Issues In The Criminal Trial

[William Anthony]

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

Let's begin at the end. News flash. I can't laugh at your disrespectful post.

News flash. In my prior response, I did not say let's begin with your last sentence. News flash. Whether or not you make many mistakes is a subjective judgment.

[William Anthony]

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

News flash. We spent endless hours discussion what I meant and I showed it to you mathematically. News flash. When we had that discussion it was in regard to the article on EDTA correlating parts per billion to parts per million. Here it is again 1,000/1,000,000=1/1,000 and 1,000,000/1,000,000=1/1,000. News flash when you make the correlation of a thousand parts per million you get 1 part per billion, which is the portion of the article you claimed your spell checker deleted.

News flash. I have never denied that a compound question was improper. I have denied that the convicted, racially genocidal perjurer's answer wasn't clear to Bailey, the jury and the magnificent JC. News flash. You made the false claims that Bailey understood the question that the convicted racially genocidal perjurer had explained it and that is why it was never brought up by the defense. News flash. I showed you that the exact opposite of your post was true. News flash. The evidence supports the fact that the defense understood the convicted racially genocidal perjurer meant he saw two gloves. News flash. The evidence supports they did not buy the convicted racially genocidal perjurer's explanation. The verdict evidences that the jury probably didn't accept the convicted racially genocidal perjurer's explanation.

[William Anthony]

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:

The judge differed with your opinion but you have the right to express it.

[martin II]

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:

A lie on the stand is a lie on the stand.Period.

[martin II]

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.

tv
i see you are still square in the protect and support M. Furhman corner.

[tv]

The judge differed with your opinion but you have the right to express it.No, the judge did not differ. This is what he said right before Mark Fuhrman pled no contest: "While perjury is always a serious offense, it is rare that a witness that has given testimony is prosecuted for that perjury. When there is prosecution, the usual case involves a situation in which the witness has given false testimony about an event related to the crime or provided a false alibi...Here there is no evidence the the defendant gave any false testimony about his investigative efforts...In the investigation by the attorney general they found nothing wrong with your investigation of this case."

[tv]

tv
i see you are still square in the protect and support M. Furhman corner.He does not fit the definition of genocidal. When William says he does it trivializes all the suffering of victims of true genocide.

[tv]

A lie on the stand is a lie on the stand.Period.Too bad OJ Simpson wasn't prosecuted for all the big whoppers he told in the civil trial. I see you're still square in the corner of the double-murderer.

[martin II]

He does not fit the definition of genocidal. When William says he does it trivializes all the suffering of victims of true genocide.

furhmans comments was that he would BURN ALL OF THEM or something very close that.

[martin II]

Too bad OJ Simpson wasn't prosecuted for all the big whoppers he told in the civil trial. I see you're still square in the corner of the double-murderer.

OJ had a better recall of events or corrected mistakes in some testimony as many of the prosecution witnesses did.

[martin II]

No, the judge did not differ. This is what he said right before Mark Fuhrman pled no contest: "While perjury is always a serious offense, it is rare that a witness that has given testimony is prosecuted for that perjury. When there is prosecution, the usual case involves a situation in which the witness has given false testimony about an event related to the crime or provided a false alibi...Here there is no evidence the the defendant gave any false testimony about his investigative efforts...In the investigation by the attorney general they found nothing wrong with your investigation of this case."

Well why was furhman convicted ?

[weezer]

OJ had a better recall of events or corrected mistakes in some testimony as many of the prosecution witnesses did.

You mean like saying he'd never hit Nicole?

You mean like saying he never got Paula's 'kiss off' message?

You mean like he bled at Rockingham and then he didn't?

[weezer]

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.

not sure what you're talking about -- :shrug:

another big question is how orenthal's hair, hat, fiber, blood and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints got to Bundy.

[weezer]

*Snipped**I sprue no hatred. . ."

I don't believe you 'sprue' (an opening through which molten metal is poured into a mold.) hatred BUT I do believe you spew (to cast forth, gush, or eject, as in disgust or anger) hatred and disrespect. imo

[tv]

Well why was furhman convicted ?Because he pled no contest.

[William Anthony]

Because he pled no contest.

Which does not negated the fact that he was found guilty.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped**

I don't believe you 'sprue' (an opening through which molten metal is poured into a mold.) hatred BUT I do believe you spew (to cast forth, gush, or eject, as in disgust or anger) hatred and disrespect. imo

The opening is the convicted genocidal perjurer's comments and the poster's opening is this message board. The sprue allow them to spew. With that said, thanks for the correction.

[William Anthony]

He does not fit the definition of genocidal. When William says he does it trivializes all the suffering of victims of true genocide.

As one of the posters on this board is so quick to point out when some use the wrong words, genocide is a noun but genocidal is an adjective. The adjective can be used to describe a person's words. I never said the convicted genocidal racists committed genocide.

[William Anthony]

another big question is how orenthal's size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints got to Bundy.

They were not there.

[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.

New flash? That's funny. Rokahr testified he didn't know what time he took the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove. You can't post any evidence that supports Cochran's claim that that photograph was taken at 4:30 AM. because there is no evidence to support it.

September 5, 1995
MR. DARDEN: The bottom line, sir, is that you can't tell this jury at what time you took photos 34 and 35; is that correct?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: You don't know?
MR. ROKAHR: The only time recorded on my paperwork is when we leave the scene.

bobaugust

[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.

So what if Fuhrman admitted to having access to some baggies, that isn't evidence of anything. There is no evidence that the killer's right hand glove was ever carried in a baggie.

You're comment that I am now saying that Cochran did not lie or distort is incorrect. Cochran told the jurors, "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." That is false, neither detective said that. Fuhrman testified that the blood " looked a little sticky and moist." Vannatter testified "it appeared that it was moist." Is this really a big deal? Not really since even if the blood wasn't completely dried it still meant nothing as to when the glove was dropped there. But Cochran was trying to make it a big deal. Are you claiming that Cochran was simply mistaken and not lying? And how would you know that?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

News flash. You continued to falsely post what the civil verdict meant and changed murder to killing to justify your false posts.

News flash. The jurors may think they connected the dots properly and that you are not smart enough to know the difference between fact and fiction.

No I didn't falsely post anything about this. The civil trial jurors were unanimous in their belief that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole and that's why they found him liable. I don't know what the criminal trial jurors believed nor do I believe you know what they believed. Either they just weren't smart enough to understand the evidence that proved Simpson was the killer or they had another agenda and were unwilling to find him guilty. Or maybe both.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

News flash. We spent endless hours discussion what I meant and I showed it to you mathematically. News flash. When we had that discussion it was in regard to the article on EDTA correlating parts per billion to parts per million. Here it is again 1,000/1,000,000=1/1,000 and 1,000,000/1,000,000=1/1,000. News flash when you make the correlation of a thousand parts per million you get 1 part per billion, which is the portion of the article you claimed your spell checker deleted.

News flash. I have never denied that a compound question was improper. I have denied that the convicted, racially genocidal perjurer's answer wasn't clear to Bailey, the jury and the magnificent JC. News flash. You made the false claims that Bailey understood the question that the convicted racially genocidal perjurer had explained it and that is why it was never brought up by the defense. News flash. I showed you that the exact opposite of your post was true. News flash. The evidence supports the fact that the defense understood the convicted racially genocidal perjurer meant he saw two gloves. News flash. The evidence supports they did not buy the convicted racially genocidal perjurer's explanation. The verdict evidences that the jury probably didn't accept the convicted racially genocidal perjurer's explanation.

1006
Wrong. The discussion was regarding an EPA study that Martz testified about. I copied and pasted Martz's testimony to my posting using Netscape e-mail messenger and when I spell checked my post the error occurred. The moderator explained to you that she found someone with Netscape e-mail messenger and cut the correct testimony into the form and did a spell check. She explained the spell checker converted "Thousand - or": to just "Thousand" just as it did in the posting I made.

It doesn't matter how much math you perform if your conclusion is that "one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per billion" then your math is wrong and your claim is false. This simple math is the correct math.

1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

You never could admit you were wrong about this and you still can't admit that you are wrong about this,

I'm glad to see that you understand that a compound question is an improper question. Your half way there. Now all you have to do is admit that a one word answer to a compound question is not a clear answer and any claim based on that answer is false. There is no evidence that supports the false claim that Fuhrman meant he saw two gloves. There is no evidence that there were two gloves when the police arrived at Bundy. All the evidence is that there was only one glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron's feet. Your claim that Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet is outright false and every time you make that claim you are lying.

bobaugust.

[tv]

As one of the posters on this board is so quick to point out when some use the wrong words, genocide is a noun but genocidal is an adjective. The adjective can be used to describe a person's words. I never said the convicted genocidal racists committed genocide.In other words he was just running his mouth, right?

[SlowHandSam]

In other words he was just running his mouth, right?

that's what it sounds like to me since it's a pretty good stretch to label a man who is ACCUSED of "planting evidence" and have some "racists" thoughts as being on a systemic extermination of a race. And since oj wasn't the one murdered, why on Earth would he exterminate his own race (the one they claim he feels is superior!)?

To say that MF alleged racists beliefs equate to genocide or genocidal thoughts is just absolutely whooky to me. The Holocaust was genocide. The unrest in Rwanda and the mass killings was genocide. Khmer Rouge Cambodia. Yugoslavia. The killings of Native Americans is also considered to be genocide when some 13M of our people were murdered.

It's not only whooky, it completely trivializes what those people and their families went thru.

MF may be a racist but you can't accuse him of planning and executing an extermination plan on an entire race because he never killed anyone, unlike oj. He may have lied and he may have some unpopular society beliefs, but he isn't a murderer.

[William Anthony]

1006
Wrong. The discussion was regarding an EPA study that Martz testified about. I copied and pasted Martz's testimony to my posting using Netscape e-mail messenger and when I spell checked my post the error occurred. The moderator explained to you that she found someone with Netscape e-mail messenger and cut the correct testimony into the form and did a spell check. She explained the spell checker converted "Thousand - or": to just "Thousand" just as it did in the posting I made.

It doesn't matter how much math you perform if your conclusion is that "one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per billion" then your math is wrong and your claim is false. This simple math is the correct math.

1 ppm = 1000 ppb

1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

You never could admit you were wrong about this and you still can't admit that you are wrong about this,

I'm glad to see that you understand that a compound question is an improper question. Your half way there. Now all you have to do is admit that a one word answer to a compound question is not a clear answer and any claim based on that answer is false. There is no evidence that supports the false claim that Fuhrman meant he saw two gloves. There is no evidence that there were two gloves when the police arrived at Bundy. All the evidence is that there was only one glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron's feet. Your claim that Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet is outright false and every time you make that claim you are lying.

bobaugust.

Yes, that was what the discussion was about and that was Martz' testimony. I stand corrected. This does not change the fact that you should not be spell checking testimony you posted from a transcript. The deletion changed the entire context of the testimony as to what a part per billion meant, as the representative from the EPA him. They told him that one part per billion is a thousand parts per million, as I have shown you mathematically.

I have never claimed that a thousand parts per billion is equal to one part per billion.

You still do not understand the word parts, which is what the report was speaking of.

1/1,000, 000 x 1,000( a thousand times a part per million)=1,000/1,000,000=1/1,000
1/1,000,000,000/1/1,000,000(one part per billion divided by one part per million)=1,000,000/1,000,000=1/1,000

1/1,000=1/1,000, News flash. They are the same. This is why you claimed your spell checker deleted it, imho, because it proved you and Martz were wrong. We now know that the amount of EDTA in unpreserved human blood should be in the parts per billion in a very low range, if it was not planted. Therefore, the 2 parts per million, which Martz testified to finding in his own blood would have equaled 2,000 parts per billion, which is why Dr. Reiters testified he would have been dead and why the prosecution's expert testified Martz did not know this.

The question was posed and MF answered it. He also answered other compound questions and made his answer clear. Therefore, he understood the question, realized he was trapped, admitted to seeing two gloves and the magnificent JC tied it together for reasonable thinking people.

[William Anthony]

In other words he was just running his mouth, right?

As you are judged by the company you keep, so are you judged by the English you speak.

[William Anthony]

that's what it sounds like to me since it's a pretty good stretch to label a man who is ACCUSED of "planting evidence" and have some "racists" thoughts as being on a systemic extermination of a race. And since oj wasn't the one murdered, why on Earth would he exterminate his own race (the one they claim he feels is superior!)?

To say that MF alleged racists beliefs equate to genocide or genocidal thoughts is just absolutely whooky to me. The Holocaust was genocide. The unrest in Rwanda and the mass killings was genocide. Khmer Rouge Cambodia. Yugoslavia. The killings of Native Americans is also considered to be genocide when some 13M of our people were murdered.

It's not only whooky, it completely trivializes what those people and their families went thru.

MF may be a racist but you can't accuse him of planning and executing an extermination plan on an entire race because he never killed anyone, unlike oj. He may have lied and he may have some unpopular society beliefs, but he isn't a murderer.

Unlike MF, Simpson is not a convict.

[William Anthony]

No I didn't falsely post anything about this. The civil trial jurors were unanimous in their belief that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole and that's why they found him liable. I don't know what the criminal trial jurors believed nor do I believe you know what they believed. Either they just weren't smart enough to understand the evidence that proved Simpson was the killer or they had another agenda and were unwilling to find him guilty. Or maybe both.

bobaugust

I showed you your post. You falsely posted what the civil verdict meant. Either you were not knowledgeable to understand what the civil verdict meant or you had another agenda, or maybe both.

[tv]

Unlike MF, Simpson is not a convict.No, but a civil court entered a huge judgement against him for murdering Ron and Nicole. :)

[William Anthony]

So what if Fuhrman admitted to having access to some baggies, that isn't evidence of anything. There is no evidence that the killer's right hand glove was ever carried in a baggie.

You're comment that I am now saying that Cochran did not lie or distort is incorrect. Cochran told the jurors, "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." That is false, neither detective said that. Fuhrman testified that the blood " looked a little sticky and moist." Vannatter testified "it appeared that it was moist." Is this really a big deal? Not really since even if the blood wasn't completely dried it still meant nothing as to when the glove was dropped there. But Cochran was trying to make it a big deal. Are you claiming that Cochran was simply mistaken and not lying? And how would you know that?

bobaugust

Let's begin at the end. Do you remember this part of your post.

"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"

That is what the magnificent JC told the jury when he explained MF's and Vanatter's testimony.

It is evidence of means. They had evidence of motive and opportunity.

[William Anthony]

No, but a civil court entered a huge judgement against him for murdering Ron and Nicole. :)

Wrong.

[William Anthony]

New flash? That's funny. Rokahr testified he didn't know what time he took the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove. You can't post any evidence that supports Cochran's claim that that photograph was taken at 4:30 AM. because there is no evidence to support it.

September 5, 1995
MR. DARDEN: The bottom line, sir, is that you can't tell this jury at what time you took photos 34 and 35; is that correct?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: You don't know?
MR. ROKAHR: The only time recorded on my paperwork is when we leave the scene.

bobaugust

You forgot this portion of his testimony.

"MR. NEUFELD: Sir, didn't you--didn't you say just before the break that the time that the photographs were taken of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, given the times that you gave for the other events that evening, would be somewhere between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning?

MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony.

MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you say that, sir?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ROKAHR: I probably did. I have frankly no recollection as to the actual times involved.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, yesterday, when you were interviewed by me, were you interviewed by me for approximately an hour and a half?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And would it be fair to say that the majority of that time, you were giving a narrative of what happened, the order it happened and the times it happened on June 13th of 1994? Isn't that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: May I publish it to the jury, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. Why don't you ask him--you want to ask him a question about the frame numbers?

MR. NEUFELD: That appears in each picture? Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: Aside from the number in the lower right-hand corner of the actual print, is there also a number beneath the print which indicates which frame it was or which shot it was in the roll?

MR. ROKAHR: There's only one imprint on the negative. There are no other numbers.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, no. Are there numbers below each print there that would show you it is the third frame or the fourth frame or the sixth frame?

MR. ROKAHR: You mean the ones that are put on by Kodak?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes. The one put on by Kodak.

MR. ROKAHR: Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And do those also appear on those sheets?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, before I publish it, I would like to use the elmo, and I think we have to cut the feed.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Just a couple questions first. Sir, in the--those establishment, location, overall shots, whatever you want to call it, those first 33 shots, in those 33 shots, you used the flash?

MR. ROKAHR: I use a flash on every photograph I take.

MR. NEUFELD: And the--and in addition to the flash, there were streetlights that to some extent or other artificial lights that were there that illuminated the scene as well; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you can see the illumination given off by those other lights in these various prints; can you not?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And when you shot the two photographs of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, as to those two shots, you shot those with a flash; did you not?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm now going to show you what is frame 34 and 35 on your first roll of film.

MR. NEUFELD: Is the feed cut?

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, first of all, let me show you one at a time. Do you see those two?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And by the way, all the other photographs on that first roll, 1 through 33, those were all shot at nighttime; isn't that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: They were shot what?

MR. NEUFELD: At nighttime.

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: And as to 34, the 34th picture, do you see that on the screen?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: That is Detective Fuhrman.

MR. NEUFELD: And in 35, is that also Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: That is also Detective Fuhrman.

MR. NEUFELD: And those were the last two pictures you took on that first roll of film during the night at Bundy on June 13th--in the early morning hours of June 13th, 1994?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: At night?

THE COURT: Overruled."

[tv]

Wrong.That's your opinion.

[William Anthony]

That's your opinion.

Because you stated the award was for killing Ron and Nicole and stated it as a fact, that is why I said, wrong. It is not my opinion but a legal fact that the award was not for killing Nicole.

[William Anthony]

So what if Fuhrman admitted to having access to some baggies, that isn't evidence of anything. There is no evidence that the killer's right hand glove was ever carried in a baggie.

You're comment that I am now saying that Cochran did not lie or distort is incorrect. Cochran told the jurors, "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." That is false, neither detective said that. Fuhrman testified that the blood " looked a little sticky and moist." Vannatter testified "it appeared that it was moist." Is this really a big deal? Not really since even if the blood wasn't completely dried it still meant nothing as to when the glove was dropped there. But Cochran was trying to make it a big deal. Are you claiming that Cochran was simply mistaken and not lying? And how would you know that?

bobaugust

March 16th

"Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?

A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST.

Q: AND THE BLOOD THAT YOU SAW BACK AT BUNDY JUST PRIOR TO YOUR DEPARTURE A FEW MINUTES BEFORE 5:00 IN THE MORNING --

A: YES, SIR.

Q: -- DID THAT BLOOD APPEAR TO BE DRY?

A: NO.

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

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

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

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE GLOVE APPEAR SHINY AT ALL?

A: IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT APPEARED TO BE WET WITH SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SHINY OR MOIST. IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER MAN'S GLOVE.

Q: AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE ARE APPEARANCES; IS THAT RIGHT, DETECTIVE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU DIDN'T PICK IT UP?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS WET OR NOT?

A: NO, I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR A FACT. "

If it appears to be not dried, then it is fresh-moist and sticky.

[weezer]

Because you stated the award was for killing Ron and Nicole and stated it as a fact, that is why I said, wrong. It is not my opinion but a legal fact that the award was not for killing Nicole.

and yet she was butchered on the same night in the same location as Ron. go figure.

[William Anthony]

and yet she was butchered on the same night in the same location as Ron. go figure.

I understand why people believe that Simpson was the murderer. My point is that false information should not be posted in this community. If it is stated as an opinion, that is a different.

[weezer]

I understand why people believe that Simpson was the murderer. My point is that false information should not be posted in this community. If it is stated as an opinion, that is a different.

I'm not sure I understand your logic. The fact is orenthal james simpson was found liable for the deaths of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. orenthal james simpson was ordered to pay a very large penalty for his actions. Which part of that is false?

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure I understand your logic. The fact is orenthal james simpson was found liable for the deaths of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. orenthal james simpson was ordered to pay a very large penalty for his actions. Which part of that is false?

He was found liable only for willfully and wrongfully causing the death of Ronald Goldman.

[William Anthony]

1006

Your claim that Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet is outright false and every time you make that claim you are lying.

bobaugust.

Every time you made and make the claim that Bailey accepted the convicted genocidal racist's explanation and no defense lawyer ever argued that and that my claim is/was ridiculous you have lied and are lying.

[weezer]

Every time you made and make the claim that Bailey accepted the convicted genocidal racist's explanation and no defense lawyer ever argued that and that my claim is/was ridiculous you have lied and are lying.

I thought you wanted to make sure there was no false information posted here. Your post that there was a 'convicted genocidal racist' in the trial is false. You are wrong and posting false information.

If I am wrong, please post a link to anything that substantiates your claim.

[bobaugust]

Yes, that was what the discussion was about and that was Martz' testimony. I stand corrected. This does not change the fact that you should not be spell checking testimony you posted from a transcript. The deletion changed the entire context of the testimony as to what a part per billion meant, as the representative from the EPA him. They told him that one part per billion is a thousand parts per million, as I have shown you mathematically.

I have never claimed that a thousand parts per billion is equal to one part per billion.

You still do not understand the word parts, which is what the report was speaking of.

1/1,000, 000 x 1,000( a thousand times a part per million)=1,000/1,000,000=1/1,000
1/1,000,000,000/1/1,000,000(one part per billion divided by one part per million)=1,000,000/1,000,000=1/1,000

1/1,000=1/1,000, News flash. They are the same. This is why you claimed your spell checker deleted it, imho, because it proved you and Martz were wrong. We now know that the amount of EDTA in unpreserved human blood should be in the parts per billion in a very low range, if it was not planted. Therefore, the 2 parts per million, which Martz testified to finding in his own blood would have equaled 2,000 parts per billion, which is why Dr. Reiters testified he would have been dead and why the prosecution's expert testified Martz did not know this.

The question was posed and MF answered it. He also answered other compound questions and made his answer clear. Therefore, he understood the question, realized he was trapped, admitted to seeing two gloves and the magnificent JC tied it together for reasonable thinking people.

William. first of all I do not spell check testimony, I spell check the messages I post. Unfortunately one of the times I spell checked the message in question I never noticed that the spell checker changed the words within the testimony I included in that message. It was an inadvertent error and did not change my argument.

Martz did not testify the EPA told him that one part per billion is a thousand parts per million since that is not true. You're the one who has continually argued that statement is correct, not the EPA and not Martz.

July 25. 1995 Roger Martz
"In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood. It had absolutely nothing at all what to do with the amount that would be expected in a person or could be toxic to a person."

You say that you never claimed that a thousand parts per billion is equal to one part per billion. You're right you never did claim that because that was a typo on my part. What you did claim was that a thousand parts per Billion is equal to one part per Million and that claim is false. The fact is that one part per Billion is equal to 1000th of one part per Million, not 1000 parts per Million
1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

The fact is that the 2 parts per million of EDTA that Martz found in his own unpreserved blood sample, the gate blood sample, and the sock blood sample was not in any of that blood when that blood was in Martz's body, Simpson's body, and Nicole's body. That trace amount of 2 parts per million of EDTA was the result of a carry over contamination in the test instruments based on the procedure Martz used by first analyzing the reference samples containing a large quantity of EDTA, 1000 to 2000 parts per million, and then analyzing the three blood samples.

Every time you repeat the outright false claim that that a thousand parts per Billion is equal to one part per Million you are lying.

Fuhrman's unclear one word answer to a compound question had absolutely nothing to do with his clear explanation to a previous compound question. One question he answered clearly with an explanation and one question he did not answer clearly by using only a one word answer.

Your claim that Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet is outright false and you William are lying every time you repeat that false claim.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I showed you your post. You falsely posted what the civil verdict meant. Either you were not knowledgeable to understand what the civil verdict meant or you had another agenda, or maybe both.

The verdict questions that the civil trial jurors unanimously answered yes to means that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Let's begin at the end. Do you remember this part of your post.

"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"

That is what the magnificent JC told the jury when he explained MF's and Vanatter's testimony.

It is evidence of means. They had evidence of motive and opportunity.

The fact is if blood appears to be fresh then it is fresh blood has nothing to do with the lie Cochran told the jurors. Cochran wasn't talking about fresh blood compared to old blood he was talking about moist blood compared to dried blood.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You forgot this portion of his testimony.

"MR. NEUFELD: Sir, didn't you--didn't you say just before the break that the time that the photographs were taken of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, given the times that you gave for the other events that evening, would be somewhere between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning?

MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony.

MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you say that, sir?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ROKAHR: I probably did. I have frankly no recollection as to the actual times involved.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, yesterday, when you were interviewed by me, were you interviewed by me for approximately an hour and a half?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And would it be fair to say that the majority of that time, you were giving a narrative of what happened, the order it happened and the times it happened on June 13th of 1994? Isn't that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: May I publish it to the jury, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. Why don't you ask him--you want to ask him a question about the frame numbers?

MR. NEUFELD: That appears in each picture? Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: Aside from the number in the lower right-hand corner of the actual print, is there also a number beneath the print which indicates which frame it was or which shot it was in the roll?

MR. ROKAHR: There's only one imprint on the negative. There are no other numbers.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, no. Are there numbers below each print there that would show you it is the third frame or the fourth frame or the sixth frame?

MR. ROKAHR: You mean the ones that are put on by Kodak?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes. The one put on by Kodak.

MR. ROKAHR: Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And do those also appear on those sheets?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, before I publish it, I would like to use the elmo, and I think we have to cut the feed.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Just a couple questions first. Sir, in the--those establishment, location, overall shots, whatever you want to call it, those first 33 shots, in those 33 shots, you used the flash?

MR. ROKAHR: I use a flash on every photograph I take.

MR. NEUFELD: And the--and in addition to the flash, there were streetlights that to some extent or other artificial lights that were there that illuminated the scene as well; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you can see the illumination given off by those other lights in these various prints; can you not?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And when you shot the two photographs of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, as to those two shots, you shot those with a flash; did you not?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm now going to show you what is frame 34 and 35 on your first roll of film.

MR. NEUFELD: Is the feed cut?

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, first of all, let me show you one at a time. Do you see those two?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And by the way, all the other photographs on that first roll, 1 through 33, those were all shot at nighttime; isn't that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: They were shot what?

MR. NEUFELD: At nighttime.

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: And as to 34, the 34th picture, do you see that on the screen?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: That is Detective Fuhrman.

MR. NEUFELD: And in 35, is that also Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: That is also Detective Fuhrman.

MR. NEUFELD: And those were the last two pictures you took on that first roll of film during the night at Bundy on June 13th--in the early morning hours of June 13th, 1994?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: At night?

THE COURT: Overruled."

September 3, 1995

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But you can't tell by looking at the contact sheet how much time elapsed between each photograph; is that right?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct. I could not tell.
MR. DARDEN: And you can't tell by looking at that contact sheet the exact time it was when you took the last photograph on that particular roll, correct?
MR. ROKAHR: No, I could not.

October 28, 1996 Officer Robert Riske

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, at about 6:30,6:35 is when the pointing picture was taken?
A. Right.
Q. The picture of Fuhrman pointing at the glove, right?
A. Right.
Q. Who else was in that general area when that picture was taken, if anybody?
A. A photographer.
Q. Anyone else?
A. No.
MR. BLASIER: May I have a minute, Your Honor?
Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now at the time that picture was taken with Mark Fuhrman pointing at the glove, it was daylight; wasn't it?
A. No.
Q. How dark was it?
A. It was like dawn, just becoming dawn. Just started to get light.
Q. Did you still need to use flashlights?
A. Kind of subjective. I mean, to stand on the street to look for evidence, probably.
Q. You could see clearly, Detective Fuhrman, from your advantage point out in front, you could see
Detective Fuhrman clearly pointing at the glove and the picture being taken, correct?
A. Um-hum.
Q. You didn't need a flashlight for that?
A. No.

October 29, 1996 Detective Ronald Phillips

Q. Now, after each of you was shown the glove in the area where the glove was found, what
occurred?
A. There was a short conversation between Vannatter and Lange and Fuhrman, and they directed --
Vannatter and Lange directed Mark and I to go back to the Bundy location, to take a look at the other glove
at the Bundy location, to see if it was a match, because we had a right-hand glove at this location,
and we wanted to see if we had a right or left-hand glove at the other location.
Q. Did you and Detective Fuhrman leave Rockingham for Bundy?
A. Yes.
Q. At approximately what time did you leave Rockingham?
A. Possibly about 6:25, because I arrived back at Bundy at 6:30.
Q. And could you tell us what happened when you arrived back at Bundy?
A. We exited our car. I walked up to Lieutenant Spangler with my supervisor and Lieutenant
Rodgers from robbery/homicide, to tell them what happened at Rockingham. Mark said he was going to go over and
take a look at the other glove. And I said, "Take a photographer with you, and make sure you photograph it."
And, at which time he went over and got Mr. Rokahr, the photographer, and they walked back up
to the original crime scene, where Nicole and Ron Goldman were at.
MR. MEDVENE: I'll place on the board which has been marked Exhibit 40.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I ask if you know what that is.
A. That's a photograph of Mark Fuhrman's hand pointing to the glove that was at the Bundy
location.
Q. And when was that taken?
A. It was taken shortly after we arrived back at Bundy. Possibly 6:35, somewhere in that area?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

March 16th

"Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?

A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST.

Q: AND THE BLOOD THAT YOU SAW BACK AT BUNDY JUST PRIOR TO YOUR DEPARTURE A FEW MINUTES BEFORE 5:00 IN THE MORNING --

A: YES, SIR.

Q: -- DID THAT BLOOD APPEAR TO BE DRY?

A: NO.

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

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

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

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE GLOVE APPEAR SHINY AT ALL?

A: IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT APPEARED TO BE WET WITH SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SHINY OR MOIST. IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER MAN'S GLOVE.

Q: AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE ARE APPEARANCES; IS THAT RIGHT, DETECTIVE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU DIDN'T PICK IT UP?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS WET OR NOT?

A: NO, I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR A FACT. "

If it appears to be not dried, then it is fresh-moist and sticky.

It doesn't really matter if the blood on the glove was dry or drying but the fact is that both Fuhrman and Vannatter testified that the blood on the glove appeared moist, they did not testify that it was still moist like Cochran told the criminal trial jurors. Blood that appears to be moist can also be dry blood.

April 3, 1995 Dennis Fung
Q ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHEN YOU SAW THIS ITEM PRIOR TO YOU COLLECTING IT, WHICHEVER
TECHNIQUE YOU USED, WHAT DID THE ITEM APPEAR LIKE?
A THE ITEM APPEARED TO HAVE SOME BROWNISH REDDISH STAINS ON THEM. IT WAS --
APPEARED TO ME TO BE SOMEWHAT DRY WITH SOME SHINY AREAS ON IT.
Q WHEN YOU FIRST SAW IT, BEFORE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO INSPECT IT AT ALL, CAREFULLY, I MEAN, WHEN YOU FIRST GLANCED AT IT, HOW SHINY DID IT APPEAR?
A THERE WERE JUST SOME AREAS THAT HAD A SHEEN TO THEM.
Q A WHAT TO THEM?
A A SHEEN, A SHININESS.
Q OKAY. DID YOU DO SOMETHING FURTHER TO DETERMINE -- TO LOOK AT IT TO DETERMINE WHETHER IN YOUR OPINION IT WAS DRY OR WET AT THAT TIME?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT IT WAS MORE LIKELY TO BE -- WELL, MAYBE I AM MISSTATING YOUR TESTIMONY. DIDN'T YOU TESTIFY THAT IN YOUR OPINION IT WAS MORE LIKELY TO BE DRY THAN WET?
A YES.
Q WHY DO YOU THINK THAT?
A MY EXPERIENCE WITH BLOODIED CLOTHING AND THEIR APPEARANCE LENT ME TO THAT ESTIMATION OF WHETHER IT WAS WET OR DRY. IT APPEARED TO ME TO BE DRY.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Every time you made and make the claim that Bailey accepted the convicted genocidal racist's explanation and no defense lawyer ever argued that and that my claim is/was ridiculous you have lied and are lying.

I was mistaken about Cochran never talking about Fuhrman's use of the word "them" in his closing argument since Cochran did talk about it. And I agree that if I ever make that claim again I would be lying just as you are lying William every time you repeat the outright false claim that Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet. Fuhrman never said that.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

It doesn't really matter if the blood on the glove was dry or drying but the fact is that both Fuhrman and Vannatter testified that the blood on the glove appeared moist, they did not testify that it was still moist like Cochran told the criminal trial jurors. Blood that appears to be moist can also be dry blood.

April 3, 1995 Dennis Fung
Q ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHEN YOU SAW THIS ITEM PRIOR TO YOU COLLECTING IT, WHICHEVER
TECHNIQUE YOU USED, WHAT DID THE ITEM APPEAR LIKE?
A THE ITEM APPEARED TO HAVE SOME BROWNISH REDDISH STAINS ON THEM. IT WAS --
APPEARED TO ME TO BE SOMEWHAT DRY WITH SOME SHINY AREAS ON IT.
Q WHEN YOU FIRST SAW IT, BEFORE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO INSPECT IT AT ALL, CAREFULLY, I MEAN, WHEN YOU FIRST GLANCED AT IT, HOW SHINY DID IT APPEAR?
A THERE WERE JUST SOME AREAS THAT HAD A SHEEN TO THEM.
Q A WHAT TO THEM?
A A SHEEN, A SHININESS.
Q OKAY. DID YOU DO SOMETHING FURTHER TO DETERMINE -- TO LOOK AT IT TO DETERMINE WHETHER IN YOUR OPINION IT WAS DRY OR WET AT THAT TIME?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT IT WAS MORE LIKELY TO BE -- WELL, MAYBE I AM MISSTATING YOUR TESTIMONY. DIDN'T YOU TESTIFY THAT IN YOUR OPINION IT WAS MORE LIKELY TO BE DRY THAN WET?
A YES.
Q WHY DO YOU THINK THAT?
A MY EXPERIENCE WITH BLOODIED CLOTHING AND THEIR APPEARANCE LENT ME TO THAT ESTIMATION OF WHETHER IT WAS WET OR DRY. IT APPEARED TO ME TO BE DRY.

bobaugust

Again, I ask you should you be allowed privileges that you will not allow others? You said that witnesses testified to blood being fresh when they only said it appeared fresh and then said if it appeared fresh it was fresh. The magnificent JC said it they testified it was moist, when the said it appeared moist and not dry.

[William Anthony]

I was mistaken about Cochran never talking about Fuhrman's use of the word "them" in his closing argument since Cochran did talk about it. And I agree that if I ever make that claim again I would be lying just as you are lying William every time you repeat the outright false claim that Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet. Fuhrman never said that.

bobaugust

Does reasonable inference mean anything to you?

[weezer]

Again, I ask you should you be allowed privileges that you will not allow others? You said that witnesses testified to blood being fresh when they only said it appeared fresh and then said if it appeared fresh it was fresh. The magnificent JC said it they testified it was moist, when the said it appeared moist and not dry.

he also said rosa lopez was going to give orenthal an alibi -- ehhhh -- wrong! and then when she wasn't able to, the defense 'dream team' hid the evidence and lied about it. you really should be more selective in your adoration. imo

[William Anthony]

he also said rosa lopez was going to give orenthal an alibi -- ehhhh -- wrong! and then when she wasn't able to, the defense 'dream team' hid the evidence and lied about it. you really should be more selective in your adoration. imo

The same could be said about you.

[SlowHandSam]

Every time you made and make the claim that Bailey accepted the convicted genocidal racist's explanation and no defense lawyer ever argued that and that my claim is/was ridiculous you have lied and are lying.

William, it's finally dawned on me that you are making a FALSE claim that MF is a "convicted genocidal racist". Please provide proof (credible) that substantiates this bold outright false characterization of MF.

Else, you should cease this label of MF just as you instruct us to stop calling oj a murderer or a butcher.

[William Anthony]

William, it's finally dawned on me that you are making a FALSE claim that MF is a "convicted genocidal racist". Please provide proof (credible) that substantiates this bold outright false characterization of MF.

Else, you should cease this label of MF just as you instruct us to stop calling oj a murderer or a butcher.

You left off a word perjurer which changes the whole context of what I was saying. I have explained the difference in saying he committed genocide and saying that he was a genocidal racist. The evidence, which allows me to say this, is the testimony of Kathleen Bell. I think you are stretching to say that I said he was convicted of being a genocidal racist, since there is no law against that, only acting on it. He was convicted of perjury in a court of law and Ms. Bell's testimony convicted him of being a genocidal racist. Where is the testimony(i.e. statements given under oath in a court of law under penalty of perjury (pun intended) that Simpson told anyone he murdered or butchered Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. I have never instructed anyone to stop, only pointed out that he was found not guilty and it was not correct to label him as a murderer and a butcher. I understand that my meaning may not have been clear. From now on I will say convicted perjurer and a genocidal racist so that you will understand. Thanks.

[weezer]

You left off a word perjurer which changes the whole context of what I was saying. I have explained the difference in saying he committed genocide and saying that he was a genocidal racist. The evidence, which allows me to say this, is the testimony of Kathleen Bell. I think you are stretching to say that I said he was convicted of being a genocidal racist, since there is no law against that, only acting on it. He was convicted of perjury in a court of law and Ms. Bell's testimony convicted him of being a genocidal racist. Where is the testimony(i.e. statements given under oath in a court of law under penalty of perjury (pun intended) that Simpson told anyone he murdered or butchered Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. I have never instructed anyone to stop, only pointed out that he was found not guilty and it was not correct to label him as a murderer and a butcher. I understand that my meaning may not have been clear. From now on I will say convicted perjurer and a genocidal racist so that you will understand. Thanks.

Fuhrman is in fact a convicted perjurer -- there is no evidence that he is a genocidal racist. That is YOUR opinion and you need to indicate that. There is credible and substantial evidence that orenthal james simpson butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

[SlowHandSam]

You left off a word perjurer which changes the whole context of what I was saying. I have explained the difference in saying he committed genocide and saying that he was a genocidal racist. The evidence, which allows me to say this, is the testimony of Kathleen Bell. I think you are stretching to say that I said he was convicted of being a genocidal racist, since there is no law against that, only acting on it. He was convicted of perjury in a court of law and Ms. Bell's testimony convicted him of being a genocidal racist. Where is the testimony(i.e. statements given under oath in a court of law under penalty of perjury (pun intended) that Simpson told anyone he murdered or butchered Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. I have never instructed anyone to stop, only pointed out that he was found not guilty and it was not correct to label him as a murderer and a butcher. I understand that my meaning may not have been clear. From now on I will say convicted perjurer and a genocidal racist so that you will understand. Thanks.

Read your own, multiple posts, where you label MF as a "convicted genocidal racist".

He is not. He was convicted of perjury, only. And since he has NOT gone on a campaign to ELIMINATE or EXTERMINATE an entire race, you are wrong.

[William Anthony]

Fuhrman is in fact a convicted perjurer -- there is no evidence that he is a genocidal racist. That is YOUR opinion and you need to indicate that. There is credible and substantial evidence that orenthal james simpson butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

The verdict says he is not a murderer. There is proof that MF is a convicted perjurer. There is credible evidence that he is genocidal and substantial evidence that he is a racist. The ones charged with weighing and giving credibility to the evidence said there was not enough evidence sufficient enough to find Simpson guilty.

[William Anthony]

Read your own, multiple posts, where you label MF as a "convicted genocidal racist".

He is not. He was convicted of perjury, only. And since he has NOT gone on a campaign to ELIMINATE or EXTERMINATE an entire race, you are wrong.

I know what I posted and he is a convicted perjurer and the evidence supports the fact that he is a genocidal racist. He was exposed for what he is before he got the chance, imho.

[weezer]

The verdict says he is not a murderer. There is proof that MF is a convicted perjurer. There is credible evidence that he is genocidal and substantial evidence that he is a racist. The ones charged with weighing and giving credibility to the evidence said there was not enough evidence sufficient enough to find Simpson guilty.

there is no credible evidence that Fuhrman is genocidal:

"–noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

—Related forms
gen·o·cid·al, adjective"

You are posting YOUR opinion of Fuhrman and as the rules states, you must mark your post as 'imo'.

[martin II]

he also said rosa lopez was going to give orenthal an alibi -- ehhhh -- wrong! and then when she wasn't able to, the defense 'dream team' hid the evidence and lied about it. you really should be more selective in your adoration. imo

The prosecution got Peratis to lie about the blood he drew.

J Cochran assembeled the Dream Tean and they ate the prosuctions lunch in front of the world and many are still angry because of it.:cool:

[William Anthony]

there is no credible evidence that Fuhrman is genocidal:

"–noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

—Related forms
gen·o·cid·al, adjective"

You are posting YOUR opinion of Fuhrman and as the rules states, you must mark your post as 'imo'.

You are mistaken. I am posting what the magnificent JC called him, and there was no objection stated. I agree and found Ms. Bell to be credible.

[William Anthony]

there is no credible evidence that Fuhrman is genocidal:

"–noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

—Related forms
gen·o·cid·al, adjective"

You are posting YOUR opinion of Fuhrman and as the rules states, you must mark your post as 'imo'.

I am amazed and astonished at your new found respect for the rules. You have called Simpson a murderer and the butcher of brentwood and called the jury ignorant and uneducated, without stating, imo. I think equality demands that you allow me as a member of this community the same privileges you allow yourself. IIRC, you called Reverend Wright a racist, based on his words. Please, allow me the same privilege. I know you will say that the convicted perjurer and genocidal racist, as supported by the evidence, was speaking in a screen play. It could be said that the Reverend Wright was playing to the camera. Please, allow others equal treatment. The Reverend Wright did not deny saying them (pun intended) in (pun intended) the church.:)

The telling point is that the prosecution did not object on the basis of an argument not supported by the evidence or misstates the testimony, when he was labeled a convicted perjurer and genocidal racist, as supported by the evidence. The comments Wright made were nasty, uncalled for and some untrue, and represented his true feelings, imho. The comments MF made were beyond nasty, uncalled for, vile, racist, showed corruption and reprehensible and represented his true feelings, imho.

[bobaugust]

Again, I ask you should you be allowed privileges that you will not allow others? You said that witnesses testified to blood being fresh when they only said it appeared fresh and then said if it appeared fresh it was fresh. The magnificent JC said it they testified it was moist, when the said it appeared moist and not dry.

There is a difference between saying fresh blood that appears fresh is fresh and saying that blood that appears to be moist is moist. I explained that difference and you even quoted it.

"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."

You are correct when you say Cochran said the witnesses testified that the blood on the glove was moist. But the fact is that the witnesses did not say that they said it only appeared to be moist. Cochran's statement was false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Does reasonable inference mean anything to you?

Reasonable inferences are drawn from facts, must be consistent with the proven facts, and must flow naturally, reasonably, and logically from them. The fact is the evidence in this case is that only one glove and a knit cap was seen under the plant leaves at Ron's feet when the police arrived at Bundy. The fact is that the blood and fiber evidence found on the killer's right hand glove that was found behind Kaelin's room points only to Simpson as handling that glove, not Mark Fuhrman. The fact is that the evidence in this case is that Simpson was the person Kaelin heard behind his room where the glove was found.

Yes, I believe in reasonable inferences since circumstantial evidence requires the drawing of inferences. Your inference William is not reasonable, not logical, and not supported by any physical evidence or any proven fact. Your inference is based only an unclear answer to an improper question, an interpretation of what you think Fuhrman meant not what he said, and pure speculation.

Every time you repeat the outright false claim that Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet you are lying.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Reasonable inferences are drawn from facts, must be consistent with the proven facts, and must flow naturally, reasonably, and logically from them. The fact is the evidence in this case is that only one glove and a knit cap was seen under the plant leaves at Ron's feet when the police arrived at Bundy. The fact is that the blood and fiber evidence found on the killer's right hand glove that was found behind Kaelin's room points only to Simpson as handling that glove, not Mark Fuhrman. The fact is that the evidence in this case is that Simpson was the person Kaelin heard behind his room where the glove was found.

Yes, I believe in reasonable inferences since circumstantial evidence requires the drawing of inferences. Your inference William is not reasonable, not logical, and not supported by any physical evidence or any proven fact. Your inference is based only an unclear answer to an improper question, an interpretation of what you think Fuhrman meant not what he said, and pure speculation.

Every time you repeat the outright false claim that Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet you are lying.

bobaugust

I think you may be confused. I am almost certain of it. I realize that you have not studied law and this is why your posts are off target, imho. The jury determines/proves what the facts are. There are no facts unless they are stipulated to or judicially noticed. The jury determines/proves what the facts are by assigning credibility and giving weight to the evidence. This is why they are called the tryer of fact. The jury is instructed on this and that they can credit the testimony of one over the testimony of many, if the so choose.
This is why you post wrong information like proven facts, imho.

[William Anthony]

There is a difference between saying fresh blood that appears fresh is fresh and saying that blood that appears to be moist is moist. I explained that difference and you even quoted it.

"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."

You are correct when you say Cochran said the witnesses testified that the blood on the glove was moist. But the fact is that the witnesses did not say that they said it only appeared to be moist. Cochran's statement was false.

bobaugust

I do not know why you do not understand or claim that you do not understand that the magnificent JC said the same thing you did. You call him false but will not do the same for yourself. This is the inequality that I so adamantly fight.

You said if blood appears to be fresh it is. JC said Vannatter testified the glove was moist. Here is the relevant portion of Vanatter's testimony.

A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST.

If the blood appeared not to be dry and flaky and falling off but moist, it was moist, using your words about freshness. This is why when you say people are lying or making false statements it leaves a stale (pun intended) disrespectful and polluted atmosphere in the community, imho.

[William Anthony]

It doesn't really matter if the blood on the glove was dry or drying but the fact is that both Fuhrman and Vannatter testified that the blood on the glove appeared moist, they did not testify that it was still moist like Cochran told the criminal trial jurors. Blood that appears to be moist can also be dry blood.

April 3, 1995 Dennis Fung
Q ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHEN YOU SAW THIS ITEM PRIOR TO YOU COLLECTING IT, WHICHEVER
TECHNIQUE YOU USED, WHAT DID THE ITEM APPEAR LIKE?
A THE ITEM APPEARED TO HAVE SOME BROWNISH REDDISH STAINS ON THEM. IT WAS --
APPEARED TO ME TO BE SOMEWHAT DRY WITH SOME SHINY AREAS ON IT.
Q WHEN YOU FIRST SAW IT, BEFORE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO INSPECT IT AT ALL, CAREFULLY, I MEAN, WHEN YOU FIRST GLANCED AT IT, HOW SHINY DID IT APPEAR?
A THERE WERE JUST SOME AREAS THAT HAD A SHEEN TO THEM.
Q A WHAT TO THEM?
A A SHEEN, A SHININESS.
Q OKAY. DID YOU DO SOMETHING FURTHER TO DETERMINE -- TO LOOK AT IT TO DETERMINE WHETHER IN YOUR OPINION IT WAS DRY OR WET AT THAT TIME?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT IT WAS MORE LIKELY TO BE -- WELL, MAYBE I AM MISSTATING YOUR TESTIMONY. DIDN'T YOU TESTIFY THAT IN YOUR OPINION IT WAS MORE LIKELY TO BE DRY THAN WET?
A YES.
Q WHY DO YOU THINK THAT?
A MY EXPERIENCE WITH BLOODIED CLOTHING AND THEIR APPEARANCE LENT ME TO THAT ESTIMATION OF WHETHER IT WAS WET OR DRY. IT APPEARED TO ME TO BE DRY.

bobaugust

Why are you posting the testimony of DF, when the original discussion was about the testimony of Vannatter and MF, the convicted perjurer and genocidal racist, as supported by the evidence? Additionally, DF did not see the glove at the same times that Vannatter and MF did. Nice try though.

[bobaugust]

I think you may be confused. I am almost certain of it. I realize that you have not studied law and this is why your posts are off target, imho. The jury determines/proves what the facts are. There are no facts unless they are stipulated to or judicially noticed. The jury determines/proves what the facts are by assigning credibility and giving weight to the evidence. This is why they are called the tryer of fact. The jury is instructed on this and that they can credit the testimony of one over the testimony of many, if the so choose.
This is why you post wrong information like proven facts, imho.

I think you're the one who is confused. No one in the criminal trial or the civil trial ever made the false claims you have made. Your inferences are not reasonable, not logical, and not supported by any physical evidence or any proven fact. Your claims are false.

Every time you repeat the false claim that Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet you are lying.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I do not know why you do not understand or claim that you do not understand that the magnificent JC said the same thing you did. You call him false but will not do the same for yourself. This is the inequality that I so adamantly fight.

You said if blood appears to be fresh it is. JC said Vannatter testified the glove was moist. Here is the relevant portion of Vanatter's testimony.

A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST.

If the blood appeared not to be dry and flaky and falling off but moist, it was moist, using your words about freshness. This is why when you say people are lying or making false statements it leaves a stale (pun intended) disrespectful and polluted atmosphere in the community, imho.

I've already said I was incorrect when I said Fung and Terrazas testified that the blood drops at Bundy were fresh blood because what they actually said was the blood appeared to be fresh blood. But the fact is that if blood appears to be fresh then it is fresh.

Both Fuhrman and Vannatter testified that the blood on the glove appeared to be moist. Dennis Fung testified that the blood on the glove had a sheen or shininess. Based on his experience with bloodied clothing and their appearance it was his opinion it appeared to be dry. The fact is that fresh blood that may appear to be moist doesn't mean it is moist since dried fresh blood can also appear to be moist.

Cochran told the criminal trial jurors that "Fuhrman and Vannatter would say that the blood was still moist and sticky." What Cochran said was false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Why are you posting the testimony of DF, when the original discussion was about the testimony of Vannatter and MF, the convicted perjurer and genocidal racist, as supported by the evidence? Additionally, DF did not see the glove at the same times that Vannatter and MF did. Nice try though.

Dennis Fung saw the glove less than a hour after Fuhrman and Vannatter saw it and described the appearance of the blood pretty much the same way they did except that his opinion was that it was more likely to be dry than wet. Your inability to control yourself by prefacing peoples names with what you think of them is funny.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Dennis Fung saw the glove less than a hour after Fuhrman and Vannatter saw it and described the appearance of the blood pretty much the same way they did except that his opinion was that it was more likely to be dry than wet. Your inability to control yourself by prefacing peoples names with what you think of them is funny.

bobaugust

When I preface people's names, you are right in saying that is what I think of them, my opinion. However, I do not always preface someone's name with what I think of them.

The fact is that you relied on the testimony of Vannatter and MF to call the magnificent JC a liar. However, I showed you that you made a similar, if not identical statement as the magnificent JC. You then tried to post the testimony of DF to support your irrational, imho, argument. The fact that the blood appeared shinny an hour later, allows me to draw the reasonable inference that it was carried to the scene, approximately an hour previously, in plastic. I think it is well known that plastic sweats, for lack of a better word.

[William Anthony]

I've already said I was incorrect when I said Fung and Terrazas testified that the blood drops at Bundy were fresh blood because what they actually said was the blood appeared to be fresh blood. But the fact is that if blood appears to be fresh then it is fresh.

Both Fuhrman and Vannatter testified that the blood on the glove appeared to be moist. Dennis Fung testified that the blood on the glove had a sheen or shininess. Based on his experience with bloodied clothing and their appearance it was his opinion it appeared to be dry. The fact is that fresh blood that may appear to be moist doesn't mean it is moist since dried fresh blood can also appear to be moist.

Cochran told the criminal trial jurors that "Fuhrman and Vannatter would say that the blood was still moist and sticky." What Cochran said was false.

bobaugust

You continue to say that the magnificent JC 's statement was false, but won't allow yourself the same privilege. You continue to say if it appeared fresh it was fresh. I have posted Vannatter's testimony, which from his experience (not flaking off) allowed him to say the blood was not dry, i.e. moist. The magnificent JC understood this even if others did not.

[bobaugust]

When I preface people's names, you are right in saying that is what I think of them, my opinion. However, I do not always preface someone's name with what I think of them.

The fact is that you relied on the testimony of Vannatter and MF to call the magnificent JC a liar. However, I showed you that you made a similar, if not identical statement as the magnificent JC. You then tried to post the testimony of DF to support your irrational, imho, argument. The fact that the blood appeared shinny an hour later, allows me to draw the reasonable inference that it was carried to the scene, approximately an hour previously, in plastic. I think it is well known that plastic sweats, for lack of a better word.

I understand that's why you do that. That's what makes it funny.

Neither Fuhrman nor Vannatter said the blood on the glove was moist. The statement Cochran made to the criminal trial jurors was false. The error in a post I made a year ago was similar to Cochran's false statement since we both falsely stated what witnesses actually testified to. The difference is that I wasn't speaking in a court of law in a trial, I was discussing the issue on a discussion group and I admitted I was mistaken. Cochran was trying to influence the jury by making false statements and never admitted he was mistaken.

The fact is that the blood appeared shiny on the glove because that is how blood can appear on clothing. There is no evidence that Simpson or anyone else carried that glove in a baggie.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You continue to say that the magnificent JC 's statement was false, but won't allow yourself the same privilege. You continue to say if it appeared fresh it was fresh. I have posted Vannatter's testimony, which from his experience (not flaking off) allowed him to say the blood was not dry, i.e. moist. The magnificent JC understood this even if others did not.

Cochran's statement to the criminal trial jurors in his closing argument was false. Vannatter never said the blood was not dry, he said it appeared not to be dry. Another difference between what I said and Cochran said is that I was speaking about how fresh blood was not old blood and Cochran was speaking about if blood was wet or dry.

The fact is that Fresh blood that appears to be fresh blood is fresh blood since old blood can not appear to be fresh blood. The fact is that blood on clothing that appears wet may be wet or may be dry. Both can have the same appearance.

I don't believe you knew what Cochran understood. Did you know him personally and speak to him about this issue? Did you read anywhere that is what he said he understood?

bobaugust

[martin II]

Because he pled no contest.

but the world saw hin lie

[weezer]

but the world saw hin lie

what criminal act do you think ac was up to that he had to plead the 5th?

[William Anthony]

I understand that's why you do that. That's what makes it funny.

Neither Fuhrman nor Vannatter said the blood on the glove was moist. The statement Cochran made to the criminal trial jurors was false. The error in a post I made a year ago was similar to Cochran's false statement since we both falsely stated what witnesses actually testified to. The difference is that I wasn't speaking in a court of law in a trial, I was discussing the issue on a discussion group and I admitted I was mistaken. Cochran was trying to influence the jury by making false statements and never admitted he was mistaken.

The fact is that the blood appeared shiny on the glove because that is how blood can appear on clothing. There is no evidence that Simpson or anyone else carried that glove in a baggie.

bobaugust

I am not talking about the error you made a year ago, since that is a given. I see no need to waste precious time answering you repeated false posts with multiple responses, so I will address them all in this one, if possible. Forgive me, if I forget some. The magnificent JC was not mistaken as Vannatter testified from his experience, which is what DF relied on, that the blood appeared to be not dry. You recently posted if the blood appeared to be fresh it was fresh. Vannatter testified, if the blood appeared to be moist. The magnificent JC stated he testified it was moist. If it appeared to be moist, it is moist, using your logic. The only reason you admitted to being wrong about your error a year ago is because I posted it. You disrespect the community with those false posts, imho. You may not understand how a legal argument is made. Therefore, I will ignore your disrespect of the magnificent JC.

The next one that I can remember deals with ppm and ppb. Lets do it this way. Hopefully, you will now see it. First, let me say that you again did not post Martz' exact testimony. So, here is exactly what he said. "And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million." You claimed your spell checker left it out before. I guess you will claim the same thing this time. He did not comprehend that a thousand parts per million is a part per billion. You said a part per billion is one thousandth of a part per million. Let's now use substitution. 1,000/1,000,000 (one part per billion) x (of) 1/1,000, 000=1,000/1,000,000,000,000 (if I am correct that is one part per trillion). However, if we substitute, 1,000/1,000,000 (one part per billion) x 1,000 (what the representative told Martz)=1,000,000/1,000,000=1 (the one stands for one part per billion or a thousand parts per million multiplied a thousand times. Simply stated one part per billion is a thousand parts per million or a part per billion.

There were only two non-fitting gloves that were produced in evidence as the ones worn by the killer. When the magnificent JC asked the jury what MF meant when he said them, he was arguing MF said he said he saw two gloves.
You may not realize that he was saying in a few words that the jury should not ignore their common sense and that the dream team had shown evidence that MF had motive, means and opportunity to plant the glove, You may not understand that this was the magnificent JC's way to involve the jury and keep their attention.

This is all that I can think of at the present but rest assured that, if I think of any more, I will address them.

[bobaugust]

I am not talking about the error you made a year ago, since that is a given. I see no need to waste precious time answering you repeated false posts with multiple responses, so I will address them all in this one, if possible. Forgive me, if I forget some. The magnificent JC was not mistaken as Vannatter testified from his experience, which is what DF relied on, that the blood appeared to be not dry. You recently posted if the blood appeared to be fresh it was fresh. Vannatter testified, if the blood appeared to be moist. The magnificent JC stated he testified it was moist. If it appeared to be moist, it is moist, using your logic. The only reason you admitted to being wrong about your error a year ago is because I posted it. You disrespect the community with those false posts, imho. You may not understand how a legal argument is made. Therefore, I will ignore your disrespect of the magnificent JC.

The next one that I can remember deals with ppm and ppb. Lets do it this way. Hopefully, you will now see it. First, let me say that you again did not post Martz' exact testimony. So, here is exactly what he said. "And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million." You claimed your spell checker left it out before. I guess you will claim the same thing this time. He did not comprehend that a thousand parts per million is a part per billion. You said a part per billion is one thousandth of a part per million. Let's now use substitution. 1,000/1,000,000 (one part per billion) x (of) 1/1,000, 000=1,000/1,000,000,000,000 (if I am correct that is one part per trillion). However, if we substitute, 1,000/1,000,000 (one part per billion) x 1,000 (what the representative told Martz)=1,000,000/1,000,000=1 (the one stands for one part per billion or a thousand parts per million multiplied a thousand times. Simply stated one part per billion is a thousand parts per million or a part per billion.

There were only two non-fitting gloves that were produced in evidence as the ones worn by the killer. When the magnificent JC asked the jury what MF meant when he said them, he was arguing MF said he said he saw two gloves.
You may not realize that he was saying in a few words that the jury should not ignore their common sense and that the dream team had shown evidence that MF had motive, means and opportunity to plant the glove, You may not understand that this was the magnificent JC's way to involve the jury and keep their attention.

This is all that I can think of at the present but rest assured that, if I think of any more, I will address them.

Lets start with how the blood looked. Both Fuhrman and Vannatter testified the blood on the glove appeared to be moist, they did not say it was moist they said appeared. You of all people William should be able to understand the difference between saying "it appeared" and "it was" since you pointed that mistake out in a post I had made. But when it comes to Cochran making a legal argument to the jury you now argue it's okay that he falsely told the jury that Fuhrman and Vannatter would testify that the blood on the glove ''was" moist. You are either very confused or you are a hypocrite.

You again took Martz's words out of context and you are mistaken as to what he was saying. This is Martz's testimony. July 25, 1995

"I received that study, and the first thing in looking at it, it appeared to be out of place. They were talking about toxic clean-up of EDTA and they had a lot of things that were mentioned, and all of a sudden, out of nowhere came the fact that it said one part per billion would be normally expected in a human or considered to be the normal level. And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there. So what I did was, the next morning, I called back to the laboratory and had them search the same reference. And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million.

The dashes in between Martz's words indicate a pause in his conversation. He started to say it was a thousand parts per million, but did not complete that before continuing with his explanation that it also wasn't a part per billion. What Martz was saying was that after he had the laboratory search the same reference it ended up that it was not a part per million or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million. He then went on to explain why the report said a thousand parts per million

"In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood."

Again you claim that "one part per billion is a thousand parts per million or a part per billion." WRONG.

In our original discussion you posted that one part per million is equal to 1000 parts per billion and I agreed . You even posted this chart.
1 part per million = 1,000 parts per billion
2 parts per million = 2,000 parts per billion
3 parts per million = 3, 000 parts per billion
4 parts per million = 4, 000 parts per billion
5 parts per million = 5, 000 parts per billion

One part per million is a very small amount. One part per billion is even a smaller amount. 1000 times smaller than one part per million.
Your claim that one part per billion is the same as one thousand parts per million is wrong. How can something smaller than one part per million be equal to an amount 1000 times greater than one part per million?
One part per billion would be equal to 1000th of one part per million, not 1000 parts per million

You misunderstood what Martz said and your math is false. This is the correct simple math.
1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

Your claim that one part per billion is equal to a thousand parts per million is false and every time you repeat that false claim you are lying.

This is what Cochran said in his closing argument.
"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"?

Cochran completely misrepresented this issue. He said there is a question he was asked about "gloves." Poor Mr. Johnnie didn't even get Bailey's script right with that false statement. Uelmen didn't ask Fuhrman about "gloves" he asked him about one glove.
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?

Cochran then said to the jury, "Well--he says, well--he is talking about gloves and he says "Them."

Another false statement from Cochran. Fuhrman never said he was talking about "gloves." Fuhrman answered Uelmen's question with the words "the glove" and then went on to explain what he saw from his vantage point. The evidence under the plant leaves. Them. A knit cap and a glove.

Mr. Johnnie says, "He never explained that. He says "Them." Does that mean two gloves?"
Mr. Johnnie was wrong again. Fuhrman did explain what he meant.
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.

Every time William you repeat the false claim that Mark Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet you are lying.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Lets start with how the blood looked. Both Fuhrman and Vannatter testified the blood on the glove appeared to be moist, they did not say it was moist they said appeared. You of all people William should be able to understand the difference between saying "it appeared" and "it was" since you pointed that mistake out in a post I had made. But when it comes to Cochran making a legal argument to the jury you now argue it's okay that he falsely told the jury that Fuhrman and Vannatter would testify that the blood on the glove ''was" moist. You are either very confused or you are a hypocrite.

You again took Martz's words out of context and you are mistaken as to what he was saying. This is Martz's testimony. July 25, 1995

"I received that study, and the first thing in looking at it, it appeared to be out of place. They were talking about toxic clean-up of EDTA and they had a lot of things that were mentioned, and all of a sudden, out of nowhere came the fact that it said one part per billion would be normally expected in a human or considered to be the normal level. And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there. So what I did was, the next morning, I called back to the laboratory and had them search the same reference. And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million.

The dashes in between Martz's words indicate a pause in his conversation. He started to say it was a thousand parts per million, but did not complete that before continuing with his explanation that it also wasn't a part per billion. What Martz was saying was that after he had the laboratory search the same reference it ended up that it was not a part per million or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million. He then went on to explain why the report said a thousand parts per million

"In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood."

Again you claim that "one part per billion is a thousand parts per million or a part per billion." WRONG.

In our original discussion you posted that one part per million is equal to 1000 parts per billion and I agreed . You even posted this chart.
1 part per million = 1,000 parts per billion
2 parts per million = 2,000 parts per billion
3 parts per million = 3, 000 parts per billion
4 parts per million = 4, 000 parts per billion
5 parts per million = 5, 000 parts per billion

One part per million is a very small amount. One part per billion is even a smaller amount. 1000 times smaller than one part per million.
Your claim that one part per billion is the same as one thousand parts per million is wrong. How can something smaller than one part per million be equal to an amount 1000 times greater than one part per million?
One part per billion would be equal to 1000th of one part per million, not 1000 parts per million

You misunderstood what Martz said and your math is false. This is the correct simple math.
1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

Your claim that one part per billion is equal to a thousand parts per million is false and every time you repeat that false claim you are lying.

This is what Cochran said in his closing argument.
"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"?

Cochran completely misrepresented this issue. He said there is a question he was asked about "gloves." Poor Mr. Johnnie didn't even get Bailey's script right with that false statement. Uelmen didn't ask Fuhrman about "gloves" he asked him about one glove.
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?

Cochran then said to the jury, "Well--he says, well--he is talking about gloves and he says "Them."

Another false statement from Cochran. Fuhrman never said he was talking about "gloves." Fuhrman answered Uelmen's question with the words "the glove" and then went on to explain what he saw from his vantage point. The evidence under the plant leaves. Them. A knit cap and a glove.

Mr. Johnnie says, "He never explained that. He says "Them." Does that mean two gloves?"
Mr. Johnnie was wrong again. Fuhrman did explain what he meant.
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.

Every time William you repeat the false claim that Mark Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron's feet you are lying.

bobaugust

What you don't seem to understand is that the magnificent JC was that the convicted perjurer and genocidal racist's,as supported by the evidence, statement did not make sense, since he had not been asked about the hat in several pages of testimony, as supported by the evidence. He was asked about a glove. Ergo, the convicted perjurer and genocidal racist, as supported by the evidence admitted to seeing two gloves, as supported by the evidence. Please, refrain from calling me a liar (saying I am lying), because you connected the dots differently. I could say that, because you failed to connect the dots, you are lying.

Let's do it this way. I don't know how many ways I can show you. Let's use simpler math. 1/2 x 1/4=1/8. The 1/2 (part) is larger than the 1/8 (part), or simply stated when you multiply a part by a part you get a smaller amount. When you compare the two, you must multiply the numerator or simply put 1/2=4/8. In doing so you multiply the numerator and denominator of the given by the same number to keep them equal. The 1,000/1,000 is a whole number expressed as a fraction (a part). To go from 1/1,000 to 1,000/1,000,000 you must multiply by 1,000/1,000=1,000/1,000,000 or lowest terms 1/1,000 (one thousandth of a million-part per billion) x1,000/1,000=1,000/1,000,000 or 1/1,000,(one part per billion per million, this is what you forget). They are equal, just expressed in different terms, which is what the EPA representative attempted to explain and was seemingly misunderstood by you and Martz. That is why Martz' EDTA results were ridiculous and the prosecution expert told them he did not know this and Dr. said he would have been dead. 2 Parts per million would be 2,000, parts per billion. The amount of EDTA to preserve blood, according to Martz, was near 2,000 parts per million. This would mean that it would be 2,000,000 parts per billion. According to the EPA, the amount found to preserve blood,or in unpreserved blood, (I forget and do not feel the need to look it up) would have been one part per billion or a thousand parts per million. Martz testified to having twice the amount of EDTA in his own unpreserved blood (either way, amount in preserved or unpreserved, Martz was wrong).

[William Anthony]

You again took Martz's words out of context and you are mistaken as to what he was saying. This is Martz's testimony. July 25, 1995

The dashes in between Martz's words indicate a pause in his conversation. He started to say it was a thousand parts per million, but did not complete that before continuing with his explanation that it also wasn't a part per billion.


Cochran completely misrepresented this issue.
bobaugust

The only person who is misrepresenting the issue is you by your comical,imho, claim to know what the dashes in the transcript meant. You claim he was going to say it was not a part per billion and, for a second time left out the words or a part per billion. Let's non hypocritically place his words in context. And it ended up it was not a part per million. But it was a thousand---or a part per billion. The dashes indicate he was saying the representative told him it was a thousand parts per million or a part per million. He then said it was a thousand parts per million. The dashes indicate to me that a light flashed in his head when he was talking. I'll bet he wished he could run and hide at that point. He did not fool the prosecution's or the defense's experts. That is why the letter stating Martz' results had to be explained. It seems the only ones he deceived are those who do not want to look at the evidence as it was stated, and want to interject meanings that aren't there when he said but it was a thousand---or a part per billion and try to say he said it was not. You called JC a liar for changing the meaning of testimony and you left out the words or a part per billion, twice, wanted to change the words but it was to was not. What is your definition of hypocrite?

[weezer]

*Snipped* ". . .the convicted perjurer and genocidal racist's. . ."

unless you can substantiate the claim that Fuhrman was a convicted perjurer AND genocidal racist, you need to state that this is your opinion.

[William Anthony]

I hope this will end this but I think not.

Old Today, 01:09 PM
William Anthony's Avatar
William Anthony William Anthony is invisible
Criime Library Supreme Member

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: love everlasting
Posts: 6,032
William Anthony is a name known to allWilliam Anthony is a name known to allWilliam Anthony is a name known to allWilliam Anthony is a name known to allWilliam Anthony is a name known to allWilliam Anthony is a name known to allWilliam Anthony is a name known to allWilliam Anthony is a name known to allWilliam Anthony is a name known to allWilliam Anthony is a name known to allWilliam Anthony is a name known to all
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobaugust View Post

You again took Martz's words out of context and you are mistaken as to what he was saying. This is Martz's testimony. July 25, 1995

The dashes in between Martz's words indicate a pause in his conversation. He started to say it was a thousand parts per million, but did not complete that before continuing with his explanation that it also wasn't a part per billion.


Cochran completely misrepresented this issue.
bobaugust
The only person who is misrepresenting the issue is you by your comical,imho, claim to know what the dashes in the transcript meant. You claim he was going to say it was not a part per billion and, for a second time left out the words or a part per billion. Let's non hypocritically place his words in context. And it ended up it was not a part per million. But it was a thousand---or a part per billion. The dashes indicate he was saying the representative told him it was a thousand parts per million or a part per million. He then said it was a thousand parts per million. The dashes indicate to me that a light flashed in his head when he was talking. I'll bet he wished he could run and hide at that point. He did not fool the prosecution's or the defense's experts. That is why the letter stating Martz' results had to be explained. It seems the only ones he deceived are those who do not want to look at the evidence as it was stated, and want to interject meanings that aren't there when he said but it was a thousand---or a part per billion and try to say he said it was not. You called JC a liar for changing the meaning of testimony and you left out the words or a part per billion, twice, wanted to change the words but it was to was not. What is your definition of hypocrite?
__________________
Doc Holiday

The best way to win a war is to not fight one. To be able to acknowledge when we are wrong, helps us to get it right, imho.

The dashes could mean that the representative told him it was a thousand times less or a part per billion. To get to one part per billion when expressed in parts per million, you would have 1/1,000,000,000//1/1,000,000=1,000,000/1,000,000,000=1/1,000 (the multiplier. Ergo, one part per million multiplied by a thousand parts per million, or 1/1,000,000 x1,000/1,000,000=1,000/1,000,000,000,000, reducing to lowest terms, you get 1/1,000,000,000 or one part per billion. I tried what I thought was the simpler way, to no avail, to show you what the representative was saying. When you multiply by a part, you are decreasing the size of the original part.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

unless you can substantiate the claim that Fuhrman was a convicted perjurer AND genocidal racist, you need to state that this is your opinion.

I thought I had when I added as supported by the evidence, i.e. that portion of the letter where he said he wanted to bomb or burn all of the black race, and I stated I found her to be credible and I included that was what JC called him and the prosecution did not object on the basis of improper evidence or misstatement of the evidence. Therefore the evidence is not refuted that MF is a convicted perjurer and a genocidal racist. If I left out the noun indicator, a to apply to the term racist, it was simply inadvertence, or as the younger ones say, my bad.

[weezer]

I thought I had when I added as supported by the evidence, i.e. that portion of the letter where he said he wanted to bomb or burn all of the black race, and I stated I found her to be credible and I included that was what JC called him and the prosecution did not object on the basis of improper evidence or misstatement of the evidence. Therefore the evidence is not refuted that MF is a convicted perjurer and a genocidal racist. If I left out the noun indicator, a to apply to the term racist, it was simply inadvertence, or as the younger ones say, my bad.

what letter? and, mr legal scholar, you do know that what the attorney says during opening and closing argument is NOT evidence -- right?

simply because someone 'said' they heard him say that once -- but there is no evidence that it ever happened -- does not make him genocidal. you evidently have decided that that is a good way to show your hatred and good for you.....it does not release you from posting that that is your opinion.

[tv]

what letter? and, mr legal scholar, you do know that what the attorney says during opening and closing argument is NOT evidence -- right?

simply because someone 'said' they heard him say that once -- but there is no evidence that it ever happened -- does not make him genocidal. you evidently have decided that that is a good way to show your hatred and good for you.....it does not release you from posting that that is your opinion.I've never heard about this letter. I'd like to know more about it.

[William Anthony]

what letter? and, mr legal scholar, you do know that what the attorney says during opening and closing argument is NOT evidence -- right?

simply because someone 'said' they heard him say that once -- but there is no evidence that it ever happened -- does not make him genocidal. you evidently have decided that that is a good way to show your hatred and good for you.....it does not release you from posting that that is your opinion.

The letter that Kathleen Bell wrote to the defense and she was questioned about it. Of course, I know that what the lawyer says is not evidence. I also know that they are not allowed to argue in opening. They are allowed to say what they think the evidence will show in opening and in closing they give their view of what the evidence PROVES based on the evidence presented. I also know that they are not permitted to misstate the evidence or argue evidence that was not admitted.

I repeat. I did not say he committed genocide. He is a genocidal racists, as supported by the evidence. I also know that the evidence does not have to be substantial only credible.

[William Anthony]

I've never heard about this letter. I'd like to know more about it.

I find that surprising.

[tv]

The letter that Kathleen Bell wrote to the defense and she was questioned about it. Of course, I know that what the lawyer says is not evidence. I also know that they are not allowed to argue in opening. They are allowed to say what they think the evidence will show in opening and in closing they give their view of what the evidence PROVES based on the evidence presented. I also know that they are not permitted to misstate the evidence or argue evidence that was not admitted.

I repeat. I did not say he committed genocide. He is a genocidal racists, as supported by the evidence. I also know that the evidence does not have to be substantial only credible.oh, I see. I thought you had knowledge of a letter that Mark Fuhrman had written.

[weezer]

The letter that Kathleen Bell wrote to the defense and she was questioned about it. Of course, I know that what the lawyer says is not evidence. I also know that they are not allowed to argue in opening. They are allowed to say what they think the evidence will show in opening and in closing they give their view of what the evidence PROVES based on the evidence presented. I also know that they are not permitted to misstate the evidence or argue evidence that was not admitted.

I repeat. I did not say he committed genocide. He is a genocidal racists, as supported by the evidence. I also know that the evidence does not have to be substantial only credible.

LOL -- oh that letter -- LOL

there is NO evidence to support your characterization that he is a genocidal racist. for you to continue to post that is completely false and a violation of the rules of this board.

[tv]

The letter that Kathleen Bell wrote to the defense and she was questioned about it. Of course, I know that what the lawyer says is not evidence. I also know that they are not allowed to argue in opening. They are allowed to say what they think the evidence will show in opening and in closing they give their view of what the evidence PROVES based on the evidence presented. I also know that they are not permitted to misstate the evidence or argue evidence that was not admitted.

I repeat. I did not say he committed genocide. He is a genocidal racists, as supported by the evidence. I also know that the evidence does not have to be substantial only credible.You may continue to call Mark Fuhrman a genocidal racist but when you do so it trivializes the suffering of people that have been victims of true genocide.

EDIT: fbgweezer is correct. It's against the rules of this board unless you can offer proof.

[William Anthony]

oh, I see. I thought you had knowledge of a letter that Mark Fuhrman had written.

I don't think he wrote. He spoke on tapes, remember?

[William Anthony]

LOL -- oh that letter -- LOL

there is NO evidence to support your characterization that he is a genocidal racist. for you to continue to post that is completely false and a violation of the rules of this board.

I have pointed to the evidence. It never ceases to amaze me that some will not allow others the same privileges they allow themselves and constantly want to say some broke the rules, when the evidence is no rules have been broken. Did you forget the post by the moderator, stating that people involved in the trial were fair game (paraphrasing).

[William Anthony]

You may continue to call Mark Fuhrman a genocidal racist but when you do so it trivializes the suffering of people that have been victims of true genocide.

EDIT: fbgweezer is correct. It's against the rules of this board unless you can offer proof.

I have offered evidence. I do believe that is what is required. By no means do I trivialize the suffering of others when I point to the evidence of the vile statements he made. If anything it places people on alert of his views. Just as people were placed on alert of Wright's wrong (pun intended) views.

[SlowHandSam]

Why wasn't Bell's letter ruled hearsay?

[William Anthony]

Why wasn't Bell's letter ruled hearsay?

She wrote it.

[SlowHandSam]

She wrote it.

I meant her references to what MF supposedly said.

[bobaugust]

What you don't seem to understand is that the magnificent JC was that the convicted perjurer and genocidal racist's,as supported by the evidence, statement did not make sense, since he had not been asked about the hat in several pages of testimony, as supported by the evidence. He was asked about a glove. Ergo, the convicted perjurer and genocidal racist, as supported by the evidence admitted to seeing two gloves, as supported by the evidence. Please, refrain from calling me a liar (saying I am lying), because you connected the dots differently. I could say that, because you failed to connect the dots, you are lying.

Let's do it this way. I don't know how many ways I can show you. Let's use simpler math. 1/2 x 1/4=1/8. The 1/2 (part) is larger than the 1/8 (part), or simply stated when you multiply a part by a part you get a smaller amount. When you compare the two, you must multiply the numerator or simply put 1/2=4/8. In doing so you multiply the numerator and denominator of the given by the same number to keep them equal. The 1,000/1,000 is a whole number expressed as a fraction (a part). To go from 1/1,000 to 1,000/1,000,000 you must multiply by 1,000/1,000=1,000/1,000,000 or lowest terms 1/1,000 (one thousandth of a million-part per billion) x1,000/1,000=1,000/1,000,000 or 1/1,000,(one part per billion per million, this is what you forget). They are equal, just expressed in different terms, which is what the EPA representative attempted to explain and was seemingly misunderstood by you and Martz. That is why Martz' EDTA results were ridiculous and the prosecution expert told them he did not know this and Dr. said he would have been dead. 2 Parts per million would be 2,000, parts per billion. The amount of EDTA to preserve blood, according to Martz, was near 2,000 parts per million. This would mean that it would be 2,000,000 parts per billion. According to the EPA, the amount found to preserve blood,or in unpreserved blood, (I forget and do not feel the need to look it up) would have been one part per billion or a thousand parts per million. Martz testified to having twice the amount of EDTA in his own unpreserved blood (either way, amount in preserved or unpreserved, Martz was wrong).

The only thing that didn't make any sense was Cochran's misrepresentation and false statements he made in his closing argument. The argument that Fuhrman wasn't asked about the cap in the last several pages of his testimony is ridiculous and doesn't change the fact that Fuhrman had last testified to this exact subject on direct questioning regardless of how many pages ago in the transcripts. Uelmen was repeating the same questions Clark had asked and Fuhrman was giving him the same answers There was only one glove and knit cap under the plant leaves at Bundy. Fuhrman used the word "them" referring to that evidence. No amount of distortion and fantasy that you want to believe changes that fact.

You are wrong and your claim that Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy is outright false and if you repeat that claim you are lying.

I don't care how many ways you try to do the math, the correct math doesn't change the relationship between one part per million and one part per billion, or the inverse.
1 part per million = 1,000 parts per billion
1 part per billion = 1000th of one part per million

1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

You should have looked up what the EPA told Martz as to how much EDTA is in preserved blood or you should have read my post a little closer since I posted that testimony by Martz because your claim that it was "one part per billion or a thousand parts per million" is outright wrong. Here again is what Martz said.

"In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood."

You try to blame Martz for not understanding the relationship between parts per million and parts per billion when in fact you William are one doesn't understand it, not Martz.

The amount of EDTA that may be found in a human
One to 2 parts per billion.
The amount of EDTA Martz found contaminated the three blood samples
2 parts per million (1000 times more than found in human blood)
The amount of EDTA Martz, the EPA, and later articles said was in preserved blood
One to 2 thousand parts per million (1000 times more than found in the contaminated samples)

Martz was correct. You are wrong.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The only person who is misrepresenting the issue is you by your comical,imho, claim to know what the dashes in the transcript meant. You claim he was going to say it was not a part per billion and, for a second time left out the words or a part per billion. Let's non hypocritically place his words in context. And it ended up it was not a part per million. But it was a thousand---or a part per billion. The dashes indicate he was saying the representative told him it was a thousand parts per million or a part per million. He then said it was a thousand parts per million. The dashes indicate to me that a light flashed in his head when he was talking. I'll bet he wished he could run and hide at that point. He did not fool the prosecution's or the defense's experts. That is why the letter stating Martz' results had to be explained. It seems the only ones he deceived are those who do not want to look at the evidence as it was stated, and want to interject meanings that aren't there when he said but it was a thousand---or a part per billion and try to say he said it was not. You called JC a liar for changing the meaning of testimony and you left out the words or a part per billion, twice, wanted to change the words but it was to was not. What is your definition of hypocrite?

Your interpretation that the dashes mean Martz was saying and the EPA was saying that one thousand parts per million or a part per billion is completely ridiculous and totally incorrect . The fact is that one thousand parts per million IS NOT one part per billion. It's just the opposite. One part per million is one thousand parts per billion.

You keep trying to blame Martz and the EPA for getting it wrong when you are the one who is wrong, not Martz. and not the EPA. Martz testified as to the correct relationship between parts per million and parts per billion. You William are the who keeps repeating an incorrect relationship between these parts. Your claims are outright false.

The spell check error you keep bringing was in only one of my many posts where I posted this portion of Martz's testimony. What the spell check did was eliminate the dashes and the word or. The error was inadvertent and had no effect on the subject of that post where I was responding to your claim that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 2000 parts per billion. Another false claim that you have made. The moderator reviewed this issue even going so far as to confirm that the Netscape spell checker does eliminate the word (--or) She told you that you need to accept this and move on. I suggest you finally take her advice.

In my last response to you I told you what Martz was trying to say and I didn't leave out the words "or a part per billion" I purposely left out the words "but it was a thousand--" since he repeated those words and completed his thought in his next sentence when he said, "It was a thousand parts per million. Maybe if you had not deleted that part of my post in your response you would have known that.

Every time you repeat the false claim that one part per billion is the same as 1000 parts per million you are lying.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I hope this will end this but I think not.

The best way to win a war is to not fight one. To be able to acknowledge when we are wrong, helps us to get it right, imho.

The dashes could mean that the representative told him it was a thousand times less or a part per billion. To get to one part per billion when expressed in parts per million, you would have 1/1,000,000,000//1/1,000,000=1,000,000/1,000,000,000=1/1,000 (the multiplier. Ergo, one part per million multiplied by a thousand parts per million, or 1/1,000,000 x1,000/1,000,000=1,000/1,000,000,000,000, reducing to lowest terms, you get 1/1,000,000,000 or one part per billion. I tried what I thought was the simpler way, to no avail, to show you what the representative was saying. When you multiply by a part, you are decreasing the size of the original part.

Here is Martz's testimony again.

"I received that study, and the first thing in looking at it, it appeared to be out of place. They were talking about toxic clean-up of EDTA and they had a lot of things that were mentioned, and all of a sudden, out of nowhere came the fact that it said one part per billion would be normally expected in a human or considered to be the normal level. And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there. So what I did was, the next morning, I called back to the laboratory and had them search the same reference. And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million."

The representative from the laboratory did not tell Martz the amount was "a thousand times less or a part per billion" Martz repeated what the search of the same reference revealed, "It was a thousand parts per million." He then continued his explanation saying that the EPA told him it was suppose to be a thousand parts per million.

"Evidently when it was printed out without good resolution--I really don't have the explanation now. In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood. It had absolutely nothing at all what to do with the amount that would be expected in a person or could be toxic to a person. It was completely out of context and it was wrong."

Your math William is meaningless and far from simple. I've posted the simple math that shows the relationship between parts per million and parts per billion. You previously posted the fact that one part per million equals 1000 parts per billion. But you just can't to seem to grasp what the reverse relationship is. You just ignore it.
1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

Now to the dashes. Martz said, "And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million."

When Martz started to say it was a thousand parts per million he paused after saying "but it was a thousand--", further explaining what it was not. "or a part per billion" and then ended by completing what he started to say. It was a thousand parts per million. If Martz had said it the correct way it would have been (And it ended up that it was not a part per million, or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million)

How do we know I am correct in my interpretation and your interpretation is wrong? We know because my interpretation is based on what the actual relationship is between parts per million and parts per billion and by the next sentence Martz said after that pause. "It was a thousand parts per million." And by his further explanation that EPA told him it was suppose to be a thousand parts per million.

Your interpretation of what you think Martz meant to say doesn't make any sense because what you think he meant to say is mathematically incorrect and contradicted by the rest of Martz's testimony.

Your claim William that one part per billion is the same as one thousand parts per million is outright false.

You're refusal to acknowledge you are wrong about this doesn't help you get it right. The only way this will end is when you admit you are wrong.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Here is Martz's testimony again.

"I received that study, and the first thing in looking at it, it appeared to be out of place. They were talking about toxic clean-up of EDTA and they had a lot of things that were mentioned, and all of a sudden, out of nowhere came the fact that it said one part per billion would be normally expected in a human or considered to be the normal level. And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there. So what I did was, the next morning, I called back to the laboratory and had them search the same reference. And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million."

The representative from the laboratory did not tell Martz the amount was "a thousand times less or a part per billion" Martz repeated what the search of the same reference revealed, "It was a thousand parts per million." He then continued his explanation saying that the EPA told him it was suppose to be a thousand parts per million.

"Evidently when it was printed out without good resolution--I really don't have the explanation now. In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood. It had absolutely nothing at all what to do with the amount that would be expected in a person or could be toxic to a person. It was completely out of context and it was wrong."

Your math William is meaningless and far from simple. I've posted the simple math that shows the relationship between parts per million and parts per billion. You previously posted the fact that one part per million equals 1000 parts per billion. But you just can't to seem to grasp what the reverse relationship is. You just ignore it.
1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

Now to the dashes. Martz said, "And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million."

When Martz started to say it was a thousand parts per million he paused after saying "but it was a thousand--", further explaining what it was not. "or a part per billion" and then ended by completing what he started to say. It was a thousand parts per million. If Martz had said it the correct way it would have been (And it ended up that it was not a part per million, or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million)

How do we know I am correct in my interpretation and your interpretation is wrong? We know because my interpretation is based on what the actual relationship is between parts per million and parts per billion and by the next sentence Martz said after that pause. "It was a thousand parts per million." And by his further explanation that EPA told him it was suppose to be a thousand parts per million.

Your interpretation of what you think Martz meant to say doesn't make any sense because what you think he meant to say is mathematically incorrect and contradicted by the rest of Martz's testimony.

Your claim William that one part per billion is the same as one thousand parts per million is outright false.

You're refusal to acknowledge you are wrong about this doesn't help you get it right. The only way this will end is when you admit you are wrong.

bobaugust

How do we know that what I say is correct other than by the math. By what he said. Here it is.

And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million. Evidently when it was printed out without good resolution--I really don't have the explanation now. In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood. It had absolutely nothing at all what to do with the amount that would be expected in a person or could be toxic to a person. It was completely out of context and it was wrong.

you have claimed that the amount to preserve blood is 2,000 parts per million. Since he said the numbers had nothing to do with the amount of EDTA in unpreserved blood and was completely out of context, we know that the article was speaking of the amount to be found in unpreserved human blood. How do we know that the article said part per million and not a part per billion, other than by Martz' testimony? Because of the testimony of the experts when Martz claimed to have found 2 parts per million in his own blood, when the amount should have been in the part per billion range. What was wrong and completely out of context was Martz's understanding. How do we know this? By his testimony that he really did not have the explanation, now. Think about it! How could one thousand without good resolution look like one part per million, unless it was expressed in scientific notation. ng or nl was mistaken for mg or ml , for example and that is why they told him it was a thousand parts per million or a part per billion.

[bobaugust]

How do we know that what I say is correct other than by the math. By what he said. Here it is.

And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million. Evidently when it was printed out without good resolution--I really don't have the explanation now. In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood. It had absolutely nothing at all what to do with the amount that would be expected in a person or could be toxic to a person. It was completely out of context and it was wrong.

you have claimed that the amount to preserve blood is 2,000 parts per million. Since he said the numbers had nothing to do with the amount of EDTA in unpreserved blood and was completely out of context, we know that the article was speaking of the amount to be found in unpreserved human blood. How do we know that the article said part per million and not a part per billion, other than by Martz' testimony? Because of the testimony of the experts when Martz claimed to have found 2 parts per million in his own blood, when the amount should have been in the part per billion range. What was wrong and completely out of context was Martz's understanding. How do we know this? By his testimony that he really did not have the explanation, now. Think about it! How could one thousand without good resolution look like one part per million, unless it was expressed in scientific notation. ng or nl was mistaken for mg or ml , for example and that is why they told him it was a thousand parts per million or a part per billion.

Yes I have said that Martz, Dr. Rieders, EPA, and later articles all said that the amount of EDTA to preserve blood is 1000 to 2000 parts per million. That was what this report was about. Not about how much EDTA would be in a person.

Martz did not say it had nothing to do with the amount of EDTA in unpreserved blood, he said, "It had absolutely nothing at all what to do with the amount that would be expected in a person or could be toxic to a person."

Here is Martz's testimony again, try reading it this time.

"MR. MARTZ: I don't believe so. When I first got that study, which was I believe two nights ago, maybe it was
Sunday night, I received that study, and the first thing in looking at it, it appeared to be out of place. They were talking about toxic clean-up of EDTA and they had a lot of things that were mentioned, and all of a sudden, out of nowhere came the fact that it said one part per billion would be normally expected in a human or considered to be the normal level. And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there. So what I did was, the next morning, I called back to the laboratory and had them search the same reference. And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million. Evidently when it was printed out without good resolution--I really don't have the explanation now. In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood. It had absolutely nothing at all what to do with the amount that would be expected in a person or could be toxic to a person. It was completely out of context and it was wrong."

Martz said, "and all of a sudden, out of nowhere came the fact that it said one part per billion would be normally expected in a human or considered to be the normal level. And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there." That was what Martz was referring to that was out of context and wrong.

It doesn't matter how many times your repeat your false claim, it does not change the reality that one part per billion is NOT the same as one thousand parts per million. That's why you are so screwed up and everything you say is wrong. The first time when you made this false claim I provided you an article that explains the difference between ppb and ppm. Try reading it again before you make that idiotic claim again.

http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/articles/OT/FA04/Q&A.pdf

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Yes I have said that Martz, Dr. Rieders, EPA, and later articles all said that the amount of EDTA to preserve blood is 1000 to 2000 parts per million. That was what this report was about. Not about how much EDTA would be in a person.

Martz did not say it had nothing to do with the amount of EDTA in unpreserved blood, he said, "It had absolutely nothing at all what to do with the amount that would be expected in a person or could be toxic to a person."

Here is Martz's testimony again, try reading it this time.

"MR. MARTZ: I don't believe so. When I first got that study, which was I believe two nights ago, maybe it was
Sunday night, I received that study, and the first thing in looking at it, it appeared to be out of place. They were talking about toxic clean-up of EDTA and they had a lot of things that were mentioned, and all of a sudden, out of nowhere came the fact that it said one part per billion would be normally expected in a human or considered to be the normal level. And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there. So what I did was, the next morning, I called back to the laboratory and had them search the same reference. And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million. Evidently when it was printed out without good resolution--I really don't have the explanation now. In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood. It had absolutely nothing at all what to do with the amount that would be expected in a person or could be toxic to a person. It was completely out of context and it was wrong."

Martz said, "and all of a sudden, out of nowhere came the fact that it said one part per billion would be normally expected in a human or considered to be the normal level. And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there." That was what Martz was referring to that was out of context and wrong.

It doesn't matter how many times your repeat your false claim, it does not change the reality that one part per billion is NOT the same as one thousand parts per million. That's why you are so screwed up and everything you say is wrong. The first time when you made this false claim I provided you an article that explains the difference between ppb and ppm. Try reading it again before you make that idiotic claim again.

http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/articles/OT/FA04/Q&A.pdf

bobaugust

What is idiotic is to think that a person has preserved blood running through their system or blood in the thousand parts per million is a part per billion. The article was obviously about the amount of EDTA in unpreserved blood, or the level expected to be found in humans and not a toxic amount. How do we know that Martz did not believe that the amount found in humans on unpreserved blood was in the part per billion range of a thousand part per million and did not understand what the representative told him, because he said it just did not make sense why it would be there, so I did some further research and it ended up.... Martz had the same tendency as you. Martz could not believe he could be wrong and sought out anything that would validate his statements. He did further research. This is why we know that he was wrong and the prosecution expert told us that Martz just did not know that his results were wrong. He did not know because he refused to accept what the report said one part per billion and what he was told by the representative.

Your article on drinking water is interesting but not on point. I have shown you mathematically what the representative was trying to explain to the arrogant Martz, who shared a common tendency, not believing they can be wrong. Thanks for reminding me that when I made the statement as to the thousand parts per million being the same as a part per billion it was in the context of explaining what the representative told Martz.

This whole conversation is useless, since we now know that, in fact the amount of EDTA in human blood is in the part per billion range. The new research told us that results in the higher range of parts per million would mean manipulation/planting. The prosecution's expert knew Martz' results of 2 part per million was wrong that is why he said it had to be explained and attempted to blame the manipulation on the ghost that resided in the machine.

What neither you nor Martz understood/understand is what the representative meant. He was telling him that when you multiply 1/1,000,000 by a thousand parts or 1/1,000 you get 1/1,000,000x1/1,000 you get or =1/1,000,000,000. When I said they were the same it was in the context of what the representative was telling the hard headed Martz. My father use to tell me that a hard head makes for a soft behind. Why do you think the prosecution did not call him as their witness? His behind was bruised and sore after the defense questioned him. It did not come from out of nowhere. He just refused to accept where it came from, because that would make his results wrong. I'll bet his behind was sore from sitting in that chair, looking foolishly arrogant and hard headed and calling the EPA report false and the representative a liar (paraphrasing his testimony).

[William Anthony]

What is idiotic is to think that a person has preserved blood running through their system or blood in the thousand parts per million is a part per billion. The article was obviously about the amount of EDTA in unpreserved blood, or the level expected to be found in humans and not a toxic amount. How do we know that Martz did not believe that the amount found in humans on unpreserved blood was in the part per billion range of a thousand part per million and did not understand what the representative told him, because he said it just did not make sense why it would be there, so I did some further research and it ended up.... Martz had the same tendency as you. Martz could not believe he could be wrong and sought out anything that would validate his statements. He did further research. This is why we know that he was wrong and the prosecution expert told us that Martz just did not know that his results were wrong. He did not know because he refused to accept what the report said one part per billion and what he was told by the representative.

Your article on drinking water is interesting but not on point. I have shown you mathematically what the representative was trying to explain to the arrogant Martz, who shared a common tendency, not believing they can be wrong. Thanks for reminding me that when I made the statement as to the thousand parts per million being the same as a part per billion it was in the context of explaining what the representative told Martz.

This whole conversation is useless, since we now know that, in fact the amount of EDTA in human blood is in the part per billion range. The new research told us that results in the higher range of parts per million would mean manipulation/planting. The prosecution's expert knew Martz' results of 2 part per million was wrong that is why he said it had to be explained and attempted to blame the manipulation on the ghost that resided in the machine.

What neither you nor Martz understood/understand is what the representative meant. He was telling him that when you multiply 1/1,000,000 by a thousand parts or 1/1,000 you get 1/1,000,000x1/1,000 you get or =1/1,000,000,000. When I said they were the same it was in the context of what the representative was telling the hard headed Martz. My father use to tell me that a hard head makes for a soft behind. Why do you think the prosecution did not call him as their witness? His behind was bruised and sore after the defense questioned him. It did not come from out of nowhere. He just refused to accept where it came from, because that would make his results wrong. I'll bet his behind was sore from sitting in that chair, looking foolishly arrogant and hard headed and calling the EPA report false and the representative a liar (paraphrasing his testimony).

Corrections for clarity,

What is idiotic is to think that has preserved blood running through their system, (2,000 parts per million, as you claim) and not in the part per million range but, yet not understand that the representative was relating parts per billion to parts per million.

How do we know that Martz did not believe that the amount found in humans concerning unpreserved blood was in the part per billion range or a thousand part per million and did not understand what the representative told him, because he said it just did not make sense why it would be there, so I did some further research and it ended up....

The prosecution's expert knew Martz' results of 2 parts per million was wrong that is why he said it had to be explained and attempted to blame the manipulation on the ghost that resided in the machine.

[bobaugust]

Corrections for clarity,

What is idiotic is to think that has preserved blood running through their system, (2,000 parts per million, as you claim) and not in the part per million range but, yet not understand that the representative was relating parts per billion to parts per million.

How do we know that Martz did not believe that the amount found in humans concerning unpreserved blood was in the part per billion range or a thousand part per million and did not understand what the representative told him, because he said it just did not make sense why it would be there, so I did some further research and it ended up....

The prosecution's expert knew Martz' results of 2 parts per million was wrong that is why he said it had to be explained and attempted to blame the manipulation on the ghost that resided in the machine.

What is idiotic are all the false claims you make. I have never made the claim anyone's blood contains 2000 parts per million of EDTA. I have continually explained to you that 1000 to 2000 parts per million is the amount of EDTA in preserved blood. The representative from the laboratory was not relating parts per billion to parts per million. Your comment only shows how ridiculous and false your interpretation is of what you think Martz said. What Martz testified that did not make sense to him was what he had read in the report not what the laboratory told him.

July 25, 1995
"They were talking about toxic clean-up of EDTA and they had a lot of things that were mentioned, and all of a sudden, out of nowhere came the fact that it said one part per billion would be normally expected in a human or considered to be the normal level. And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there."

We know that Martz didn't believe that a part per billion is a thousand parts per million because not only did he never say that but because it is mathematically untrue. No one has ever said that except you. It is your claim. You are the one who has ever made that claim. You are the only one who has created convoluted math to prove your claim is correct and you haven't the integrity to admit that your claim is false.

Dr. Terry Lee was not a prosecution witness he was a plaintiff witness.
January 16., 1997
Q. So for both of the two evidence samples, socks and back gate, tested by Agent Martz, he got only a trace signal from the evidence sample and some mountainous signal from the known sample?
A. That's correct.
Q. And once again, Doctor, is it your opinion -- what is your opinion as to whether these little trace signals could have come from a purple-top test tube?
A. In my opinion, they could not have come from a purple-top test tube.

Your claim that one part per billion is the same as 1000 parts per million is outright false and every argument you have made based on that false claim has no credibility.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

What is idiotic are all the false claims you make. I have never made the claim anyone's blood contains 2000 parts per million of EDTA. I have continually explained to you that 1000 to 2000 parts per million is the amount of EDTA in preserved blood. The representative from the laboratory was not relating parts per billion to parts per million. Your comment only shows how ridiculous and false your interpretation is of what you think Martz said. What Martz testified that did not make sense to him was what he had read in the report not what the laboratory told him.

July 25, 1995
"They were talking about toxic clean-up of EDTA and they had a lot of things that were mentioned, and all of a sudden, out of nowhere came the fact that it said one part per billion would be normally expected in a human or considered to be the normal level. And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there."

We know that Martz didn't believe that a part per billion is a thousand parts per million because not only did he never say that but because it is mathematically untrue. No one has ever said that except you. It is your claim. You are the one who has ever made that claim. You are the only one who has created convoluted math to prove your claim is correct and you haven't the integrity to admit that your claim is false.

Dr. Terry Lee was not a prosecution witness he was a plaintiff witness.
January 16., 1997
Q. So for both of the two evidence samples, socks and back gate, tested by Agent Martz, he got only a trace signal from the evidence sample and some mountainous signal from the known sample?
A. That's correct.
Q. And once again, Doctor, is it your opinion -- what is your opinion as to whether these little trace signals could have come from a purple-top test tube?
A. In my opinion, they could not have come from a purple-top test tube.

Your claim that one part per billion is the same as 1000 parts per million is outright false and every argument you have made based on that false claim has no credibility.

bobaugust

What the article was speaking about was the amount of EDTA found in humans' blood that would not be toxic. We know that amount is in the parts per billion. Martz tried to say the article was about the amount of EDTA found in preserved blood. That is why he tried to say the representative told him it was a thousand parts per million, not understanding, as you do not is that the representative was only telling him how to understand what the article was saying.

"MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that if someone had 2000 parts per million EDTA in their blood they would be dead?

MR. MARTZ: Well, for any sustained period of time. I think they use it also for transfusions. I don't know the exact amount that they use. It would not be a good idea, I don't think, to have that amount in your blood, I agree with that.

MR. BLASIER: Does that number bear any relationship at all to what the FDA allows in terms of EDTA as a food additive?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, no. No, I don't believe it does.

MR. BLASIER: And it is your understanding that particular study was a study on fish?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And it was to determine the toxic level that would kill fish?

MR. MARTZ: No. I did some further research and actually the whole reference has to do with how much EDTA is used to preserve food. It has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with how much you would expect to find in fish or humans. It was completely out of context."

Given the fact that food is what most humans eat, common sense tells us that the article was about the amount of EDTA found in human blood in the non toxic level. That is why your and Martz' conclusion is wrong. The representative was wrong in thinking that Martz understood he was saying that if you multiply a thousand parts per million by a thousand parts, you get a part per million, a much lesser amount. The representative probably had far better things to do than answer Martz' idiotic questions and gave him the short answer, assuming he was smart enough to understand, imho.

As I explained, my comment about Parts per million and parts per billion was made trying to explain what the representative was telling Martz. If you and Martz believe the article was about the amount of EDTA in preserved blood, that is the only way to justify misunderstanding what the representative tried to explain. That is why the prosecution expert told him that the results had to be explained.

Dr. Terry Lee did not testify that the amounts allegedly found in his alleged unpreserved blood did not come from some other tube with a different color top.

[William Anthony]

correction,

The representative was wrong in thinking that Martz understood he was saying that if you multiply a thousand parts per million by a thousand parts, you get a part per million, a much lesser amount.

This should read-The representative was wrong in thinking that Martz understood he was saying that if you multiply a thousand parts per million by a thousand parts, you get a part per billion, a much lesser amount.

[bobaugust]

What the article was speaking about was the amount of EDTA found in humans' blood that would not be toxic. We know that amount is in the parts per billion. Martz tried to say the article was about the amount of EDTA found in preserved blood. That is why he tried to say the representative told him it was a thousand parts per million, not understanding, as you do not is that the representative was only telling him how to understand what the article was saying.

"MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that if someone had 2000 parts per million EDTA in their blood they would be dead?

MR. MARTZ: Well, for any sustained period of time. I think they use it also for transfusions. I don't know the exact amount that they use. It would not be a good idea, I don't think, to have that amount in your blood, I agree with that.

MR. BLASIER: Does that number bear any relationship at all to what the FDA allows in terms of EDTA as a food additive?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, no. No, I don't believe it does.

MR. BLASIER: And it is your understanding that particular study was a study on fish?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And it was to determine the toxic level that would kill fish?

MR. MARTZ: No. I did some further research and actually the whole reference has to do with how much EDTA is used to preserve food. It has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with how much you would expect to find in fish or humans. It was completely out of context."

Given the fact that food is what most humans eat, common sense tells us that the article was about the amount of EDTA found in human blood in the non toxic level. That is why your and Martz' conclusion is wrong. The representative was wrong in thinking that Martz understood he was saying that if you multiply a thousand parts per million by a thousand parts, you get a part per million, a much lesser amount. The representative probably had far better things to do than answer Martz' idiotic questions and gave him the short answer, assuming he was smart enough to understand, imho.

As I explained, my comment about Parts per million and parts per billion was made trying to explain what the representative was telling Martz. If you and Martz believe the article was about the amount of EDTA in preserved blood, that is the only way to justify misunderstanding what the representative tried to explain. That is why the prosecution expert told him that the results had to be explained.

Dr. Terry Lee did not testify that the amounts allegedly found in his alleged unpreserved blood did not come from some other tube with a different color top.

The fact is that Martz testified that the laboratory told him what the reference said, "it was a thousand parts per million." Martz went on to say he talked to EPA and they claim it's suppose to be a thousand parts per million. What you claim the representative from the laboratory said to Martz or actually thought is all in your imagination.

Now you're trying to tell us that every time you have claimed that one part per billion is the same as one thousand parts per million and every time you have showed your convoluted math to prove your claim was correct in all the postings you've made for over a year that all you were doing was trying to explain what the representative was telling Martz?

Right, and the moon is made of cheese. I'm sorry William but you have taken your lack of integrity to new lows by saying anything no matter how ridiculous simply to avoid admitting that your claim is false. I see now why you defend Simpson so vigorously, you both seem to have a lot in common when it comes to telling the truth.

Your claim that one part per billion is the same as one thousand parts per million is outright false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

correction,

The representative was wrong in thinking that Martz understood he was saying that if you multiply a thousand parts per million by a thousand parts, you get a part per million, a much lesser amount.

This should read-The representative was wrong in thinking that Martz understood he was saying that if you multiply a thousand parts per million by a thousand parts, you get a part per billion, a much lesser amount.

Unbelievable. You're wrong again. There are one million parts in a million. If you multiply one thousand of those parts by a thousand you get a million parts.

1 part per billion = 1000th of one part per million

1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Unbelievable. You're wrong again. There are one million parts in a million. If you multiply one thousand of those parts by a thousand you get a million parts.

1 part per billion = 1000th of one part per million

1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

bobaugust

I really see that you are confused of course there are a million parts in a million and one part would be expressed as 1/1,000,000. If you multiply that part by a thousand parts or 1/1,000,000 x 1/1,000, you get one part per billion or 1/1,000,000,000. I see that I have to do it the hard way for you. 1/1,000,000 x 1,000/1,000,000 (a thousand parts per million) =1,000/1,000,000,000,000 or 1/1,000,000,000. Let me see, If I can make it even simpler for you. When you use exponents to say 4=2 to the second and you multiply it by 4 or 2 to the second, you add exponents, giving you 2 to the 4th, or 2x2x2x2=16. 10 to 6th times 2 to the 6th=10 to the 13th or a trillion. To say that there are a million parts in a million when we are talking about parts per billion in relation to parts per million is like comparing apples to hard heads, :)

[William Anthony]

The fact is that Martz testified that the laboratory told him what the reference said, "it was a thousand parts per million." Martz went on to say he talked to EPA and they claim it's suppose to be a thousand parts per million. What you claim the representative from the laboratory said to Martz or actually thought is all in your imagination.

Now you're trying to tell us that every time you have claimed that one part per billion is the same as one thousand parts per million and every time you have showed your convoluted math to prove your claim was correct in all the postings you've made for over a year that all you were doing was trying to explain what the representative was telling Martz?

Right, and the moon is made of cheese. I'm sorry William but you have taken your lack of integrity to new lows by saying anything no matter how ridiculous simply to avoid admitting that your claim is false. I see now why you defend Simpson so vigorously, you both seem to have a lot in common when it comes to telling the truth.

Your claim that one part per billion is the same as one thousand parts per million is outright false.

bobaugust

Yes, that is because that is how the discussion went. We discussed the testimony and that is when I said the representative was trying to explain what he meant to Martz. If you start with a part per million and multiply it one thousand times you will get a part per billion, which is why the representative said, "it was a thousand---(Martz omitted parts per million times a part per million) of a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million." I have shown you that in several different ways mathematically. The math isn't convoluted, just because you may not understand it.

I wasn't the one that posted false claims about what the civil verdict meant, claimed that no defense attorney made the claim I made, I wasn't the one who deleted words out of testimony and blamed it on my spell checker, I am not the one that calls people names when they point out that I am wrong or simply express an opinion that is different than the one I hold, nor am I the one that credits the explanation of a convicted perjurer, nor am I the one that dismisses all the evidence against the convicted perjurer as it pertains to his racism and genocidal words, by saying he was speaking in the context of a screen play when he was not making a screen play when he was speaking to Ms. Bell, Ms. Singer or Mr. Hodge, nor am I the one that calls members of other races liars, and say that members of my race, or members of other races, if they were against Simpson, simply made innocent mistakes or human errors. Do you still want to talk about credibility? I think you should stop the personal attacks. It does nothing to enhance the value of this community. I think that I have decided that is more important to me than caring about what you say about me. I think that others who value this community would expect that. I think their opinions of me matter and the opinions of those who just want to disrespect members does not.

[William Anthony]

I really see that you are confused of course there are a million parts in a million and one part would be expressed as 1/1,000,000. If you multiply that part by a thousand parts or 1/1,000,000 x 1/1,000, you get one part per billion or 1/1,000,000,000. I see that I have to do it the hard way for you. 1/1,000,000 x 1,000/1,000,000 (a thousand parts per million) =1,000/1,000,000,000,000 or 1/1,000,000,000. Let me see, If I can make it even simpler for you. When you use exponents to say 4=2 to the second and you multiply it by 4 or 2 to the second, you add exponents, giving you 2 to the 4th, or 2x2x2x2=16. 10 to 6th times 2 to the 6th=10 to the 13th or a trillion. To say that there are a million parts in a million when we are talking about parts per billion in relation to parts per million is like comparing apples to hard heads, :)

Correction, 10 to 6th times 2 to the 6th=10 to the 12th or a trillion

[bobaugust]

I really see that you are confused of course there are a million parts in a million and one part would be expressed as 1/1,000,000. If you multiply that part by a thousand parts or 1/1,000,000 x 1/1,000, you get one part per billion or 1/1,000,000,000. I see that I have to do it the hard way for you. 1/1,000,000 x 1,000/1,000,000 (a thousand parts per million) =1,000/1,000,000,000,000 or 1/1,000,000,000. Let me see, If I can make it even simpler for you. When you use exponents to say 4=2 to the second and you multiply it by 4 or 2 to the second, you add exponents, giving you 2 to the 4th, or 2x2x2x2=16. 10 to 6th times 2 to the 6th=10 to the 13th or a trillion. To say that there are a million parts in a million when we are talking about parts per billion in relation to parts per million is like comparing apples to hard heads, :)

We are not talking about the relationship of numbers we are talking about the size relationship of extremely small concentrations expressed by parts of numbers. Of course a billion is a number 1000 times larger than a million. But when it comes to size or quantity relationship one part per billion is 1000 times smaller than one part per million.

Do you understand that? Forget your convoluted math and start using your reasoning abilities, This is the simple math that establishes the relationship between ppm and ppb. Once you understand this reality than you will understand why your claim that one part per billion is the same as 1000 parts per million is absolutely false.

1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

We are not talking about the relationship of numbers we are talking about the size relationship of extremely small concentrations expressed by parts of numbers. Of course a billion is a number 1000 times larger than a million. But when it comes to size or quantity relationship one part per billion is 1000 times smaller than one part per million.

Do you understand that? Forget your convoluted math and start using your reasoning abilities, This is the simple math that establishes the relationship between ppm and ppb. Once you understand this reality than you will understand why your claim that one part per billion is the same as 1000 parts per million is absolutely false.

1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

bobaugust

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Does anyone find it more than coincidental that MF ALLEGEDLY found the Rockingham glove, which allowed him to be a part of the case, or that he was the one ALLEGEDLY sent back to Bundy to make the comparison of the gloves?

[William Anthony]

March 21-Vannatter

"Q: REGARDING THE GLOVE THAT YOU SAW, WHERE IN YOUR REPORTS REGARDING ROCKINGHAM DID YOU SHOW THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT IS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AND IT IS ALSO IN THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT.

Q: IT IS IN THE -- I SAID WHERE IN YOUR NOTES ARE THEY SHOWN?

A: THERE ARE NO NOTES.

Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE LANGE'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I -- I -- I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS IN LANGE'S NOTES.

Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS' NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE HAS ANY NOTES.

Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND IN ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT IS NOT, SIR.

Q: WHERE IN THE MASTER NOTE-TAKER'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT IS IN THE CRIMINALIST'S NOTES THAT HE RECOVERED THE PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND THOSE WERE TAKEN AT MY DIRECTION.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WHEN WERE THOSE NOTES TAKEN?

A: THE MORNING OF THE 13TH.

Q: AT YOUR DIRECTION?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: DO YOU HAVE THOSE NOTES?

A: NO, SIR, I DON'T. THOSE ARE CRIMINALIST WORK PRODUCT.

Q: A CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD IS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT IN ALL CASES OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, IS IT NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WHERE IN THE CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD DOES IT INDICATE THAT ANY OF THE FOUR OFFICERS THERE RECOVERED A GLOVE?

A: IT DOESN'T. "

Does anyone find it peculiar that the glove they felt so important to ALLEGEDLY send MF back to Bundy to make a comparison was not in any of their notes?

[bobaugust]

Yes, that is because that is how the discussion went. We discussed the testimony and that is when I said the representative was trying to explain what he meant to Martz. If you start with a part per million and multiply it one thousand times you will get a part per billion, which is why the representative said, "it was a thousand---(Martz omitted parts per million times a part per million) of a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million." I have shown you that in several different ways mathematically. The math isn't convoluted, just because you may not understand it.



The only thing you have shown William is that you have no idea what the relationship is between parts per million and parts per billion used to measure the concentrations of chemicals. Your newest claim, "If you start with a part per million and multiply it one thousand times you will get a part per billion." is incorrect. If you start with one part per million and multiply it by one thousand you well get one million parts per billion not a part per billion.

Last year you posted a chart showing the correct relationship but since then all your arguments regarding ppm and ppb have been wrong and contradicted by your chart. This is what you posted.
1 part per million = 1,000 parts per billion
2 parts per million = 2,000 parts per billion
3 parts per million = 3,000 parts per billion
4 parts per million = 4,000 parts per billion
5 parts per million = 5,000 parts per billion

Simply stated, 1 ppm = 1000 ppb
Divide each by 1000 and you get.
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

Try reading these articles and you will learn that 1 ppm = 1000 ppb
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071212231120AA4gzy3
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Ppm.html
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/mi-05-5.html

Your claim William that one part per billion is the same as one thousand parts per million is outright false and every argument you have made based on this false claim is also false. Every time you post this false claim you show that either you still do not comprehend the relationship between ppm and ppb or you are intentionally lying.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The only thing you have shown William is that you have no idea what the relationship is between parts per million and parts per billion used to measure the concentrations of chemicals. Your newest claim, "If you start with a part per million and multiply it one thousand times you will get a part per billion." is incorrect. If you start with one part per million and multiply it by one thousand you well get one million parts per billion not a part per billion.

Last year you posted a chart showing the correct relationship but since then all your arguments regarding ppm and ppb have been wrong and contradicted by your chart. This is what you posted.
1 part per million = 1,000 parts per billion
2 parts per million = 2,000 parts per billion
3 parts per million = 3,000 parts per billion
4 parts per million = 4,000 parts per billion
5 parts per million = 5,000 parts per billion

Simply stated, 1 ppm = 1000 ppb
Divide each by 1000 and you get.
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

Try reading these articles and you will learn that 1 ppm = 1000 ppb
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071212231120AA4gzy3
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Ppm.html
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/mi-05-5.html

Your claim William that one part per billion is the same as one thousand parts per million is outright false and every argument you have made based on this false claim is also false. Every time you post this false claim you show that either you still do not comprehend the relationship between ppm and ppb or you are intentionally lying.

bobaugust

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Vannatter-March 21st

"Q: I TAKE IT THEN THAT IF THERE WAS BLOOD COMING FROM ROCKINGHAM TO THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE, THAT SAME PERSON WOULD BE BLEEDING AT THE TIME THAT THE GLOVE WAS PLACED IN THE CONDITION -- IN THE AREA OUTSIDE OF KAELIN'S ROOM; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS IT -- IS IT -- DID -- IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT THE PERSON WHO DID THE KILLING WAS BLEEDING AT THE TIME HE CAME OR SHE CAME TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: I TAKE IT THEN THERE WAS A THOROUGH SEARCH FOR BLOOD FROM THE AREA OF ROCKINGHAM -- FROM ROCKINGHAM TO THE AREA WHERE THE GLOVE WAS FOUND?

A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS FOUND THERE?

A: NONE. NONE THAT I AM AWARE OF.

Q: I TAKE IT A THOROUGH SEARCH WAS DONE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY FOR BLOOD; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THE AREA WAS SEARCHED, YES.

Q: FOR BLOOD?

A: WELL, SEARCHED FOR ANY TYPE OF EVIDENCE.

Q: WAS IT SEARCHED FOR BLOOD?

A: YES, SIR, THAT WOULD INCLUDE ANY TYPE OF EVIDENCE.

Q: HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS FOUND THERE?

A: NONE.

Q: I TAKE IT A THOROUGH SEARCH OF THE FENCE WAS UNDERTAKEN IF SOMEBODY CLIMBED THE FENCE FOR BLOOD?

A: YES.

Q: HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS FOUND THERE?

A: NONE.

Q: I TAKE IT A THOROUGH SEARCH WAS DONE OF THE WALLS?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS FOUND THERE?

A: NONE.

Q: NOW, THE PERSON WHO DROPPED -- STRIKE THAT. YOU ARE AWARE THAT THERE ARE WAYS TO GET INTO THE ROCKINGHAM HOUSE FROM THE SIDE AREA WHERE THE GLOVE WAS FOUND, ARE YOU NOT?

A: I OBSERVED A DOOR THERE ON THE SIDE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT LEADS INTO THE HOUSE.

Q: THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT IN YOUR INVESTIGATION, WASN'T IT, AS TO WHERE DOORS WOULD LEAD?

A: I WOULDN'T SAY THAT IMPACTED ME, NO.

Q: YOU WOULDN'T BE CONCERNED IF THERE WAS A WAY FOR SOMEBODY TO AVOID DETECTION AND COME IN THROUGH THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE?

A: THERE DIDN'T APPEAR ANY -- TO BE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANYBODY HAD GONE IN THAT WAY.

Q: DID YOU CHECK TO SEE?

A: I LOOKED AT THE DOOR, YES.

Q: WHERE DID YOU LOOK AT THE DOOR?

A: FROM THE OUTSIDE.

Q: WHICH DOOR DID YOU LOOK AT? WAS THAT THIS DOOR HERE, (INDICATING)?

A: IT WAS A DOOR THAT WAS TOWARD THE BACK OF THE GARAGE, I BELIEVE, THAT MAY HAVE LED INTO THE LAUNDRY ROOM OR SOMETHING.

Q: TOWARD THE BACK OF THE GARAGE?

A: YES.

Q: WHERE IS THAT DOOR SHOWN ON THIS DIAGRAM?

A: MAY I STAND UP?

Q: SURE. WHY DON'T YOU USE THAT.

A: I BELIEVE IT IS SHOWN RIGHT IN HERE, (INDICATING).

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE MARK THAT SOMEHOW FOR IDENTIFICATION? MAYBE JUST A STICKER, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ONE AVAILABLE? I'M --

MR. SHAPIRO: YES. MAYBE WE CAN JUST USE AN EVIDENCE TAG. DO YOU WANT ME TO MARK IT WITH A MARKER, YOUR HONOR? WHAT DO YOU PREFER?

THE COURT: BY GOLLY, YOU GOT ME UNPREPARED. MRS. ROBERTSON, I HAVE SOME OF THOSE PEEL OFF ARROW THINGS.

MR. SHAPIRO: THAT IS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, DO YOU WANT TO APPROACH IN THE WELL, PLEASE.

MR. SHAPIRO: THIS IS A FULL SERVICE COURT.

THE COURT: IT IS.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, JUDGE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WOULD YOU BE KIND ENOUGH TO SHOW ME -- PUT THAT ON THE DIAGRAM.

A: YEAH. I BELIEVE THIS INDICATES THE DOOR HERE, (INDICATING).

Q: THAT IS THE ONLY DOOR ON THE SIDE OF THE LOCATION THAT ALLOWS ACCESS INTO THE ROCKINGHAM CASE -- INTO THE ROCKINGHAM HOUSE, ACCORDING TO YOUR INVESTIGATION?

A: I NEVER WENT THROUGH THE DOOR, SO I -- I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANY OTHER DOORS THERE OR NOT. I DON'T RECALL ANY OTHER.

Q: WELL, YOU HAD TWO SEARCH WARRANTS FOR THIS HOUSE, DID YOU NOT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: AND YOU ALSO WERE LOOKING AROUND TO SEE WHETHER THERE WERE ANY BODIES LYING AROUND, WERE YOU NOT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU ALSO HAVE APPROVED OF THIS DIAGRAM, HAVE YOU NOT?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE ACCURATE TO ME, YES.

Q: SO YOU WOULD CERTAINLY WANT TO KNOW HOW ANYBODY COULD GET INTO THE HOUSE AND TO CHECK TO SEE WHETHER THERE IS ANY BLOOD TRAIL THERE, WOULD YOU NOT?

A: THERE WAS NO BLOOD TRAIL FOUND.

Q: WELL, BUT YOU WOULD NOT KNOW THAT UNLESS YOU KNEW WHERE ALL THE ENTRANCES TO THE HOUSE WERE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, THERE WAS AN APPARENT BLOOD TRAIL THAT LED FROM THE ROCKINGHAM GATE FROM THE STREET RIGHT INTO THE FRONT DOOR. I THINK THAT WOULD -- UNLESS YOU HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE THERE BLEEDING, THAT WOULD PRECLUDE ANY OTHER BLOOD TRAILS AND THERE WAS NO OTHER BLOOD FOUND. "

The obvious conclusion is that the person who was bleeding bled from the street into the house and the person who deposited the glove behind the guest house was not bleeding.

[William Anthony]

September, 28th

"Now, let's discuss EDTA, because that is obviously an important issue. They asked for the tests to be done after the opening statement. Refuted. And they didn't put them on because it doesn't refute. Reasonable interpretation of the evidence, if there is EDTA there, consistent with everything, comes from a purple-topped tube on the face of it. They didn't put them on. We had to call them. But you know, there is a very, very interesting point that you might have missed in Dr. Rieders' testimony when you compare Dr. Rieders and Agent Martz, and that is in January there was a gentleman named Henkhaus, works with the LAPD science division, and they were interested, after the opening statement, in seeing whether or not tests could be performed to detect EDTA. Do you recall who they called in at page 38414 of the transcript, of Dr. Rieders'? "Question: Incidentally, at one point were you consulted by the Los Angeles Police Department during the course of this case about methods to detect EDTA?

"Yes." He because shown this letter from Henkhaus. "Do you remember who that was? "Mr. Henkhaus. "And did you provide him with materials on a system in developing a method to detect EDTA? "Yes, of course. There was a letter with a number of citations on it." Before the testing was done, but they knew he was he going to appear as a Defense witness. They reached out to Dr. Fredric Rieders. Why? Because Dr. Fredric Rieders, a Ph.D., a distinguished teacher, he runs a reference lab outside of Philadelphia, a reference lab. People go to this laboratory when you want to develop toxicology techniques which are specialized and sophisticated because he is experienced, he is knowledgeable, he is learned. They asked him for work about EDTA. You know why else? Because Dr. Rieders testified he has expertise in EDTA and it is used to treat people for lead poisoning. He has been working with EDTA for something on the order of 20 years. He is the expert that you would call to interpret the data, so they asked him for references. And now they want to tell you that he is out of his mind, that he is not reasonable in his interpretation of this data and he shouldn't be trusted. Very interesting, isn't it? Now, you know when you evaluate the testimony of Agent Martz and Dr. Rieders, there really isn't that much disagreement. And remember the circumstantial evidence charge about whether if there is two plausible reasonable interpretations, you have to take the one that goes with innocence? There are three questions. Is there EDTA there? Dr. Rieders says yes. Agent Martz says could be consistent with EDTA based on the ms/ms readings. If it isn't EDTA, says Martz, I don't know what else it could be. Next question. If it is EDTA, how much is there? Now, both of them agree that it is in parts per million, not parts per billion. And both agree, when you examine the testimony, that if it is in parts per million, it cannot come from the EDTA we ingest in food that then is secreted into the blood. You don't have parts per million that way, because if you did, you would be in serious--you would have serious health problems. You wouldn't clot. You would bleed to death, as Dr. Rieders was pointing out. The next question. And this is where they parted company. Is the amount of EDTA here sufficient to have come from a purple-topped tube? Agent Martz says--Dr. Rieders says, unless you were treating somebody for lead poisoning and injecting EDTA into them, that is the reasonable explanation for parts per million in these samples of EDTA. Agent Martz says, no, I can't really say because I would expect there to be more EDTA in a sample left for three weeks on the back gate or in--on a sock, you know, that I'm seeing six months later, but he never did a single experiment to find out how much you would expect to get from stains that are months old and are subjected to environmental insults. And you saw that there were quantitation problems when they tested it. It would go up and down. So when you look at it, look at the credentials, Martz versus Rieders. Rieders has far more experience with EDTA. They wanted to hire him or they consulted with him I should say. Dr. Rieders works with the FBI. They go to him and consult, as you heard, on cases. He was working on a case with them at the time he came here to testify. He runs a reference lab that is specialized in these issues. Even though he does not have the $750,000 machine yet, the ms/ms that Martz is using, he understands it, seen it before, interpreted data from it, he is getting one soon. So it is not a question of machine; it is a question of the expertise to understand the data. Agent Martz, he--he is--he has a bachelor's degree, he had some trouble with pi, I don't want to belittle that, but he didn't even--there are some disturbing parts of his testimony, let's face it. He didn't even consider the validation studies that had been performed by others at the FBI laboratory. They are going to make a big deal with these. You know, he didn't look for that 132 daughter ion. I promised not to talk about daughter ions to some people, but he didn't perform the test to find that. All the digital daughters he threw away. He come up with this thing where he says he tests his own blood and he finds some level of EDTA in it but he threw away the documents about what he did. He put it in a test-tube for two weeks that has silicon in it, that has a red stopper in it that could be a source of EDTA. He doesn't go and test anybody else's blood. There would be certainly a phenomena that we found parts per million in parts of whole blood or his whole method is screwed up. They are going to come back and test more. They are going to come back and say, well, Dr. Rieders should have done more of a test on these level of samples. That is what they should have done. Well, you know, it is their burden. It is their burden after all. They say it is key evidence. She said it is their defense. Well, then why not get some real studies or do more studies or save the data or present something to this jury that is credible to disprove it? Miss Clark gets up here and says we have disproven that this could be EDTA from a purple-topped tube. If Rieders has no basis whatsoever for saying this, it can't be a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Well, saying it doesn't make it so. It is their burden. They have to disprove this beyond a reasonable doubt. They have not.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Objection. That misstates--

THE COURT: Overruled.

[weezer]

Does anyone find it more than coincidental that MF ALLEGEDLY found the Rockingham glove, which allowed him to be a part of the case, or that he was the one ALLEGEDLY sent back to Bundy to make the comparison of the gloves?

I don't think LE finding evidence or comparing evidence at a murder scene is coincidental at all. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

I don't think LE finding evidence or comparing evidence at a murder scene is coincidental at all. :shrug:

There is nothing coincidental about LE finding or comparing evidence. However, it is coincidental that this particular member of LE was chosen to make the comparison and the timing that the comparison. The gloves could have been collected and later compared. Why was it so important that they were compared at that specific time by that particular member? since they placed so much importance on comparing the gloves, Why wasn't the glove allegedly found at Rockingham included in the notes of any of the detectives? Was that just another coincidence or was it an unconscious indication that they did not believe the glove had been deposited there by the killer? Why didn't the person, who allegedly found the glove, include it in his notes? Had there been some conversation between the detectives concerning how the glove might play out and a conscious decision on their part not to mention it in their notes? Could the jury have considered any of the above questions and decided their was evidence of reasonable doubt as to how the glove was deposited at Rockingham?

[SlowHandSam]

There is nothing coincidental about LE finding or comparing evidence. However, it is coincidental that this particular member of LE was chosen to make the comparison and the timing that the comparison. The gloves could have been collected and later compared. Why was it so important that they were compared at that specific time by that particular member? since they placed so much importance on comparing the gloves, Why wasn't the glove allegedly found at Rockingham included in the notes of any of the detectives? Was that just another coincidence or was it an unconscious indication that they did not believe the glove had been deposited there by the killer? Why didn't the person, who allegedly found the glove, include it in his notes? Had there been some conversation between the detectives concerning how the glove might play out and a conscious decision on their part not to mention it in their notes? Could the jury have considered any of the above questions and decided their was evidence of reasonable doubt as to how the glove was deposited at Rockingham?

Had it been anyone other than MF, would you have the same objections?

[William Anthony]

Had it been anyone other than MF, would you have the same objections?

I would have had the same questions after the glove demonstration. I would have had the same questions regardless of the name or race of the LE member on the tapes.

[weezer]

I would have had the same questions after the glove demonstration. I would have had the same questions regardless of the name or race of the LE member on the tapes.

ahh, but the 'tryers of fate' didn't have questions about the glove:

". . .The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody. . ."

[weezer]

There is nothing coincidental about LE finding or comparing evidence. However, it is coincidental that this particular member of LE was chosen to make the comparison and the timing that the comparison. The gloves could have been collected and later compared. Why was it so important that they were compared at that specific time by that particular member? since they placed so much importance on comparing the gloves, Why wasn't the glove allegedly found at Rockingham included in the notes of any of the detectives? Was that just another coincidence or was it an unconscious indication that they did not believe the glove had been deposited there by the killer? Why didn't the person, who allegedly found the glove, include it in his notes? Had there been some conversation between the detectives concerning how the glove might play out and a conscious decision on their part not to mention it in their notes? Could the jury have considered any of the above questions and decided their was evidence of reasonable doubt as to how the glove was deposited at Rockingham?

so you're thinking that the 'big conspiracy' started that night?

[martin II]

ahh, but the 'tryers of fate' didn't have questions about the glove:

". . .The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody. . ."

You continue to post comments of two jurors as far as their opinions about the gloves made long after the trial.

I assume two things from your post:

1. The gloves fitting or not fitting was not a determining issue for them.
2. That the other 10 jurors felt that the gloves DID NOT FIT.
martin II

[martin II]

I don't think LE finding evidence or comparing evidence at a murder scene is coincidental at all. :shrug:

It is my understanding that it was Fungs responsibility to collect all evidence from both crime scenes,turn in to the lab where examination would take place.Not for individual le to transport evidence from one crime scene to another on his own. This is another instance of le not following any set protocol in their work.imo

[martin II]

I don't think LE finding evidence or comparing evidence at a murder scene is coincidental at all. :shrug:

I think a first rule in good evidence collection is never transport crime scene evidence from one crime scene to another crime scene.Contimination is the concern.

[martin II]

Vannatter-March 21st

"Q: I TAKE IT THEN THAT IF THERE WAS BLOOD COMING FROM ROCKINGHAM TO THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE, THAT SAME PERSON WOULD BE BLEEDING AT THE TIME THAT THE GLOVE WAS PLACED IN THE CONDITION -- IN THE AREA OUTSIDE OF KAELIN'S ROOM; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS IT -- IS IT -- DID -- IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT THE PERSON WHO DID THE KILLING WAS BLEEDING AT THE TIME HE CAME OR SHE CAME TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: I TAKE IT THEN THERE WAS A THOROUGH SEARCH FOR BLOOD FROM THE AREA OF ROCKINGHAM -- FROM ROCKINGHAM TO THE AREA WHERE THE GLOVE WAS FOUND?

A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS FOUND THERE?

A: NONE. NONE THAT I AM AWARE OF.

Q: I TAKE IT A THOROUGH SEARCH WAS DONE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY FOR BLOOD; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THE AREA WAS SEARCHED, YES.

Q: FOR BLOOD?

A: WELL, SEARCHED FOR ANY TYPE OF EVIDENCE.

Q: WAS IT SEARCHED FOR BLOOD?

A: YES, SIR, THAT WOULD INCLUDE ANY TYPE OF EVIDENCE.

Q: HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS FOUND THERE?

A: NONE.

Q: I TAKE IT A THOROUGH SEARCH OF THE FENCE WAS UNDERTAKEN IF SOMEBODY CLIMBED THE FENCE FOR BLOOD?

A: YES.

Q: HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS FOUND THERE?

A: NONE.

Q: I TAKE IT A THOROUGH SEARCH WAS DONE OF THE WALLS?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS FOUND THERE?

A: NONE.

Q: NOW, THE PERSON WHO DROPPED -- STRIKE THAT. YOU ARE AWARE THAT THERE ARE WAYS TO GET INTO THE ROCKINGHAM HOUSE FROM THE SIDE AREA WHERE THE GLOVE WAS FOUND, ARE YOU NOT?

A: I OBSERVED A DOOR THERE ON THE SIDE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT LEADS INTO THE HOUSE.

Q: THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT IN YOUR INVESTIGATION, WASN'T IT, AS TO WHERE DOORS WOULD LEAD?

A: I WOULDN'T SAY THAT IMPACTED ME, NO.

Q: YOU WOULDN'T BE CONCERNED IF THERE WAS A WAY FOR SOMEBODY TO AVOID DETECTION AND COME IN THROUGH THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE?

A: THERE DIDN'T APPEAR ANY -- TO BE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANYBODY HAD GONE IN THAT WAY.

Q: DID YOU CHECK TO SEE?

A: I LOOKED AT THE DOOR, YES.

Q: WHERE DID YOU LOOK AT THE DOOR?

A: FROM THE OUTSIDE.

Q: WHICH DOOR DID YOU LOOK AT? WAS THAT THIS DOOR HERE, (INDICATING)?

A: IT WAS A DOOR THAT WAS TOWARD THE BACK OF THE GARAGE, I BELIEVE, THAT MAY HAVE LED INTO THE LAUNDRY ROOM OR SOMETHING.

Q: TOWARD THE BACK OF THE GARAGE?

A: YES.

Q: WHERE IS THAT DOOR SHOWN ON THIS DIAGRAM?

A: MAY I STAND UP?

Q: SURE. WHY DON'T YOU USE THAT.

A: I BELIEVE IT IS SHOWN RIGHT IN HERE, (INDICATING).

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE MARK THAT SOMEHOW FOR IDENTIFICATION? MAYBE JUST A STICKER, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ONE AVAILABLE? I'M --

MR. SHAPIRO: YES. MAYBE WE CAN JUST USE AN EVIDENCE TAG. DO YOU WANT ME TO MARK IT WITH A MARKER, YOUR HONOR? WHAT DO YOU PREFER?

THE COURT: BY GOLLY, YOU GOT ME UNPREPARED. MRS. ROBERTSON, I HAVE SOME OF THOSE PEEL OFF ARROW THINGS.

MR. SHAPIRO: THAT IS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, DO YOU WANT TO APPROACH IN THE WELL, PLEASE.

MR. SHAPIRO: THIS IS A FULL SERVICE COURT.

THE COURT: IT IS.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, JUDGE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WOULD YOU BE KIND ENOUGH TO SHOW ME -- PUT THAT ON THE DIAGRAM.

A: YEAH. I BELIEVE THIS INDICATES THE DOOR HERE, (INDICATING).

Q: THAT IS THE ONLY DOOR ON THE SIDE OF THE LOCATION THAT ALLOWS ACCESS INTO THE ROCKINGHAM CASE -- INTO THE ROCKINGHAM HOUSE, ACCORDING TO YOUR INVESTIGATION?

A: I NEVER WENT THROUGH THE DOOR, SO I -- I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANY OTHER DOORS THERE OR NOT. I DON'T RECALL ANY OTHER.

Q: WELL, YOU HAD TWO SEARCH WARRANTS FOR THIS HOUSE, DID YOU NOT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: AND YOU ALSO WERE LOOKING AROUND TO SEE WHETHER THERE WERE ANY BODIES LYING AROUND, WERE YOU NOT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU ALSO HAVE APPROVED OF THIS DIAGRAM, HAVE YOU NOT?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE ACCURATE TO ME, YES.

Q: SO YOU WOULD CERTAINLY WANT TO KNOW HOW ANYBODY COULD GET INTO THE HOUSE AND TO CHECK TO SEE WHETHER THERE IS ANY BLOOD TRAIL THERE, WOULD YOU NOT?

A: THERE WAS NO BLOOD TRAIL FOUND.

Q: WELL, BUT YOU WOULD NOT KNOW THAT UNLESS YOU KNEW WHERE ALL THE ENTRANCES TO THE HOUSE WERE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, THERE WAS AN APPARENT BLOOD TRAIL THAT LED FROM THE ROCKINGHAM GATE FROM THE STREET RIGHT INTO THE FRONT DOOR. I THINK THAT WOULD -- UNLESS YOU HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE THERE BLEEDING, THAT WOULD PRECLUDE ANY OTHER BLOOD TRAILS AND THERE WAS NO OTHER BLOOD FOUND. "

The obvious conclusion is that the person who was bleeding bled from the street into the house and the person who deposited the glove behind the guest house was not bleeding.

Thanks for that Post.:cool:

[martin II]

March 21-Vannatter

"Q: REGARDING THE GLOVE THAT YOU SAW, WHERE IN YOUR REPORTS REGARDING ROCKINGHAM DID YOU SHOW THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT IS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AND IT IS ALSO IN THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT.

Q: IT IS IN THE -- I SAID WHERE IN YOUR NOTES ARE THEY SHOWN?

A: THERE ARE NO NOTES.

Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE LANGE'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I -- I -- I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS IN LANGE'S NOTES.

Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS' NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE HAS ANY NOTES.

Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND IN ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT IS NOT, SIR.

Q: WHERE IN THE MASTER NOTE-TAKER'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT IS IN THE CRIMINALIST'S NOTES THAT HE RECOVERED THE PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND THOSE WERE TAKEN AT MY DIRECTION.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WHEN WERE THOSE NOTES TAKEN?

A: THE MORNING OF THE 13TH.

Q: AT YOUR DIRECTION?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: DO YOU HAVE THOSE NOTES?

A: NO, SIR, I DON'T. THOSE ARE CRIMINALIST WORK PRODUCT.

Q: A CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD IS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT IN ALL CASES OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, IS IT NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WHERE IN THE CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD DOES IT INDICATE THAT ANY OF THE FOUR OFFICERS THERE RECOVERED A GLOVE?

A: IT DOESN'T. "

Does anyone find it peculiar that the glove they felt so important to ALLEGEDLY send MF back to Bundy to make a comparison was not in any of their notes?

I find it strange, peculiar and according to Vanhatter,contrary to lapd Protocol.They were making up the rules as they went along.They must have had their personal or collective reasons.

[William Anthony]

so you're thinking that the 'big conspiracy' started that night?

No, but the cover up might have.

[William Anthony]

I find it strange, peculiar and according to Vanhatter,contrary to lapd Protocol.They were making up the rules as they went along.They must have had their personal or collective reasons.

Excellent observation.

[martin II]

Had it been anyone other than MF, would you have the same objections?

But it was Furhman. The same furhman that told the lie on the stand to the judge and the triers of fact.

[weezer]

You continue to post comments of two jurors as far as their opinions about the gloves made long after the trial.

I assume two things from your post:

1. The gloves fitting or not fitting was not a determining issue for them.
2. That the other 10 jurors felt that the gloves DID NOT FIT.
martin II

Actually, it was three jurors.

In your assumptions, if the jurors didn't find the gloves not fitting, and they didn't understand the DNA, and it wasn't about 'domestic abuse', what do you assume was the determining issue for them other than 'Madame Foreman' didn't like Fuhrman BEFORE he testified?

I've never read/heard any comments from the other jurors contradicted the glove statement have you?

[martin II]

Excellent observation.

The jury, listening to these clowns activities or manner of investing/handeling this crime scene must have had many unanswered quesitons about all of this
little mini mountain of evidence made of sand. :cool:
martin II

[weezer]

The jury, listening to these clowns activities or manner of investing/handeling this crime scene must have had many unanswered quesitons about all of this
little mini mountain of evidence made of sand. :cool:
martin II

LOL -- ahh yes, the evidence -- all of which pointed to orenthal james simpson: hair, blood, fiber, hat, glove and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints. ;)

[William Anthony]

Actually, it was three jurors.

In your assumptions, if the jurors didn't find the gloves not fitting, and they didn't understand the DNA, and it wasn't about 'domestic abuse', what do you assume was the determining issue for them other than 'Madame Foreman' didn't like Fuhrman BEFORE he testified?

I've never read/heard any comments from the other jurors contradicted the glove statement have you?

The verdict. Remember, if it does not fit, you must acquit.

[William Anthony]

LOL -- ahh yes, the evidence -- all of which pointed to orenthal james simpson: hair, blood, fiber, hat, glove and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints. ;)

All of the evidence which they mishandled, possibly contaminated, possibly cross contaminated, possibly planted, all of what some call mistakes and human error, do you mean that evidence?

[martin II]

Actually, it was three jurors.

In your assumptions, if the jurors didn't find the gloves not fitting, and they didn't understand the DNA, and it wasn't about 'domestic abuse', what do you assume was the determining issue for them other than 'Madame Foreman' didn't like Fuhrman BEFORE he testified?

I've never read/heard any comments from the other jurors that contradicted that statement have you?

I assume that each issue had different and various levels of importance for each juror as they were claimed by the prosceution and attacked by the defense as would be expected.

It was reported by many media outlets and others that Furhman approached the witness stand with big time cockiness in his demeanor.So maby "Madam Foreman" observed this also.But as it turned out, she may not have been far off the mark as he sat there and lied to all in the court room and the world.

As far as the other jurors are concerned, since no comments on that issue was made public i assume that their position would be that they voted not guilty so that vote spoke for them on the case period.As a matter of fact i think all the jurors took that position.

There may have been some specific issue that you may have been concerned about but OJ was not charged with abuse and was not on trial for that.The trial was murder not abuse.So that was a non issue.imo

[martin II]

LOL -- ahh yes, the evidence -- all of which pointed to orenthal james simpson: hair, blood, fiber, hat, glove and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints. ;)

But for many, the arrow you speak of was not as straight as it first appeared
to some.

[fgump2]

To state that domestic violence is irrelevant to the murder case is to ignore what FBI expert John Douglas said: when a man murders his wife, or ex wife, it was usually preceded by a pattern of domestic abuse. J. Cochran tried to muddy the waters by saying that only a small fraction of wife beaters murder their wives. John Douglas pointed out that a more relevant statistic is that if a man has been convicted of beating his wife, and the wife is then murdered, in slightly over half the cases, the husband did it. Since OJS didn’t just beat her, he also stalked her, the odds look even worse for OJS. Many pro OJS people seem to think that MF’s talk on tape tells more about him than OJS’s violent acts toward NBS. This is strange; do they really think that words speak louder than actions? The criminal jurors heard evidence that OJS beat NBS enough to put hand print on her neck. And after doing that he showed no remorse, and joked about domestic violence on a video a week or two before the murders.
The pro OJS people also make scornful remarks about he mistakes of the police criminologists, and also to praise Henry Lee, and ignore Lee’s more serious mistakes, such as his difficulties in confusing foot prints with trowel marks in the cement, and his difficulty in remembering what he wrote is his books. Both the dream team and their admirers are very selective in whose mistakes they talk about.
There was never evidence of cross contnamination, only talk of cross contamination.
Those who talk of contamination and cross contamination never mention the amazing coincidences they ask us to believe: That only the dna of the three principals was found. That the evidence held together is a conisistent manner. That cellmark labratories got the same answers as the LA police lab.

[William Anthony]

To state that domestic violence is irrelevant to the murder case is to ignore what FBI expert John Douglas said: when a man murders his wife, or ex wife, it was usually preceded by a pattern of domestic abuse. J. Cochran tried to muddy the waters by saying that only a small fraction of wife beaters murder their wives. John Douglas pointed out that a more relevant statistic is that if a man has been convicted of beating his wife, and the wife is then murdered, in slightly over half the cases, the husband did it. Since OJS didn’t just beat her, he also stalked her, the odds look even worse for OJS. Many pro OJS people seem to think that MF’s talk on tape tells more about him than OJS’s violent acts toward NBS. This is strange; do they really think that words speak louder than actions? The criminal jurors heard evidence that OJS beat NBS enough to put hand print on her neck. And after doing that he showed no remorse, and joked about domestic violence on a video a week or two before the murders.
The pro OJS people also make scornful remarks about he mistakes of the police criminologists, and also to praise Henry Lee, and ignore Lee’s more serious mistakes, such as his difficulties in confusing foot prints with trowel marks in the cement, and his difficulty in remembering what he wrote is his books. Both the dream team and their admirers are very selective in whose mistakes they talk about.
There was never evidence of cross contnamination, only talk of cross contamination.
Those who talk of contamination and cross contamination never mention the amazing coincidences they ask us to believe: That only the dna of the three principals was found. That the evidence held together is a conisistent manner. That cellmark labratories got the same answers as the LA police lab.

Four words come to mind, more prejudicial than probative.

This was not a case about whether or not other abusers murdered their wives, nor was it a case about whether or not Simpson was of good moral character.

Yes, the defense only had to show that the evidence could have been cross contaminated. If you fail to collect all the evidence at a crime scene, you cannot positively eliminate anyone. Yes, the defense pointed that fact out.

Yes, the prosecution made mistakes or human errors or told lies, depending on one's point of view and yes, the defense pointed those out, because the burden of proof belonged to the prosecution. Slightly over 50% is the burden of proof in a civil trial not in a criminal one.

[martin II]

To state that domestic violence is irrelevant to the murder case is to ignore what FBI expert John Douglas said: when a man murders his wife, or ex wife, it was usually preceded by a pattern of domestic abuse. J. Cochran tried to muddy the waters by saying that only a small fraction of wife beaters murder their wives. John Douglas pointed out that a more relevant statistic is that if a man has been convicted of beating his wife, and the wife is then murdered, in slightly over half the cases, the husband did it. Since OJS didn’t just beat her, he also stalked her, the odds look even worse for OJS. Many pro OJS people seem to think that MF’s talk on tape tells more about him than OJS’s violent acts toward NBS. This is strange; do they really think that words speak louder than actions? The criminal jurors heard evidence that OJS beat NBS enough to put hand print on her neck. And after doing that he showed no remorse, and joked about domestic violence on a video a week or two before the murders.
The pro OJS people also make scornful remarks about he mistakes of the police criminologists, and also to praise Henry Lee, and ignore Lee’s more serious mistakes, such as his difficulties in confusing foot prints with trowel marks in the cement, and his difficulty in remembering what he wrote is his books. Both the dream team and their admirers are very selective in whose mistakes they talk about.
There was never evidence of cross contnamination, only talk of cross contamination.
Those who talk of contamination and cross contamination never mention the amazing coincidences they ask us to believe: That only the dna of the three principals was found. That the evidence held together is a conisistent manner. That cellmark labratories got the same answers as the LA police lab.

I think one would need more than some FBI reported statistics that when a wife is murdered it is 'usually preceded" by some husband abuse and the husband is therefore guilty of murder. The last proven instances of oj and Nicole fighting was in 1998 if i am correct and he pleaded no contest.
I am not sure there was any proven instances close to the time she was murdered which i think would be required if he was to be charged with abuse.

Oj was on trial for abuse. I think the prosecution spoke of this as a part of a 'KITCHEN SINK' type of effort to get a murder conviction. But the jury had to focus on what he was charged with, not side issues.
imo

[SlowHandSam]

But it was Furhman. The same furhman that told the lie on the stand to the judge and the triers of fact.

My question was posed to ask a hypothetical question and see if we could get pass this whole MF is a racist tie.

So, my question remains - had it NOT been MF who found the glove, would the objections still exist? Every single argument made by a few of y'all circle around this alleged belief that he is a racist. So, take MF out of the equation. Had ANY OTHER member of LE found the glove, would the objections still exist?

[William Anthony]

My question was posed to ask a hypothetical question and see if we could get pass this whole MF is a racist tie.

So, my question remains - had it NOT been MF who found the glove, would the objections still exist? Every single argument made by a few of y'all circle around this alleged belief that he is a racist. So, take MF out of the equation. Had ANY OTHER member of LE found the glove, would the objections still exist?

Yes.

[William Anthony]

There have been many posts in regard to the beliefs MF held, whether or not he was speaking in the context of a screen play, whether or not those were his true beliefs or just allegations. I think the prosecution stipulated or conceded those were his true beliefs. I anticipate the statement that what a lawyer says is not evidence. However, all one needs to do is read the beginning of Darden's
closing rebuttal argument of September 29th to see the stipulation/concession and his statement, "We proved...", to see that, even the prosecution did not deny what MF is.

[tv]

There have been many posts in regard to the beliefs MF held, whether or not he was speaking in the context of a screen play, whether or not those were his true beliefs or just allegations. I think the prosecution stipulated or conceded those were his true beliefs. I anticipate the statement that what a lawyer says is not evidence. However, all one needs to do is read the beginning of Darden's
closing rebuttal argument of September 29th to see the stipulation/concession and his statement, "We proved...", to see that, even the prosecution did not deny what MF is.How strange that this is the only thing the prosecution said that you believe.

[William Anthony]

How strange that this is the only thing the prosecution said that you believe.

No, in fact, I don't believe they proved it. I believe the defense did. :)

[weezer]

My question was posed to ask a hypothetical question and see if we could get pass this whole MF is a racist tie.

So, my question remains - had it NOT been MF who found the glove, would the objections still exist? Every single argument made by a few of y'all circle around this alleged belief that he is a racist. So, take MF out of the equation. Had ANY OTHER member of LE found the glove, would the objections still exist?

Of course it would because without Fuhrman, there is no explanation for orenthal's hair, blood, fiber, hat, glove and size 12 pigeon-toed BM bloody footprints at the crime scene.

[weezer]

I think one would need more than some FBI reported statistics that when a wife is murdered it is 'usually preceded" by some husband abuse and the husband is therefore guilty of murder. The last proven instances of oj and Nicole fighting was in 1998 if i am correct and he pleaded no contest.
I am not sure there was any proven instances close to the time she was murdered which i think would be required if he was to be charged with abuse.

Oj was on trial for abuse. I think the prosecution spoke of this as a part of a 'KITCHEN SINK' type of effort to get a murder conviction. But the jury had to focus on what he was charged with, not side issues.
imo

oh my -- the jerk had stalked and spied on her. he was threatening her with losing her home and any money she had in the weeks and days before he butchered her. he was ranting and raving about her the very night he killed her.

[tv]

No, in fact, I don't believe they proved it. I believe the defense did. :)

It wasn't the Mark Fuhrman racism trial it was the OJ Simpson double-murder trial. If OJ Simpson's history of domestic violence wasn't considered relevant by the jury then why was Mark Fuhrman's personal life so relevant? OJ Simpson had been convicted of domestic violence in the past so his tendency for wife abuse was a fact.

[tv]

No, in fact, I don't believe they proved it. I believe the defense did. :)Why do the same people that say domestic violence by Simpson doesn't mean that he would kill anyone also say that Mark Fuhrman's words on the tape prove that he actually carried out those acts? Why are the standards always different when applied to OJ Simpson? Without Mark Fuhrman who would be the next scapegoat for planting evidence?

[William Anthony]

It wasn't the Mark Fuhrman racism trial it was the OJ Simpson double-murder trial. If OJ Simpson's history of domestic violence wasn't considered relevant by the jury then why was Mark Fuhrman's personal life so relevant? OJ Simpson had been convicted of domestic violence in the past so his tendency for wife abuse was a fact.

It was MF's credibility that was relevant, not his personal life. It was particularly relevant when considering the evidence of planting. The jury was sophisticated enough to realize that the prosecution failed to make the causual (think that is how it is spelled in the law) connection.

[William Anthony]

Why do the same people that say domestic violence by Simpson doesn't mean that he would kill anyone also say that Mark Fuhrman's words on the tape prove that he actually carried out those acts? Why are the standards always different when applied to OJ Simpson? Without Mark Fuhrman who would be the next scapegoat for planting evidence?

I do not understand. Darden took the position that Simpson was an abuser and that led him to become a murderer. So, you have a person, who believed the abuse led to murder, saying MF was proven to be a racist. Without MF, two gloves would probably have been found at Bundy.

[martin II]

Why do the same people that say domestic violence by Simpson doesn't mean that he would kill anyone also say that Mark Fuhrman's words on the tape prove that he actually carried out those acts? Why are the standards always different when applied to OJ Simpson? Without Mark Fuhrman who would be the next scapegoat for planting evidence?

There were multiple citizens complaints and court cases against furhman for
the same activite he stated in his words that he had done.

[martin II]

It is kinda hard to expect a murder conviction based on some FBI guys statistics on what abuse means to him.

[martin II]

oh my -- the jerk had stalked and spied on her. he was threatening her with losing her home and any money she had in the weeks and days before he butchered her. he was ranting and raving about her the very night he killed her.

Nicoles tax and home situation was of her own doing not ojs.She managed the $400,000 he gave her at divoice.

[bobaugust]

It was MF's credibility that was relevant, not his personal life. It was particularly relevant when considering the evidence of planting. The jury was sophisticated enough to realize that the prosecution failed to make the causual (think that is how it is spelled in the law) connection.

You seem to believe that Mark Fuhrman saw a second glove under the plant leaves at Ron's feet from his vantage point on the other side of Nicole's fence at Bundy. A glove that no one else who was there before him ever ever saw. And instead of immediately telling everyone about it he went back inside the gate and retrieved that glove somehow cleverly and secretly concealing it for over three hours waiting for an opportunity to go to Rockingham and then planting it where Kaelin told him he had heard someone behind his room the night of the murders, right?

Tell us William how do you logically and reasonably answer these questions?

Triumph of Justice
"The crime scene was swimming with blood. How did Fuhrman know whose blood that was? The real killer could have dropped gallons all over the garden. It could have been anyone's blood. The killer would have been positively identified by this blood, clearing Simpson and leaving Fuhrman exposed.

What if the glove Fuhrman supposedly planted at Rockingham was covered with someone's blood other than Simpson's? To frame Simpson you need Simpson's blood at Simpson's home. How could Fuhrman possibly know the blood on the glove was Simpson's?

What if Simpson had an air tight alibi? Fuhrman was sleeping when the cops caught the call. How did he know Simpson wasn't on an airplane or at a restaurant or making a television appearance at the time of the murders?

How did Fuhrman know an eyewitness would not walk right up to the police and say, "I saw the murders"? If he'd planted the glove at Rockingham and they'd caught a different killer, Fuhrman would go to jail, conceivably for life."

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You seem to believe that Mark Fuhrman saw a second glove under the plant leaves at Ron's feet from his vantage point on the other side of Nicole's fence at Bundy. A glove that no one else who was there before him ever ever saw. And instead of immediately telling everyone about it he went back inside the gate and retrieved that glove somehow cleverly and secretly concealing it for over three hours waiting for an opportunity to go to Rockingham and then planting it where Kaelin told him he had heard someone behind his room the night of the murders, right?

Tell us William how do you logically and reasonably answer these questions?

Triumph of Justice
"The crime scene was swimming with blood. How did Fuhrman know whose blood that was? The real killer could have dropped gallons all over the garden. It could have been anyone's blood. The killer would have been positively identified by this blood, clearing Simpson and leaving Fuhrman exposed.

What if the glove Fuhrman supposedly planted at Rockingham was covered with someone's blood other than Simpson's? To frame Simpson you need Simpson's blood at Simpson's home. How could Fuhrman possibly know the blood on the glove was Simpson's?

What if Simpson had an air tight alibi? Fuhrman was sleeping when the cops caught the call. How did he know Simpson wasn't on an airplane or at a restaurant or making a television appearance at the time of the murders?

How did Fuhrman know an eyewitness would not walk right up to the police and say, "I saw the murders"? If he'd planted the glove at Rockingham and they'd caught a different killer, Fuhrman would go to jail, conceivably for life."

bobaugust

First, I go by MF's testimony that he saw them (meaning two gloves).
Second, I go by MF's testimony that he had plastic bags available to transport the glove.
Third, I go by the moist appearance of the glove found hours later to consider it was carried in plastic.
Fourth, I go by the testimony that no blood was found anywhere the glove was allegedly found.
Fifth, I go by the testimony that there was blood leading from the Rockingham gate into the house.
Sixth, I go by MF's statements on the tape about his tactics as to planting/fabricating/inventing evidence, including his statements on the statute of limitations and if he goes down, the case goes down.
Seventh, I go by the testimony of Ms. Bell on his racial animus.
Eighth, I go by Ms. Singer's testimony of his hatred of interracial couples.
Ninth, I go by the fact that he knew where Simpson lived.
Tenth, I go by the fact that he was alone when he allegedly found the glove.
Eleventh, I go by the fact that he allegedly made comments about Nicole's anatomy, which to me indicated a interest beyond the call of his duties.
Twelfth, I go by the fact that he lied on the stand.

You seem to believe, as the author that you rely on, that the only reason he could have planted the glove was to frame Simpson for the murders. This is not the case to me. He could have wanted to implicate Simpson in the murders. If Simpson had an iron clad alibi, the case could have been made that he hired the murderer(s), and, if all else failed, the case could be made that the killer came to kill Simpson, but the limo driver arrived and he changed his/their mind(s).

Least I forget, as far as the crime scene swimming in blood, the officers testified they were able to carefully walk around the crime scene without getting blood on their shoes.
Thirteenth, there was evidence that none of the officers walked in the blood.
Fourteenth, MF testified he saw blood in the Bronco at a time when he could not have seen it.

[tv]

There were multiple citizens complaints and court cases against furhman for
the same activite he stated in his words that he had done.Was he ever convicted of anything in any of these court cases?

[tv]

There were multiple citizens complaints and court cases against furhman for
the same activite he stated in his words that he had done.Nicole told numerous people that her husband had threatened to kill her and we know he was convicted of domestic abuse. Sounds logical to me that he finally made good on his threats.

[tv]

ahh, but the 'tryers of fate' didn't have questions about the glove:

". . .The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody. . ."Those two jurors didn't seem to mind that OJ Simpson was lying when he said the gloves didn't fit. His credibility obviously wasn't an issue for them.

[martin II]

Was he ever convicted of anything in any of these court cases?

Just before the oj case started the city of LA decided to settle one case i tihnk it was the bratton case, not sure, for $100,000. so that case did not go to court. Some have said this was done so that his case would be setteled befor he had to testify.I have read that the records of 2-3 others were 'LOST'
But he had more complaints by citizens against him than most other le.So there must be a reason for that kind of history.imo

[martin II]

Nicole told numerous people that her husband had threatened to kill her and we know he was convicted of domestic abuse. Sounds logical to me that he finally made good on his threats.

OJ pleaded no contest for the 1989 event.That was too long before her murder to connect the two.imo

[William Anthony]

Was he ever convicted of anything in any of these court cases?

Were the officers who shot the citizen, who was talking on his cell phone, 51 times convicted of anything. Your point is?

[William Anthony]

Nicole told numerous people that her husband had threatened to kill her and we know he was convicted of domestic abuse. Sounds logical to me that he finally made good on his threats.

First you have hearsay. Second, you have reached a conclusion based on that hearsay. I know you are not speaking legally and that is why trials are important. In a court it must be more than logical. There must be some evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did the crime, even though it might seem logical to some that he did.

[martin II]

I seem to remember media reports during the trial that Furhman was described as tall, strong and handsom by some standards and this caused many women to view him in some kind positive light even after the tapes were played and he lied on the stand. I have wondered if these media descriptions impacted on some womens opinions/support of him even after his r***** comments and purjery conviction took place.imo

[William Anthony]

I seem to remember media reports during the trial that Furhman was described as tall, strong and handsom by some standards and this caused many women to view him in some kind positive light even after the tapes were played and he lied on the stand. I have wondered if these media descriptions impacted on some womens opinions/support of him even after his r***** comments and purjery conviction took place.imo

I remember being told that there is no accounting for taste.

[martin II]

Those two jurors didn't seem to mind that OJ Simpson was lying when he said the gloves didn't fit. His credibility obviously wasn't an issue for them.

If one reviews the testimony and cross examination of that fool, the ex Aris glove employee one would see that there was more to be considered about the gloves than whether they fit or not. So the comments by these two ex jurors means nothing but their opinions that they put in their book, written long after they all voted not guilty.imo

[martin II]

I remember being told that there is no accounting for taste.

In some way this reminds me of how some women for some reason write letters to convicted criminals asking for relaonships.I think this happened to Scott Peterson. I am not sure what the underlying reason is for this but it is strange behavior.imo Maby it is just taste.Or "Different strokes for different folks".

[martin II]

First, I go by MF's testimony that he saw them (meaning two gloves).
Second, I go by MF's testimony that he had plastic bags available to transport the glove.
Third, I go by the moist appearance of the glove found hours later to consider it was carried in plastic.
Fourth, I go by the testimony that no blood was found anywhere the glove was allegedly found.
Fifth, I go by the testimony that there was blood leading from the Rockingham gate into the house.
Sixth, I go by MF's statements on the tape about his tactics as to planting/fabricating/inventing evidence, including his statements on the statute of limitations and if he goes down, the case goes down.
Seventh, I go by the testimony of Ms. Bell on his racial animus.
Eighth, I go by Ms. Singer's testimony of his hatred of interracial couples.
Ninth, I go by the fact that he knew where Simpson lived.
Tenth, I go by the fact that he was alone when he allegedly found the glove.
Eleventh, I go by the fact that he allegedly made comments about Nicole's anatomy, which to me indicated a interest beyond the call of his duties.
Twelfth, I go by the fact that he lied on the stand.

You seem to believe, as the author that you rely on, that the only reason he could have planted the glove was to frame Simpson for the murders. This is not the case to me. He could have wanted to implicate Simpson in the murders. If Simpson had an iron clad alibi, the case could have been made that he hired the murderer(s), and, if all else failed, the case could be made that the killer came to kill Simpson, but the limo driver arrived and he changed his/their mind(s).

Least I forget, as far as the crime scene swimming in blood, the officers testified they were able to carefully walk around the crime scene without getting blood on their shoes.
Thirteenth, there was evidence that none of the officers walked in the blood.
Fourteenth, MF testified he saw blood in the Bronco at a time when he could not have seen it.

The glove having been found, after planting, on ojs property would have put him in this murder directly or indirectly regardless of if he had a alibi or not.

[William Anthony]

In some way this reminds me of how some women for some reason write letters to convicted criminals asking for relaonships.I think this happened to Scott Peterson. I am not sure what the underlying reason is for this but it is strange behavior.imo Maby it is just taste.Or "Different strokes for different folks".

The very strange thing to me is that I see those type of comments as indefensible but some make up defenses for them.

[martin II]

Was he ever convicted of anything in any of these court cases?

tv]
Here you have 10,000 20,000 le working daily in the commuinity.You have one cop with more complaints by citizens against him than is normal for any other one cop on the force and you ask if he was ever convicted. Are you suggesting that various citizens got togeather and decided to make false complaints against furhman? I don't think so.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

First, I go by MF's testimony that he saw them (meaning two gloves).
Second, I go by MF's testimony that he had plastic bags available to transport the glove.
Third, I go by the moist appearance of the glove found hours later to consider it was carried in plastic.
Fourth, I go by the testimony that no blood was found anywhere the glove was allegedly found.
Fifth, I go by the testimony that there was blood leading from the Rockingham gate into the house.
Sixth, I go by MF's statements on the tape about his tactics as to planting/fabricating/inventing evidence, including his statements on the statute of limitations and if he goes down, the case goes down.
Seventh, I go by the testimony of Ms. Bell on his racial animus.
Eighth, I go by Ms. Singer's testimony of his hatred of interracial couples.
Ninth, I go by the fact that he knew where Simpson lived.
Tenth, I go by the fact that he was alone when he allegedly found the glove.
Eleventh, I go by the fact that he allegedly made comments about Nicole's anatomy, which to me indicated a interest beyond the call of his duties.
Twelfth, I go by the fact that he lied on the stand.

You seem to believe, as the author that you rely on, that the only reason he could have planted the glove was to frame Simpson for the murders. This is not the case to me. He could have wanted to implicate Simpson in the murders. If Simpson had an iron clad alibi, the case could have been made that he hired the murderer(s), and, if all else failed, the case could be made that the killer came to kill Simpson, but the limo driver arrived and he changed his/their mind(s).

Least I forget, as far as the crime scene swimming in blood, the officers testified they were able to carefully walk around the crime scene without getting blood on their shoes.
Thirteenth, there was evidence that none of the officers walked in the blood.
Fourteenth, MF testified he saw blood in the Bronco at a time when he could not have seen it.

First, Fuhrman testified that the word "them" referred to the knit cap and one glove.
Second, there is no evidence of the Rockingham glove ever being in a plastic bag.
Third, the fact that the blood on the glove looked moist does not eliminate the glove being dropped on the path when Kaelin heard someone behind his room.
Fourth, no blood near the glove is only evidence that Simpson didn't drip his blood there.
Fifth, based on the way the Rockingham gate opened and where Simpson's blood was found just outside and inside that gate proved that Simpson did not enter that gate when he was dripping blood.
Sixth, what ever stories Fuhrman told helping to create a fictional screen play were irrelevant to him finding the glove.
Seventh, whatever Bell testified Fuhrman said nine years before the murders was irrelevant to him finding the glove.
Eighth, whatever Singer testified Fuhrman said seven years before the murders was irrelevant to him finding the glove.
Ninth, the fact that Fuhrman knew where Simpson lived is irrelevant to him finding the glove.
Tenth, the fact that Fuhrman was alone when he found the glove is not evidence that he planted it.
Eleventh, whatever Fuhrman supposedly said about Nicole's anatomy was irrelevant to him finding the glove.
Twelfth, the lie Fuhrman told was irrelevant to the murders, irrelevant to the physical evidence in this case, and irrelevant to Simpson's guilt or innocence.
Thirteenth, the fact that none of the officers walked in the blood at Bundy is irrelevant to Fuhrman finding the glove on Simpson's estate.
Fourteenth, Fuhrman's testimony as to when he saw blood in the Bronco is irrelevant to Fuhrman finding the glove on Simpson's estate.

There is no logical believable reason why Fuhrman would have planted that glove. He didn't know whose blood was at the murder scene. He didn't know whose blood was on that glove. He didn't know what fiber evidence would be found on that glove. He didn't know if Simpson had an airtight alibi. He didn't know if there was a witness to the murders. He didn't even know the time of death or the cause of death. And if Fuhrman wanted to simply implicate Simpson in these murders as you suggest, why would he choose to take the bloody glove and not the one that had no blood on it?

I'll tell you why because there was no second glove under the plant leaves at Ron's feet for Fuhrman to see or take. There was only one glove and a knit cap. No one saw a second glove at Bundy. Not the two patrol officers who found the bodies and first saw all the evidence. And not any of the other fifteen police personnel including supervisors who were at Bundy before Fuhrman and Phillips arrived there two hours after the bodies were found.

That's reality, not the fantasy you keep posting.

bobaugust

[martin II]

The glove having been found, after planting, on ojs property would have put him in this murder directly or indirectly regardless of if he had a alibi or not.

When the limo left the rockingham gate Park said he saw a auto parked to his lelf a few feet from the gate at about 110:15 pm,on the street.I am not sure
if this car was ever traced to a owner or if it was just ignored.

[William Anthony]

First, Fuhrman testified that the word "them" referred to the knit cap and one glove.
Second, there is no evidence of the Rockingham glove ever being in a plastic bag.
Third, the fact that the blood on the glove looked moist does not eliminate the glove being dropped on the path when Kaelin heard someone behind his room.
Fourth, no blood near the glove is only evidence that Simpson didn't drip his blood there.
Fifth, based on the way the Rockingham gate opened and where Simpson's blood was found just outside and inside that gate proved that Simpson did not enter that gate when he was dripping blood.
Sixth, what ever stories Fuhrman told helping to create a fictional screen play were irrelevant to him finding the glove.
Seventh, whatever Bell testified Fuhrman said nine years before the murders was irrelevant to him finding the glove.
Eighth, whatever Singer testified Fuhrman said seven years before the murders was irrelevant to him finding the glove.
Ninth, the fact that Fuhrman knew where Simpson lived is irrelevant to him finding the glove.
Tenth, the fact that Fuhrman was alone when he found the glove is not evidence that he planted it.
Eleventh, whatever Fuhrman supposedly said about Nicole's anatomy was irrelevant to him finding the glove.
Twelfth, the lie Fuhrman told was irrelevant to the murders, irrelevant to the physical evidence in this case, and irrelevant to Simpson's guilt or innocence.
Thirteenth, the fact that none of the officers walked in the blood at Bundy is irrelevant to Fuhrman finding the glove on Simpson's estate.
Fourteenth, Fuhrman's testimony as to when he saw blood in the Bronco is irrelevant to Fuhrman finding the glove on Simpson's estate.

There is no logical believable reason why Fuhrman would have planted that glove. He didn't know whose blood was at the murder scene. He didn't know whose blood was on that glove. He didn't know what fiber evidence would be found on that glove. He didn't know if Simpson had an airtight alibi. He didn't know if there was a witness to the murders. He didn't even know the time of death or the cause of death. And if Fuhrman wanted to simply implicate Simpson in these murders as you suggest, why would he choose to take the bloody glove and not the one that had no blood on it?

I'll tell you why because there was no second glove under the plant leaves at Ron's feet for Fuhrman to see or take. There was only one glove and a knit cap. No one saw a second glove at Bundy. Not the two patrol officers who found the bodies and first saw all the evidence. And not any of the other fifteen police personnel including supervisors who were at Bundy before Fuhrman and Phillips arrived there two hours after the bodies were found.

That's reality, not the fantasy you keep posting.

bobaugust

MF saw a second glove at Bundy. Hence the word them. Do the words motive, means and opportunity and reasonable inferences, or the jury instruction that you can find one testimony more credible than the testimonies of many, mean anything to you? Simply because many did not see or claim not to have seen the other glove at Bundy, does not mean that MF didn't see it, transport it and plant it. I tis obvious that you want to accept wholeheartedly the biased and, imho,arrogant, and false, imho, opinion of the plaintiff's attorney's argument, who claimed he proved that Simpson was a murderer in a trial that found him liable for one wrongful death, without, imho, looking objectively at the evidence. Your reality seems, imho, to be supported by the author's reality. The author's reality only takes into account one possibility, which is that MF could not have planted the glove, because it was illogical to frame Simpson for murder at that point. The author's reality is far too near-sighted, imho. It ignores the possibility that MF only wanted to involve Simpson in the murders and that MF was in no real danger of being detected, because, if the evidence did not implicate Simpson, they could simply say that the killer(s) came to murder Simpson. Do not forget that MF testified that he thought the killer was bleeding at the time the glove was deposited. The fact that no blood behind the location near where the glove was allegedly found tells any reasonable person that, when the glove was deposited there, the person, who deposited was not bleeding, imho. The blood from the Rockingham street leading to the front door tells any reasonable person that someone, who was bleeding, entered the home through the Rockingham gate. The reality is that there is no uncontested evidence to place Simpson alone in the location where the glove was allegedly found but there is uncontested evidence to place MF, who was not bleeding, in the location where the glove was allegedly found, imho. That is the reality of the evidence and not the slanted fantastical view of an obviously biased party, imho. Please, in the future, out of respect for this community and because some of the members want to raise the level of the posting in this community, state that your opinion of the reality is such and such and do not tell me what you are going to tell me or state let me tell you what the reality is. Thanks in advance for your anticipated cooperation in raising the level of posting in this community.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9098911
Fifth, based on the way the Rockingham gate opened and where Simpson's blood was found just outside and inside that gate proved that Simpson did not enter that gate when he was dripping blood.

bobaugust[/QUOTE]

Did you forget this testimony?

A: WELL, THERE WAS AN APPARENT BLOOD TRAIL THAT LED FROM THE ROCKINGHAM GATE FROM THE STREET RIGHT INTO THE FRONT DOOR. I THINK THAT WOULD -- UNLESS YOU HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE THERE BLEEDING, THAT WOULD PRECLUDE ANY OTHER BLOOD TRAILS AND THERE WAS NO OTHER BLOOD FOUND. "

I think a detective would have invaluable experience in blood trails.

[William Anthony]

First, Fuhrman testified that the word "them" referred to the knit cap and one glove.

bobaugust

I understand that you choose to credit the explanation of a convicted perjurer, proven r*****, as conceded by the prosecution, and the genocidal words, as supported by the evidence, of the proven r*****, as conceded by the prosecution. Please, understand that I choose not to and see it as him being trapped by a very skilled, whether or not some want to believe he was ethical, defense attorney.

[William Anthony]

Second, there is no evidence of the Rockingham glove ever being in a plastic bag.

bobaugust

There is circumstantial evidence from which one can reasonably infer that MF had the means to place the glove in a plastic bag.

[William Anthony]

Third, the fact that the blood on the glove looked moist does not eliminate the glove being dropped on the path when Kaelin heard someone behind his room.
Fourth, no blood near the glove is only evidence that Simpson didn't drip his blood there.

bobaugust

People are not to ignore their experiences when they examine evidence. The fact that the glove looked moist and not dry as Vannatter testified tells us that it was protected in some manner, if it appeared moist approximately seven hours after you claim it was deposited on a warm June California night. No blood near the glove tells us that the person, who deposited it there was not bleeding and, I think, MF testified he expected the person to be bleeding. I could go on and on, but I think my points have been made.

[weezer]

People are not to ignore their experiences when they examine evidence. The fact that the glove looked moist and not dry as Vannatter testified tells us that it was protected in some manner, if it appeared moist approximately seven hours after you claim it was deposited on a warm June California night. No blood near the glove tells us that the person, who deposited it there was not bleeding and, I think, MF testified he expected the person to be bleeding. I could go on and on, but I think my points have been made.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Did you not want to apply the same standard to the THREE jurors who said the glove fit?

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Did you not want to apply the same standard to the THREE jurors who said the glove fit?

Yes, three out of twelve, or 1/4, which leaves 3/4 or nine who disagreed with the proposition that the gloves fit.

[William Anthony]

People are not to ignore their experiences when they examine evidence. The fact that the glove looked moist and not dry as Vannatter testified tells us that it was protected in some manner, if it appeared moist approximately seven hours after you claim it was deposited on a warm June California night. No blood near the glove tells us that the person, who deposited it there was not bleeding and, I think, MF testified he expected the person to be bleeding. I could go on and on, but I think my points have been made.

Correction-it was Vannatter who said he expected the killer to be bleeding at the time the glove was allegedly deposited there.

"Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS IT -- IS IT -- DID -- IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT THE PERSON WHO DID THE KILLING WAS BLEEDING AT THE TIME HE CAME OR SHE CAME TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES. "

[William Anthony]

Would we all agree that a person's heart rate is elevated when the person exerts him/herself?

[William Anthony]

Least I forget. HAPPY MOTHERS DAY.:rose:

[tv]

OJ pleaded no contest for the 1989 event.That was too long before her murder to connect the two.imoThat was only five years before the murder. Mark Fuhrman hadn't spoken on tape for McKinney in nearly 10 years.

[tv]

Were the officers who shot the citizen, who was talking on his cell phone, 51 times convicted of anything. Your point is?My point is that you disagree with calling OJ Simpson a murderer because he was found not guilty in the criminal trial. I would think that standard should apply to anyone suspected of a crime but not convicted.

[tv]

I seem to remember media reports during the trial that Furhman was described as tall, strong and handsom by some standards and this caused many women to view him in some kind positive light even after the tapes were played and he lied on the stand. I have wondered if these media descriptions impacted on some womens opinions/support of him even after his r***** comments and purjery conviction took place.imoOJ Simpson at one time was described as handsome, athletic and full of charm. Perhaps this impacted on the female jurors in the criminal trial even though he was a wife beater.

[tv]

tv]
Here you have 10,000 20,000 le working daily in the commuinity.You have one cop with more complaints by citizens against him than is normal for any other one cop on the force and you ask if he was ever convicted. Are you suggesting that various citizens got togeather and decided to make false complaints against furhman? I don't think so.imo
martin IIThe number of complaints that Fuhrman had against him were average. Do you have proof that he had more complaints than normal?

[tv]

There is circumstantial evidence from which one can reasonably infer that MF had the means to place the glove in a plastic bag.I read somewhere that at Bundy he was never alone so when did he put this glove in a plastic bag?

[William Anthony]

My point is that you disagree with calling OJ Simpson a murderer because he was found not guilty in the criminal trial. I would think that standard should apply to anyone suspected of a crime but not convicted.

Your point is well taken. However, Simpson, unlike MF, has not made tapes in his own words admitting to a crime or crimes, and, asking the person, who recorded them not to use one specific incident, because the statute of limitations has not expired, or that, if he goes down, the case goes down, or has the FBI made statements that they are not saying he did nothing wrong, only that the statute of limitations for prosecuting has expired. My point is that it seems that members of LE get away with crimes due to an unwillingness to prosecute, which is not to say that they should not receive the same protection of the statute of limitations as all other citizens.

[William Anthony]

I read somewhere that at Bundy he was never alone so when did he put this glove in a plastic bag?

Where is this somewhere?

[tv]

In some way this reminds me of how some women for some reason write letters to convicted criminals asking for relaonships.I think this happened to Scott Peterson. I am not sure what the underlying reason is for this but it is strange behavior.imo Maby it is just taste.Or "Different strokes for different folks".First of all, martin, it's extremely insulting for you to insinuate that women that don't think Mark Fuhrman planted evidence are swayed because of some kind of attraction to him. You believe everything that Arnelle Simpson says and you make excuses for her no matter how ridiculous. Using your reasoning you must believe her because you're attracted to her and want a relationship with her.

[tv]

Where is this somewhere?I really can't remember but I think the statement was made by Phillips.

[tv]

Least I forget. HAPPY MOTHERS DAY.:rose:Thank you, William. :)

[SlowHandSam]

First you have hearsay. Second, you have reached a conclusion based on that hearsay. I know you are not speaking legally and that is why trials are important. In a court it must be more than logical. There must be some evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did the crime, even though it might seem logical to some that he did.

As was Bell's letter ...hearsay, hearsay, hearsay.

[William Anthony]

I really can't remember but I think the statement was made by Phillips.

Here is the convicted perjurer's testimony but he says he was alone for only 5 seconds.

"Q: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO HE SAID SOMETHING TO YOU ABOUT A WOUND. DID HE INVITE YOU OR DIRECT YOU? HE WAS YOUR BOSS, WASN'T HE?

A: HE DIRECTED ME. HE SAID THAT THERE WAS SOME SORT OF A WOUND ON THE MALE VICTIM THAT IS VISIBLE.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU WALKED BACK UP BUNDY WHERE THE BLOODY PAW PRINTS WERE?

A: NO.

Q: WHERE DID YOU WALK?

A: I JUST WALKED UP THE STREET AND THEN ENTERED THE NORTH RESIDENCE.

Q: YOU STAYED OFF THE SIDEWALK?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WALKED UP THE STREET?

A: YES.

Q: AND WALKED AROUND WHAT WE CALL THE FENCE AGAINST WHICH THE MALE VICTIM'S BODY WAS KIND OF CRUMBLED?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. AND HOW FAR INTO THE PROPERTY DID YOU GO? HOW MANY RUNGS OF THE FENCE WOULD YOU ESTIMATE, VERTICAL WISE?

A: WHERE THE MALE VICTIM WAS.

Q: OKAY. CAN YOU PLACE YOURSELF WITH RESPECT TO THE FENCE?

A: DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OF THE FENCE WHERE THE VICTIM WAS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND THERE?

A: FIVE SECONDS.

Q: HOW LONG WAS LIEUTENANT SPANGLER THERE, IF HE WAS?

A: HE WASN'T, BUT WHEN HE WALKED OVER THERE I THINK HE WAS JUST THERE FOR A FEW MOMENTS. "

[William Anthony]

Thank you, William. :)

You're welcome.

[tv]

Here is the convicted perjurer's testimony but he says he was alone for only 5 seconds.

"Q: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO HE SAID SOMETHING TO YOU ABOUT A WOUND. DID HE INVITE YOU OR DIRECT YOU? HE WAS YOUR BOSS, WASN'T HE?

A: HE DIRECTED ME. HE SAID THAT THERE WAS SOME SORT OF A WOUND ON THE MALE VICTIM THAT IS VISIBLE.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU WALKED BACK UP BUNDY WHERE THE BLOODY PAW PRINTS WERE?

A: NO.

Q: WHERE DID YOU WALK?

A: I JUST WALKED UP THE STREET AND THEN ENTERED THE NORTH RESIDENCE.

Q: YOU STAYED OFF THE SIDEWALK?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WALKED UP THE STREET?

A: YES.

Q: AND WALKED AROUND WHAT WE CALL THE FENCE AGAINST WHICH THE MALE VICTIM'S BODY WAS KIND OF CRUMBLED?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. AND HOW FAR INTO THE PROPERTY DID YOU GO? HOW MANY RUNGS OF THE FENCE WOULD YOU ESTIMATE, VERTICAL WISE?

A: WHERE THE MALE VICTIM WAS.

Q: OKAY. CAN YOU PLACE YOURSELF WITH RESPECT TO THE FENCE?

A: DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OF THE FENCE WHERE THE VICTIM WAS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND THERE?

A: FIVE SECONDS.

Q: HOW LONG WAS LIEUTENANT SPANGLER THERE, IF HE WAS?

A: HE WASN'T, BUT WHEN HE WALKED OVER THERE I THINK HE WAS JUST THERE FOR A FEW MOMENTS. "Five seconds? Okay, but why do you believe a convicted perjurer? :)

[William Anthony]

As was Bell's letter ...hearsay, hearsay, hearsay.

A judge disagreed with that. However, even if it was it fell within one of the hearsay exceptions. It was testified to.

[SlowHandSam]

The number of complaints that Fuhrman had against him were average. Do you have proof that he had more complaints than normal?

I'd like to see credible proof for this as well, since that is a forum rule.

I'd like to see where it is stipulated what "average" and "more than average" is and how many MF had filed against him during his tenure with LAPD.

Otherwise, there should have been an "IMO" since it hasn't been supported by any credible evidence.

[William Anthony]

Five seconds? Okay, but why do you believe a convicted perjurer? :)

Because it is an admission against interest. I believe he was alone for longer than 5 seconds.

[William Anthony]

As was Bell's letter ...hearsay, hearsay, hearsay.

Thank you for making me study. The exceptions were a past recorded recollection and it was used to refresh her memory.

Here is the portion of her testimony.

MR. BAILEY: Have you gone over this encounter in your mind since the time you wrote this letter?

MS. BELL: Many, many times.

MR. BAILEY: Have you discussed it, without saying what was said, with a number of people?

MS. BELL: Yes.

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

MS. BELL: Yes, I do.

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

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

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

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

[tv]

Because it is an admission against interest. I believe he was alone for longer than 5 seconds.William, either believe him or not but you can't change his testimony to suit yourself.

[tv]

Thank you for making me study. The exceptions were a past recorded recollection and it was used to refresh her memory.

Here is the portion of her testimony.

MR. BAILEY: Have you gone over this encounter in your mind since the time you wrote this letter?

MS. BELL: Many, many times.

MR. BAILEY: Have you discussed it, without saying what was said, with a number of people?

MS. BELL: Yes.

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

MS. BELL: Yes, I do.

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

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

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

MS. BELL: I know now that he said "Gather together and burned."Did Ms. Bell say that he said he would frame a black man for murder?

[SlowHandSam]

Thank you for making me study. The exceptions were a past recorded recollection and it was used to refresh her memory.

Here is the portion of her testimony.

MR. BAILEY: Have you gone over this encounter in your mind since the time you wrote this letter?

MS. BELL: Many, many times.

MR. BAILEY: Have you discussed it, without saying what was said, with a number of people?

MS. BELL: Yes.

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

MS. BELL: Yes, I do.

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

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

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

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

it is my opinion that it should not have been allowed since it is clearly hearsay.

[William Anthony]

it is my opinion that it should not have been allowed since it is clearly hearsay.

I understand your opinion but the law allows for hearsay admissions if they fall within the exceptions to the hearsay rule. Again, I thank you for allowing me to hone my skills. I mean that seriously because this is one thing that distinguishes lawyers, the ability to use the rules of evidence.

[William Anthony]

William, either believe him or not but you can't change his testimony to suit yourself.

If you find that a witness has testified false in one part of his testimony, you can choose to believe any part or chose not to believe any of his testimony. The law allows for just that.

[William Anthony]

Did Ms. Bell say that he said he would frame a black man for murder?

No,but he said on the tapes that he would fabricate/invent/plant evidence. I am not certain of his intent to frame him for murder or to involve him in conspiracy to commit murder. I am not saying that he did plant the evidence. What I am saying is that he could not be trusted and I can draw a reasonable inference from the evidence that he did plant the glove.

[tv]

No,but he said on the tapes that he would fabricate/invent/plant evidence. I am not certain of his intent to frame him for murder or to involve him in conspiracy to commit murder. I am not saying that he did plant the evidence. What I am saying is that he could not be trusted and I can draw a reasonable inference from the evidence that he did plant the glove.No, he didn't say he would plant evidence. He was spinning a tale for a fictional screenplay. Also, Laura McKinney said she asked him if he had ever planted evidence and he said no. She also said it was her opinion that he hadn't done any planting in the OJ Simpson case.

[tv]

If you find that a witness has testified false in one part of his testimony, you can choose to believe any part or chose not to believe any of his testimony. The law allows for just that.Yes, there are a few on this forum that like to cherry-pick the testimony. It kind of knocks down your argument that Mark Fuhrman can't be believed because he's a convicted perjuror. Now you're saying some of his testimony can be believed?

[tv]

I'd like to see credible proof for this as well, since that is a forum rule.

I'd like to see where it is stipulated what "average" and "more than average" is and how many MF had filed against him during his tenure with LAPD.

Otherwise, there should have been an "IMO" since it hasn't been supported by any credible evidence.I think it would make interesting reading. :)

[William Anthony]

Yes, there are a few on this forum that like to cherry-pick the testimony. It kind of knocks down your argument that Mark Fuhrman can't be believed because he's a convicted perjuror. Now you're saying some of his testimony can be believed?

Do you understand that an admission against interest is inherently trustworthy?

[tv]

Do you understand that an admission against interest is inherently trustworthy?No, William, I'm a complete idiot. :mad:

[tv]

Do you understand that an admission against interest is inherently trustworthy?You've already stated yourself that you don't believe he was alone for only five seconds so obviously you don't find his admission against interest very trustworthy.

[William Anthony]

No, he didn't say he would plant evidence. He was spinning a tale for a fictional screenplay. Also, Laura McKinney said she asked him if he had ever planted evidence and he said no. She also said it was her opinion that he hadn't done any planting in the OJ Simpson case.

Please, post a link to those statements as you have posted them as facts. She is as entitled to her opinion as I am to mine. If he was just spinning a tale, why did he tell her not to use a specific incident because the statute of limitations had not expired? If he did not plant evidence in this case, why the comment if he goes down the case goes down? As I recall it was a man who asked him if he had planted evidence in this case and he said not. It is my opinion that he was more open with women, as evidenced by his responses to Bailey's questions.

[tv]

Please, post a link to those statements as you have posted them as facts. She is as entitled to her opinion as I am to mine. If he was just spinning a tale, why did he tell her not to use a specific incident because the statute of limitations had not expired? If he did not plant evidence in this case, why the comment if he goes down the case goes down? As I recall it was a man who asked him if he had planted evidence in this case and he said not. It is my opinion that he was more open with women, as evidenced by his responses to Bailey's questions.These are things I've read along the way. If I can find the links I'll post them. When will you understand that he was one of those men that liked to brag?

[William Anthony]

You've already stated yourself that you don't believe he was alone for only five seconds so obviously you don't find his admission against interest very trustworthy.

The admission against interest was that he was alone. The amount of time was not an admission against interest. It was an attempt to minimize the effect of his admission, imho.

[William Anthony]

These are things I've read along the way. If I can find the links I'll post them. When will you understand that he was one of those men that liked to brag?

When will you understand that bragging does not necessarily mean that someone is not telling the truth? Yes, I believe he was bragging about the things he got away with.

[tv]

When will you understand that bragging does not necessarily mean that someone is not telling the truth? Yes, I believe he was bragging about the things he got away with.Then you and I are at a stalemate about what we believe regarding the tapes. Nothing new. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

These are things I've read along the way. If I can find the links I'll post them. When will you understand that he was one of those men that liked to brag?

I think that you agreed with another poster about posting links to statements of fact. I guess the other poster can reply that, if he can find them, he will post them, correct?

[William Anthony]

Then you and I are at a stalemate about what we believe regarding the tapes. Nothing new. :shrug:

I think I posted fourteen reasons why I believed he may have planted evidence. I think the only reason you give is because it was said in a screen play. I suppose it's your right to see it as a stalemate. I would say that you have been checkmated, imho.

[tv]

I think I posted fourteen reasons why I believed he may have planted evidence. I think the only reason you give is because it was said in a screen play. I suppose it's your right to see it as a stalemate. I would say that you have been checkmated, imho.You can post all the reasons you want but until you have evidence that he planted anything in this case it's all a bunch of opinions and speculation.

[tv]

I think that you agreed with another poster about posting links to statements of fact. I guess the other poster can reply that, if he can find them, he will post them, correct?

martin is a supreme member of this board and should be aware of the rules so I figured if he could post whatever he wants as fact not opinion I could do the same. If I can find the links I'll post them...if not, disregard my post.

[William Anthony]

You can post all the reasons you want but until you have evidence that he planted anything in this case it's all a bunch of opinions and speculation.

What I posted, the reasons, was from the evidence or information obtained through the trial. Checkmate,:).

[William Anthony]

martin is a supreme member of this board and should be aware of the rules so I figured if he could post whatever he wants as fact not opinion I could do the same. If I can find the links I'll post them...if not, disregard my post.

Equality demands that you and martin can do the same in regard to posting. Equality also means that, if martin is asked for a link to support his statement of fact, that you can likewise be asked.:)

[tv]

What I posted, the reasons, was from the evidence or information obtained through the trial. Checkmate,:).What is the evidence that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence in this case? Reasons are not evidence.

[tv]

Equality demands that you and martin can do the same in regard to posting. Equality also means that, if martin is asked for a link to support his statement of fact, that you can likewise be asked.:)I have already told you to disregard my post. If I find the links I'll post them. I haven't seen martin tell anyone to disregard his post that has no basis in fact.

[William Anthony]

I think I must make it clear that I am enjoying this polite, civil and respectful discussion on the board, today. I also think that levity serves to lessen some of the tension. With that said, I used the term checkmate in levity. I think the poster to whom I directed it realizes this but others may not.

[tv]

I think I must make it clear that I am enjoying this polite, civil and respectful discussion on the board, today. I also think that levity serves to lessen some of the tension. With that said, I used the term checkmate in levity. I think the poster to whom I directed it realizes this but others may not.:) :) :)

[William Anthony]

I have already told you to disregard my post. If I find the links I'll post them. I haven't seen martin tell anyone to disregard his post that has no basis in fact.

I don't know that martin has read the request yet. I will not disregard your post.
:)

[tv]

I don't know that martin has read the request yet. I will not disregard your post.
:)Okay, as you please. :)

[tv]

On another issue in the criminal trial: Don't you think it made an impact on the jury when Chris Darden and Marcia Clarke kept apologizing for prosecuting the defendant?

[William Anthony]

Okay, as you please. :)

It pleases me to have discussions without name calling and personal attacks. I understand that members have strong feelings about Simpson, Fuhrman and others and that they will be the exception. I don't think it is in this community's best interest to use words like ridiculous, false, uneducated and ignorant in describing ordinary citizens, who took an oath to do a duty, or to use incendiary adjectives in regard to the post of others. I am not pointing blame, since I have been guilty of such. I am suggesting, to coin the expression of another, that it is time for change (please do not think this is a political endorsement). I think MLK, among many others, expressed those sentiments.

[William Anthony]

On another issue in the criminal trial: Don't you think it made an impact on the jury when Chris Darden and Marcia Clarke kept apologizing for prosecuting the defendant?

Yes, I believe that severely weakened their case.

[tv]

It pleases me to have discussions without name calling and personal attacks. I understand that members have strong feelings about Simpson, Fuhrman and others and that they will be the exception. I don't think it is in this community's best interest to use words like ridiculous, false, uneducated and ignorant in describing ordinary citizens, who took an oath to do a duty, or to use incendiary adjectives in regard to the post of others. I am not pointing blame, since I have been guilty of such. I am suggesting, to coin the expression of another, that it is time for change (please do not think this is a political endorsement). I think MLK, among many others, expressed those sentiments.Good, then I hope the implications made by two posters that women that don't believe Mark Fuhrman planted evidence because they are attracted to him won't be repeated.

[tv]

Yes, I believe that severely weakened their case.I think it didn't help. Even though I think they had mountains of incriminating evidence I wish someone else had tried the case. It was very winnable.

[William Anthony]

I think it didn't help. Even though I think they had mountains of incriminating evidence I wish someone else had tried the case. It was very winnable.

This is where we disagree. They had some evidence. I don't think the way the evidence was handled made it winnable. There are two burdens in what is known as the burden of proof-the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. Given the large amount of mistakes that were made in the way the evidence was presented and what the evidence was, I do not think (but I could be wrong and would like to meet the lawyer that could) any lawyer could have persuaded a jury to trust the evidence.

[tv]

This is where we disagree. They had some evidence. I don't think the way the evidence was handled made it winnable. There are two burdens in what is known as the burden of proof-the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. Given the large amount of mistakes that were made in the way the evidence was presented and what the evidence was, I do not think (but I could be wrong and would like to meet the lawyer that could) any lawyer could have persuaded a jury to trust the evidence.I have read a very convincing argument that could have been made to the jury but I don't want to go through the process of ridicule that would ensue if I posted it so I'll just say that I think with a more agressive prosecution it was winnable. There have been many cases won on much less evidence than what was available in this case and the evidence handling less than perfect. There was a huge amount of evidence in this case not just some evidence.

[William Anthony]

Good, then I hope the implications made by two posters that women that don't believe Mark Fuhrman planted evidence because they are attracted to him won't be repeated.

I will respect your wishes because it was respectfully requested. I do not see it as equal but, none the less, I understand that you may see it as in someway disrespectful of your opinion. Therefore, it is agreed on my part.

[tv]

I will respect your wishes because it was respectfully requested. I do not see it as equal but, none the less, I understand that you may see it as in someway disrespectful of your opinion. Therefore, it is agreed on my part.Thank you.

[William Anthony]

I have read a very convincing argument that could have been made to the jury but I don't want to go through the process of ridicule that would ensue if I posted it so I'll just say that I think with a more agressive prosecution it was winnable. There have been many cases won on much less evidence than what was available in this case and the evidence handling less than perfect. There was a huge amount of evidence in this case not just some evidence.

As I see the evidence, there were some blood spots and mixed stains and a barking dog and a cross examination of a dead expert. I would love to see that winning argument. I would have hated to see a more aggressive prosecution. They may have had him trying on sweat suits, :).

[William Anthony]

I think it didn't help. Even though I think they had mountains of incriminating evidence I wish someone else had tried the case. It was very winnable.

I would like your honest opinion of the Peratis video.

[tv]

I would like your honest opinion of the Peratis video.My honest opinion is that too much was made of the "missing" blood from the vial and that the video was unnecessary.

[William Anthony]

My honest opinion is that too much was made of the "missing" blood from the vial and that the video was unnecessary.

Thank you. The video played a huge part in winning the case and supporting the evidence planting theory, imho. I think that was a huge tactical error on the prosecution's part. It made them look desperate and absurd, imho.

[William Anthony]

This is part of Ito's jury instructions.

"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.

Discrepancies in a witness's testimony, or between his or her testimony and that of others, if there were any, do not necessarily mean that the witness should be discredited. Failure recollection is a common experience and innocent misrecollection is not uncommon. It is also a fact that two persons witnessing an incident or transaction, often will see or hear it differently. Whether a discrepancy pertains to a fact of importance, or only to a trivial detail, should be considered in weighing it's significance.

A witness who is willfully false in one material part of his or her testimony, is to be distrusted in others. You may reject the whole testimony of a witness who has willfully testified falsely as to a material point. Unless, from all the evidence, you believe the probability of truth favors his or her testimony and other particulars.

You are not bound to decide an issue of fact in accordance with testimony of a number of witnesses which does not convince you, as against the testimony of a lesser number or other evidence which appeals to your mind with more convincing force. You may not disregard the testimony of the greater number of witnesses merely from caprice, whim, prejudice or from a desire to favor one side as against the other. You must not decide an issue by the simple process of counting the number of witnesses who have testified on the opposing sides. The final test is not in the relative number of witnesses, but in the convincing force of the evidence. You should give the testimony of a single witness whatever weight you think it deserves. However, testimony by one witness which you believe concerning any fact is sufficient for the proof of that fact. You should carefully review all evidence upon which the proof of such fact depends. A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he or she has special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education sufficient to qualify him or her, as an expert on the subject to which his or her testimony pertains. A duly qualified expert may give an opinion on questions and controversy at a trial. To assist you in deciding such questions, you may consider the opinion with the reasons given for it, if any, by the expert who gives the opinion. You may also consider the qualifications and the credibility of the expert.

Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: [in progress] You may disregard anything that you find to be unreasonable. In examining an expert witness,

[tv]

Thank you. The video played a huge part in winning the case and supporting the evidence planting theory, imho. I think that was a huge tactical error on the prosecution's part. It made them look desperate and absurd, imho.I agree. It made the vial of blood more important than it really was and made the prosecution look like they needed to explain it. No explanation was necessary in my opinion. In other words, the defense threw out the bait and the prosecution bit.

[tv]

This is part of Ito's jury instructions.

"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.

Discrepancies in a witness's testimony, or between his or her testimony and that of others, if there were any, do not necessarily mean that the witness should be discredited. Failure recollection is a common experience and innocent misrecollection is not uncommon. It is also a fact that two persons witnessing an incident or transaction, often will see or hear it differently. Whether a discrepancy pertains to a fact of importance, or only to a trivial detail, should be considered in weighing it's significance.

A witness who is willfully false in one material part of his or her testimony, is to be distrusted in others. You may reject the whole testimony of a witness who has willfully testified falsely as to a material point. Unless, from all the evidence, you believe the probability of truth favors his or her testimony and other particulars.

You are not bound to decide an issue of fact in accordance with testimony of a number of witnesses which does not convince you, as against the testimony of a lesser number or other evidence which appeals to your mind with more convincing force. You may not disregard the testimony of the greater number of witnesses merely from caprice, whim, prejudice or from a desire to favor one side as against the other. You must not decide an issue by the simple process of counting the number of witnesses who have testified on the opposing sides. The final test is not in the relative number of witnesses, but in the convincing force of the evidence. You should give the testimony of a single witness whatever weight you think it deserves. However, testimony by one witness which you believe concerning any fact is sufficient for the proof of that fact. You should carefully review all evidence upon which the proof of such fact depends. A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he or she has special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education sufficient to qualify him or her, as an expert on the subject to which his or her testimony pertains. A duly qualified expert may give an opinion on questions and controversy at a trial. To assist you in deciding such questions, you may consider the opinion with the reasons given for it, if any, by the expert who gives the opinion. You may also consider the qualifications and the credibility of the expert.

Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: [in progress] You may disregard anything that you find to be unreasonable. In examining an expert witness, Thank you, William. I continue to believe that the amount of blood that Peratis did or did not draw is of very little importance because he didn't know for sure how much he drew and no record was required to be made of the amount.

[martin II]

I have read a very convincing argument that could have been made to the jury but I don't want to go through the process of ridicule that would ensue if I posted it so I'll just say that I think with a more agressive prosecution it was winnable. There have been many cases won on much less evidence than what was available in this case and the evidence handling less than perfect. There was a huge amount of evidence in this case not just some evidence.

The prosecutions case looked good when they presented it in their opening statement. But when the dream team began to show that their clains could not be believed to the level required, it began to fall apart. In the end M Clarke quit, C Darden was fired, j Cochran was attacked and the jury was called r***** uneducated, ingorant and Biased.They got the blame from many that were dissapointed that the mountainm of evidence was turned into a hill of sand. They tried a patch job and it did not work.imo

[tv]

The prosecutions case looked good when they presented it in their opening statement. But when the dream team began to show that their clains could not be believed to the level required, it began to fall apart. In the end M Clarke quit, C Darden was fired, j Cochran was attacked and the jury was called r***** uneducated, ingorant and Biased.They got the blame from many that were dissapointed that the mountainm of evidence was turned into a hill of sand. They tried a patch job and it did not work.imoThere was plenty enough evidence to convict OJ Simpson of the murders. However, the prosecution didn't realize the power of the accusations of racism to the jury. I believe that a more skilled prosecution team could have won a guilty verdict. I don't want to start another argument based on race but when Chris Darden said he was a black man before a prosecutor that meant his loyalities to the case were divided and affected his performance. Also, Marcia Clarke allowed herself to be intimidated by Judge Ito and Johnny Cochran. That's just a couple of things I see wrong with the prosecution.