rockingham at five o'clock, from 5:00 to 7:00, and so it becomes very, very important, as we look at this photograph in a few minutes. Rokahr then comes here near the end of the case, and there has been nobody called to refute him in rebuttal, and says these photographs on this contact sheet are all taken while it is dark. He says he could tell the difference in a photograph taken an hour and a half before sun rise, 5:41, 5:42, and an hour and a half afterwards, so then why then is this big liar in the crime scene with access to the glove and the hat? Why is he down there pointing at this glove where he is walking all in the blood and everything when he wants you to believe it is seven o'clock? Now, we know it is not seven o'clock. You see that photograph up there? That is Mark Fuhrman pointing. You see the envelope. Pointing under this neatly arranged cap. Glove supposedly just happened to fall right under that bush in that fashion. That is what you are asked to believe. There he is pointing at it. Well, now let me tell you why you recognize it. You recognize Fuhrman, personification of evil. When he is doing is that he is trying to tell you this is an important piece of evidence here and I just came back from Rockingham and this matches the glove found over there. That is what he tells you. But he is lying again. He is lying and that is why he is central to this case, because he hadn't even been to Rockingham at that point and he is tracking in that blood at that point and that becomes very important because you remember he slips up and says "In the Bronco" at some point. You get "In that Bronco." He put a bloody footprint in that Bronco. Are his shoes size 12? He talks about "In the Bronco." He talks about them. Remember there is a question he was asked about gloves and lee bailey asked him about. Well--he says, well--he is talking about gloves and he says, "Them." He never explained that. He says "Them." Does that mean two gloves? He said, "I saw them." Is that two gloves? Why would you say "Them"? He is intelligent enough to come and lie to you. So that picture, that photograph there, that seals their doom. That seals their doom. This man who in `85 in his mind started this, this man who is asked to go over and help O.J. Simpson and notify him and take care of the kids, this man, this perjurer, this racist, this genocidal racist, this is the man. And he says then inferentially he didn't plant the glove and now we know about these photographs, when they were taken, and you will have that contact sheet and you will see a photograph of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson and the last two on the roll taken at nighttime with the flash at 4:30 or so in the morning. Why else is this important? Because they are going to tell you, well, he didn't have an opportunity to get the glove or get access to anything. Remember they brought all these police officers in here, including Lieutenant Spangler, to say, well, you know, we were just watching Fuhrman the whole time. First of all, you knew that was a lie at the beginning. Why would they necessarily be watching him. They were always covering for him anyway. But we know that wasn't true because remember Rokahr got there shortly after three o'clock. Rokahr goes to that back alley and he sees Riske who is back there then. Remember Rokahr sees Riske in the back alley. Rokahr doesn't even see Fuhrman for like a half hour after he gets there, he says, and all of a sudden Fuhrman shows up. Where has he been? What has he been doing? "

I would think that anyone who devoted so much of their life and created a website expressing their opinion of Simpson's guilt based upon investigation of the trial, and other information would respectfully post information that was true, and not go about disrespecting others' posts by calling their posts false, when the truth is that the post, claiming the subject was not brought up in closing argument is false. Let that lamp continue to guide my footsteps.

bobaugust

05-01-2008, 03:53 PM

Let me say this, if he admitted his tongue slipped, because he was responding to the knit cap and the glove, he was asked about seeing, his explanation would have been reasonable, although I would not have credited the explanation, because when he was asked did he plant evidence in this case, he took the fifth. Pardon my compound complex sentence.

The fact that upon further questioning he responded that his tongue had not slipped when asked about seeing the gloveand Bailey responded okay tells me, as Bailey and any person with any understanding of the English language could understand, that MF meant to say he saw them, more than one glove, when he was specifically asked about seeing one glove. I think all the jurors' first language was English.

The fact that he answered another compound question posed by Bailey and made his response clear tells me that he knew how to recognize and answer a compound question. This further tells me that he admitted to seeing more than one glove. I have limited it to two gloves, because there were two in evidence.

The fact that Bailey asked him about the size of baggies in the vehicle in which he was riding explains to me that Bailey did not drop the subject but showed to the jury that the glove could have been transported by MF to Rockingham in one of those baggies. The fact that questions were asked about whether placing items in baggies would make them appear shinny or keep them moist explained to me why the glove could have appeared as it did when it was seen by others several hours after the time of the murders.

The evidence of MF's racial animus and his admissions on the tapes to planting/fabricating/inventing evidence and his willingness to lie under oath tells me that he had more than one reason to lie and one could have been to hide his motive for planting evidence.

The more damming statement he made on the tape is that, if he goes down, the case goes down. This tells me he had something to hide in this case. The jury did not hear this statement. However, I do believe they had demonstrated enough understanding of the English language to allow them to be selected as jurors. Some people are capable of connecting the dots and do not need an exact verbal picture painted of events, which is what the prosecution was obligated to do. The defense only had to present evidence to allow them to connect the dots, [[I]I]draw a reasonable inference[/I,] that when the dots are connected they do not make the image the prosecution wanted to create.

Those, who do not understand the connection of the dots analogy, should not be members of any jury or serve in the legal field, imho, because they may want to fully credit the explanations of a convicted perjurer, which is their right, but when I try a case, I would design questions to weed out those with that proclivity so that justice might be served. I would still respectfully defend their right voice opinions even though I believe they had not properly connected the dots.

When Uelmen asked Fuhrman when did he first observe the glove he answered using the words, "the glove." The fact is that the glove was next to the knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron's feet. Fuhrman continued his explanation using the word "then" referring to that evidence he was looking at from the other side of the fence. Those are the facts and reality no matter how badly you want to imagine something different.

As to Bailey's questioning Fuhrman about saying the word "in" regarding blood seen before the police entered the estate that questioning may very well have alerted Fuhrman to Bailey's deceitful tactics and when Bailey tried it again maybe Fuhrman decided not to go along with him. Instead of giving a clear explanation he simply gave a one word answer to the improper question Bailey asked knowing that his answer was not clear and that Bailey would have to ask a more specific question. Which he did and which Fuhrman clearly answered.

The stories Fuhrman told helping to create a fictional screen play were completely irrelevant to these murders. Bailey's baggie speculation and his comical speculation about carrying a glove in a sock were meaningless and had absolutely nothing to do with the real evidence in this case. The dots you are attempting to connect are like spots in your eyes or like clouds in the sky that may look like real objects but are only illusions of imagination. The real dot connection in this case is the physical evidence and the witness testimony that points only to Simpson as the killer and the person who dropped the glove behind Kaelin's room, not Mark Fuhrman.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-01-2008, 03:54 PM

Perhaps, you failed to connect the dots in the magnificent JC's closing argument of September 27th. Here is the relevant portion.

"He gets all the way down here where this air conditioner is out here by Kato Kaelin's room. You'll see this right here. They have him running into this air conditioner. So he doesn't know his own house. He's all the way back here. And she says the reason he's back here is because he's going to go back here and he's going to bury the knife and the clothes. Isn't that something? How does she know that? She just makes that up out of hole cloth. Do you believe that's reasonable? Is that reasonable to you? Does anybody on this jury believe that? That's what you were told yesterday. He runs in this air conditioner and then, you know, bumps in, drops his glove. That's what she told you. Doesn't make any sense at all, does it, ladies and gentlemen? Doesn't make any sense at all. No sound from Kato Kaelin. Then what kind of--you know, the sound has always been very confusing. Maybe not to you, but to me. Kato Kaelin goes (Indicating), more like a signal than anything else, "Come out here" or whatever. But those are the facts of Kato Kaelin and what happened. And that's her theory. That's her reasonable rational theory that you have to buy into, which I think that you will find to be totally ridiculous. Remember, down this same way, there is a door in that side room there. If Mr. Simpson wanted to get in his house, what would stop him from going in that side door--who knows this house better--if he wanted to be not seen? I suppose he would know better than anybody else. Doesn't make any sense. Doesn't make any sense at all. What they are now trying to tell you--and here's something else that's equally implausible. She tells you that the reason why Mr. Simpson couldn't stop and hide these clothes is because he's too famous or too well-known. Remember that? She said O.J. Simpson is too famous and too well-known to stop and try to hide clothes or whatever that nature. Well, let's take that just a little bit further. Part of what makes their theory so ridiculous is, is O.J. Simpson going to get in a white Bronco that's well-known in Brentwood, drive over to his ex-wife's house, park the Bronco in this well-lit alleyway that you've just seen, leave the car there? Everybody knows him, knows that car. That's equally preposterous. So she can't have it both ways. He's too famous to stop and try to throw things in a dumpster the way she put it. He is equally too famous to drive this car, go there under these circumstances. That is preposterous. So if you believe the Prosecution's theory--and they told you all this about a bloody trail--where's the blood back there, ladies and gentlemen? There's not one drop of blood. Where's the blood back there? Where's the trail that leads to that glove? And further, look at this. Look at this, ladies and gentlemen. That's not something I'm making up. You see this with your own eyes. Look at the glove. Now, when that glove is picked up, remember seeing any blood on the ground? No blood on that shrubbery, no blood on anything there. Where's the blood? Fuhrman and Vannatter, as we discuss them later, will say that when they get that glove after 6:00 o'clock in the morning, it's still moist and sticky. Remember their testimony? Where's the blood on the ground? Where's the blood on the leaves around there? Where's any of that? That glove looks as though it's been placed there. That glove looks as though it's been placed there. "

It seems that something is false, in regard to the defense never mentioning it again in argument.

"That glove looks like it been placed there." That's another ridiculous comment Cochran made. As if anyone could really tell if the glove was dropped there or placed there by the way it looked. Unbelievable. What Cochran did do was distort what these witnesses actually said. "Fuhrman and Vannatter, as we discuss them later, will say that when they get that glove after 6:00 o'clock in the morning, it's still moist and sticky. Remember their testimony?"

Yes I remember that testimony. Neither Fuhrman or Vannatter said the blood on the glove was moist or sticky. Fuhrman testified it looked like it was moist or sticky. Vannatter testified it appeared moist. Dennis Fung testified that some areas had a sheen, a shininess but it was his opinion the blood was more likely dry not wet.

And I remember other testimony. The testimony that Simpson's blood was found on that glove. The testimony that a fiber consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpet was found on that glove. The testimony that blue black cotton fibers were found on that glove. The same blue black cotton fibers that were found on the killer's right hand glove and on Simpson's socks. Do you remember any testimony regarding any physical evidence found on that glove or found anywhere that points to Fuhrman handling that glove?

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-01-2008, 03:55 PM

Here is a portion of the magnificent JC's closing argument from September 28th.

"He says he took the photograph at Rockingham after seven o'clock A.M., after they returned from Rockingham. You know they all go over to Bundy after five o'clock. Strike that. At Bundy. They all go over to Rockingham at five o'clock, from 5:00 to 7:00, and so it becomes very, very important, as we look at this photograph in a few minutes. Rokahr then comes here near the end of the case, and there has been nobody called to refute him in rebuttal, and says these photographs on this contact sheet are all taken while it is dark. He says he could tell the difference in a photograph taken an hour and a half before sun rise, 5:41, 5:42, and an hour and a half afterwards, so then why then is this big liar in the crime scene with access to the glove and the hat? Why is he down there pointing at this glove where he is walking all in the blood and everything when he wants you to believe it is seven o'clock? Now, we know it is not seven o'clock. You see that photograph up there? That is Mark Fuhrman pointing. You see the envelope. Pointing under this neatly arranged cap. Glove supposedly just happened to fall right under that bush in that fashion. That is what you are asked to believe. There he is pointing at it. Well, now let me tell you why you recognize it. You recognize Fuhrman, personification of evil. When he is doing is that he is trying to tell you this is an important piece of evidence here and I just came back from Rockingham and this matches the glove found over there. That is what he tells you. But he is lying again. He is lying and that is why he is central to this case, because he hadn't even been to Rockingham at that point and he is tracking in that blood at that point and that becomes very important because you remember he slips up and says "In the Bronco" at some point. You get "In that Bronco." He put a bloody footprint in that Bronco. Are his shoes size 12? He talks about "In the Bronco." He talks about them. Remember there is a question he was asked about gloves and lee bailey asked him about. Well--he says, well--he is talking about gloves and he says, "Them." He never explained that. He says "Them." Does that mean two gloves? He said, "I saw them." Is that two gloves? Why would you say "Them"? He is intelligent enough to come and lie to you. So that picture, that photograph there, that seals their doom. That seals their doom. This man who in `85 in his mind started this, this man who is asked to go over and help O.J. Simpson and notify him and take care of the kids, this man, this perjurer, this racist, this genocidal racist, this is the man. And he says then inferentially he didn't plant the glove and now we know about these photographs, when they were taken, and you will have that contact sheet and you will see a photograph of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson and the last two on the roll taken at nighttime with the flash at 4:30 or so in the morning. Why else is this important? Because they are going to tell you, well, he didn't have an opportunity to get the glove or get access to anything. Remember they brought all these police officers in here, including Lieutenant Spangler, to say, well, you know, we were just watching Fuhrman the whole time. First of all, you knew that was a lie at the beginning. Why would they necessarily be watching him. They were always covering for him anyway. But we know that wasn't true because remember Rokahr got there shortly after three o'clock. Rokahr goes to that back alley and he sees Riske who is back there then. Remember Rokahr sees Riske in the back alley. Rokahr doesn't even see Fuhrman for like a half hour after he gets there, he says, and all of a sudden Fuhrman shows up. Where has he been? What has he been doing? "

I would think that anyone who devoted so much of their life and created a website expressing their opinion of Simpson's guilt based upon investigation of the trial, and other information would respectfully post information that was true, and not go about disrespecting others' posts by calling their posts false, when the truth is that the post, claiming the subject was not brought up in closing argument is false. Let that lamp continue to guide my footsteps.

Thank your for posting this portion of Cochran's closing argument. I did not remember it or recall reading it but it is clear that "the magnificent JC" is distorting, lying, and deceiving the jury. Fuhrman never said he was talking about "gloves" and he did explain why he said the word "them." Cochran also deceived the jury as to when the photographs were taken. Yes they were the last two shots on the roll and taken with a flash but that in no way tells anyone when they were taken. A witness who saw when they were taken tells us they were taken later in the morning when Fuhrman had returned to Bundy at the request of Vannatter after finding the glove at Rockingham to check if the gloves were a match. Fuhrman and the photographer then returned to Rockingham.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-01-2008, 04:20 PM

bob
i am referring to furhmans words in his testimony at post # 299.

martin II, post what you are referring to. There is no testimony in post #299 on this thread.

bobaugust

William Anthony

05-01-2008, 05:14 PM

Thank your for posting this portion of Cochran's closing argument. I did not remember it or recall reading it but it is clear that "the magnificent JC" is distorting, lying, and deceiving the jury. Fuhrman never said he was talking about "gloves" and he did explain why he said the word "them." Cochran also deceived the jury as to when the photographs were taken. Yes they were the last two shots on the roll and taken with a flash but that in no way tells anyone when they were taken. A witness who saw when they were taken tells us they were taken later in the morning when Fuhrman had returned to Bundy at the request of Vannatter after finding the glove at Rockingham to check if the gloves were a match. Fuhrman and the photographer then returned to Rockingham.

bobaugust

Be Advised, imho, you posted false information but you consistently accuse me of posting false information. Someone, like you, who has devoted their life to proving Simpson guilty and has gone as far and has at his fingertips the information to enable them not to post false information should out of respect for himself and this community make sure that the information he posts is accurate. To do otherwise is disrespectful, according to my definition of respectable.

Be advised, to attempt to dismiss a post by claiming a lack of recall but to not allow another person the same excuse is disrespectful, according to my definition of respectable.

Be advised, to claim that someone did not make an argument and then, when the information is posted showing the person did make the argument, to call the person who made the argument a liar, when the evidence supports the person making the post posted false information, including the claim that the other person had not made the argument, is disrespectful, according to my definition of disrespectful.

Be advised that I will point out that there was no objection made, on the basis of misstating the evidence, to the magnificent JC's argument about the time the photographs were taken, because there was evidence to support the magnificent JC's claim, and, to call the person pointing to that evidence is disrespectful, according to my definition of respectful.

However, I still will respectfully defend your right to voice your opinion, despite my advisements.

William Anthony

05-01-2008, 05:28 PM

When Uelmen asked Fuhrman when did he first observe the glove he answered using the words, "the glove." The fact is that the glove was next to the knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron's feet. Fuhrman continued his explanation using the word "then" referring to that evidence he was looking at from the other side of the fence. Those are the facts and reality no matter how badly you want to imagine something different.

As to Bailey's questioning Fuhrman about saying the word "in" regarding blood seen before the police entered the estate that questioning may very well have alerted Fuhrman to Bailey's deceitful tactics and when Bailey tried it again maybe Fuhrman decided not to go along with him. Instead of giving a clear explanation he simply gave a one word answer to the improper question Bailey asked knowing that his answer was not clear and that Bailey would have to ask a more specific question. Which he did and which Fuhrman clearly answered.

The stories Fuhrman told helping to create a fictional screen play were completely irrelevant to these murders. Bailey's baggie speculation and his comical speculation about carrying a glove in a sock were meaningless and had absolutely nothing to do with the real evidence in this case. The dots you are attempting to connect are like spots in your eyes or like clouds in the sky that may look like real objects but are only illusions of imagination. The real dot connection in this case is the physical evidence and the witness testimony that points only to Simpson as the killer and the person who dropped the glove behind Kaelin's room, not Mark Fuhrman.

bobaugust

You really give MF too much credit. The fact is that Bailey trapped him and that is why the magnificent JC made his brilliant and winning argument.

The words on the tape belonged to MF.

It is obvious that you did not have the same dot connection book as most legal scholars, the lawyers in this case and the jury. The gloves, to include the probably planted one, the blood in the Bronco that was probably planted, the blood on the socks that was probably planted and the blood on the gate that was probably planted all lead to a dot connection showing that the prosecution failed to meet its burden.

To credit the explanation of a convicted perjurer disrespects the concept of truth. To call comical the artful cross examination of one who had practice law for several successful years, shows an undeserved amount of arrogance from someone that has never practiced law and a height of disrespectfulness that would be aggravating if it were not so comical, imho.

William Anthony

05-01-2008, 05:39 PM

"That glove looks like it been placed there." That's another ridiculous comment Cochran made. As if anyone could really tell if the glove was dropped there or placed there by the way it looked. Unbelievable. What Cochran did do was distort what these witnesses actually said. "Fuhrman and Vannatter, as we discuss them later, will say that when they get that glove after 6:00 o'clock in the morning, it's still moist and sticky. Remember their testimony?"

Yes I remember that testimony. Neither Fuhrman or Vannatter said the blood on the glove was moist or sticky. Fuhrman testified it looked like it was moist or sticky. Vannatter testified it appeared moist. Dennis Fung testified that some areas had a sheen, a shininess but it was his opinion the blood was more likely dry not wet.

And I remember other testimony. The testimony that Simpson's blood was found on that glove. The testimony that a fiber consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpet was found on that glove. The testimony that blue black cotton fibers were found on that glove. The same blue black cotton fibers that were found on the killer's right hand glove and on Simpson's socks. Do you remember any testimony regarding any physical evidence found on that glove or found anywhere that points to Fuhrman handling that glove?

bobaugust

Again, you have failed to connect the dots. The magnificent JC pointed to the lack of evidence, blood on anything surrounding the location in which the glove was allegedly found to support his statement that the glove looked/appeared to have been placed there. Yes, I understand how you can feel that his comment was ridiculous, if you failed to connect the dots.

It is the height of hypocrisy to claim that someone distorted another's testimony, relying on the witness saying the word appeared, when you made the claim that witnesses testified the blood was fresh and others pointed out to you that they only testified the blood appeared fresh. It is disrespectful to allow yourself a privilege and not allow that same privilege to another, according to my definition of disrespect.

William Anthony

05-01-2008, 06:31 PM

Vannatter testified it appeared moist.

bobaugust

On the issue of appearance, do you remember this post.

"02-18-2007, 01:29 AM
bobaugust bobaugust is offline
Super Member

Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,511

Quote:
Originally Posted by n.n View Post
The blood drops were not fresh, and the prosecution was smart enough not to pursue the EDTA issue any further, in my opinion.
n.n, Im sorry but you're incorrect. All of police officers who saw the blood drops believed them to be fresh blood. Dennis Fung and Terrazas the first police officer to see them testified to that fact when they were asked about it.

The fresh blood trail started at the bodies, on the walkway, on the rear gate, and outside the rear gate, in Simpson's Bronco, on the pavement behind the parked Bronco, on Simpson's driveway, and on his foyer floor.

The prosecution witness Martz conducted tests on the gate and sock blood and found conclusively that they did not contain EDTA preserved blood. The defense claims that Simpson's blood found on the rear gate and Nicole's blood found on Simpson's sock were planted were proved to be false claims by other evidence.

bobaugust"

I will show what Fung actually said in the next post.

William Anthony

05-01-2008, 06:36 PM

martin II

05-01-2008, 07:12 PM

martin II, post what you are referring to. There is no testimony in post #299 on this thread.

bobaugust

bob
sorry

#922

William Anthony

05-01-2008, 11:37 PM

William Anthony

05-02-2008, 06:59 AM

"That glove looks like it been placed there." That's another ridiculous comment Cochran made. As if anyone could really tell if the glove was dropped there or placed there by the way it looked. Unbelievable. What Cochran did do was distort what these witnesses actually said. "Fuhrman and Vannatter, as we discuss them later, will say that when they get that glove after 6:00 o'clock in the morning, it's still moist and sticky. Remember their testimony?"

Yes I remember that testimony. Neither Fuhrman or Vannatter said the blood on the glove was moist or sticky. Fuhrman testified it looked like it was moist or sticky. Vannatter testified it appeared moist. Dennis Fung testified that some areas had a sheen, a shininess but it was his opinion the blood was more likely dry not wet.

And I remember other testimony. The testimony that Simpson's blood was found on that glove. The testimony that a fiber consistent with Simpson's Bronco carpet was found on that glove. The testimony that blue black cotton fibers were found on that glove. The same blue black cotton fibers that were found on the killer's right hand glove and on Simpson's socks. Do you remember any testimony regarding any physical evidence found on that glove or found anywhere that points to Fuhrman handling that glove?

bobaugust

Why is it that you can recall almost verbatim what the proponents for the prosecution say but can not recall, or at least you claim you can't, what proponents for the defense say?

William Anthony

05-02-2008, 09:12 AM

September 28th

"MR. SCHECK: Let me join with everybody in thanking you for your service. I can--the frustration, the loneliness, the sacrifice you have made in this sequestration is something that we understand or we are trying to understand. As the Judge has pointed out a number of times, my colleague, Mr. Neufeld and I, we are from New York city. More specifically, we are from Brooklyn, and we've been out here quite unexpectedly for a lot of months. And I remember when that detective from Chicago testified about having those keys that you stick in and out of the doors and little lights go on, umm, every day going in and out of those doors again and again, and again like groundhog day, everything repeating itself, the monotony, the loneliness, the frustration. We sit around and we talk sometimes in amazement at how you deal with this and how appreciative we are and--well, it is just really a honor and a privilege to present this case to you. And as lawyers that dealt with some of the forensic evidence in this case, which was detailed and complicated, and I'm sure I speak for myself, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Clarke, for the Prosecution, Mr. Goldberg, that we had a job. Our job was to make it simple, to make it cogent without sacrificing any meaningful detail. That is our job. And I can't tell you how appreciative we are because you paid attention, you were patient, you followed the evidence. I know that. I watched it. Now, you know it is our job to make it simple, to make it cogent without sacrificing detail that was important, and sometimes we let you down. I know that. Some days when we were talking about some of this, it was hard, and we came back to it again. And I think both sides tried to clarify the issues as much as we could, but you never let us down, because those were long days, but you were more than fair with us. I know you followed and paid attention to this evidence. So it is a privilege and honor to have presented that evidence to you and I must also say that standing before you right now is a terrifying responsibility. It is a terrifying responsibility because we think the evidence shows that we represent an innocent man wrongly accused.

MS. CLARK: Objection, objection.

MR. SCHECK: We represent, we think--

THE COURT: Excuse me.

MR. SCHECK: We think the Prosecution hasn't come close to meeting its burden of proof in this case beyond a reasonable doubt and we--

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, objection.

THE COURT: All right. Side bar, counsel.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Miss Clark, I think your objection is that there was a comment by Mr. Scheck that "We also believe."

MS. CLARK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: My comment was, and I want to be specific because I am very aware of these rules, we believe the evidence shows.

MS. CLARK: That is not what he said.

MR. SCHECK: That is exactly what I said. I resent this interruption. I know the rules and she can go check the transcript.

MS. CLARK: Read it back.

THE COURT: That is not just what was said there, but just a caution.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, we think we represent a man--

THE COURT: That is what he said. I cautioned him.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

It is obvious from the transcript that Scheck said we believe the evidence shows. Sometimes those in the legal profession and others, who are dead set at winning at all costs, will misstate the truth. This is more disconcerting coming from a lawyer, because they should understand the elements of a legal argument. In fairness, lawyers sometimes object even though there is no sound legal basis to disrupt the flow. They disrespect the community, the court, other legal professionals, the listeners, the jury, as a tactic to disrupt the flow, because they are more concerned with winning than they are the truth.

Kate Sachel

05-02-2008, 09:22 AM

In fairness, lawyers sometimes object even though there is no sound legal basis to disrupt the flow. They disrespect the community, the court, other legal professionals, the listeners, the jury, as a tactic to disrupt the flow, because they are more concerned with winning than they are the truth.

Yes, they often times do. Bob Baker, defense attorney for OJ Simpson in the civil trial, used that tactic in abundance during opening and closing statements in the civil trial.

Kate

William Anthony

05-02-2008, 09:33 AM

Yes, they often times do. Bob Baker, defense attorney for OJ Simpson in the civil trial, used that tactic in abundance during opening and closing statements in the civil trial.

Kate

I did not intend to suggest that the tactic was limited to just one side. However, some tend to use the tactic more frequently than others, which becomes more than aggravating, It becomes disrespectful to the community, according to my understanding of respectable. I hope that makes my post clearer.

Kate Sachel

05-02-2008, 09:39 AM

I did not intend to suggest that the tactic was limited to just one side. However, some tend to use the tactic more frequently than others, which becomes more than aggravating, It becomes disrespectful to the community, according to my understanding of respectable. I hope that makes my post clearer.

Thank you for clarifying, and I agree that it is disrespectful.

I try to be fair in my judgment of the attorneys on both sides of the table in both the criminal and civil trial, and while I found that many things about Dan Petrocelli bothered me in the civil trial, Bob Baker really left a horrible taste in my mouth.

Kate

William Anthony

05-02-2008, 09:44 AM

Thank you for clarifying, and I agree that it is disrespectful.

I try to be fair in my judgment of the attorneys on both sides of the table in both the criminal and civil trial, and while I found that many things about Dan Petrocelli bothered me in the civil trial, Bob Baker really left a horrible taste in my mouth.

Kate

I was more interested in the judge's rulings. However, I will look into the objections.

bobaugust

05-02-2008, 10:00 AM

Be Advised, imho, you posted false information but you consistently accuse me of posting false information. Someone, like you, who has devoted their life to proving Simpson guilty and has gone as far and has at his fingertips the information to enable them not to post false information should out of respect for himself and this community make sure that the information he posts is accurate. To do otherwise is disrespectful, according to my definition of respectable.

Be advised, to attempt to dismiss a post by claiming a lack of recall but to not allow another person the same excuse is disrespectful, according to my definition of respectable.

Be advised, to claim that someone did not make an argument and then, when the information is posted showing the person did make the argument, to call the person who made the argument a liar, when the evidence supports the person making the post posted false information, including the claim that the other person had not made the argument, is disrespectful, according to my definition of disrespectful.

Be advised that I will point out that there was no objection made, on the basis of misstating the evidence, to the magnificent JC's argument about the time the photographs were taken, because there was evidence to support the magnificent JC's claim, and, to call the person pointing to that evidence is disrespectful, according to my definition of respectful.

However, I still will respectfully defend your right to voice your opinion, despite my advisements.

I always try to make my posts accurate. This is not the first time I've made a mistake in a posting and I doubt it will be the last. Mistakes happen but unlike you I admit when I make a mistake I didn't dismiss my post I said I do not remember Cochran's mentioning the testimony regarding the word "them" or recall reading it. Tell us William what other poster have I ever not allowed to use the excuse that they did not recall something? That's funny.

Just because the prosecution unlike the the defense showed the proper courtesy of not making continuous objections to a closing argument doesn't change Cochran's lying words.

Nothing supports Cochran's claim that the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was taken at 4:30 AM except a mistaken time estimate by the photographer whose memory was impaired and testified he didn't remember the actual time he took the photograph. Three witnesses besides Mark Fuhrman tell us when that photograph was taken. Sarah Clairborne testified she was with Rokahr until he entered the crime scene shortly before 6:30 AM to take photographs. Officer Riske testified he saw Rokahr take the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove about 6:30 AM and Detective Phillips who drove with Fuhrman back to Bundy about 6:30 AM testified he told Fuhrman to make sure photographs were taken of the glove.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-02-2008, 10:01 AM

You really give MF too much credit. The fact is that Bailey trapped him and that is why the magnificent JC made his brilliant and winning argument.

The words on the tape belonged to MF.

It is obvious that you did not have the same dot connection book as most legal scholars, the lawyers in this case and the jury. The gloves, to include the probably planted one, the blood in the Bronco that was probably planted, the blood on the socks that was probably planted and the blood on the gate that was probably planted all lead to a dot connection showing that the prosecution failed to meet its burden.

To credit the explanation of a convicted perjurer disrespects the concept of truth. To call comical the artful cross examination of one who had practice law for several successful years, shows an undeserved amount of arrogance from someone that has never practiced law and a height of disrespectfulness that would be aggravating if it were not so comical, imho.

Fuhrman wasn't trapped and the "magnificent JC" lied to the jury.

The words on the tape did belong to Fuhrman but they were fiction not fact.

There is no factual or physical evidence to support the claim that the Rockingham glove was planted. There is no factual or physical evidence to support the claim that blood was planted in Simpson's Bronco. The defense claim that Nicole's blood taken from her reference sample and planted on Simpson's sock was proved false. The defense claim that Simpson's blood was taken from his reference sample and planted on the rear gate was proved false.

Your dots are all imaginary.

Bailey's claim that Fuhrman could have carried the glove in his sock is ridiculously comical and there is no factual or physical evidence to support it. Bailey's repeated use of improper compound questions shows the deceiving shyster tactics he intentionally used. Your refusal to admit that a one word answer to a compound question is not a clear answer William, shows us how limited your supposed law education is or how hypocritical your arguments are.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-02-2008, 10:01 AM

Again, you have failed to connect the dots. The magnificent JC pointed to the lack of evidence, blood on anything surrounding the location in which the glove was allegedly found to support his statement that the glove looked/appeared to have been placed there. Yes, I understand how you can feel that his comment was ridiculous, if you failed to connect the dots.

It is the height of hypocrisy to claim that someone distorted another's testimony, relying on the witness saying the word appeared, when you made the claim that witnesses testified the blood was fresh and others pointed out to you that they only testified the blood appeared fresh. It is disrespectful to allow yourself a privilege and not allow that same privilege to another, according to my definition of disrespect.

Lack of blood is not evidence of anything except that blood was not there. There are reasonable explanations why there was no blood on the leaves. Kaelin and Park's testimony regarding Simpson's first appearance on the estate that night tells us Simpson was the person who Kaelin heard behind his room where the glove was later found. The actual blood and trace evidence found on the glove ties that glove only to Simpson, not to Mark Fuhrman.

I've never claimed any witness SAID the blood drops at Bundy was fresh blood. The testimony was that it appeared to be fresh, Having said that the fact is that days old dried blood does not appear fresh so I don't believe it is unreasonable to say that the blood at Bundy was fresh blood based on it's appearance.

Neither Fuhrman nor Vannatter SAID the blood on the glove was moist. They testified that it appeared moist. Dennis Fung testified that some areas had a sheen, a shininess but in his opinion it was more likely dry. The fact is that Cochran told the jury that Fuhrman and Vannatter would say that the blood was still moist and sticky. That's not true. Neither Fuhrman or Vannatter ever said that and never did say that. Why did Cochran lie? To try and deceive the jury into believing the false claim that Fuhrman planted the glove.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-02-2008, 10:02 AM

On the issue of appearance, do you remember this post.

"02-18-2007, 01:29 AM
bobaugust bobaugust is offline
Super Member

Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,511

Quote:
Originally Posted by n.n View Post
The blood drops were not fresh, and the prosecution was smart enough not to pursue the EDTA issue any further, in my opinion.
n.n, Im sorry but you're incorrect. All of police officers who saw the blood drops believed them to be fresh blood. Dennis Fung and Terrazas the first police officer to see them testified to that fact when they were asked about it.

The fresh blood trail started at the bodies, on the walkway, on the rear gate, and outside the rear gate, in Simpson's Bronco, on the pavement behind the parked Bronco, on Simpson's driveway, and on his foyer floor.

The prosecution witness Martz conducted tests on the gate and sock blood and found conclusively that they did not contain EDTA preserved blood. The defense claims that Simpson's blood found on the rear gate and Nicole's blood found on Simpson's sock were planted were proved to be false claims by other evidence.

bobaugust"

I will show what Fung actually said in the next post.

No, I don't specifically remember that post but I did make it over a year ago and about 1500 posts ago. The only error I see in that post is my comment that Dennis Fung and Terrazas testified to the fact that they believed the blood to be fresh blood. That's incorrect. They may have thought that but that's not what they testified to. They only testified as to how the blood appeared. Based on their description the blood appeared to be fresh blood not old blood.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-02-2008, 10:03 AM

Here is what Fung testified.

April 3rd

"Q: OKAY. AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID YOU GET A WALK-THROUGH OF THE LOCATION FROM DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE WALK-THROUGH?

A: DETECTIVE LANGE TOLD ME OF DIFFERENT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE HE WANTED ME TO COLLECT. HE SHOWED ME SOME CLOTHING IN THE CAGE AREA, SHOWED ME A TRAIL OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE BLOODY FOOTPRINTS AND A TRAIL OF BLOOD LEADING TOWARDS THE WEST END OF THE LOCATION.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THESE ITEMS OF BLOOD DROPS THAT YOU DESCRIBED AS BEING THE TRAIL, WHAT CONDITION DID THEY APPEAR TO BE IN?

A: THEY APPEARED TO BE FRESH BLOOD STAINS. "

You changed appeared to be fresh to fresh and then you say that JC distorted the testimony in order to deceive, this is hypocritical and disrespectful to the community, imho.

No what I said is not hypocritical or disrespectful to the community, that's funny. It was wrong and if someone had brought it to my attention when I posted it over a year ago I would have admitted that it was wrong and corrected it. What's even funnier is that evidently you can't seen to tell the difference between a comment made in a discussion group and what an attorney said to a jury in a murder trial.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-02-2008, 10:03 AM

Do you recall or remember this post?

"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"

So, because you vehemently posted as a fact that no defense attorney brought the subject of the word them in regard to seeing two gloves and planting up in closing argument and I posted the magnificent JC's post showing he did and you prefaced your response with you don't recall or remember reading it, do you believe that's not only acceptable but it's not lying?

Your comments are a joke, right? Are you really so dense that you think that what I or any other poster says in a discussion group about not recalling something that was said in a trial transcript can be compared to a murder suspect giving a statement to the police less than 24 hours after the murders telling the police what he recalls and then two years later when he testifies in a trial contradicts what he told the police?

Thanks for the laugh.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-02-2008, 10:04 AM

Why is it that you can recall almost verbatim what the proponents for the prosecution say but can not recall, or at least you claim you can't, what proponents for the defense say?

This is another joke, right? I don't recall verbatim what any witness or attorney said in this case be it prosecution or defense. I quote what they say from the transcripts or from books that have been written. Seriously William, are you on some kind of medication?

bobaugust

Kate Sachel

05-02-2008, 10:10 AM

I was more interested in the judge's rulings. However, I will look into the objections.

It wasn't his objections that left the horrible taste in my mouth; it was the disrespectful things regarding the victims and their families that frequently came out of his mouth.

I believe there is a way to get your point across without delivering some of the rather unpleasant verbal blows that he sunk to.

Kate

William Anthony

05-02-2008, 12:08 PM

I always try to make my posts accurate. This is not the first time I've made a mistake in a posting and I doubt it will be the last. Mistakes happen but unlike you I admit when I make a mistake I didn't dismiss my post I said I do not remember Cochran's mentioning the testimony regarding the word "them" or recall reading it. Tell us William what other poster have I ever not allowed to use the excuse that they did not recall something? That's funny.

Just because the prosecution unlike the the defense showed the proper courtesy of not making continuous objections to a closing argument doesn't change Cochran's lying words.

Nothing supports Cochran's claim that the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was taken at 4:30 AM except a mistaken time estimate by the photographer whose memory was impaired and testified he didn't remember the actual time he took the photograph. Three witnesses besides Mark Fuhrman tell us when that photograph was taken. Sarah Clairborne testified she was with Rokahr until he entered the crime scene shortly before 6:30 AM to take photographs. Officer Riske testified he saw Rokahr take the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove about 6:30 AM and Detective Phillips who drove with Fuhrman back to Bundy about 6:30 AM testified he told Fuhrman to make sure photographs were taken of the glove.

bobaugust

Be advised that I said person not poster.

There was nothing for them to object to as you admit in the following paragraph of your post, because there was evidence to support what the magnificent JC argued.

Jayme K

05-02-2008, 12:16 PM

The fact that you give credit to a convicted perjurer's, one who is false under oath about a material fact , explanation speaks volumes. I respect myself enough to not respond to any more of you disrespectful tactics. I will let the lamp of the history of your past tactics guide my footsteps away from engaging in tactics that resemble yours.

The defense and prosecutors both needed somebody to lynch and Furhman was their guy.

Sorry, but whether or not he used a racist and derogatory word in the last 10 years wasn't a material fact to the case.

William Anthony

05-02-2008, 12:22 PM

Lack of blood is not evidence of anything except that blood was not there. There are reasonable explanations why there was no blood on the leaves. Kaelin and Park's testimony regarding Simpson's first appearance on the estate that night tells us Simpson was the person who Kaelin heard behind his room where the glove was later found. The actual blood and trace evidence found on the glove ties that glove only to Simpson, not to Mark Fuhrman.

I've never claimed any witness SAID the blood drops at Bundy was fresh blood. The testimony was that it appeared to be fresh, Having said that the fact is that days old dried blood does not appear fresh so I don't believe it is unreasonable to say that the blood at Bundy was fresh blood based on it's appearance.

Neither Fuhrman nor Vannatter SAID the blood on the glove was moist. They testified that it appeared moist. Dennis Fung testified that some areas had a sheen, a shininess but in his opinion it was more likely dry. The fact is that Cochran told the jury that Fuhrman and Vannatter would say that the blood was still moist and sticky. That's not true. Neither Fuhrman or Vannatter ever said that and never did say that. Why did Cochran lie? To try and deceive the jury into believing the false claim that Fuhrman planted the glove.

bobaugust

The lack of blood surrounding the location the glove was allegedly found tells us that it was most likely carried there in, perhaps, a baggie and placed there by a convicted perjurer, genocidal racist, who admitted on tapes to inventing/fabricating/planting evidence, whether or not he did so in a screen play. The evidence that allows us to infer that this is true is his statement that a particular incident could not be repeated because the statue of limitations had not run out. The evidence that he planted evidence in the Simpson case is his statement that if he goes down, the case goes down, which Clark tried to downplay (pun intended). I am not arguing that the convicted perjurer and genocidal racist was not an experienced evidence planter/fabricator/inventor and did not know how to tie someone he wanted to tie to a crime. Connect the dots properly.

You must not have read your post to n.n before you made this FALSE STATEMENT, "I've never claimed any witness SAID the blood drops at Bundy was fresh blood."

Did you forget that you did the same thing as the magnificent JC? Since you do not have the legal training he did nor did you practice law, I would think that you are not calling yourself magnificent in any way related to his accomplishments. I would assume that you are then calling yourself a liar as you called him.

William Anthony

05-02-2008, 12:31 PM

No, I don't specifically remember that post but I did make it over a year ago and about 1500 posts ago. The only error I see in that post is my comment that Dennis Fung and Terrazas testified to the fact that they believed the blood to be fresh blood. That's incorrect. They may have thought that but that's not what they testified to. They only testified as to how the blood appeared. Based on their description the blood appeared to be fresh blood not old blood.

bobaugust

As I have said and as you now admit, you have been posting false information on this board for quite a while. You have stated in a following post, which I will address now, that you post from testimony from reading the transcripts. As I have previously mentioned, you are someone who has devoted a great amount of your life to attempting to prove Simpson guilty and have the transcripts at your immediate availability. You claim that you are not disrespecting the community with your false posts. If that claim is true, and you did not intentionally post false information, then I will credit your false posts with a misunderstanding of what was written in the transcripts in plain English.

I will credit the jury with being able to hear and to read plain English.

William Anthony

05-02-2008, 12:39 PM

No what I said is not hypocritical or disrespectful to the community, that's funny. It was wrong and if someone had brought it to my attention when I posted it over a year ago I would have admitted that it was wrong and corrected it. What's even funnier is that evidently you can't seen to tell the difference between a comment made in a discussion group and what an attorney said to a jury in a murder trial.

bobaugust

Let me begin at the end, because your last statement implies that, because you made the false statement in the discussion group it is not disrespectful to the group community. So, you don't know that you are wrong unless someone tells you. This seems to me an effort to avoid responsibility for the information you post, and an undeserved arrogance of thinking you are always right. Because members of this community are civil, polite and respectful, they may simply not want to tell you that your posts are false. I chose to ignore your tendency to post false information, rude, uncivil and disrespectful comments until you stated you had no respect for me. Until that point, I would laugh for hours on end at those post you made with the tendencies I have described above.

William Anthony

05-02-2008, 12:44 PM

Your comments are a joke, right? Are you really so dense that you think that what I or any other poster says in a discussion group about not recalling something that was said in a trial transcript can be compared to a murder suspect giving a statement to the police less than 24 hours after the murders telling the police what he recalls and then two years later when he testifies in a trial contradicts what he told the police?

Thanks for the laugh.

bobaugust

The truth hurts, doesn't it? Those are your words in the post to which you responded by calling me dense. Thanks for showing the community how disrespectful you are. My light shines ever so brightly and with that I will say :seeya: :seeya: .

William Anthony

05-02-2008, 12:47 PM

It wasn't his objections that left the horrible taste in my mouth; it was the disrespectful things regarding the victims and their families that frequently came out of his mouth.

I believe there is a way to get your point across without delivering some of the rather unpleasant verbal blows that he sunk to.

Kate

I understand completely what you are saying and Bob should have held himself to a higher level. I will look for Bob's comments in the transcripts so that I can respond to you in an intelligent and knowledgeable fashion.

05-02-2008, 01:36 PM

Let me begin at the end, because your last statement implies that, because you made the false statement in the discussion group it is not disrespectful to the group community. So, you don't know that you are wrong unless someone tells you. This seems to me an effort to avoid responsibility for the information you post, and an undeserved arrogance of thinking you are always right. Because members of this community are civil, polite and respectful, they may simply not want to tell you that your posts are false. I chose to ignore your tendency to post false information, rude, uncivil and disrespectful comments until you stated you had no respect for me. Until that point, I would laugh for hours on end at those post you made with the tendencies I have described above.As a member of this community I'll speak for myself. I have always found bobaugust's posts to be accurate and informative and his patience with you to be commendable. I'm sure he's made mistakes on this board as we all have because we're human. William, I'm not sure who you despise more -- Mark Fuhrman or bobaugust.

fgump2

05-02-2008, 02:14 PM

bob
you are not ignoring Furhmans actual words about not "picking up the glove at that time" are you? The conversation on the previous and after page
was not about glove and hat. It was about glove only.so how can you say the "them" was about cap and glove?The conversation was about glove.
your position makes no sense if you accept furhmans words.imo
martin II
If we are discussing how people in the trial misused words, I have a few things to write about Barry Scheck.
I believe that Lawyer Barry Scheck deliberately misquoted Henry Lee to deceive the jury. There were two instances of this, one on the problem of the blood on the sock, the other on the ‘something wrong’ quote.
On the blood on the sock problem, the defense complained about the fact that blood from one side of the sock had soaked through to the other side, which they said showed signs of planting. The prosecution gave several innocent explanations about how this could have occurred. Barry Scheck, in his closing arguments, quoted H Lee as saying that all these explanations were highly improbable; but Henry Lee never said that. In fact, none of the criminologists for the defense said that they thought the evidence was probably planted.
One explanation that the prosecution gave was that sweat from OJS may have kept the blood from drying. Henry Lee actually said ‘may be possible, but unlikely’.
This misquote isn’t real bad, but on another possibility, Scheck was more dishonest. On the possibility that a test with a swab with phenolphthalein could have caused the transfer of blood from one surface to another, H Lee said ‘probably unlikely, but I can not rule out. I’m not the one doing the swabbing’. To translate this into ‘highly improbable’ as Scheck did is dishonest.
The famous quote ‘something wrong here, this should not be’, also involved Scheck distorting what Lee said.
Scheck said ‘something is terribly wrong here, if you convict someone on this evidence, none of us are safe, the constitution means nothing’.
Henry Lee never said that the evidence was faked or planted, or even that it was unreliable. At the civil trial deposition he explained that the ‘something wrong’ comment just meant that the prosecution's written statement about the blood evidence was that the swatches of blood were dry before being put in the envelopes, and the evidence is that some of them were still damp. I have yet to read where any forensic scientist has said that this is anything more than an insignificant mistake.
There was a mountain of evidence against OJS. It is impossible to process a mountain of evidence without making a lot of mistakes. Almost all humans are often careless.
Henry Lee probably approved of these misquotes because after the trial Lee hired Scheck to advise and represent him on what to say when people asked him questions about the Simpson trial.
I believe that Lee and Scheck deliberately planned for Lee to talk in a misleading manner, and for Scheck to misquote him to make the situation even better for Simpson.
These items were a small part of the trial, but they reflect badly on both Lee and Scheck. People who defend these techniques should remember the old African American saying ‘what goes around, comes around’. If dishonest methods are used to keep the guilty out of jail, the same methods can be used to put the innocent in jail.
The fact that M. Fuhrman said ‘them’ when he (maybe) should have said ‘it’ is less important than Schecks misquotes.
Scheck should have been held to a higher standard than MF because he is an experienced lawyer and his statements were prepared, whereas MF’s statements were spontaneous. Most admirers of the dream team want to put all the prosecutions mistakes under a microscope and ignore the mistakes of the defense.

weezer

05-02-2008, 02:34 PM

weezer

05-02-2008, 02:36 PM

weezer

05-02-2008, 02:38 PM

martin II

05-02-2008, 06:53 PM

If we are discussing how people in the trial misused words, I have a few things to write about Barry Scheck.
I believe that Lawyer Barry Scheck deliberately misquoted Henry Lee to deceive the jury. There were two instances of this, one on the problem of the blood on the sock, the other on the ‘something wrong’ quote.
On the blood on the sock problem, the defense complained about the fact that blood from one side of the sock had soaked through to the other side, which they said showed signs of planting. The prosecution gave several innocent explanations about how this could have occurred. Barry Scheck, in his closing arguments, quoted H Lee as saying that all these explanations were highly improbable; but Henry Lee never said that. In fact, none of the criminologists for the defense said that they thought the evidence was probably planted.
One explanation that the prosecution gave was that sweat from OJS may have kept the blood from drying. Henry Lee actually said ‘may be possible, but unlikely’.
This misquote isn’t real bad, but on another possibility, Scheck was more dishonest. On the possibility that a test with a swab with phenolphthalein could have caused the transfer of blood from one surface to another, H Lee said ‘probably unlikely, but I can not rule out. I’m not the one doing the swabbing’. To translate this into ‘highly improbable’ as Scheck did is dishonest.
The famous quote ‘something wrong here, this should not be’, also involved Scheck distorting what Lee said.
Scheck said ‘something is terribly wrong here, if you convict someone on this evidence, none of us are safe, the constitution means nothing’.
Henry Lee never said that the evidence was faked or planted, or even that it was unreliable. At the civil trial deposition he explained that the ‘something wrong’ comment just meant that the prosecution's written statement about the blood evidence was that the swatches of blood were dry before being put in the envelopes, and the evidence is that some of them were still damp. I have yet to read where any forensic scientist has said that this is anything more than an insignificant mistake.
There was a mountain of evidence against OJS. It is impossible to process a mountain of evidence without making a lot of mistakes. Almost all humans are often careless.
Henry Lee probably approved of these misquotes because after the trial Lee hired Scheck to advise and represent him on what to say when people asked him questions about the Simpson trial.
I believe that Lee and Scheck deliberately planned for Lee to talk in a misleading manner, and for Scheck to misquote him to make the situation even better for Simpson.
These items were a small part of the trial, but they reflect badly on both Lee and Scheck. People who defend these techniques should remember the old African American saying ‘what goes around, comes around’. If dishonest methods are used to keep the guilty out of jail, the same methods can be used to put the innocent in jail.
The fact that M. Fuhrman said ‘them’ when he (maybe) should have said ‘it’ is less important than Schecks misquotes.
Scheck should have been held to a higher standard than MF because he is an experienced lawyer and his statements were prepared, whereas MF’s statements were spontaneous. Most admirers of the dream team want to put all the prosecutions mistakes under a microscope and ignore the mistakes of the defense.

if there was a mountain of evidence as some believe, the prosecution should have chosen the rocks that they could prove without mistakes as it is wrong to expect a conviction based on claimes that included questionable mistakes. One big question was why the inside of the envelopes was still wet when they should have been dry.

William Anthony

05-02-2008, 08:21 PM

As a member of this community I'll speak for myself. I have always found bobaugust's posts to be accurate and informative and his patience with you to be commendable. I'm sure he's made mistakes on this board as we all have because we're human. William, I'm not sure who you despise more -- Mark Fuhrman or bobaugust.

I am certain you have not read his posts, as I have pointed out his numerous mistakes/false statements. who I like or dislike is my personal business, unless I care to share that information. I will share with you that I do not like anyone who disrespects me.

martin II

05-02-2008, 09:38 PM

is the disrespect and hatred you spew toward bobaugust because he has a website?

I see no disrespect or hatred in Williams post at all. I am not sure your post is a opinion or a claim.

William Anthony

05-02-2008, 10:19 PM

is the disrespect and hatred you spew toward bobaugust because he has a website?

I sprue no hatred toward bobaugust or anyone. I simply post the facts. I was amazed to see so many of you return to this website and start posting again. I had my suspicions as to why and played past those initial attempts to bait me. This time I will pat myself on the back, because I did not take the bait. It was not until bobaugust posted the he had no respect for me that I felt the record need to be set straight as to what is respectable, according to my definition, which I believe is almost universally accepted.

I have never visited, nor do I intend to visit his website. I can judge from his postings on this board that it would not be a place that I would enjoy spending my leisure time.

I must ask you why you did not ask bobaugust was he posted he had no respect me. Why you did not ask him was it because I am continuing my education, or because I pointed out his false posts and information, including his claim that the civil verdict meant the jury found him liable for murdering Ron and Nicole, or because I questioned his lack of legal knowledge, or why he only calls people certain people liars, but claims the convicted genocidal racists, MF, lies were irrelevant, when a court of law found them relevant and material, or why he calls other posters on this board posts ridiculous, or why he calls people ignorant? In short why has he been so uncivil, rude, impolite, and disrespectful.

William Anthony

05-02-2008, 10:25 PM

I see no disrespect or hatred in Williams post at all. I am not sure your post is a opinion or a claim.

Thank you. I think, if my posts are carefully read, others would reach that same opinion. I think that some think they can say anything but you are not allowed the same privilege. I think this community should be based on equality of opportunity. I am happy to see your return.

William Anthony

05-02-2008, 11:09 PM

I sprue no hatred toward bobaugust or anyone. I simply post the facts. I was amazed to see so many of you return to this website and start posting again. I had my suspicions as to why and played past those initial attempts to bait me. This time I will pat myself on the back, because I did not take the bait. It was not until bobaugust posted the he had no respect for me that I felt the record need to be set straight as to what is respectable, according to my definition, which I believe is almost universally accepted.

I have never visited, nor do I intend to visit his website. I can judge from his postings on this board that it would not be a place that I would enjoy spending my leisure time.

I must ask you why you did not ask bobaugust was he posted he had no respect me. Why you did not ask him was it because I am continuing my education, or because I pointed out his false posts and information, including his claim that the civil verdict meant the jury found him liable for murdering Ron and Nicole, or because I questioned his lack of legal knowledge, or why he only calls people certain people liars, but claims the convicted genocidal racists, MF, lies were irrelevant, when a court of law found them relevant and material, or why he calls other posters on this board posts ridiculous, or why he calls people ignorant? In short why has he been so uncivil, rude, impolite, and disrespectful.

Correction. I must ask you why you did not ask bobaugust his reason for posting he had no respect for me and then later post I deserve so little respect. Why you did not ask him if it was because I am continuing my education, ...

William Anthony

05-02-2008, 11:38 PM

The defense and prosecutors both needed somebody to lynch and Furhman was their guy.

Sorry, but whether or not he used a racist and derogatory word in the last 10 years wasn't a material fact to the case.

motive (racist, hates interracial couples), means (LE) and opportunity (alone)

A judge disagreed with your opinion but I respectfully defend your right to express it.

William Anthony

05-02-2008, 11:52 PM

If we are discussing how people in the trial misused words, I have a few things to write about Barry Scheck.
I believe that Lawyer Barry Scheck deliberately misquoted Henry Lee to deceive the jury. There were two instances of this, one on the problem of the blood on the sock, the other on the ‘something wrong’ quote.
On the blood on the sock problem, the defense complained about the fact that blood from one side of the sock had soaked through to the other side, which they said showed signs of planting. The prosecution gave several innocent explanations about how this could have occurred. Barry Scheck, in his closing arguments, quoted H Lee as saying that all these explanations were highly improbable; but Henry Lee never said that. In fact, none of the criminologists for the defense said that they thought the evidence was probably planted.
One explanation that the prosecution gave was that sweat from OJS may have kept the blood from drying. Henry Lee actually said ‘may be possible, but unlikely’.
This misquote isn’t real bad, but on another possibility, Scheck was more dishonest. On the possibility that a test with a swab with phenolphthalein could have caused the transfer of blood from one surface to another, H Lee said ‘probably unlikely, but I can not rule out. I’m not the one doing the swabbing’. To translate this into ‘highly improbable’ as Scheck did is dishonest.
The famous quote ‘something wrong here, this should not be’, also involved Scheck distorting what Lee said.
Scheck said ‘something is terribly wrong here, if you convict someone on this evidence, none of us are safe, the constitution means nothing’.
Henry Lee never said that the evidence was faked or planted, or even that it was unreliable. At the civil trial deposition he explained that the ‘something wrong’ comment just meant that the prosecution's written statement about the blood evidence was that the swatches of blood were dry before being put in the envelopes, and the evidence is that some of them were still damp. I have yet to read where any forensic scientist has said that this is anything more than an insignificant mistake.
There was a mountain of evidence against OJS. It is impossible to process a mountain of evidence without making a lot of mistakes. Almost all humans are often careless.
Henry Lee probably approved of these misquotes because after the trial Lee hired Scheck to advise and represent him on what to say when people asked him questions about the Simpson trial.
I believe that Lee and Scheck deliberately planned for Lee to talk in a misleading manner, and for Scheck to misquote him to make the situation even better for Simpson.
These items were a small part of the trial, but they reflect badly on both Lee and Scheck. People who defend these techniques should remember the old African American saying ‘what goes around, comes around’. If dishonest methods are used to keep the guilty out of jail, the same methods can be used to put the innocent in jail.
The fact that M. Fuhrman said ‘them’ when he (maybe) should have said ‘it’ is less important than Schecks misquotes.
Scheck should have been held to a higher standard than MF because he is an experienced lawyer and his statements were prepared, whereas MF’s statements were spontaneous. Most admirers of the dream team want to put all the prosecutions mistakes under a microscope and ignore the mistakes of the defense.

On the issue of the socks, let's put the blame where it belongs. The defense did not collect them (pun intended). It is my opinion that a person should not be convicted, because the prosecution gave several innocent explanations of how the evidence that was untrustworthy got to be that way.

I do not think that any respectable legal professional will agree that dishonesty should or could be used to place the innocent in jail.

:et's set the record straight. MF was experience in testifying. IIRC, he stated he had testified hundreds of times and the prosecution used him, because of his prowess in testifying. I am sure they rue the fact that they used this convicted perjurer and genocidal racist with the dream team.

05-03-2008, 01:53 AM

I am certain you have not read his posts, as I have pointed out his numerous mistakes/false statements. who I like or dislike is my personal business, unless I care to share that information. I will share with you that I do not like anyone who disrespects me.I didn't ask you who you like or dislike -- I was making an observation.

William Anthony

05-03-2008, 07:25 AM

I didn't ask you who you like or dislike -- I was making an observation.

Let me ask a question. Where you a member of this community when bobaugust posted the civil verdict meant that Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole, or when he blamed his spell checker for deleting a portion of an article that changed a crucial part of the article? Let me make an observation, MF was man enough not to hide his hatred.

William Anthony

05-03-2008, 08:02 AM

Let me ask a question. Where you a member of this community when bobaugust posted the civil verdict meant that Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole, or when he blamed his spell checker for deleting a portion of an article that changed a crucial part of the article? Let me make an observation, MF was man enough not to hide his hatred.

correction. ... when bobaugust posted the civil verdict meant that the jury found Simpson liable for murdering/killing Ron and Nicole.

William Anthony

05-03-2008, 08:12 AM

There seems to be some dispute over whether or not MF was speaking in the context of a screen play when he said the things he said on the tapes. I have pointed to two of his statements, one about the statute of limitations (hereinafter SOL) and the one about him going down to show he meant what he said. I would now like to say that the ease with which the vile words flowed from his mouth and described events, tells me he was not fabricating his feelings or the events. Perhaps, his arrogance made him believe that McKinney, Bell of Singer would not expose him. However, I respect the fact that he spoke honestly about his feelings and the events.

05-03-2008, 08:36 AM

Let me ask a question. Where you a member of this community when bobaugust posted the civil verdict meant that Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole, or when he blamed his spell checker for deleting a portion of an article that changed a crucial part of the article? Let me make an observation, MF was man enough not to hide his hatred.Yes I was. Everyone that posts here is human and therefore fallible but I happen to agree that the civil verdict means that Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole. :)

William Anthony

05-03-2008, 08:36 AM

Fortunately, I had a wise father who told me that I was as good as any man and superior to none. I had an even wiser father who spoke of the golden rule. I think that people like MF have forgotten or never heard those things, which cause them to over evaluate their importance, feel like they are always right, and commit atrocities and injustices on others and, therefore, they can disrespect others and say things that are not true, because the ends justify the means and their views must be upheld, because, unlike my signature, they feel the are more right than they are wrong.

William Anthony

05-03-2008, 08:45 AM

Yes I was. Everyone that posts here is human and therefore fallible but I happen to agree that the civil verdict means that Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole. :)

The important thing to remember here is that it is a verdict. Another poster, with whom I sometimes disagree, was honest enough (I will add that others have asked her opinion of the law because they seem to respect it) informed the board that he was not found liable for killing/murdering or causing the wrongful death of Nicole, because the jury was not asked that question. If your agreement is expressed as an opinion, then I will respectfully defend your right to express it even though I disagree. However, when it is posted as fact, as it had been previously by the other poster, then I feel obligated, as I believe the poster whose opinions are respected by some did, to correct the information.

William Anthony

05-03-2008, 09:00 AM

Yes I was. Everyone that posts here is human and therefore fallible but I happen to agree that the civil verdict means that Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole. :)

Here is the post I referred to in my post above. This poster answered the question honestly, imho, and, I agree, contrary to what the media post and some say, Simpson was not found liable for causing the death of Nicole in any manner.

"07-07-2007, 01:57 AM
Kate Sachel's Avatar
Kate Sachel Kate Sachel is offline
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: State of Bewilderment
Posts: 1,020

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
This question is specifically for you, Kate. Are you saying that the civil jury could find, conclude or consider Simpson liable for murder?
I'm back from a much needed week long vacation in Fiji, and feel refreshed enough to respond.

No, that is not what I am technically saying since that wasn't the question posed to the jurors. One of the questions was "do you find ... that defendant Orenthal James Simpson ... willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman". However, I'm pointing out the fact that, considering how Ron Goldman died, answering "yes" to that question cannot mean anything other than that Simpson killed him.

As for Nicole ... the jury was not even asked to find if they believe that Simpson caused her death but rather only if Simpson committed battery upon her.

Kate
Reply With Quote"

05-03-2008, 09:02 AM

On the issue of the socks, let's put the blame where it belongs. The defense did not collect them (pun intended). It is my opinion that a person should not be convicted, because the prosecution gave several innocent explanations of how the evidence that was untrustworthy got to be that way.

I do not think that any respectable legal professional will agree that dishonesty should or could be used to place the innocent in jail.

:et's set the record straight. MF was experience in testifying. IIRC, he stated he had testified hundreds of times and the prosecution used him, because of his prowess in testifying. I am sure they rue the fact that they used this convicted perjurer and genocidal racist with the dream team.William, I'm not going to be drawn into a debate about Mark Fuhrman but if you going to accuse him of being genocidal you should post a link to back it up. Are you honestly comparing what you *think* Mark Fuhrman has done to what was done to the Armenians by the Young Turks, the Jews by the Nazis and the Tutsis by the Hutu racists?

05-03-2008, 09:07 AM

The important thing to remember here is that it is a verdict. Another poster, with whom I sometimes disagree, was honest enough (I will add that others have asked her opinion of the law because they seem to respect it) informed the board that he was not found liable for killing/murdering or causing the wrongful death of Nicole, because the jury was not asked that question. If your agreement is expressed as an opinion, then I will respectfully defend your right to express it even though I disagree. However, when it is posted as fact, as it had been previously by the other poster, then I feel obligated, as I believe the poster whose opinions are respected by some did, to correct the information.William, we've been over this a zillion times. I know the verdict was liable for Ron Goldman's death but the judge, the defense attorney and everyone else connected with the case understands it was really about the murders of Ron and Nicole.

05-03-2008, 09:12 AM

William Anthony

05-03-2008, 09:12 AM

William, I'm not going to be drawn into a debate about Mark Fuhrman but if you going to accuse him of being genocidal you should post a link to back it up. Are you honestly comparing what you *think* Mark Fuhrman has done to what was done to the Armenians by the Young Turks, the Jews by the Nazis and the Tutsis by the Hutu racists?

The link is the evidence that was presented during the trial. You misunderstand. The defense stopped him from doing what I believe him capable of doing and exposed him for what he is/was. The difference is that there is no evidence yet found to support the fact that he acted upon his vile, despicable and reprehensible words he spoke, and the FBI stated they were not saying he did not do those things, only that the SOL had expired on bringing charges on those crimes. I think the words attributed to him by Bell are comparable. Does that make my position clearer to you?

05-03-2008, 09:14 AM

The link is the evidence that was presented during the trial. You misunderstand. The defense stopped him from doing what I believe him capable of doing and exposed him for what he is/was. The difference is that there is no evidence yet found to support the fact that he acted upon his vile, despicable and reprehensible words he spoke, and the FBI stated they were not saying he did not do those things, only that the SOL had expired on bringing charges on those crimes. I think the words attributed to him by Bell are comparable. Does that make my position clearer to you?I understand your position but even if Mark Fuhrman committed every act that he fictionalized for the screenplay it wouldn't fit the criteria for genocide.

William Anthony

05-03-2008, 09:19 AM

I'm not taking the bait today :) -- but I will say that SOL doesn't always mean statute of limitations. ;)

I guess it could stand for many things but it is commonly used by members of the legal profession to mean statute of limitations, which is what we were speaking about. There is no bait to be taken by you or any other member. Just like members of the legal community use the letter k to refer to a contract, I guess if they were referring to three contracts, they would say the 3 ks,or they could say k1, k2, and k3. :)

William Anthony

05-03-2008, 09:23 AM

I understand your position but even if Mark Fuhrman committed every act that he fictionalized for the screenplay it wouldn't fit the criteria for genocide.

I disagree. For instance, placing an innocent black in a penitentiary for life or long years, who had not had children, in a penitentiary where no conjugal visits were allowed is a form of genocide. To say some one is genocidal does not mean they committed genocide, only that his words that an entire race should be bombed or burned shows that genocidal tendency.

05-03-2008, 09:46 AM

I disagree. For instance, placing an innocent black in a penitentiary for life or long years, who had not had children, in a penitentiary where no conjugal visits were allowed is a form of genocide. To say some one is genocidal does not mean they committed genocide, only that his words that an entire race should be bombed or burned shows that genocidal tendency.IMO, you're wrong.

William Anthony

05-03-2008, 09:49 AM

IMO, you're wrong.

Imho, we have a difference of opinion. I will not call yours wrong, imho. I will respectfully respect your right to voice it even though I disagree with it.

William Anthony

05-03-2008, 10:22 AM

William, we've been over this a zillion times. I know the verdict was liable for Ron Goldman's death but the judge, the defense attorney and everyone else connected with the case understands it was really about the murders of Ron and Nicole.

I am sorry I overlooked this post and believe me it was not my intent. That is why I call the civil trial a political production. The civil trial should have been about whether he willfully and wrongly caused Ronald Goldman's death. I am sure the defense realized it was a political production. I am sure the judge realized that when he stated, this is basically a civil murder trial (even though no such animal exists). This allows misinformation such as this to be posted.

"The civil trial jurors found Simpson liable for both deaths or in other words liable for killing both victims or in other words liable for murdering both victims or in other words liable for murder. They never said they found Simpson guilty of murder. Most reasonable thinking people believe Simpson killed both victims.

bobaugust "

I have highlighted those irresponsible and false parts which I believe disrespect the community and the justice system. It is statements like those of the judge and the poster that reinforce my opinion that the civil trial was a political production made in protest of the criminal verdict and the issues exposed during the criminal trial.

bobaugust

05-03-2008, 11:30 AM

Be advised that I said person not poster.

There was nothing for them to object to as you admit in the following paragraph of your post, because there was evidence to support what the magnificent JC argued.

Are you saying people who post on this discussion group are not persons?

I don't believe there is any evidence that supports Cochran's claim that the photograph of Mark Fuhrman pointing to the glove was taken at 4:30 AM. You say there is. Support what you say. Post the evidence that supports Cochran's claim.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-03-2008, 11:31 AM

The lack of blood surrounding the location the glove was allegedly found tells us that it was most likely carried there in, perhaps, a baggie and placed there by a convicted perjurer, genocidal racist, who admitted on tapes to inventing/fabricating/planting evidence, whether or not he did so in a screen play. The evidence that allows us to infer that this is true is his statement that a particular incident could not be repeated because the statue of limitations had not run out. The evidence that he planted evidence in the Simpson case is his statement that if he goes down, the case goes down, which Clark tried to downplay (pun intended). I am not arguing that the convicted perjurer and genocidal racist was not an experienced evidence planter/fabricator/inventor and did not know how to tie someone he wanted to tie to a crime. Connect the dots properly.

You must not have read your post to n.n before you made this FALSE STATEMENT, "I've never claimed any witness SAID the blood drops at Bundy was fresh blood."

Did you forget that you did the same thing as the magnificent JC? Since you do not have the legal training he did nor did you practice law, I would think that you are not calling yourself magnificent in any way related to his accomplishments. I would assume that you are then calling yourself a liar as you called him.

There is no evidence that the killer's right hand glove was carried in a baggie. There is no evidence that glove was carried in someone's sock. There is no evidence that Mark Fuhrman ever even touched that glove. The reality is that the blood and fiber evidence found on the killer's right hand glove points only to Simpson as handling that glove not anyone else and not Mark Fuhrman.

Comments I made in a posting on this discussion group have nothing to do with the lies Cochran told the criminal trial jury. And in case you failed to notice it when I call Cochran the "magnificent JC" I am simply mocking you by using that ridiculous name.

The fact is if blood appears to be fresh blood then it is fresh blood since old blood can not appear fresh. And the fact is that if blood appears to be moist it does not mean it is moist since dried fresh blood can also appear to be moist.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-03-2008, 11:32 AM

As I have said and as you now admit, you have been posting false information on this board for quite a while. You have stated in a following post, which I will address now, that you post from testimony from reading the transcripts. As I have previously mentioned, you are someone who has devoted a great amount of your life to attempting to prove Simpson guilty and have the transcripts at your immediate availability. You claim that you are not disrespecting the community with your false posts. If that claim is true, and you did not intentionally post false information, then I will credit your false posts with a misunderstanding of what was written in the transcripts in plain English.

I will credit the jury with being able to hear and to read plain English.

In some conversations I believe I post what I have read in the transcripts but occasionally I have been mistaken. In other postings I quote what was said from the transcripts. When an error of fact is brought to my attention I check it out and if I am wrong I admit that I was wrong and do not repeat the mistake.

I don't disagree that the criminal trial jurors were capable of hearing and reading plain english. Either they just weren't smart enough or willing to be able to tell the difference between fact and fiction.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-03-2008, 11:33 AM

Let me begin at the end, because your last statement implies that, because you made the false statement in the discussion group it is not disrespectful to the group community. So, you don't know that you are wrong unless someone tells you. This seems to me an effort to avoid responsibility for the information you post, and an undeserved arrogance of thinking you are always right. Because members of this community are civil, polite and respectful, they may simply not want to tell you that your posts are false. I chose to ignore your tendency to post false information, rude, uncivil and disrespectful comments until you stated you had no respect for me. Until that point, I would laugh for hours on end at those post you made with the tendencies I have described above.

You say "let me begin at the end" and then you completely ignore the end of my post. That's funny. The end of my posting had to do with how you William can't seem to tell the difference between a comment made in a discussion group and what an attorney said in a murder trial.

I really don't make very many mistakes. Most of my postings are made to correct false and misinformation that other posters make, posters who try to argue that Simpson was not the killer. I'm glad you have been able to entertain yourself by laughing for hours on end at what I have posted. It's such a shame you can't continue.

bobaugust

bobaugust

05-03-2008, 11:33 AM

Correction. I must ask you why you did not ask bobaugust his reason for posting he had no respect for me and then later post I deserve so little respect. Why you did not ask him if it was because I am continuing my education, ...

Why not ask me William? I have little respect for you because you do not admit when you are wrong. Here are only a few examples.

You would not admit you are wrong when you continually and falsely claimed that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million.

You will not admit you are wrong and you still falsely claim that Mark Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet.

You will not even admit that a compound question is an improper question or that a one word answer to a compound question is not a clear answer.

bobaugust

05-03-2008, 11:59 AM

I am sorry I overlooked this post and believe me it was not my intent. That is why I call the civil trial a political production. The civil trial should have been about whether he willfully and wrongly caused Ronald Goldman's death. I am sure the defense realized it was a political production. I am sure the judge realized that when he stated, this is basically a civil murder trial (even though no such animal exists). This allows misinformation such as this to be posted.

"The civil trial jurors found Simpson liable for both deaths or in other words liable for killing both victims or in other words liable for murdering both victims or in other words liable for murder. They never said they found Simpson guilty of murder. Most reasonable thinking people believe Simpson killed both victims.

bobaugust "

I have highlighted those irresponsible and false parts which I believe disrespect the community and the justice system. It is statements like those of the judge and the poster that reinforce my opinion that the civil trial was a political production made in protest of the criminal verdict and the issues exposed during the criminal trial.
The perjury trial of Mark Fuhrman was the real political production. His lie on the stand didn't even stand up to the true meaning of perjury in a criminal trial. It wasn't material to the case and he was never proved to have lied about an event related to the crime or his investigative efforts. A true political production. :patriot:

William Anthony

05-03-2008, 12:35 PM

Are you saying people who post on this discussion group are not persons?

I don't believe there is any evidence that supports Cochran's claim that the photograph of Mark Fuhrman pointing to the glove was taken at 4:30 AM. You say there is. Support what you say. Post the evidence that supports Cochran's claim.

bobaugust

News flash. The word person includes all humans not just posters on this board.

News flash. I have already posted the testimony of Rokhar.

William Anthony

05-03-2008, 12:41 PM

There is no evidence that the killer's right hand glove was carried in a baggie. There is no evidence that glove was carried in someone's sock. There is no evidence that Mark Fuhrman ever even touched that glove. The reality is that the blood and fiber evidence found on the killer's right hand glove points only to Simpson as handling that glove not anyone else and not Mark Fuhrman.

Comments I made in a posting on this discussion group have nothing to do with the lies Cochran told the criminal trial jury. And in case you failed to notice it when I call Cochran the "magnificent JC" I am simply mocking you by using that ridiculous name.

The fact is if blood appears to be fresh blood then it is fresh blood since old blood can not appear fresh. And the fact is that if blood appears to be moist it does not mean it is moist since dried fresh blood can also appear to be moist.

bobaugust

News flash. Simply because you connect the dots in a particular fashion, does not mean that others connected them in the same way. News flash. MF admitted to having access to the bags.

News flash. Mocking is disrespectful and not allowed by the rules. You say that the magnificent JC lied and you did the same and somehow want to imply that your statement is less because you did it here. News flash. They are the same, imho.

News flash. You are now saying that the magnificent JC did not lie or distort, as you claimed.