Issues In The Criminal Trial

[martin II]

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.

I believe if a person/nurse/detective wanted to do something wrong with a donors blood, i would draw the blood, make no record,give the blood to a detective,he would not deposit it to SID across the street and then take it to a live crime scene where ofher blood was found.
imo

[tv]

Just curious martin and William -- what did you think the verdict was likely to be in the moments before it was announced? Not what you thought it should be but what it really would be?

[tv]

I believe if a person/nurse/detective wanted to do something wrong with a donors blood, i would draw the blood, make no record,give the blood to a detective,he would not deposit it to SID across the street and then take it to a live crime scene where ofher blood was found.
imomartin, I'm talking about Peratis. He did nothing wrong and it shouldn't have been as important to the case as it eventually became.

[martin II]

There 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.

TV
Are you saying Darden, because he was a black man did not give all he had trying to put oj in jail. Did Darden say him being black and that his performance was effected by his color?? He had loyalities to who OJ???

Marcia clark would tell you she is a white woman first before she ever became a prosecutor and both statements would be true.imo

[martin II]

martin, I'm talking about Peratis. He did nothing wrong and it shouldn't have been as important to the case as it eventually became.

Peratis drew the blood that was used in the dna testing, he first said he did not know how much until the prosecution made the video and he then remembered.

[tv]

TV
Are you saying Darden, because he was a black man did not give all he had trying to put oj in jail. Did Darden say him being black and that his performance was effected by his color?? He had loyalities to who OJ???

Marcia clark would tell you she is a white woman first before she ever became a prosecutor and both statements would be true.imoPlease, let's not get this started. Yes, I think it affected his performance. He stated he felt loyalty to the black community. That's not the exact wording but it's the main idea of what he said. It's my opinion that it affected his performance and that's why he appeared to be brooding all the time. Even OJ Simpson said he seemed to be an unhappy person. If you're of the opinion that it didn't affect his performance in the trial that's fine.

[tv]

Peratis drew the blood that was used in the dna testing, he first said he did not know how much until the prosecution made the video and he then remembered.I don't think he knew exactly at the time he drew it and I don't think he knew exactly at the time of the video except for some experiments he did to see how much normally flowed into the vacuum tube. He drew it, gave it to the detective and that's where his involvement ended. I don't know why he allowed himself to be pinned down to an exact amount. It remains a mystery to me.

[martin II]

Just curious martin and William -- what did you think the verdict was likely to be in the moments before it was announced? Not what you thought it should be but what it really would be?

Some time before the end of the case i understood the prosecution had not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In the moments before the veridct was read, i understood that the prosecution had not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt and did not see how a fair jury would vote to convict just before they didn't . But then i watched the trial all day every day and could see the defense eat the prosecutions lunch.imo

[martin II]

I don't think he knew exactly at the time he drew it and I don't think he knew exactly at the time of the video except for some experiments he did to see how much normally flowed into the vacuum tube. He drew it, gave it to the detective and that's where his involvement ended. I don't know why he allowed himself to be pinned down to an exact amount. It remains a mystery to me.

tv
he did not use a vacuum tube he used a syringe.no excuse for not making a record of what he did.

[tv]

Some time before the end of the case i understood the prosecution had not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In the moments before the veridct was read, i understood that the prosecution had not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt and did not see how a fair jury would vote to convict just before they didn't . But then i watched the trial all day every day and could see the defense eat the prosecutions lunch.imoThank you, martin. It sounds like you were confidant what the verdict would be.

[tv]

tv
he did not use a vacuum tube he used a syringe.no excuse for not making a record of what he did.martin, he didn't hand Vannatter a syringe. He put it into a vacuum tube. That really isn't important. IMO, he did not know to the ml how much blood was in the syringe or the vial. martin, the excuse is that no one records amounts when they draw blood.

[martin II]

Please, let's not get this started. Yes, I think it affected his performance. He stated he felt loyalty to the black community. That's not the exact wording but it's the main idea of what he said. It's my opinion that it affected his performance and that's why he appeared to be brooding all the time. Even OJ Simpson said he seemed to be an unhappy person. If you're of the opinion that it didn't affect his performance in the trial that's fine.

I believe any brooding you saw by Darden was because he was getting depressed at the whopping J Cochran was giving him. Darden was on Oprah last year and he was brooding.

[tv]

I believe any brooding you saw by Darden was because he was getting depressed at the whopping J Cochran was giving him. Darden was on Oprah last year and he was brooding.Okay, martin, if you say so we'll let it go at that. Was he still brooding about the whopping when he was on Oprah?

[William Anthony]

Just curious martin and William -- what did you think the verdict was likely to be in the moments before it was announced? Not what you thought it should be but what it really would be?

I thought the verdict should have been not guilty. I was uncertain as to how the jury would see the evidence.

[martin II]

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?

That i saw as a tactic to curry favor with the jury or that those two did not really believe in what they had as a case.

[martin II]

Okay, martin, if you say so we'll let it go at that. Was he still brooding about the whopping when he was on Oprah?

Actually i think that that is just darden.He is not a sunshine type off person.He comes off to me as a angry person. I was surprised to hear him say
that Furhman was a worse person than oj in his opinion.

[martin II]

martin, he didn't hand Vannatter a syringe. He put it into a vacuum tube. That really isn't important. IMO, he did not know to the ml how much blood was in the syringe or the vial. martin, the excuse is that no one records amounts when they draw blood.

TO be correct he drew the blood using a syringe and then he said he transfered that blood to vacuum tubes.

[William Anthony]

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.

He knew how much he normally drew, which is what he testified he drew in this case, 7.9-8.1 C.C.s. It may not have been important had not the circumstantial evidence of evidence planting been introduced. However, when it was Peratis miraculously remembered that the amount he drew, some several months prior, was equal to the amount that was introduced, some C.C.'s less. It was painfully obvious to me that he was acting on the video tape, much like a puppy dog seeking his master's approval. I have seen that look in the eyes of my dogs when they know that they have upset me and are seeking my forgiveness.

[William Anthony]

There 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.

I did not see Marcia Clark being intimidated by anyone, including her abusive husband. I did feel she was in awe of JC and envious of Bailey.

I don't see Darden's statements in the same manner. I see them as saying that, although he was a black man and MF's comments deeply offended him to the highest degree, he could transcend them and do his duty as a prosecutor. I am sure this was not his first experience with such comments as a black man. He said in his closing that he prosecuted members of LE.

[William Anthony]

They just had MF on Fox discussing Gilbert's book. Of course, MF found Gilbert credible and said he had talked with him. However, MF said, in trying to explain an obvious discrepancy between the evidence and the alleged confession, that, even though their was no knife missing from Nicole's condo, when Simpson allegedly told Gilbert had she not come to the door with a knife she would still be alive, there was an empty knife box in Simpson's home. MF said this was Simpson's way to blame others. The fact is that Gilbert's story does not conform to the evidence. Hence, either Simpson gave him false information or what the prosecution and Ito called disinformation or Gilbert is up to his usual, as stated by his associate, and spinning tales. Either way it proves nothing. They are going to discuss whether Gilbert has opened himself up to charges.

[tv]

I thought the verdict should have been not guilty. I was uncertain as to how the jury would see the evidence.I thought the verdict should be guilty but was unsure how the jury would see the evidence.

[tv]

That i saw as a tactic to curry favor with the jury or that those two did not really believe in what they had as a case.I believe they may have been trying to curry favor with the jury but I don't think it was because they didn't think they had a case. IMO, it was a big mistake.

[William Anthony]

They just had MF on Fox discussing Gilbert's book. Of course, MF found Gilbert credible and said he had talked with him. However, MF said, in trying to explain an obvious discrepancy between the evidence and the alleged confession, that, even though their was no knife missing from Nicole's condo, when Simpson allegedly told Gilbert had she not come to the door with a knife she would still be alive, there was an empty knife box in Simpson's home. MF said this was Simpson's way to blame others. The fact is that Gilbert's story does not conform to the evidence. Hence, either Simpson gave him false information or what the prosecution and Ito called disinformation or Gilbert is up to his usual, as stated by his associate, and spinning tales. Either way it proves nothing. They are going to discuss whether Gilbert has opened himself up to charges. My computer shut down and in trying to restore it. I missed what they said about the possible charges against Gilbert.

[tv]

They just had MF on Fox discussing Gilbert's book. Of course, MF found Gilbert credible and said he had talked with him. However, MF said, in trying to explain an obvious discrepancy between the evidence and the alleged confession, that, even though their was no knife missing from Nicole's condo, when Simpson allegedly told Gilbert had she not come to the door with a knife she would still be alive, there was an empty knife box in Simpson's home. MF said this was Simpson's way to blame others. The fact is that Gilbert's story does not conform to the evidence. Hence, either Simpson gave him false information or what the prosecution and Ito called disinformation or Gilbert is up to his usual, as stated by his associate, and spinning tales. Either way it proves nothing. They are going to discuss whether Gilbert has opened himself up to charges.I have thought that if OJ Simpson actually said she came to the door with a knife it would be to put the blame on the victim. That is a trademark of his. Whether Gilbert is credible or not I haven't really decided for myself. I think the whole bunch of them in the hotel room and their absent associates sound like a bunch of low lifes.

[William Anthony]

I have thought that if OJ Simpson actually said she came to the door with a knife it would be to put the blame on the victim. That is a trademark of his. Whether Gilbert is credible or not I haven't really decided for myself. I think the whole bunch of them in the hotel room and their absent associates sound like a bunch of low lifes.

I think that Simpson is not dumb enough to make that statement. A person can come to their door with whatever they decide to bring. I am pleased to hear that you will personally make the decision on Gilbert's credibility.

[tv]

I did not see Marcia Clark being intimidated by anyone, including her abusive husband. I did feel she was in awe of JC and envious of Bailey.

I don't see Darden's statements in the same manner. I see them as saying that, although he was a black man and MF's comments deeply offended him to the highest degree, he could transcend them and do his duty as a prosecutor. I am sure this was not his first experience with such comments as a black man. He said in his closing that he prosecuted members of LE.We have a difference of opinion regarding Chris Darden and it's hard to know what was in his mind. Judge Ito demeaned the prosecution unnecessarily in front of the jury which in turn made them lose stature with the jury. I think he should have been removed from the case when he called the attorneys into his chambers to watch the dancing Ito's. I don't really know why anyone would be jealous of F. Lee Bailey. He once had an illustrious career but by the time of the Simpson trial he was a hack.

[tv]

I think that Simpson is not dumb enough to make that statement. A person can come to their door with whatever they decide to bring. I am pleased to hear that you will personally make the decision on Gilbert's credibility.William, I meant that I hadn't come to a conclusion in my own mind about what I think of Gilbert's credibility. I didn't mean to make the decision for anyone else. I'm sorry if my wording led you to believe otherwise.

[William Anthony]

We have a difference of opinion regarding Chris Darden and it's hard to know what was in his mind. Judge Ito demeaned the prosecution unnecessarily in front of the jury which in turn made them lose stature with the jury. I think he should have been removed from the case when he called the attorneys into his chambers to watch the dancing Ito's. I don't really know why anyone would be jealous of F. Lee Bailey. He once had an illustrious career but by the time of the Simpson trial he was a hack.

I don't know what a hack is but he did a heck of a job on MF. I do not think that JC or Simpson would have hired a hack, if that is something negative.:)

[William Anthony]

William, I meant that I hadn't come to a conclusion in my own mind about what I think of Gilbert's credibility. I didn't mean to make the decision for anyone else. I'm sorry if my wording led you to believe otherwise.

No, I guess I worded it incorrectly. I knew that is what you meant. I was saying that I am pleased to know that you will not let others sway your opinion.

[tv]

I don't know what a hack is but he did a heck of a job on MF. I do not think that JC or Simpson would have hired a hack, if that is something negative.:)It's your opinion that he did a heck of a job on Mark Fuhrman. I probably shouldn't have used the word hack but here's the definition. A better word would have been has-been.

a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment: a political hack.

[tv]

No, I guess I worded it incorrectly. I knew that is what you meant. I was saying that I am pleased to know that you will not let others sway your opinion.Thank you but I hope you're not saying that I've let others decide my opinions in the past.

[William Anthony]

It's your opinion that he did a heck of a job on Mark Fuhrman. I probably shouldn't have used the word hack but here's the definition. A better word would have been has-been.

a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment: a political hack.

Yes, that is my opinion and an opinion shared by most in the legal profession. Let us not forget that it was Bailey that successfully argued how to get the tapes admitted. When the prosecution argued against their admissibility, it was Bailey that put forth the argument that they were relevant to a determination of MF's credibility. Originally, the argument was on evidence of planting. I would love to have had that has-been hack representing me.

[William Anthony]

Thank you but I hope you're not saying that I've let others decide my opinions in the past.

No, that is not what I was saying. I am saying that I am pleased to hear that you have not made a rush to judgment.

[tv]

Yes, that is my opinion and an opinion shared by most in the legal profession. Let us not forget that it was Bailey that successfully argued how to get the tapes admitted. When the prosecution argued against their admissibility, it was Bailey that put forth the argument that they were relevant to a determination of MF's credibility. Originally, the argument was on evidence of planting. I would love to have had that has-been hack representing me.I'm sure Patty Hearst shares your sentiments.

[William Anthony]

I'm sure Patty Hearst shares your sentiments.

No one is perfect. However, Patty was her own worst enemy on the stand and I believe the world is more receptive of the Stockholm Syndrome than it was then, considering the recent rulings indicating justification as it relates to battered spouse syndrome.

[martin II]

I have thought that if OJ Simpson actually said she came to the door with a knife it would be to put the blame on the victim. That is a trademark of his. Whether Gilbert is credible or not I haven't really decided for myself. I think the whole bunch of them in the hotel room and their absent associates sound like a bunch of low lifes.

If gilbert says oj told him nicole came to the door with a knife, that could not be the knife that was found on nicoles kitchen counter.:confused:
Gilber is full of it.

[martin II]

martin, he didn't hand Vannatter a syringe. He put it into a vacuum tube. That really isn't important. IMO, he did not know to the ml how much blood was in the syringe or the vial. martin, the excuse is that no one records amounts when they draw blood.

I think you may be speaking for yourself not well run le blood drawing components especially in high profile murder cases. But most well run le operations work by printed and well known and followed protocols for this activity.This was a slopply run operaiton in many respects.imo

[tv]

No one is perfect. However, Patty was her own worst enemy on the stand and I believe the world is more receptive of the Stockholm Syndrome than it was then, considering the recent rulings indicating justification as it relates to battered spouse syndrome.If that's true perhaps it was poor judgement by Bailey to put her on the stand. IMO, Bailey got lucky with the Sam Sheppard case but it was the highlight of an otherwise ordinary career.

[martin II]

I believe they may have been trying to curry favor with the jury but I don't think it was because they didn't think they had a case. IMO, it was a big mistake.

Charging oj with that weak case was a mistake but we have to consider it may have been difficult for all of the prosecutors including Gill Garcetti to allow such a opportunity to become famous by prosecuting a big name such as oj simpson pass by.

[tv]

I think you may be speaking for yourself not well run le blood drawing components especially in high profile murder cases. But most well run le operations work by printed and well known and followed protocols for this activity.This was a slopply run operaiton in many respects.imoI asked you a while ago to give a link to the policy for recording the amount of blood drawn by a nurse in the LAPD. So far I haven't seen the link so I'm assuming the policy/procedure doesn't exist.

[tv]

Charging oj with that weak case was a mistake but we have to consider it may have been difficult for all of the prosecutors including Gill Garcetti to allow such a opportunity to become famous by prosecuting a big name such as oj simpson pass by.The case wasn't weak. It was lost for all the wrong reasons. As far as OJ Simpson being famous a lot of people didn't even know who he was until the murders.

[tv]

If gilbert says oj told him nicole came to the door with a knife, that could not be the knife that was found on nicoles kitchen counter.:confused:
Gilber is full of it.Maybe he is full of it. Maybe the knife on the counter has nothing to do with the case.

[martin II]

I'm sure Patty Hearst shares your sentiments.

The bad part was that there were pictures on Patty holding a machine gun inside a bank yelling stick um up.That was a hard case to win.

[William Anthony]

If that's true perhaps it was poor judgement by Bailey to put her on the stand. IMO, Bailey got lucky with the Sam Sheppard case but it was the highlight of an otherwise ordinary career.

The right to take the stand belongs to the defendant. I hope to be that lucky. I do not know for sure but I think Jerry Spence has a record with no losses. That would be extraordinary to me.

[martin II]

The case wasn't weak. It was lost for all the wrong reasons. As far as OJ Simpson being famous a lot of people didn't even know who he was until the murders.

People that followed football and those that watched tv knew who oj was.But there must have been some that didn't.

[weezer]

I think you may be speaking for yourself not well run le blood drawing components especially in high profile murder cases. But most well run le operations work by printed and well known and followed protocols for this activity.This was a slopply run operaiton in many respects.imo

martin, before you call into question the integrity of the poster, maybe you can post 'most well run le operations work by printed and well known and followed protocols'?

[martin II]

I asked you a while ago to give a link to the policy for recording the amount of blood drawn by a nurse in the LAPD. So far I haven't seen the link so I'm assuming the policy/procedure doesn't exist.

tv
I am sure you have read some of my previous post on this subject where i said if there were protocols he must have ignored then. If there were none there should have been. In this high profile case he should have acted more professional and made a record even if he has been sloppy all his previous career.So no link. Sorry.imo

[tv]

The right to take the stand belongs to the defendant. I hope to be that lucky. I do not know for sure but I think Jerry Spence has a record with no losses. That would be extraordinary to me.
A good attorney should be able to effectively advise his client on whether or not they should take the stand. As far as I know Gerry Spence has never lost a criminal case.

[weezer]

tv
I am sure you have read some of my previous post on this subject where i said if there were protocols he must have ignored then. If there were none there should have been. In this high profile case he should have acted more professional and made a record even if he has been sloppy all his previous career.So no link. Sorry.imo

since he didn't, wouldn't it be just as likely that he didn't consider orenthal a suspect? and, more importantly that he was not being given that indication by the officer with them?

[tv]

tv
I am sure you have read some of my previous post on this subject where i said if there were protocols he must have ignored then. If there were none there should have been. In this high profile case he should have acted more professional and made a record even if he has been sloppy all his previous career.So no link. Sorry.imomartin, if there was no protocol in place it wasn't up to the nurse working at the detention center to dream them up. He did his job as he always had. OJ Simpson was there to have his blood drawn just like anyone else and there's no reason for Peratis to suddenly impose non-existent protocols and procedures on his work.

[tv]

since he didn't, wouldn't it be just as likely that he didn't consider orenthal a suspect? and, more importantly that he was not being given that indication by the officer with them?Exactly.

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .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. . ."

william, just out of curiosity, how do you relate Bell changing her testimony to a 'better recollection' even as you dismiss any prosecutuion witness that did the same? Also, don't you find it even a little odd that the people in the room with Bell and Fuhrman at the time she said this conversation took place didn't hear him say those things?

[tv]

The bad part was that there were pictures on Patty holding a machine gun inside a bank yelling stick um up.That was a hard case to win.She was the victim of a violent kidnapping and left blindfolded for 50 days and other brutalities were inflicted on her. She was only 19 at the time. IMO, the case should have been won by the defense.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

william, just out of curiosity, how do you relate Bell changing her testimony to a 'better recollection' even as you dismiss any prosecutuion witness that did the same? Also, don't you find it even a little odd that the people in the room with Bell and Fuhrman at the time she said this conversation took place didn't hear him say those things?

Ms. Bell had recorded what MF said in the letter. When that letter was used to refresh her memory she was able to recall that he said that all blacks should be burned (paraphrasing). No, I do not find that odd at all. What I find odd is that the prosecution, IIRC, did not call them as witnesses.

[martin II]

martin, if there was no protocol in place it wasn't up to the nurse working at the detention center to dream them up. He did his job as he always had. OJ Simpson was there to have his blood drawn just like anyone else and there's no reason for Peratis to suddenly impose non-existent protocols and procedures on his work.

Oj was not just anyone else.Vanhatter was there to oversee the operation. Maby Peratis only drew blood when a detective was present. if not then the presence of vanhatter should have told him it was a special situation and that he should make a record. If he had there may not have been a blood issue.

[martin II]

since he didn't, wouldn't it be just as likely that he didn't consider orenthal a suspect? and, more importantly that he was not being given that indication by the officer with them?

no
martinII

[weezer]

Ms. Bell had recorded what MF said in the letter. When that letter was used to refresh her memory she was able to recall that he said that all blacks should be burned (paraphrasing). No, I do not find that odd at all. What I find odd is that the prosecution, IIRC, did not call them as witnesses.

Her letter was used to refresh her memory? and, when do you believe that 'letter' was written?

LOL -- wasn't it one of those marines that flee got caught lying to the court about?

[martin II]

She was the victim of a violent kidnapping and left blindfolded for 50 days and other brutalities were inflicted on her. She was only 19 at the time. IMO, the case should have been won by the defense.

I know the case as i followed it.Sinque was a bad person and i thought she was innocent. But that Bank picture is maby what did her in.

[tv]

Oj was not just anyone else.Vanhatter was there to oversee the operation. Maby Peratis only drew blood when a detective was present. if not then the presence of vanhatter should have told him it was a special situation and that he should make a record. If he had there may not have been a blood issue.martin, I don't know any other way to explain this to you. There was no reason for him to record the amount because it hadn't been done before and there is no way that Peratis could have known that the amount of blood he drew was going to be made an issue by the defense. The only reason there was a blood issue is because the defense dreamed one up.

Why should Vannatter have told him it was a special situation? There was nothing special about it.

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .Oj was not just anyone else. . ."

only orenthal and his supporters believe this. To the rest of the world, orenthal was just a guy. A has-been football player and lousy actor.

[martin II]

Maybe he is full of it. Maybe the knife on the counter has nothing to do with the case.

I don't believe the knife on the counter had anything to do with the case and i believe that Gilbert has been talking to himself much to much.

[William Anthony]

She was the victim of a violent kidnapping and left blindfolded for 50 days and other brutalities were inflicted on her. She was only 19 at the time. IMO, the case should have been won by the defense.

When asked why she kept a memento given her by a male member, whom she said she loved (in so many words), she responded that she liked art. It is hard to defend a defendant who keeps destroying your defense. I would be proud to have William Randolph Hearst select me to represent his daughter. I did not buy the defense, simply because of Patty's attitude. The world knew very little of the psychological effects of such treatment at that time. They now recognize the effects are long lasting, can develop an unnatural connection with the oppressor and a sense of hopelessness. I think if the case was presented today Bailey would have been victorious. The world is more receptive of interracial affairs, relationships and marriages than it was then. Like it or not, I think that played a part in the verdict.

[tv]

I know the case as i followed it.Sinque was a bad person and i thought she was innocent. But that Bank picture is maby what did her in.I followed the case as well. Wow, that was a long time ago. :)

[William Anthony]

Her letter was used to refresh her memory? and, when do you believe that 'letter' was written?

LOL -- wasn't it one of those marines that flee got caught lying to the court about?

Look at the transcript I posted. Yes, that is how it was used.

I will look to see exactly what happened to that marine and what Bailey said. Why, did the prosecution not put this marine on in their rebuttal case?

[tv]

When asked why she kept a memento given her by a male member, whom she said she loved (in so many words), she responded that she liked art. It is hard to defend a defendant who keeps destroying your defense. I would be proud to have William Randolph Hearst select me to represent his daughter. I did not buy the defense, simply because of Patty's attitude. The world knew very little of the psychological effects of such treatment at that time. They now recognize the effects are long lasting, can develop an unnatural connection with the oppressor and a sense of hopelessness. I think if the case was presented today Bailey would have been victorious. The world is more receptive of interracial affairs, relationships and marriages than it was then. Like it or not, I think that played a part in the verdict.I still think it was winnable and I don't think race had anything to do with it. I had forgotten the racial make up of the principal players until you mentioned it.

[William Anthony]

LOL -- wasn't it one of those marines that flee got caught lying to the court about?

I think this will put the whole situation in its proper context.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE3D91130F935A25750C0A9639582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

[weezer]

Look at the transcript I posted. Yes, that is how it was used.

I will look to see exactly what happened to that marine and what Bailey said. Why, did the prosecution not put this marine on in their rebuttal case?

why didn't the defense?

Foss, Joe

Former Marine recruiter who was at the recruiting office the day Kathleen Bell claims she met Mark Fuhrman. Foss told AP on March 16th that Kathleen Bell had been in the Marine office at the same time as Fuhrman at least once. But Foss said he never heard Fuhrman make the racial remarks Bell now alleges.

[tv]

why didn't the defense?

Foss, Joe

Former Marine recruiter who was at the recruiting office the day Kathleen Bell claims she met Mark Fuhrman. Foss told AP on March 16th that Kathleen Bell had been in the Marine office at the same time as Fuhrman at least once. But Foss said he never heard Fuhrman make the racial remarks Bell now alleges.I guess that's why. ;)

[weezer]

I think this will put the whole situation in its proper context.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE3D91130F935A25750C0A9639582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

??????? :confused:

[William Anthony]

why didn't the defense?

Foss, Joe

Former Marine recruiter who was at the recruiting office the day Kathleen Bell claims she met Mark Fuhrman. Foss told AP on March 16th that Kathleen Bell had been in the Marine office at the same time as Fuhrman at least once. But Foss said he never heard Fuhrman make the racial remarks Bell now alleges.

Why did the prosecution not put him on the stand so that he could be examined and crossed? I could be in the same room as you and someone else and not hear your conversation, because I was too busy, just not listening or it did not interest me. The defense put on the evidence they needed to put on to allow the jury to decide their was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[tv]

I think this will put the whole situation in its proper context.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE3D91130F935A25750C0A9639582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
The only context this provided was to show Bailey lied and Cordoba couldn't testify that Mark Fuhrman called him the N word. I think it's strange that only a couple of people came forward to say they heard these things from Mark Fuhrman when he is supposedly a virulent racist who insulted and brutalized people of color on a daily basis. Where are all these people?

[William Anthony]

??????? :confused:

After you click on the link, click where it says previous page.

[William Anthony]

The only context this provided was to show Bailey lied and Cordoba couldn't testify that Mark Fuhrman called him the N word. I think it's strange that only a couple of people came forward to say they heard these things from Mark Fuhrman when he is supposedly a virulent racist who insulted and brutalized people of color on a daily basis. Where are all these people?

Did you read this part, "Tonight Mr. Cordoba, flip-flopping again, agreed with Mr. Bailey." The rest of the people are in the numerous complaints he bragged about that were lodged against him.

[martin II]

*Snipped*

only orenthal and his supporters believe this. To the rest of the world, orenthal was just a guy. A has-been football player and lousy actor.

Then i am forced to believe you or the media and prosecution that labeled
the case a high profile celebrity case invovling OJ Simpson.
Tell you what, i believe the media and prosecution got it right.
imo

[tv]

After you click on the link, click where it says previous page.I did read the previous page and it got no better for Bailey.

[martin II]

The only context this provided was to show Bailey lied and Cordoba couldn't testify that Mark Fuhrman called him the N word. I think it's strange that only a couple of people came forward to say they heard these things from Mark Fuhrman when he is supposedly a virulent racist who insulted and brutalized people of color on a daily basis. Where are all these people?

Many people may have not been interested in getting involved. media at their front door.But once it became public knowledge that Baily had caught his butt, there was no need for others.

[William Anthony]

I did read the previous page and it got no better for Bailey.

The final statement from Cordoba is that he agreed with Bailey and that MF had called him a n*****. I think it got a lot better for Bailey and I noticed you did not use flee.

[tv]

The final statement from Cordoba is that he agreed with Bailey and that MF had called him a n*****. I think it got a lot better for Bailey and I noticed you did not use flee.No, but I have to admit I did get a chuckle out of it.

[weezer]

The final statement from Cordoba is that he agreed with Bailey and that MF had called him a n*****. I think it got a lot better for Bailey and I noticed you did not use flee.

was it cordoba who had the 'repressed memory'? must be pretty traumatic to be a recruiter in la. :D

[William Anthony]

No, but I have to admit I did get a chuckle out of it.

I don't doubt that.

[William Anthony]

was it cordoba who had the 'repressed memory'? must be pretty traumatic to be a recruiter in la. :D

No, just in the one that the convicted perjurer and genocidal speaking, as supported by the evidence, and proven r*****, as conceded by the prosecution, frequented, especially if you were a person of color.

[weezer]

No, just in the one that the convicted perjurer and genocidal speaking, as supported by the evidence, and proven r*****, as conceded by the prosecution, frequented, especially if you were a person of color.

oh -- I thought you were talking about this one:

"The dispute centered around Bailey's claims on Tuesday that Maximo Cordoba would testify that Fuhrman called him a "racial slur." Bailey told the court that he had spoken "Marine to Marine" with Cordoba.

But Cordoba told a television show Tuesday night that he never spoke to Bailey. That comment prompted Clark to call Bailey a liar during arguments before Judge Lance Ito."

[tv]

oh -- I thought you were talking about this one:

"The dispute centered around Bailey's claims on Tuesday that Maximo Cordoba would testify that Fuhrman called him a "racial slur." Bailey told the court that he had spoken "Marine to Marine" with Cordoba.

But Cordoba told a television show Tuesday night that he never spoke to Bailey. That comment prompted Clark to call Bailey a liar during arguments before Judge Lance Ito."I've read several times that Johnny Cochran and F.Lee Bailey didn't even interview many of their own witnesses before the trial. Very unprofessional.

[William Anthony]

oh -- I thought you were talking about this one:

"The dispute centered around Bailey's claims on Tuesday that Maximo Cordoba would testify that Fuhrman called him a "racial slur." Bailey told the court that he had spoken "Marine to Marine" with Cordoba.

But Cordoba told a television show Tuesday night that he never spoke to Bailey. That comment prompted Clark to call Bailey a liar during arguments before Judge Lance Ito."

I would think that, since you go about the board, mocking typo's, misspellings and improper use of words, you would be able to recognize the main point or thesis statement, if you will.:)

Here is the main point.

What set the two off today were representations Mr. Bailey made Tuesday about Maximo Cordoba, a black former Marine recruiter who said Detective Mark Fuhrman had called him a '******' a decade ago. To prosecutors and at least three news organizations, however, Mr. Cordoba has had only nice things to say about Mr. Fuhrman. When it came time for him to testify, Ms. Clark predicted, he would never show up, and the defense knew it. His recollections, she said, "will evaporate into thin air as soon as the words are shouted through this courtroom by Mr. Bailey."

It wasn't the point that he stated he had spoken with the marine but what the marine would say about MF that caused Clark to call him a liar.

[William Anthony]

I've read several times that Johnny Cochran and F.Lee Bailey didn't even interview many of their own witnesses before the trial. Very unprofessional.

By whose standards? Often lawyers have faith in their associates and sometimes in their paralegals to conduct interviews. This is often a result of their busy schedules. They look to a summary of the interviews. I do not know if they rely on those people to determine what type of witness they would make.

[William Anthony]

Again, I feel the need to explain. I appreciate the fact that Fbgweezer does correct my use of the English, because it only makes me try to improve. I put the smile on my post because it was made in jest. I think fbg helps to improve the quality of posting. Thank you.

[weezer]

I would think that, since you go about the board, mocking typo's, misspellings and improper use of words, you would be able to recognize the main point or thesis statement, if you will.:)

Here is the main point.

What set the two off today were representations Mr. Bailey made Tuesday about Maximo Cordoba, a black former Marine recruiter who said Detective Mark Fuhrman had called him a '******' a decade ago. To prosecutors and at least three news organizations, however, Mr. Cordoba has had only nice things to say about Mr. Fuhrman. When it came time for him to testify, Ms. Clark predicted, he would never show up, and the defense knew it. His recollections, she said, "will evaporate into thin air as soon as the words are shouted through this courtroom by Mr. Bailey."

It wasn't the point that he stated he had spoken with the marine but what the marine would say about MF that caused Clark to call him a liar.

nope -- it was because he lied to the court about speaking 'man to man' with Cordoba.

[weezer]

*Snipped*. . .I would think that, since you go about the board, mocking typo's, misspellings and improper use of words, you would be able to recognize the main point or thesis statement, if you will.:). . ."

it's not meant to mock -- it is often hard to take seriously a post that is racked with typo's, misspellings and improper use of words.

I was told once that man's greatest drive is not love or hate but the need to edit someone else's work. :D

[William Anthony]

nope -- it was because he lied to the court about speaking 'man to man' with Cordoba.

Then what did Cordoba flip-flop about and agreed with Bailey? I think the more important issue, concerning the parties is the representation of what a witness will say, not the speaking part. If a man says hello to another man, they are speaking man to man. :)

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

it's not meant to mock -- it is often hard to take seriously a post that is racked with typo's, misspellings and improper use of words.

I was told once that man's greatest drive is not love or hate but the need to edit someone else's work. :D

Feel free to edit my work when necessary. However, I will be trying to put you out of work.:)

[weezer]

Then what did Cordoba flip-flop about and agreed with Bailey? I think the more important issue, concerning the parties is the representation of what a witness will say, not the speaking part. If a man says hello to another man, they are speaking man to man. :)

aw come on william -- flee lied. He never spoke to Cordoba -- much less 'mano-a-mano'.

[William Anthony]

aw come on william -- flee lied. He never spoke to Cordoba -- much less 'mano-a-mano'.

That's not the last thing Cordoba said.

[tv]

By whose standards? Often lawyers have faith in their associates and sometimes in their paralegals to conduct interviews. This is often a result of their busy schedules. They look to a summary of the interviews. I do not know if they rely on those people to determine what type of witness they would make.By standards of other lawyers that criticized the fact that they didn't conduct interviews.

[weezer]

That's not the last thing Cordoba said.

what was the last thing cordoba said? I can't find a link to his testimony.

[William Anthony]

what was the last thing cordoba said? I can't find a link to his testimony.

Every thing you say is not testimony and I strongly suspect that you already knew that. I also believe you read the link.

[William Anthony]

By standards of other lawyers that criticized the fact that they didn't conduct interviews.

Were they as successful a JC and Bailey or were they just envious or did they have a lot of spare time? Do not get me wrong, I strongly believe that a lawyer should know his case and preparation is the key.

[weezer]

Every thing you say is not testimony and I strongly suspect that you already knew that. I also believe you read the link.

of course I read the link -- either flee lied or cordoba lied. which one did you believe and which time?

[weezer]

Were they as successful a JC and Bailey or were they just envious or did they have a lot of spare time? Do not get me wrong, I strongly believe that a lawyer should know his case and preparation is the key.

who knows? but I bet they're still practicing -- :eek:

[tv]

Were they as successful a JC and Bailey or were they just envious or did they have a lot of spare time? Do not get me wrong, I strongly believe that a lawyer should know his case and preparation is the key.Every bit as successful and very little spare time.

[William Anthony]

of course I read the link -- either flee lied or cordoba lied. which one did you believe and which time?

I believe there were mistakes and human error. :) Beat you to the edit.

[tv]

who knows? but I bet they're still practicing -- :eek:You are right. :)

[William Anthony]

Every bit as successful and very little spare time.

Too busy interviewing and not practicing, I'll bet.

[William Anthony]

You are right. :)

So you don't know but she's right, right?

[William Anthony]

Ladies, I think we have veered a tad bit off topic. :)

[martin II]

was it cordoba who had the 'repressed memory'? must be pretty traumatic to be a recruiter in la. :D

I think it was furhman with memory problems as he could not remember when
the last time he called a black person a n*****10 years ago 5 years ago or yesterday.imo

[tv]

So you don't know but she's right, right?The lawyer I'm referencing is a successful, practicing defense attorney who always interviews his witnesses. Why do you think I don't know?

[William Anthony]

The lawyer I'm referencing is a successful, practicing defense attorney who always interviews his witnesses. Why do you think I don't know?

Let this be the last post on this issue so that we can stay on topic but I couldn't help but notice that you went from lawyers to a lawyer. :)

[weezer]

I think it was furhman with memory problems as he could not remember when
the last time he called a black person a n*****10 years ago 5 years ago or yesterday.imo

nope -- he remembered and he said he had not.

[tv]

Let this be the last post on this issue so that we can stay on topic but I couldn't help but notice that you went from lawyers to a lawyer. :)You're right I did. I've read it from several different lawyers but trust the judgement of one more than the others. I didn't mean to be inconsistent.

[martin II]

By standards of other lawyers that criticized the fact that they didn't conduct interviews.

I would suggest that most lead lawyers do assign some interviews to their associates as it would be impossible or difficult to interview each and every witness to see if they are reliabvle etc. But believe that those that are would be interviewed where possible.I also believe that there will always be some that have critical comments to make against the dream team or other lawyers even when they were not on that specific case. So what.

[martin II]

You're right I did. I've read it from several different lawyers but trust the judgement of one more than the others. I didn't mean to be inconsistent.

Saturday i read a comment by a lawyer where he stated that some of the blame for the loss case should be Placed at the feet of Gil Garcetti as it was this lawyers opinion that the DA's office had many better qualified lawyers that could have been selected try the oj case than those that were put on the case.He felt that Clarke and Darden were bad choices but that Clarke had lobbied hard for the position and won.imo
martin II

[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.

You're the one William who is disrespecting this community by continuing to make the claim that Fuhrman said he saw two gloves. A claim that is absolutely untrue. Fuhrman never said he saw two gloves. He consistently testified that he saw one glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron's feet and when he said the word "them" he was referring to that evidence.

The fact is there was no second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there. Riske and Terrazas were the patrol officers who found the bodies at 12:10 AM two hours before Fuhrman arrived at Bundy and both of them testified there was only one glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron's feet.

Sgt. Rossi, Riske and Terrazas's supervisor, arrived at Bundy at 1:30 AM and testified there was only one glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron's feet.

Detectives Phillips and Fuhrman arrived at Bundy at 2:10 AM and both of them testified there was only one glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron's feet.

The fact is that Simpson's defense claimed that Fuhrman planted the bloody glove at Rockingham to frame Simpson. A claim that is completely illogical and without one shred of evidence to support it. Only imagined evidence. Your claim that Fuhrman planted the bloody glove just to implicate Simpson is even more illogical and just as unsupported as the defense claim. Not one of the fourteen reasons you listed is evidence that Fuhrman planted that glove. The real evidence in this case is that about fifteen minutes after the murders were committed Simpson was the person Kaelin heard behind his room exactly where the glove was later found. The fact is that the blood and fiber evidence found on that glove points only to Simpson as handling that glove, not Mark Fuhrman and not anyone else.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You're the one William who is disrespecting this community by continuing to make the claim that Fuhrman said he saw two gloves. A claim that is absolutely untrue. Fuhrman never said he saw two gloves. He consistently testified that he saw one glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron's feet and when he said the word "them" he was referring to that evidence.

The fact is there was no second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there. Riske and Terrazas were the patrol officers who found the bodies at 12:10 AM two hours before Fuhrman arrived at Bundy and both of them testified there was only one glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron's feet.

Sgt. Rossi, Riske and Terrazas's supervisor, arrived at Bundy at 1:30 AM and testified there was only one glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron's feet.

Detectives Phillips and Fuhrman arrived at Bundy at 2:10 AM and both of them testified there was only one glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron's feet.

The fact is that Simpson's defense claimed that Fuhrman planted the bloody glove at Rockingham to frame Simpson. A claim that is completely illogical and without one shred of evidence to support it. Only imagined evidence. Your claim that Fuhrman planted the bloody glove just to implicate Simpson is even more illogical and just as unsupported as the defense claim. Not one of the fourteen reasons you listed is evidence that Fuhrman planted that glove. The real evidence in this case is that about fifteen minutes after the murders were committed Simpson was the person Kaelin heard behind his room exactly where the glove was later found. The fact is that the blood and fiber evidence found on that glove points only to Simpson as handling that glove, not Mark Fuhrman and not anyone else.

bobaugust

First, I draw reasonable inferences from the testimony. I have posted the judge's instructions on how the jury could judge the credibility of one witness against many. I have posted what a declaration or admission against evidence is, which is what MF did when he said his tongue had not slipped when he said the word, them, imho. I never claimed that MF planted the glove to implicate Simpson. I offered it to refute the biased statements of Petrocelli, as to what he did not consider. I explained the scenarios where MF did not have to worry about being detected or loosing his job. I beg to differ that the defense only claimed that it was planted to frame Simpson for murder. Implicit in their allegation was the idea that he would be implicated in a conspiracy to commit murder. It was the prosecution that leveled the charges of murder. The defense simply said it was planted to frame Simpson, to which, imho, included a conspiracy.

There is no blood behind the quarters to indicate Simpson was there. We know MF, who allegedly found the glove was there alone. We know that MF traipsed from one crime scene to the other, possibly collecting trace evidence and depositing where it shouldn't have been as he traipsed. We know that MF said he saw blood in the Bronco, but denied saying he said in, because no blood had been seen in the Bronco at the time he said he saw it in the Bronco.

I beg to differ that I disrespect the community, because the evidence shows that you have continuously posted falsely (out of respect for the community) erroneously that the defense never made the claim I made. When I pointed out that they did, you responded with harsh criticism of the magnificent, imho, JC. I have posted on your other erroneous posts and see no need to repeat them.

Again, I repeat that you are entitled to your opinion, as long as it is respectfully stated as such and I will defend your right to state it under those conditions. My fourteen reasons came from the evidence. Just because you call them illogical, without stating that is your opinion, does not make them so. It only makes them illogical to you. I could say a lot about logic but out of my desire to see this community improve and prosper, I will simply say, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:, until such time as you adhere to the rules and state your posts to me more respectfully.

[martin II]

nope -- he remembered and he said he had not.

And that is when the world understood that furhman would as a lapd cop take the stand and tell a ball faced lie to the judge the jury and anyone else that may have been watching the trial.

[SlowHandSam]

Then what did Cordoba flip-flop about and agreed with Bailey? I think the more important issue, concerning the parties is the representation of what a witness will say, not the speaking part. If a man says hello to another man, they are speaking man to man. :)

no, the quote is "marine to marine", not "man to man". That is a HUGE difference IMO. Most Marines, or those of us who know Marines, would agree that this is a higher level of standard as they regard themselves with greater pride than just being a "man".

If a man says hello to another man, they are passing greetings. If a Marine asks another Marine for an honest, detailed account of what happened ... that's completely different. It's his honor at stake, not "hey, how's it going?".

IMO.

[SlowHandSam]

I would think that, since you go about the board, mocking typo's, misspellings and improper use of words, you would be able to recognize the main point or thesis statement, if you will.:)

Here is the main point.

What set the two off today were representations Mr. Bailey made Tuesday about Maximo Cordoba, a black former Marine recruiter who said Detective Mark Fuhrman had called him a '******' a decade ago. To prosecutors and at least three news organizations, however, Mr. Cordoba has had only nice things to say about Mr. Fuhrman. When it came time for him to testify, Ms. Clark predicted, he would never show up, and the defense knew it. His recollections, she said, "will evaporate into thin air as soon as the words are shouted through this courtroom by Mr. Bailey."

It wasn't the point that he stated he had spoken with the marine but what the marine would say about MF that caused Clark to call him a liar.

I respectfully disagree. I think she called him a liar because he was caught in a lie. Perhaps perjured himself with Ito? I think the Marine would not take the stand and put himself in a position of lying, under oath in uniform.

Ms. Clark hit the nail on the head when she said he wouldn't show up. What person, let alone a Marine, who takes his honor and devotion to country, God and family, would take a stand and lie for some football player? It makes no sense.

[William Anthony]

no, the quote is "marine to marine", not "man to man". That is a HUGE difference IMO. Most Marines, or those of us who know Marines, would agree that this is a higher level of standard as they regard themselves with greater pride than just being a "man".

If a man says hello to another man, they are passing greetings. If a Marine asks another Marine for an honest, detailed account of what happened ... that's completely different. It's his honor at stake, not "hey, how's it going?".

IMO.

I agree that Bailey said marine to marine and after that is when Cordoba agreed with Bailey, which means MF did call him a n*****. When I said man to man, I was addressing the poster's post referencing mano to mano. I agree that marines hold themselves to a higher standard and after Bailey made that remark is when Cordoba changed his story and agreed with Bailey. Yes, Bailey implored Cordoba, in front of the camera, to do the honorable thing. Do you think that he got the idea from "Men of Honor" or vice versa (don't know which happened first)?

[William Anthony]

I respectfully disagree. I think she called him a liar because he was caught in a lie. Perhaps perjured himself with Ito? I think the Marine would not take the stand and put himself in a position of lying, under oath in uniform.



Ms. Clark hit the nail on the head when she said he wouldn't show up. What person, let alone a Marine, who takes his honor and devotion to country, God and family, would take a stand and lie for some football player? It makes no sense.

I think that if you read the link, you will see that Cordoba agreed with Bailey that night on another show on NBC. You will also remember that Ito warned the defense that at some point the evidence would become cumulative.

[SlowHandSam]

I think it was furhman with memory problems as he could not remember when
the last time he called a black person a n*****10 years ago 5 years ago or yesterday.imo

I think, using your argument, that MF used this type of language as part of his daily vernacular, it is not that far fetched to believe he wouldn't recall the exact last night he used the slur. That's believing your theory.

Now, let's break it down a bit, just for the sake of fun. I am quite fond of the word "idiot" (among others, but let's use this for argument's sake). I seem to use it a lot, lately. If you were to ask me, next week Monday, which day I last used that word I would be unable to tell you ... because it has become a part of my everyday vernacular. I understand it isn't the same as a "slur", however, using your argument that he is a racist - it would be the same for him.

[SlowHandSam]

I agree that Bailey said marine to marine and after that is when Cordoba agreed with Bailey, which means MF did call him a n*****. When I said man to man, I was addressing the poster's post referencing mano to mano. I agree that marines hold themselves to a higher standard and after Bailey made that remark is when Cordoba changed his story and agreed with Bailey. Yes, Bailey implored Cordoba, in front of the camera, to do the honorable thing. Do you think that he got the idea from "Men of Honor" or vice versa (don't know which happened first)?

You are making an inference that isn't accurate. Cordoba said, after flip-flopping, that he spoke to FLee. And by FLee's own account, he didn't speak to him for anything OTHER THAN to say "thanks for coming forward" (or words to that effect).

I never saw or read where Cordoba said, publicly, that MF had used slurs in front of him or directed at him. Can you provide that link, please?

[martin II]

I think, using your argument, that MF used this type of language as part of his daily vernacular, it is not that far fetched to believe he wouldn't recall the exact last night he used the slur. That's believing your theory.

Now, let's break it down a bit, just for the sake of fun. I am quite fond of the word "idiot" (among others, but let's use this for argument's sake). I seem to use it a lot, lately. If you were to ask me, next week Monday, which day I last used that word I would be unable to tell you ... because it has become a part of my everyday vernacular. I understand it isn't the same as a "slur", however, using your argument that he is a racist - it would be the same for him.

If furhmans were you then i would agree.

[SlowHandSam]

If furhmans were you then i would agree.

this statement does not make sense to me.

[bobaugust]

First, I draw reasonable inferences from the testimony. I have posted the judge's instructions on how the jury could judge the credibility of one witness against many. I have posted what a declaration or admission against evidence is, which is what MF did when he said his tongue had not slipped when he said the word, them, imho. I never claimed that MF planted the glove to implicate Simpson. I offered it to refute the biased statements of Petrocelli, as to what he did not consider. I explained the scenarios where MF did not have to worry about being detected or loosing his job. I beg to differ that the defense only claimed that it was planted to frame Simpson for murder. Implicit in their allegation was the idea that he would be implicated in a conspiracy to commit murder. It was the prosecution that leveled the charges of murder. The defense simply said it was planted to frame Simpson, to which, imho, included a conspiracy.

There is no blood behind the quarters to indicate Simpson was there. We know MF, who allegedly found the glove was there alone. We know that MF traipsed from one crime scene to the other, possibly collecting trace evidence and depositing where it shouldn't have been as he traipsed. We know that MF said he saw blood in the Bronco, but denied saying he said in, because no blood had been seen in the Bronco at the time he said he saw it in the Bronco.

I beg to differ that I disrespect the community, because the evidence shows that you have continuously posted falsely (out of respect for the community) erroneously that the defense never made the claim I made. When I pointed out that they did, you responded with harsh criticism of the magnificent, imho, JC. I have posted on your other erroneous posts and see no need to repeat them.

Again, I repeat that you are entitled to your opinion, as long as it is respectfully stated as such and I will defend your right to state it under those conditions. My fourteen reasons came from the evidence. Just because you call them illogical, without stating that is your opinion, does not make them so. It only makes them illogical to you. I could say a lot about logic but out of my desire to see this community improve and prosper, I will simply say, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:, until such time as you adhere to the rules and state your posts to me more respectfully.

First you have not drawn any reasonable inference from Fuhrman's preliminary testimony, you have made an unreasonable inference based only on your personal feelings for Mark Fuhrman. Your interpretation of what you want Fuhrman to have meant when he said the word "them" is not supported by any evidence in this case. And not only is your interpretation contradicted by Fuhrman's previous testimony and later explanation that he was referring to one glove and a knit cap, but your inference is contradicted every other witness who testified to what they saw under the plant leaves at Ron's feet

Your didn't refute any of the reasons Petrocelli or Clark pointed out that did not make any sense for Fuhrman to have done. Your suggestion that Fuhrman planted one of the killer's gloves to simply implicate Simpson is as illogical and unbelievable as the defense claim that by supposedly given the choice of removing a glove from the murder scene Fuhrman chose to take the glove covered with blood without any knowledge of whose blood it was instead of the choosing the glove without any visible blood on it. And that makes sense to you? Nothing you have argued about what you imagined happened regarding this issue is reasonable or believable.

You keep referring to the judge's instructions to the jury on how they could judge the credibility of one witness against many. Are you saying that because you find something Fuhrman said not credible on one issue that you can than dismiss the testimony of all the other witnesses that testified to the same facts that Fuhrman did on other issues? I think not but that's exactly what you're doing by making your untrue claim.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You are making an inference that isn't accurate. Cordoba said, after flip-flopping, that he spoke to FLee. And by FLee's own account, he didn't speak to him for anything OTHER THAN to say "thanks for coming forward" (or words to that effect).

I never saw or read where Cordoba said, publicly, that MF had used slurs in front of him or directed at him. Can you provide that link, please?

Yes, Bailey only spoke to him briefly, which does not mean that the substance of what Cordoba would say, which is the crucial issue, was not said to one or more of Bailey's associates. Hence, the thanks for coming forward. I repeat it was not until Bailey implored him and reminded him of the fact that he was a marine that Cordoba flip-flopped. So how are we to know about what Cordoba flip-flopped. Here it is.

In his defense, Mr. Bailey said he had spoken to Mr. Cordoba but only long enough to congratulate him for having the courage to come foward. Mr. Cordoba had spoken much longer, Mr. Bailey acknowleged, to a defense investigator. Tonight Mr. Cordoba, flip-flopping again, agreed with Mr. Bailey. "For some dumb reason, it just blanked that I didn't talk with him, but I did speak with him," he told NBC. Hence, there was no denial that MF referred to him as a n*****. Ergo, not only did Cordoba flip-flop about talking to Bailey but also about the fact that MF had called him a n*****.

There was no denial that Bailey thanked him for coming forward. I am sure that you understand it took great courage to go against MF, who was also a former marine.

[William Anthony]

First you have not drawn any reasonable inference from Fuhrman's preliminary testimony, you have made an unreasonable inference based only on your personal feelings for Mark Fuhrman. Your interpretation of what you want Fuhrman to have meant when he said the word "them" is not supported by any evidence in this case. And not only is your interpretation contradicted by Fuhrman's previous testimony and later explanation that he was referring to one glove and a knit cap, but your inference is contradicted every other witness who testified to what they saw under the plant leaves at Ron's feet

Your didn't refute any of the reasons Petrocelli or Clark pointed out that did not make any sense for Fuhrman to have done. Your suggestion that Fuhrman planted one of the killer's gloves to simply implicate Simpson is as illogical and unbelievable as the defense claim that by supposedly given the choice of removing a glove from the murder scene Fuhrman chose to take the glove covered with blood without any knowledge of whose blood it was instead of the choosing the glove without any visible blood on it. And that makes sense to you? Nothing you have argued about what you imagined happened regarding this issue is reasonable or believable.

You keep referring to the judge's instructions to the jury on how they could judge the credibility of one witness against many. Are you saying that because you find something Fuhrman said not credible on one issue that you can than dismiss the testimony of all the other witnesses that testified to the same facts that Fuhrman did on other issues? I think not but that's exactly what you're doing by making your untrue claim.

bobaugust

First, I have pointed to the testimony as it exists in the transcripts. I can not take the fact that MF is a convicted perjurer, one who will lie under oath to avoid detection, out of my evaluation of the evidence. I know that you do by calling his lie irrelevant. I think that is an unreasonable point of view; he lied but he told the truth when he explained his slip of the tongue.

Yes, I refer to the judge's instructions to the jury, because that is the scale they were to use to weight the evidence and the measuring stick to measure credibility. You seem to be mixing apples and hard heads again. In your first paragraph you say the all the other witnesses said the saw one glove under Ron's feet, which has nothing to do with what MF said he saw when he said them after being asked about a single glove. Then in your third paragraph you mention the jury instruction and ask me if I could dismiss what the others say, because MF is a convicted perjurer. Since MF made a declaration against interest (he was alone at one point when he viewed the evidence at Ron's feet) and he was trapped on cross examination (which, imho, is more trustworthy because he did rehearse the questions with the defense beforehand), and said he saw them at the time of that view when he was asked specifically about one glove, the sophisticated jury saw through MF and believed he saw two (his second declaration against interest when he admitted his tongue did not slip when he said them) and chose to believe that he did see two gloves, imho. The jury could choose to believe his declarations against interest over the testimony of the others, who only saw one glove, or they could have given the testimony of others full weight and credibility, meaning that what they saw was what they saw and what MF saw was what he saw, imho.

Again, you misunderstand, imho. While it was a suggestion, it was more of a refutation of Petrocelli's claim that the only reason MF would have planted the glove was to frame Simpson for murder and a negation of Petrocelli's claim that MF placed himself in an absurdly perilous position by planting the glove.
Let's me see, if I wanted to implicate someone in two bloody murders or, if I was worried about being detected for planting a glove and wanted to use the excuse that the murder had come to the location, seeking another victim, and I had seen the evidence, knowing the suspect was bleeding when he left the murder scene, would I take a glove absent blood or one that had blood on it?
THE BLOODY GLOVE. ERGO, THE NAME BLOODY GLOVE FUHRMAN, imho.

LET ME THANK YOU FOR RESPONDING IN A MORE RESPECTFUL MANNER. While it is my opinion that the evidence in this situation favors the reasonable inference of planting, I respectfully defend your right to assert an opinion, which as of yet you have failed to do, that differs. I respectfully request that when you say that my opinions/alternative ways of seeing things, which you call claims, are untrue or unreasonable that you state that as your opinion. Thanks in advance for your anticipated and continued cooperation.

[SlowHandSam]

Yes, Bailey only spoke to him briefly, which does not mean that the substance of what Cordoba would say, which is the crucial issue, was not said to one or more of Bailey's associates. Hence, the thanks for coming forward. I repeat it was not until Bailey implored him and reminded him of the fact that he was a marine that Cordoba flip-flopped. So how are we to know about what Cordoba flip-flopped. Here it is.

In his defense, Mr. Bailey said he had spoken to Mr. Cordoba but only long enough to congratulate him for having the courage to come foward. Mr. Cordoba had spoken much longer, Mr. Bailey acknowleged, to a defense investigator. Tonight Mr. Cordoba, flip-flopping again, agreed with Mr. Bailey. "For some dumb reason, it just blanked that I didn't talk with him, but I did speak with him," he told NBC. Hence, there was no denial that MF referred to him as a n*****. Ergo, not only did Cordoba flip-flop about talking to Bailey but also about the fact that MF had called him a n*****.

There was no denial that Bailey thanked him for coming forward. I am sure that you understand it took great courage to go against MF, who was also a former marine.

I think you took a lot of liberty in that interpretation. And unless we can see credible evidence that suggests Cordoba acknowledged that MF used a racial slur to him, I don't come to the same conclusion you did. I interpret Cordoba's statement to mean that he recalled, after the fact, that he had a conversation with Bailey, not that he made this alleged statement.

Additionally, taking into account FLee's own statement, that his conversation with Cordoba was nothing more than to say "thanks for coming forward" ... adds more to the opinion that you've made an inappropriate inference.

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

I have just done a quick word search for the word frame from the dates of September 22-29 and could not find any reference in any argument where the prosecution of the defense said MF planted the glove in order to frame Simpson. I did see some conversation about planted, but not to frame. I think this negates Petrocelli's claim that the defense argued/claimed that MF planted the glove to frame Simpson. However, I could have overlooked it. If you find it then please show me. I really did not expect the magnificent one would allow himself to be closed into a box like that. This is the rush to judgment that too many made. This is why JC was a magnificent cut above the rest, imho. I will search the opening statements.

[SlowHandSam]

bobaugust,

I have just done a quick word search for the word frame from the dates of September 22-29 and could not find any reference in any argument where the prosecution of the defense said MF planted the glove in order to frame Simpson. I did see some conversation about planted, but not to frame. I think this negates Petrocelli's claim that the defense argued/claimed that MF planted the glove to frame Simpson. However, I could have overlooked it. If you find it then please show me. I really did not expect the magnificent one would allow himself to be closed into a box like that. This is the rush to judgment that too many made. This is why JC was a magnificent cut above the rest, imho. I will search the opening statements.

why else would someone "plant" evidence if not to "frame" them?

I think that is a reasonable conclusion to make if one if accusing another of planting evidence that you are also accusing them of doing so in a manner to frame them for a crime.

[William Anthony]

I did a search for the word frame in the month of January and the only person who used the word in that context was Darden, on January 13th.

[William Anthony]

why else would someone "plant" evidence if not to "frame" them?

I think that is a reasonable conclusion to make if one if accusing another of planting evidence that you are also accusing them of doing so in a manner to frame them for a crime.

The poster relied on Petrocelli's biased opinion to assert that the defense argued that MF planted the glove to frame Simpson for murder. It is a conclusion to say that someone planted evidence in order to frame a person for a crime. That is my point. The crime did not have to be murder. It could have been conspiracy or solicitation.

[tv]

The poster relied on Petrocelli's biased opinion to assert that the defense argued that MF planted the glove to frame Simpson for murder. It is a conclusion to say that someone planted evidence in order to frame a person for a crime. That is my point. The crime did not have to be murder. It could have been conspiracy or solicitation.You're nitpicking.

[William Anthony]

I think you took a lot of liberty in that interpretation. And unless we can see credible evidence that suggests Cordoba acknowledged that MF used a racial slur to him, I don't come to the same conclusion you did. I interpret Cordoba's statement to mean that he recalled, after the fact, that he had a conversation with Bailey, not that he made this alleged statement.

Additionally, taking into account FLee's own statement, that his conversation with Cordoba was nothing more than to say "thanks for coming forward" ... adds more to the opinion that you've made an inappropriate inference.

I understand your point but Bailey did not say thanks for calling. He said thanks for coming forward. I think flip-flopped means to do a complete turn around.

[William Anthony]

You're nitpicking.

I beg to differ. To say that someone planted evidence to frame a person for murder and then argue that it defies logic to so do, and not take into account their were other reasons to plant the evidence is not nitpicking but setting the record straight. I can not help it if people have a rush to judgment and rely on those things that support their rushed judgment instead of considering all the possibilities.

[SlowHandSam]

I understand your point but Bailey did not say thanks for calling. He said thanks for coming forward. I think flip-flopped means to do a complete turn around.

I never said he said "thanks for calling" ... he said "thanks for coming forward".

DO NOT misquote me to try and bolster your inaccurate and inappropriate inference to what Cordoba said.

[SlowHandSam]

I beg to differ. To say that someone planted evidence to frame a person for murder and then argue that it defies logic to so do, and not take into account their were other reasons to plant the evidence is not nitpicking but setting the record straight. I can not help it if people have a rush to judgment and rely on those things that support their rushed judgment instead of considering all the possibilities.

just curious, but what other reasons would there be to plant evidence? (other than to frame someone) ... in this case, murder.

[William Anthony]

I never said he said "thanks for calling" ... he said "thanks for coming forward".

DO NOT misquote me to try and bolster your inaccurate and inappropriate inference to what Cordoba said.

You too have made a rush to judgment. I never said you said he said thanks for calling. I was pointing out the difference in what he said and would have said, if Cordoba wasn't calling to say that he was coming forward to say that MF called him a n*****. SHOW ME WHERE I QUOTED YOU OR SAID YOU SAID THAT. I DO NOT APPRECIATE YOUR ACCUSATION OR THE TONE OF YOUR POST. YOU COULD HAVE SIMPLY ASKED FOR A CLARIFICATION. IF YOU ARE GOING TO CONTINUE IN THIS FASHION, THEN :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

just curious, but what other reasons would there be to plant evidence? (other than to frame someone) ... in this case, murder.

How many times do I have to say it, conspiracy or solicitation to commit murder.

[William Anthony]

First, I have pointed to the testimony as it exists in the transcripts. I can not take the fact that MF is a convicted perjurer, one who will lie under oath to avoid detection, out of my evaluation of the evidence. I know that you do by calling his lie irrelevant. I think that is an unreasonable point of view; he lied but he told the truth when he explained his slip of the tongue.

Yes, I refer to the judge's instructions to the jury, because that is the scale they were to use to weight the evidence and the measuring stick to measure credibility. You seem to be mixing apples and hard heads again. In your first paragraph you say the all the other witnesses said the saw one glove under Ron's feet, which has nothing to do with what MF said he saw when he said them after being asked about a single glove. Then in your third paragraph you mention the jury instruction and ask me if I could dismiss what the others say, because MF is a convicted perjurer. Since MF made a declaration against interest (he was alone at one point when he viewed the evidence at Ron's feet) and he was trapped on cross examination (which, imho, is more trustworthy because he did rehearse the questions with the defense beforehand), and said he saw them at the time of that view when he was asked specifically about one glove, the sophisticated jury saw through MF and believed he saw two (his second declaration against interest when he admitted his tongue did not slip when he said them) and chose to believe that he did see two gloves, imho. The jury could choose to believe his declarations against interest over the testimony of the others, who only saw one glove, or they could have given the testimony of others full weight and credibility, meaning that what they saw was what they saw and what MF saw was what he saw, imho.

Again, you misunderstand, imho. While it was a suggestion, it was more of a refutation of Petrocelli's claim that the only reason MF would have planted the glove was to frame Simpson for murder and a negation of Petrocelli's claim that MF placed himself in an absurdly perilous position by planting the glove.
Let's me see, if I wanted to implicate someone in two bloody murders or, if I was worried about being detected for planting a glove and wanted to use the excuse that the murder had come to the location, seeking another victim, and I had seen the evidence, knowing the suspect was bleeding when he left the murder scene, would I take a glove absent blood or one that had blood on it?
THE BLOODY GLOVE. ERGO, THE NAME BLOODY GLOVE FUHRMAN, imho.

LET ME THANK YOU FOR RESPONDING IN A MORE RESPECTFUL MANNER. While it is my opinion that the evidence in this situation favors the reasonable inference of planting, I respectfully defend your right to assert an opinion, which as of yet you have failed to do, that differs. I respectfully request that when you say that my opinions/alternative ways of seeing things, which you call claims, are untrue or unreasonable that you state that as your opinion. Thanks in advance for your anticipated and continued cooperation.

Corrections/edits

Yes, I refer to the judge's instructions to the jury, because that is the scale they were to use to weigh the evidence and the measuring stick to measure credibility. You seem to be mixing apples and hard heads again. In your first paragraph you say all the other witnesses said they saw one glove under Ron's feet, which has nothing to do with what MF said he saw when he said them after being asked about a single glove. Then in your third paragraph you mention the jury instruction and ask me if I could dismiss what the others say, because MF is a convicted perjurer. Since MF made a declaration against interest (he was alone at one point when he viewed the evidence at Ron's feet) and he was trapped on cross examination (which, imho, is more trustworthy because he did not rehearse the questions with the defense beforehand), and said he saw them at the time of that view when he was asked specifically about one glove, the sophisticated jury saw through MF and believed he saw two (his second declaration against interest when he admitted his tongue did not slip when he said them) and chose to believe that he did see two gloves, imho. The jury could choose to believe his declarations against interest over the testimony of the others, who only saw one glove, or they could have given the testimony of others full weight and credibility, meaning that what they saw was what they saw and what MF saw was what he saw, imho.

[William Anthony]

Here is a link I found on the crime of Conspiracy in California.

http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue...conspiracy.pdf

The fact that it is an incohhate crime means that, I guess, it is possible to say, since the person he conspired with was found not guilty, it does not excuse the conspirator for his part by doing an overt act in furtherance of the other party's endeavor to do the crime. If that makes sense? I wonder what it means, if the conspirator sold a person a gun with knowledge that the person he sold it to had an intent to kill another person with the gun, but the other person lost his nerve and never followed through. I did not read far enough in my link. It answers my questions.

[SlowHandSam]

How many times do I have to say it, conspiracy or solicitation to commit murder.

so someone "planted" the glove in an attempt to have oj accused of conspiracy to and/or solicitation to commit murder?

that makes absolutely no sense to me. What purpose would that serve?

[William Anthony]

so someone "planted" the glove in an attempt to have oj accused of conspiracy to and/or solicitation to commit murder?

that makes absolutely no sense to me. What purpose would that serve?

Let's see, incarceration, ruin to a person's reputation, loss of income, and public scorn. Let's say that an overzealous detective or prosecutor found the person, who committed the murders, and said we know someone paid you to kill Nicole and we found your glove on Simpson's quarters. We think you were there to inform Simpson that the murder was done and to get your pay. We think the limo driver prevented you from getting the money before he left. We know that Simpson and his wife were recently divorced and involved in a custody battle. It would be a shame for you to spin your life in jail, while Simpson makes millions and plays golf. We know that you had no reason to kill Nicole but Simpson did. We think the prosecutor will offer you a good deal, if you come clean. Perhaps, the killer was there to kill Simpson and perhaps LE and/or the prosecution knew or didn't know this but said the above, and the killer knew or saw the detective that planted the glove. Place yourself in the killer's shoes. What would you do or better yet what do you think the killer would do?

[William Anthony]

Gilbert says he told Simpson how to keep his hands bloated so the gloves would not fit. According to some, the gloves fit, even three jurors. Thus, Gilbert's suggestion, like his story, does not fit, imho.

[martin II]

You're nitpicking.

i don't think so.

[William Anthony]

Let's see, incarceration, ruin to a person's reputation, loss of income, and public scorn. Let's say that an overzealous detective or prosecutor found the person, who committed the murders, and said we know someone paid you to kill Nicole and we found your glove on Simpson's quarters. We think you were there to inform Simpson that the murder was done and to get your pay. We think the limo driver prevented you from getting the money before he left. We know that Simpson and his wife were recently divorced and involved in a custody battle. It would be a shame for you to spin your life in jail, while Simpson makes millions and plays golf. We know that you had no reason to kill Nicole but Simpson did. We think the prosecutor will offer you a good deal, if you come clean. Perhaps, the killer was there to kill Simpson and perhaps LE and/or the prosecution knew or didn't know this but said the above, and the killer knew or saw the detective that planted the glove. Place yourself in the killer's shoes. What would you do or better yet what do you think the killer would do?

Before the resident editor checks in:) let me say that when I used the word spin instead of spend, it was intended.:)

[William Anthony]

i don't think so.

Thanks martin. Are you rushing out to buy Gilbert's Book of Fairy Tales?

[William Anthony]

According to Gilbert, after Simpson, who was high on weed and sleeping pills, went to sleep, Gilbert got afraid that Simpson would kill him but did not call the police of leave; just locked his bedroom door.

[William Anthony]

According to Gilbert, he told Simpson not to take his arthritis medication before the glove demonstration so that the gloves would not fit but Simpson did not confess to him until two weeks after the trial. What??? Gilbert allegedly is in trouble with the IRS and comes out with this book???

[fgump2]

The idea of a frame up seems very unlikely to me. Police who tamper with murder evidence in California get an automatic penalty of life without parole.
Also the police had a tape of Nicole and NBS arguing and yelling at each other. It would have been easy for any of a number of cops, including MF to send the informaton to some scandal sheet such as the Nat Inquirer. Then if OJ denied it, and tried to sue the scandal sheet, they would have the tapes to back them up. None of the cops tried anything like this.
It seems verly unlikely that the police, MF included, would pass up a risk free way to cause major embarrassment for OJS, and then take try to frame him for murder.
It is probably true that sending police info to a scandal sheet would be against police rules, and possible a felony, but a smart detective, or even a dumb one, could figure out a way to get away with it. I find it hard to believe that MF was chicken to send information to a scandal sheet, but brave enough to try to frame OJS for murder. MF halso had a risk free chance to arrest OJS a few years before the murder; he declined.
If MF, or anyone else tried to frame OJS, they would have no control over what detectives would look investigate the case.
I also believe the blue wall or shield of silence would fall apart for the following reasons:
- Anyone going along with the plot to frame OJS would risk life without parole.
- Anyone willing to expose the plot to frame OJS would stand to make a lot of money. They could write a book (ghosted I am sure) that would make a lot of money, and not just in the US. People outside of the US are interested in US life, especially race relations and human rights, even if they don't care about football.
- It is even possible that many (well some) police would think it was immoral to frame an innocent man.
- Most people have a hard time keeping a good story secret. Most cops know that the prisons are full of people who are there because somebody couldn't keep a secret.
- Most police departments keep murder evidence around for a while, and new technology often enables criminologists rereinterpret evidence.
Another problem for the fame up story is that Donald Thompson, a black man, was one of the first officers to show up at the murder scene. This would bother anybody trying to frame OJS: Can we trust this guy? Does he follow the blue wall of silence code? Suppose he thinks that framing an innocent man is wrong? How much does he know?
The fact that the LA police chief was black would be another problem. It would be a source of tension. Also the people who claim there was a claim there was frame up never explain why he said he thought OJS was guilty. Was he following the blue wall of silence? Was he too stupid to understand the situatiion.

[martin II]

The idea of a frame up seems very unlikely to me. Police who tamper with murder evidence in California get an automatic penalty of life without parole.
Also the police had a tape of Nicole and NBS arguing and yelling at each other. It would have been easy for any of a number of cops, including MF to send the informaton to some scandal sheet such as the Nat Inquirer. Then if OJ denied it, and tried to sue the scandal sheet, they would have the tapes to back them up. None of the cops tried anything like this.
It seems verly unlikely that the police, MF included, would pass up a risk free way to cause major embarrassment for OJS, and then take try to frame him for murder.
It is probably true that sending police info to a scandal sheet would be against police rules, and possible a felony, but a smart detective, or even a dumb one, could figure out a way to get away with it. I find it hard to believe that MF was chicken to send information to a scandal sheet, but brave enough to try to frame OJS for murder. MF halso had a risk free chance to arrest OJS a few years before the murder; he declined.
If MF, or anyone else tried to frame OJS, they would have no control over what detectives would look investigate the case.
I also believe the blue wall or shield of silence would fall apart for the following reasons:
- Anyone going along with the plot to frame OJS would risk life without parole.
- Anyone willing to expose the plot to frame OJS would stand to make a lot of money. They could write a book (ghosted I am sure) that would make a lot of money, and not just in the US. People outside of the US are interested in US life, especially race relations and human rights, even if they don't care about football.
- It is even possible that many (well some) police would think it was immoral to frame an innocent man.
- Most people have a hard time keeping a good story secret. Most cops know that the prisons are full of people who are there because somebody couldn't keep a secret.
- Most police departments keep murder evidence around for a while, and new technology often enables criminologists rereinterpret evidence.
Another problem for the fame up story is that Donald Thompson, a black man, was one of the first officers to show up at the murder scene. This would bother anybody trying to frame OJS: Can we trust this guy? Does he follow the blue wall of silence code? Suppose he thinks that framing an innocent man is wrong? How much does he know?
The fact that the LA police chief was black would be another problem. It would be a source of tension. Also the people who claim there was a claim there was frame up never explain why he said he thought OJS was guilty. Was he following the blue wall of silence? Was he too stupid to understand the situatiion.

Maby you might be interested in researching the lapd special drug units history.Rmpart is the name

[martin II]

According to Gilbert, after Simpson, who was high on weed and sleeping pills, went to sleep, Gilbert got afraid that Simpson would kill him but did not call the police of leave; just locked his bedroom door.

That may have been the time GILBERT took the items from ojs trophy room as oj caught some snoozes.

[martin II]

Thanks martin. Are you rushing out to buy Gilbert's Book of Fairy Tales?

I think i will buy a box of extra butter popcorn instead.The price will be the same.

[weezer]

Before the resident editor checks in:) let me say that when I used the word spin instead of spend, it was intended.:)

-- then maybe you can also look up 'there' and 'their' -- ;)

[weezer]

According to Gilbert, he told Simpson not to take his arthritis medication before the glove demonstration so that the gloves would not fit but Simpson did not confess to him until two weeks after the trial. What??? Gilbert allegedly is in trouble with the IRS and comes out with this book???

funny how that works -- orenthal said he wrote his confession so he could pay his bills. :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

-- then maybe you can also look up 'there' and 'their' -- ;)

Do lee noted or is that duly noted.:)

[William Anthony]

funny how that works -- orenthal said he wrote his confession so he could pay his bills. :rolleyes:

Yes, it seems that people create works of fiction for money.

[William Anthony]

I think i will buy a box of extra butter popcorn instead.The price will be the same.

I think the popcorn is worth more.

[William Anthony]

T
- Most people have a hard time keeping a good story secret. Most cops know that the prisons are full of people who are there because somebody couldn't keep a secret.


All the more reason to keep the secret. I do not think any cop would want to go to prison where he put others, and I don't think I would want to be the cop that broke the silence.

[William Anthony]

Also the police had a tape of Nicole and NBS arguing and yelling at each other. It would have been easy for any of a number of cops, including MF to send the informaton to some scandal sheet such as the Nat Inquirer. Then if OJ denied it, and tried to sue the scandal sheet, they would have the tapes to back them up. None of the cops tried anything like this.
It seems verly unlikely that the police, MF included, would pass up a risk free way to cause major embarrassment for OJS, and then take try to frame him for murder.


Simpson plead no lo contendre to the charges. Arrests and trials are matters of public record. Major embarassment v. incarceration and ruin to a member of an affluent, respected and influential member of a race that an LE member should be burned.

[bobaugust]

First, I have pointed to the testimony as it exists in the transcripts. I can not take the fact that MF is a convicted perjurer, one who will lie under oath to avoid detection, out of my evaluation of the evidence. I know that you do by calling his lie irrelevant. I think that is an unreasonable point of view; he lied but he told the truth when he explained his slip of the tongue.

Yes, I refer to the judge's instructions to the jury, because that is the scale they were to use to weight the evidence and the measuring stick to measure credibility. You seem to be mixing apples and hard heads again. In your first paragraph you say the all the other witnesses said the saw one glove under Ron's feet, which has nothing to do with what MF said he saw when he said them after being asked about a single glove. Then in your third paragraph you mention the jury instruction and ask me if I could dismiss what the others say, because MF is a convicted perjurer. Since MF made a declaration against interest (he was alone at one point when he viewed the evidence at Ron's feet) and he was trapped on cross examination (which, imho, is more trustworthy because he did rehearse the questions with the defense beforehand), and said he saw them at the time of that view when he was asked specifically about one glove, the sophisticated jury saw through MF and believed he saw two (his second declaration against interest when he admitted his tongue did not slip when he said them) and chose to believe that he did see two gloves, imho. The jury could choose to believe his declarations against interest over the testimony of the others, who only saw one glove, or they could have given the testimony of others full weight and credibility, meaning that what they saw was what they saw and what MF saw was what he saw, imho.

Again, you misunderstand, imho. While it was a suggestion, it was more of a refutation of Petrocelli's claim that the only reason MF would have planted the glove was to frame Simpson for murder and a negation of Petrocelli's claim that MF placed himself in an absurdly perilous position by planting the glove.
Let's me see, if I wanted to implicate someone in two bloody murders or, if I was worried about being detected for planting a glove and wanted to use the excuse that the murder had come to the location, seeking another victim, and I had seen the evidence, knowing the suspect was bleeding when he left the murder scene, would I take a glove absent blood or one that had blood on it?
THE BLOODY GLOVE. ERGO, THE NAME BLOODY GLOVE FUHRMAN, imho.

LET ME THANK YOU FOR RESPONDING IN A MORE RESPECTFUL MANNER. While it is my opinion that the evidence in this situation favors the reasonable inference of planting, I respectfully defend your right to assert an opinion, which as of yet you have failed to do, that differs. I respectfully request that when you say that my opinions/alternative ways of seeing things, which you call claims, are untrue or unreasonable that you state that as your opinion. Thanks in advance for your anticipated and continued cooperation.

You say the other witnesses have nothing to do with what Fuhrman said he saw. Wrong. They have everything to do with what Fuhrman said he saw because they saw the evidence before Fuhrman saw it. The two patrol officers who found the bodies at 12:10 AM who were the first to see all the evidence at Bundy both testified there was only one glove and a hat under the plant leaves at Ron's feet at that time. Sgt. Rossi arrived at Bundy at 1:30 AM and he testified there was only one glove and a hat under the plant leaves at Ron's feet at that time. Phillips and Fuhrman arrived at Bundy at 2:10 AM and they both testified there was only one glove and a hat under the plant leaves at Ron's feet. That is not an opinion those are the facts and that is the evidence in this case

If there was any credible evidence that there were two gloves and a knit cap under the plant leaves at Bundy you could reasonably infer that when Fuhrman said the word "them" he was referring to all three pieces of evidence. But the fact is there is absolutely no evidence that there were two gloves at Bundy. Just as there is no evidence that Fuhrman planted the glove at Rockingham. Your claims are based only on imagined speculation and imagined evidence leading to more imagined speculation. Mark Fuhrman consistently testified to seeing the same evidence under the plant leaves that every other witness testified to seeing. One glove and a knit cap. The same two pieces of evidence that Fuhrman testified he was referring to when he said the word "them." To suggest that Fuhrman really meant that he was seeing two gloves and a knit cap is not only preposterous and false but you are in essence calling Patrol Officers Riske and Terrazas as well as Sgt. Rossi and Detective Phillips liars.

I respectfully request William that you stop repeating the lie that Mark Fuhrman saw two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy. If you want to express that as your opinion then state it as your opinion. An opinion that is yours and yours alone that I believe is based only on your personal hatred for Fuhrman and wishful thinking.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Another problem for the fame up story is that Donald Thompson, a black man, was one of the first officers to show up at the murder scene. This would bother anybody trying to frame OJS: Can we trust this guy? Does he follow the blue wall of silence code? Suppose he thinks that framing an innocent man is wrong? How much does he know?
The fact that the LA police chief was black would be another problem. It would be a source of tension. Also the people who claim there was a claim there was frame up never explain why he said he thought OJS was guilty. Was he following the blue wall of silence? Was he too stupid to understand the situatiion.

The Fraternal Order of Police is a massive brotherhood. Most Brotherhoods require dedication to a common cause and devotion to a fellow brother, be he saint or demon.

Many have said they thought Simpson was guilty, black and white. I don't know how to explain why another person said the words they said out of their (did I get it right, editor, :)) mouths. He may have been too smart to understand the "situatiion" and too smart to speak about the situation. :)

[William Anthony]

You say the other witnesses have nothing to do with what Fuhrman said he saw. Wrong. They have everything to do with what Fuhrman said he saw because they saw the evidence before Fuhrman saw it. The two patrol officers who found the bodies at 12:10 AM who were the first to see all the evidence at Bundy both testified there was only one glove and a hat under the plant leaves at Ron's feet at that time. Sgt. Rossi arrived at Bundy at 1:30 AM and he testified there was only one glove and a hat under the plant leaves at Ron's feet at that time. Phillips and Fuhrman arrived at Bundy at 2:10 AM and they both testified there was only one glove and a hat under the plant leaves at Ron's feet. That is not an opinion those are the facts and that is the evidence in this case

If there was any credible evidence that there were two gloves and a knit cap under the plant leaves at Bundy you could reasonably infer that when Fuhrman said the word "them" he was referring to all three pieces of evidence. But the fact is there is absolutely no evidence that there were two gloves at Bundy. Just as there is no evidence that Fuhrman planted the glove at Rockingham. Your claims are based only on imagined speculation and imagined evidence leading to more imagined speculation. Mark Fuhrman consistently testified to seeing the same evidence under the plant leaves that every other witness testified to seeing. One glove and a knit cap. The same two pieces of evidence that Fuhrman testified he was referring to when he said the word "them." To suggest that Fuhrman really meant that he was seeing two gloves and a knit cap is not only preposterous and false but you are in essence calling Patrol Officers Riske and Terrazas as well as Sgt. Rossi and Detective Phillips liars.

I respectfully request William that you stop repeating the lie that Mark Fuhrman saw two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy. If you want to express that as your opinion then state it as your opinion. An opinion that is yours and yours alone that I believe is based only on your personal hatred for Fuhrman and wishful thinking.

bobaugust

Perhaps, this is too arduous for you to understand. You and I can look at the same things and see different things. I can not testify to what you saw and you can not testify to what I saw. Because you say in essence I am calling people liars and in essence I did not, you are telling a lie. MF's testimony allows me to say that based on it I concluded that he admitted to seeing two gloves at Bundy. I have said that it was my opinion based on the evidence or, if you will, my conclusion. I thought I explained to you many months ago that I hate no one but despise their actions. You are entitled to your belief. When you say that it is my opinion alone that is not accurate. I have posted the magnificent JC's closing argument and others have posted that some of the jurors thought MF planted the glove, IIRC. You are absolutely wrong about my wishful thinking. I wish that all who take an oath to sever and protect and administer justice fairly uphold those oaths. I thought I made that extremely clear.

You can continue to credit completely the explanation of the genocidal words, as supported by the evidence, r*****, as supported by the evidence and conceded by the prosecution, and convicted perjurer. Let me correct you and respectfully request you to stop saying that I said MF said he said he saw two gloves under Ron' feet and calling that a lie. What I said is that from his testimony he admitted to seeing two gloves at Bundy. You are mistaken about what I said and you want to continue the personal attacks. I have respectfully asked you to stop but it is obvious that you do not intent to respect my request. Don't misunderstand this. I personally do not care, if you do not respect my respectful requests. However, to continue to respond to this disrespect sets a bad example for the community, which I feel most of us want to build. With that said, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Simpson plead no lo contendre to the charges. Arrests and trials are matters of public record. Major embarassment v. incarceration and ruin to a member of an affluent, respected and influential member of a race that an LE member should be burned.

Correction

Major embarassment v. incarceration and ruin to a member of an affluent, respected and influential member of a race that an LE member thought should be burned.

[William Anthony]

Perhaps, this is too arduous for you to understand. You and I can look at the same things and see different things. I can not testify to what you saw and you can not testify to what I saw. Because you say in essence I am calling people liars and in essence I did not, you are telling a lie. MF's testimony allows me to say that based on it I concluded that he admitted to seeing two gloves at Bundy. I have said that it was my opinion based on the evidence or, if you will, my conclusion. I thought I explained to you many months ago that I hate no one but despise their actions. You are entitled to your belief. When you say that it is my opinion alone that is not accurate. I have posted the magnificent JC's closing argument and others have posted that some of the jurors thought MF planted the glove, IIRC. You are absolutely wrong about my wishful thinking. I wish that all who take an oath to sever and protect and administer justice fairly uphold those oaths. I thought I made that extremely clear.

You can continue to credit completely the explanation of the genocidal words, as supported by the evidence, r*****, as supported by the evidence and conceded by the prosecution, and convicted perjurer. Let me correct you and respectfully request you to stop saying that I said MF said he said he saw two gloves under Ron' feet and calling that a lie. What I said is that from his testimony he admitted to seeing two gloves at Bundy. You are mistaken about what I said and you want to continue the personal attacks. I have respectfully asked you to stop but it is obvious that you do not intent to respect my request. Don't misunderstand this. I personally do not care, if you do not respect my respectful requests. However, to continue to respond to this disrespect sets a bad example for the community, which I feel most of us want to build. With that said, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

correction/edit

I have respectfully asked you to stop but it is obvious that you do not intend to respect my request.

[bobaugust]

Perhaps, this is too arduous for you to understand. You and I can look at the same things and see different things. I can not testify to what you saw and you can not testify to what I saw. Because you say in essence I am calling people liars and in essence I did not, you are telling a lie. MF's testimony allows me to say that based on it I concluded that he admitted to seeing two gloves at Bundy. I have said that it was my opinion based on the evidence or, if you will, my conclusion. I thought I explained to you many months ago that I hate no one but despise their actions. You are entitled to your belief. When you say that it is my opinion alone that is not accurate. I have posted the magnificent JC's closing argument and others have posted that some of the jurors thought MF planted the glove, IIRC. You are absolutely wrong about my wishful thinking. I wish that all who take an oath to sever and protect and administer justice fairly uphold those oaths. I thought I made that extremely clear.

You can continue to credit completely the explanation of the genocidal words, as supported by the evidence, r*****, as supported by the evidence and conceded by the prosecution, and convicted perjurer. Let me correct you and respectfully request you to stop saying that I said MF said he said he saw two gloves under Ron' feet and calling that a lie. What I said is that from his testimony he admitted to seeing two gloves at Bundy. You are mistaken about what I said and you want to continue the personal attacks. I have respectfully asked you to stop but it is obvious that you do not intent to respect my request. Don't misunderstand this. I personally do not care, if you do not respect my respectful requests. However, to continue to respond to this disrespect sets a bad example for the community, which I feel most of us want to build. With that said, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

Whether or not you say Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves or as you previously said, "I go by MF's testimony that he saw them (meaning two gloves)" both are untrue. Other witnesses established the fact that there was no second glove under the plant leaves at Ron's feet before Mark Fuhrman even at arrived at Bundy and your interpretation that Fuhrman said or admitted there were two gloves under the plant leaves is ludicrous and outright wrong.

Once again I respectfully request that you stop repeating that untrue claim.

bobaugust

[martin II]

The idea of a frame up seems very unlikely to me. Police who tamper with murder evidence in California get an automatic penalty of life without parole.
Also the police had a tape of Nicole and NBS arguing and yelling at each other. It would have been easy for any of a number of cops, including MF to send the informaton to some scandal sheet such as the Nat Inquirer. Then if OJ denied it, and tried to sue the scandal sheet, they would have the tapes to back them up. None of the cops tried anything like this.
It seems verly unlikely that the police, MF included, would pass up a risk free way to cause major embarrassment for OJS, and then take try to frame him for murder.
It is probably true that sending police info to a scandal sheet would be against police rules, and possible a felony, but a smart detective, or even a dumb one, could figure out a way to get away with it. I find it hard to believe that MF was chicken to send information to a scandal sheet, but brave enough to try to frame OJS for murder. MF halso had a risk free chance to arrest OJS a few years before the murder; he declined.
If MF, or anyone else tried to frame OJS, they would have no control over what detectives would look investigate the case.
I also believe the blue wall or shield of silence would fall apart for the following reasons:
- Anyone going along with the plot to frame OJS would risk life without parole.
- Anyone willing to expose the plot to frame OJS would stand to make a lot of money. They could write a book (ghosted I am sure) that would make a lot of money, and not just in the US. People outside of the US are interested in US life, especially race relations and human rights, even if they don't care about football.
- It is even possible that many (well some) police would think it was immoral to frame an innocent man.
- Most people have a hard time keeping a good story secret. Most cops know that the prisons are full of people who are there because somebody couldn't keep a secret.
- Most police departments keep murder evidence around for a while, and new technology often enables criminologists rereinterpret evidence.
Another problem for the fame up story is that Donald Thompson, a black man, was one of the first officers to show up at the murder scene. This would bother anybody trying to frame OJS: Can we trust this guy? Does he follow the blue wall of silence code? Suppose he thinks that framing an innocent man is wrong? How much does he know?
The fact that the LA police chief was black would be another problem. It would be a source of tension. Also the people who claim there was a claim there was frame up never explain why he said he thought OJS was guilty. Was he following the blue wall of silence? Was he too stupid to understand the situatiion.

If you are referring to the tape at GG, you may want to look at the reasons for and how oj got to be at nicoles house. Also the police came to the house
talked to Kato, oj and nicole. after all calmed down oj left and so did le.
There was no fight.imo

[William Anthony]

Whether or not you say Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves or as you previously said, "I go by MF's testimony that he saw them (meaning two gloves)" both are untrue. Other witnesses established the fact that there was no second glove under the plant leaves at Ron's feet before Mark Fuhrman even at arrived at Bundy and your interpretation that Fuhrman said or admitted there were two gloves under the plant leaves is ludicrous and outright wrong.

Once again I respectfully request that you stop repeating that untrue claim.

bobaugust

Before I said I go by, I said his testimony allowed me to say he admitted to seeing two gloves at Bundy.:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[Kate Sachel]

If you are referring to the tape at GG, you may want to look at the reasons for and how oj got to be at nicoles house. Also the police came to the house
talked to Kato, oj and nicole. after all calmed down oj left and so did le.
There was no fight.imo

It does not matter that he claims that Nicole asked him to come over to continue their discussion. What matters is his conduct upon arriving. I'm quite certain that she did not invite him over to kick her door in and to begin a profanity laced rant while their children slept.

I still cannot understand what inspires certain individuals to advocate all of OJ Simpson's behaviors. If you don't believe that the evidence shows that he murdered two people, fine. But to act as though that means he conducts himself flawlessly and in accordance with the law at all times is bordering on being ludicrous. There are simply certain behaviors that are unacceptable, and the destruction to property and/or body are two of those.

Kate

[weezer]

If you are referring to the tape at GG, you may want to look at the reasons for and how oj got to be at nicoles house. Also the police came to the house
talked to Kato, oj and nicole. after all calmed down oj left and so did le.
There was no fight.imo

and months later she was murdered by him. there was no reason or excuse for his behavior. he's a thug and a bully.

[fgump2]

If you are referring to the tape at GG, you may want to look at the reasons for and how oj got to be at nicoles house. Also the police came to the house
talked to Kato, oj and nicole. after all calmed down oj left and so did le.
There was no fight.imo
The police had a 911 tape of NBS for that incident (October 1993), in which OJS angry shouts can be heard. That tape shocked a lot of people, including a niece of OJS who had been around him a lot. It would have damaged his public image, and therefore his earning power. I think the police had records of other incidents.

[bobaugust]

Before I said I go by, I said his testimony allowed me to say he admitted to seeing two gloves at Bundy.:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

Yes William you are allowed to make as many distorted false interpretations as you want on what any witness said and then make as many false and untrue claims you can dream up just as you have done. And other posters on this discussion group are allowed to point out why your claims are false and untrue. If you then wish to keep embarrassing yourself by continuing to repeat those untrue claims that is also your choice just as other posters have the choice to point out your claims are untrue every time you repeat them.

bobaugust

[fgump2]

Before I said I go by, I said his testimony allowed me to say he admitted to seeing two gloves at Bundy.:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:
After the criminal trial, the jury foreman, A. Cooley, said that she didn't see how MF could have seen so much blood on the bronco with only a small flashlight, unless he had 'superhuman vision'.
The raises a point. Since MF had only a small penlight, how could he have seen a second glove where cops with better flashlights didn't see it?
Also this raises a point about the jury. They had no basis to say what MF could have seen on the bronco, I don't think they ever saw the bronco, and the certainly didn't see it at night. I don't think it would be possible to recreate the lighting that was there that night, so what MF could or couldn't see is hardly something they could judge very well. i suppose it would be asking too much to have the dream team fans to look at the mistakes the jury and the deam team made.
To get to another point. WA and Martian have harshly criticized D Fung and the police nurse for having memory problems. What about Cochran’s memory problems? In his opening statement he said he would call 14 witnesses to testify to various things, and he forgot to notify the prosecution as required by discovery laws?
Cochran also said there a fourth person’s blood under one of NBS’s finger nails, and he should have known that no such evidence existed. If this was an honest mistake (which I doubt), lets give the prosecution some slack for their mistakes.
And what about OJS’s various memory problems: inability to remember how he cut his hand, or even in which day or city he cut his hand, inability to remember what he was doing at the time of the murders.

[William Anthony]

The police had a 911 tape of NBS for that incident (October 1993), in which OJS angry shouts can be heard. That tape shocked a lot of people, including a niece of OJS who had been around him a lot. It would have damaged his public image, and therefore his earning power. I think the police had records of other incidents.

I think that most people realize that teeth and tongue fall out, occasionally. This would not have damaged him as much as facing a trial and possible incarceration for conspiracy, solicitation, murder or any other such crime, imho. My opinion is supported by the many discussions on this board. Despite the verdicts, some want to claim justice was done in one trial but not the other. I do not believe that any type of abuse should be condoned. I am not trying to trivialize his actions. I think the tapes could have easily been explained and forgiveness sought for his display on them without any significant damage done to his reputation or public image. I think the damage to his reputation and his public image was done after the criminal verdict was rendered, despite the fact he was found not guilty. This is what the possible planting accomplished, imho. I say possible, because there is room for doubt.
Whether that doubt is reasonable or not is another question, imho. I am not willing to say for a fact that MF planted the glove. I am willing to say that the evidence allows me to draw a reasonable inference that he did.

[William Anthony]

After the criminal trial, the jury foreman, A. Cooley, said that she didn't see how MF could have seen so much blood on the bronco with only a small flashlight, unless he had 'superhuman vision'.
The raises a point. Since MF had only a small penlight, how could he have seen a second glove where cops with better flashlights didn't see it?
Also this raises a point about the jury. They had no basis to say what MF could have seen on the bronco, I don't think they ever saw the bronco, and the certainly didn't see it at night. I don't think it would be possible to recreate the lighting that was there that night, so what MF could or couldn't see is hardly something they could judge very well. i suppose it would be asking too much to have the dream team fans to look at the mistakes the jury and the deam team made.
To get to another point. WA and Martian have harshly criticized D Fung and the police nurse for having memory problems. What about Cochran’s memory problems? In his opening statement he said he would call 14 witnesses to testify to various things, and he forgot to notify the prosecution as required by discovery laws?
Cochran also said there a fourth person’s blood under one of NBS’s finger nails, and he should have known that no such evidence existed. If this was an honest mistake (which I doubt), lets give the prosecution some slack for their mistakes.
And what about OJS’s various memory problems: inability to remember how he cut his hand, or even in which day or city he cut his hand, inability to remember what he was doing at the time of the murders.

Let me begin at the end. His inability to recall what he was doing at the time of the murders points toward not guilty, imho. It would seem to me that a murderer would know the time of death and do all within his/her/their power to come up with an alibi.

I will have to look at the magnificent JC's opening to see exactly what he said. I know that there was a blood type identified that was inconsistent with Nicole's, Ron's and Simpson's. I guess that would be evidence of a fourth person.

It was the duty of the jury to weigh and assign credibility to the evidence.

In regard to the flashlight and what was able to be seen, MF was at a different vantage point when he said he saw them. I am not sure, if any officers testified they used their flashlights from that vantage point.

The burden of proof was on the prosecution. The witnesses they put on wanted the jury and others to believe what they said, because they had faulty memories. ???

[weezer]

Let me begin at the end. His inability to recall what he was doing at the time of the murders points toward not guilty, imho. It would seem to me that a murderer would know the time of death and do all within his/her/their power to come up with an alibi.

I will have to look at the magnificent JC's opening to see exactly what he said. I know that there was a blood type identified that was inconsistent with Nicole's, Ron's and Simpson's. I guess that would be evidence of a fourth person.

It was the duty of the jury to weigh and assign credibility to the evidence.

In regard to the flashlight and what was able to be seen, MF was at a different vantage point when he said he saw them. I am not sure, if any officers testified they used their flashlights from that vantage point.

The burden of proof was on the prosecution. The witnesses they put on wanted the jury and others to believe what they said, because they had faulty memories. ???

you are certainly entitled to your opinion and interpretation but you really must stop the inaccurate posts. The only blood at the murder scene identified as being inconsistent with Ron and Nicole's blood types, belonged to orenthal james simpson.

[William Anthony]

you are certainly entitled to your opinion and interpretation but you really must stop the inaccurate posts. The only blood at the murder scene identified as being inconsistent with Ron and Nicole's blood types, belonged to orenthal james simpson.

The was testimony that there was a type A or B blood type found. I forget which one. There was testimony that it was that particular type and that degradation could have caused the AB type to degrade to the other type.The facts are that it was identified as a type that did not belong to Simpson, Nicole or Ronald Goldman. The argument could be made that the blood degraded to that particular type or that there was a fourth person at the scene. There was an unidentified Caucasian hair found at the scene. It was not identified as Nicole's Ronald's and certainly not Simpson's. The argument could be made that it was a naturally shed hair of Ronald Goldman and the argument could be made that it belonged to the person with either the type A or B blood. My post was in regard to another poster's post that no such evidence existed for the magnificent JC to say there was a fourth person at the scene. With all due respect, there was such evidence and my post was not inaccurate.

[weezer]

The was testimony that there was a type A or B blood type found. I forget which one. There was testimony that it was that particular type and that degradation could have caused the AB type to degrade to the other type.The facts are that it was identified as a type that did not belong to Simpson, Nicole or Ronald Goldman. The argument could be made that the blood degraded to that particular type or that there was a fourth person at the scene. There was an unidentified Caucasian hair found at the scene. It was not identified as Nicole's Ronald's and certainly not Simpson's. The argument could be made that it was a naturally shed hair of Ronald Goldman and the argument could be made that it belonged to the person with either the type A or B blood. My post was in regard to another poster's post that no such evidence existed for the magnificent JC to say there was a fourth person at the scene. With all due respect, there was such evidence and my post was not inaccurate.

your post is inaccurate when you post as fact. there was no blood or hair attributable to anyone but orenthal james simpson and the two human beings he butchered: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

[William Anthony]

your post is inaccurate when you post as fact. there was no blood or hair attributable to anyone but orenthal james simpson and the two human beings he butchered: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

I posted the evidence and the arguments that could be made there to.

Here is testimony from May 2,

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And I want to ask you some questions about your report as to the results on those items. Can you see the paragraph that says 84-A and b?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: And does that relate your findings with respect to the fingernail scrapings underneath the fingernails on 84-A and b?

MR. MATHESON: It's a narrative explanation of the results, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us what you wrote there as depicted on this particular report, if you can read it off the screen?

MR. MATHESON: Yes. It says: "Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson. However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. So would it be a fair reading of the report if someone were to say that this categorically excluded Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson of being a donor of the material underneath the fingernail?

MR. MATHESON: Well, categorically excludes two of them. It does not absolutely exclude Nicole Simpson or Nicole Brown.

MR. GOLDBERG: What about Nicole Brown? Okay. Now, when you wrote that second sentence, that Nicole Brown could not be excluded as a possible donor, why did you write that?

MR. MATHESON: The reason that it's in there is first off, there's two markers that were identified in those items, the PGM subtype and the EAP. Used the PGM subtype to eliminate the other two parties involved. That left Nicole Brown. And then this issue knowing that a BA can be degraded into a B, I wanted to include that in there so that there was no confusion as to an absolute statement of exclusion on her part."

[martin II]

After the criminal trial, the jury foreman, A. Cooley, said that she didn't see how MF could have seen so much blood on the bronco with only a small flashlight, unless he had 'superhuman vision'.
The raises a point. Since MF had only a small penlight, how could he have seen a second glove where cops with better flashlights didn't see it?
Also this raises a point about the jury. They had no basis to say what MF could have seen on the bronco, I don't think they ever saw the bronco, and the certainly didn't see it at night. I don't think it would be possible to recreate the lighting that was there that night, so what MF could or couldn't see is hardly something they could judge very well. i suppose it would be asking too much to have the dream team fans to look at the mistakes the jury and the deam team made.
To get to another point. WA and Martian have harshly criticized D Fung and the police nurse for having memory problems. What about Cochran’s memory problems? In his opening statement he said he would call 14 witnesses to testify to various things, and he forgot to notify the prosecution as required by discovery laws?
Cochran also said there a fourth person’s blood under one of NBS’s finger nails, and he should have known that no such evidence existed. If this was an honest mistake (which I doubt), lets give the prosecution some slack for their mistakes.
And what about OJS’s various memory problems: inability to remember how he cut his hand, or even in which day or city he cut his hand, inability to remember what he was doing at the time of the murders.

From memory, there was never any 'SO MUCH' blood seen on the bronco.
Furhman testified that he saw a small spot (that looked like it was brown)
on the outside of the bronco. I think you may have misquoted the jury member as most of the blood associated with the bronco was inside. imo

[William Anthony]

Testimony from May 8

"MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, would you agree that the code of ethics of your organization that you are a member of provide that: "The criminalist will be alert to recognize the significance of a test result as it may relate to the investigative aspects of a case. In this--" I'm sorry. I got it backwards. Let me read the other one. Would you agree that one of those provisions provides that: "Where test results are capable of being interpreted to the advantage of either side of a case, the criminalist will not choose that interpretation favoring the side which he is employed merely as a means of justifying his employment"? Do you agree that that's one of the provisions of your code of ethics?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: Could we see the next slide, please?

MR. BLASIER: Do you also agree that one of the provisions of your code of ethics is that: "The criminalist will be alert to recognize the significance of a test result as it may relate to the investigative aspects of a case. In this respect, however--in this respect, he will, however, scrupulously avoid confusing scientific fact with investigative theory in his interpretations"? Do you agree that that's one of the provisions of your code of ethics?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And do you agree that there is no scientific support for your testimony that a BA can degrade to the point where you have two B bands remaining?

MR. MATHESON: No, I do not."

[William Anthony]

Testimony from May 5

"MR. BLASIER: Now, you recall yesterday we had a slide similar to this to illustrate the path of degradation of a BA down to a b, correct?

MR. MATHESON: It had similarities to this, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, one article that you were shown by or asked about by Mr. Goldberg on redirect was the Yeshion article. Remember that?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And you testified that article said nothing about the manner in which a BA degrades in terms of which bands disappear first. Remember that?

MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Do you recall testifying that that article did not describe the path of degradation of a BA?

MR. GOLDBERG: No. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: My understanding of the article is that I believe it describes a different--the focus of the article is a different degradation, the B to a CB or something like that.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Let me show you that article and ask you to read the first paragraph under "discussion."

MR. MATHESON: Okay. Under discussion, it says, "several studies--"

THE COURT: Just read it to yourself.

MR. MATHESON: Oh, I'm sorry.

(The witness complies.)

MR. MATHESON: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: Now, that article does describe the path of degradation in terms of which bands disappear first, doesn't it?

MR. MATHESON: It does have a two-line reference to it, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And it--and it--it refers to that as being an analysis of other literature on the topic, correct?

MR. MATHESON: It references several studies, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And it says that all of those studies describe the path of degradation the way I did on my cross-examination with you, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.

MR. BLASIER: Not the way you described it, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, Mr. Matheson did describe it in one way.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Not the way you described it as a result--as leading to two B bands, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you were asked a question about the book that you had referred to, the Saferstein book. Do you recall that?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And the chapter of that book that you were referring to is actually written by Dr. Sensabaugh, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I believe we mentioned that.

MR. BLASIER: And he--I'm sorry. And he's the same author that--of the article that I provided to you during cross-examination, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And that article, the portion that you read from that article describes one other possible path of degradation for a BA, correct?

MR. MATHESON: I think gave indication of that, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And could you read again the--starting at the "thus" which you started--which you read yesterday and read down to where it says "two."

MR. MATHESON: Where it says what?

MR. BLASIER: Where--the next sentence where it starts with "two."

MR. MATHESON: Oh, okay. Am I reading this one out loud?

MR. BLASIER: Sure.

MR. MATHESON: "Thus one might expect the a bands in BA and CA types to be lost before the B or C bands are lost. And this in fact has been observed." that's the end of the sentence.

MR. BLASIER: Read the next sentence.

MR. MATHESON: "In typing aged type BA bloodstains, for example, only the major B band," and then in parenthesis, "The anodal B band may be apparent and the temptation would be to type the sample as a B type."

MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that what that says is that you might also get a path of degradation that leads you to just seeing the b-2 band and nothing else?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And then the next part of that says what?

MR. MATHESON: "Since it has been observed that in aged BA bloodstains, the slow B band is generally lost before the fast a band, the controlling rule is to withhold judgment on a punitive B type until both B bands are apparent. If the sample is in fact a BA type, the major a band should be apparent by that time."

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that what that says is that if you have both B bands, b-2 and b-2, that that cannot be a degraded BA?

MR. MATHESON: No. I believe it says things like "generally" and "should." it's not an absolute.

MR. BLASIER: Can you cite me to a single scientific reference that says that a BA can degrade to the point where you have two B bands and nothing else?

MR. MATHESON: No, I can not."

[William Anthony]

I think apologies might be in order when a poster accuses a poster of posting something he/she did not and the poster posts evidence to support what he/she actually posted. I think this will go a long way in improving this community.

[bobaugust]

I think apologies might be in order when a poster accuses a poster of posting something he/she did not and the poster posts evidence to support what he/she actually posted. I think this will go a long way in improving this community.

May 8, 1995 Dr. Robin Cotton

MR. CLARKE: With regard to no. 84-a the left nail clippings and scrapings, did you test that particular item?
DR. COTTON: Yes, we did.
MR. CLARKE: And did you observe that or was it tested using PCR?
DR. COTTON: Yes, it was.
MR. CLARKE: With what results?
DR. COTTON: We are now on 84-a?
MR. CLARKE: Yes.
DR. COTTON: Okay. The results from the PCR testing on 84-a are consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson and exclude Ronald Goldman and Mr. Simpson.
MR. CLARKE: All right. And that was at again six genetic markers?
DR. COTTON: That's right.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I posted the evidence and the arguments that could be made there to.

Here is testimony from May 2,

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And I want to ask you some questions about your report as to the results on those items. Can you see the paragraph that says 84-A and b?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: And does that relate your findings with respect to the fingernail scrapings underneath the fingernails on 84-A and b?

MR. MATHESON: It's a narrative explanation of the results, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us what you wrote there as depicted on this particular report, if you can read it off the screen?

MR. MATHESON: Yes. It says: "Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson. However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. So would it be a fair reading of the report if someone were to say that this categorically excluded Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson of being a donor of the material underneath the fingernail?

MR. MATHESON: Well, categorically excludes two of them. It does not absolutely exclude Nicole Simpson or Nicole Brown.

MR. GOLDBERG: What about Nicole Brown? Okay. Now, when you wrote that second sentence, that Nicole Brown could not be excluded as a possible donor, why did you write that?

MR. MATHESON: The reason that it's in there is first off, there's two markers that were identified in those items, the PGM subtype and the EAP. Used the PGM subtype to eliminate the other two parties involved. That left Nicole Brown. And then this issue knowing that a BA can be degraded into a B, I wanted to include that in there so that there was no confusion as to an absolute statement of exclusion on her part."

william

Thanks. that supports your post.

:cool:

[William Anthony]

May 8, 1995 Dr. Robin Cotton

MR. CLARKE: With regard to no. 84-a the left nail clippings and scrapings, did you test that particular item?
DR. COTTON: Yes, we did.
MR. CLARKE: And did you observe that or was it tested using PCR?
DR. COTTON: Yes, it was.
MR. CLARKE: With what results?
DR. COTTON: We are now on 84-a?
MR. CLARKE: Yes.
DR. COTTON: Okay. The results from the PCR testing on 84-a are consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson and exclude Ronald Goldman and Mr. Simpson.
MR. CLARKE: All right. And that was at again six genetic markers?
DR. COTTON: That's right.

bobaugust

Just did a quick word search for scrapings and could not find it for May 8, 1995.

[William Anthony]

May 12, 1995

"MR. NEUFELD: Now, let's take a look first at the proficiency tests run by the California association of crime laboratory directors that you participated in in the year 1988. First of all, in that proficiency test did you have any incorrect exclusions?

DR. COTTON: No, we didn't.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, in that particular test, Dr. Cotton, you were given these different samples and you were asked to type them and determine which, if any, matched any of the other samples; is that correct, in the same batch?

DR. COTTON: That's right.

MR. NEUFELD: And at a subsequent point in time were you provided with a legend produced by the California association of crime lab directors telling you which samples in fact matched which other samples?

DR. COTTON: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you were provided with that legend, Dr. Cotton, didn't they tell you that items 70, 72 and 76 should all match one another?

DR. COTTON: That may be right. I don't have my copies with me. Umm, I do actually have them in the building, but I don't have them down here with me, so I might need to look at yours.

MR. NEUFELD: Fine. Next in order--

THE COURT: 1154.

(Deft's 1154 for id = 6-page report)

MR. NEUFELD: Which is a six-page report from the California association of crime laboratory directors.

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: I show you this exhibit, this five-page--I'm sorry, six-page document from the California association of crime lab directors and ask you if it refreshes your recollection as to whether or not items 70, 72 and 76 all come from the same source?

DR. COTTON: Yes, it does.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And now that it refreshes your recollection, is it in fact true that the way this test was set up that samples 70, 72 and 76 all originated from the same person?

DR. COTTON: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you did the DNA typing, "you" meaning Cellmark, not you personally necessarily, did the DNA typing on those three samples, didn't you conclude that although sample 70 and 72 matched one another, that sample 76 had a distinct pattern and did not match either 70 or 72?

DR. COTTON: That pretty much fits with my recollection, but of--if I'm remembering this group of three correctly, one of them is a mixture. You know, I don't have all my documentation of what we reported with me, so--

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Dr. Cotton, isn't it a fact--and by the way here, if you would like to refresh your recollection, here is Cellmark's report to the California association. And I would ask that this be marked next in line--next in order.

MR. NEUFELD: I want you to look at this.

DR. COTTON: (Witness complies.) Okay. Do you want to ask me your question again now?

MR. NEUFELD: Certainly. May I have that back or do you need to look at it when you answer it?

DR. COTTON: For a series of questions regarding this test, if I could have a copy of both the CACLD table and my report, it would make it a lot easier for me to answer the questions more easily.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Let me just ask you this question, and I will give you the report before you answer the question if you need it. All right?

DR. COTTON: Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: First of all, didn't you say in your report on this particular test--

THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Neufeld, you need a foundational question. Do you recognize what it is?

MR. NEUFELD: Do you recognize this three-page document that I just showed you?

DR. COTTON: Yes, I do.

MR. NEUFELD: And is it your final report to the California association of crime laboratory directors with respect to your results on the 1988 proficiency test that they gave you?



MR. NEUFELD: Would it?

DR. COTTON: I understand that it says that, but that doesn't give me any information. The mixture pattern was a problem and it doesn't provide any information about the pattern for 70, so--

MR. NEUFELD: Excuse me, Dr. Cotton.

MR. CLARKE: I'm sorry, could the witness finish her answer, please?

THE COURT: No. "So" is a pause clearly. Proceed.

DR. COTTON: Well, what I'm saying is I don't have enough information in front of me to give you a clearance as to whether or not that was not mentioned, because it was basically an inconclusive or whether or not we simply missed the--seeing the match and--and we could have made a match and did not.

MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Cotton, is there any qualification in this report, when you are describing the pattern comparisons of sample 70, which is not a mixture, with sample 72?

DR. COTTON: No, there isn't.

MR. NEUFELD: And of course in your laboratory you wouldn't have called a match if that pattern on item no. 70 wasn't sufficiently clear and robust to compare with 72; isn't that right?

DR. COTTON: That would be correct in general, but I remember that--I mean, I've looked at these films on several different occasions. They are not as good as the films that we produce now, and so there are things about those films that might lead to problems in interpretation.

MR. NEUFELD: And Dr. Cotton, you wouldn't have said in your report, quote, referring to item no. 76 "These patterns were suitable for comparison purposes but were not found in the other samples tested," unquote, unless that was true, would you?

DR. COTTON: No."

Garbage in, garbage out.

[William Anthony]

May 15

"MR. NEUFELD: And Dr. Cotton, on Friday during cross-examination you admitted that the no. 4 allele reflects the presence of a potential third person into that mixture; is that correct?

MR. CLARKE: Objection, vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. COTTON: The 4 allele, if you assume that there are three people, the 4 allele is a third person. Alternatively, the 4 allele could just be a second person.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, isn't that true in fact with--

DR. COTTON: You do--

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry.

DR. COTTON: You can't tell from this data whether there is two or three people there.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, in any instance where you have more than two alleles, let's say you have three or four alleles present, you can't tell whether it is a mixture of two people or more than two people, correct?

DR. COTTON: That's right.

MR. NEUFELD: It could be three people, right?

DR. COTTON: Could be.

MR. NEUFELD: It could be four people?

DR. COTTON: It could be.

MR. NEUFELD: Right. But if we are now simply referring to the column on that board, the second to the last column that says "not excluded," you would agree, I think you have already said, that Mr. Simpson cannot be excluded, correct?

DR. COTTON: That's right.

MR. NEUFELD: And I think you also said that you would agree that Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as well, correct?

DR. COTTON: That's right.

MR. NEUFELD: But you are also saying that you can't exclude some other person whose identity is unknown; isn't that correct, who possesses that 4 allele?

DR. COTTON: That's right."

[bobaugust]

Just did a quick word search for scrapings and could not find it for May 8, 1995.

Sorry, my mistake.

May 11, 1995 Dr. Robin Cotton

MR. CLARKE: With regard to no. 84-a the left nail clippings and scrapings, did you test that particular item?
DR. COTTON: Yes, we did.
MR. CLARKE: And did you observe that or was it tested using PCR?
DR. COTTON: Yes, it was.
MR. CLARKE: With what results?
DR. COTTON: We are now on 84-a?
MR. CLARKE: Yes.
DR. COTTON: Okay. The results from the PCR testing on 84-a are consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson and exclude Ronald Goldman and Mr. Simpson.
MR. CLARKE: All right. And that was at again six genetic markers?
DR. COTTON: That's right.

MR. CLARKE: All right. Your Honor, with the Court's permission as to that item, the left nail clippings and scrapings, I'm going to ask for permission to remove the covers.
THE COURT: Yes.
(Brief pause.)

MR. CLARKE: Turning your attention now to what is marked 84-a, the right nail clippings and scrapings from Nicole Brown, did you also perform testing on that item?
DR. COTTON: Yes, we did.
MR. CLARKE: With what result?
DR. COTTON: They are consistent with Nicole Brown and they exclude Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson.
MR. CLARKE: At the same six different markers?
DR. COTTON: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: May I ask for the same permission, your Honor?

THE COURT: Proceed.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. CLARKE: Does that mean, Dr. Cotton, that you obtained the exact same results for 84-a as you did for 84-b, the clipping?
DR. COTTON: It does.
MR. CLARKE: And then lastly, with regard to this item, 84-b, referring your attention to the right scrapings, did you also test those using PCR?
DR. COTTON: Yes, we did.
MR. CLARKE: With what results?
DR. COTTON: They are consistent with Nicole Brown and Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman are excluded.
MR. CLARKE: And were these the exact same results as in the earlier two nail clippings and scrapings results?
DR. COTTON: They are.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Sorry, my mistake.

May 11, 1995 Dr. Robin Cotton

MR. CLARKE: With regard to no. 84-a the left nail clippings and scrapings, did you test that particular item?
DR. COTTON: Yes, we did.
MR. CLARKE: And did you observe that or was it tested using PCR?
DR. COTTON: Yes, it was.
MR. CLARKE: With what results?
DR. COTTON: We are now on 84-a?
MR. CLARKE: Yes.
DR. COTTON: Okay. The results from the PCR testing on 84-a are consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson and exclude Ronald Goldman and Mr. Simpson.
MR. CLARKE: All right. And that was at again six genetic markers?
DR. COTTON: That's right.

MR. CLARKE: All right. Your Honor, with the Court's permission as to that item, the left nail clippings and scrapings, I'm going to ask for permission to remove the covers.
THE COURT: Yes.
(Brief pause.)

MR. CLARKE: Turning your attention now to what is marked 84-a, the right nail clippings and scrapings from Nicole Brown, did you also perform testing on that item?
DR. COTTON: Yes, we did.
MR. CLARKE: With what result?
DR. COTTON: They are consistent with Nicole Brown and they exclude Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson.
MR. CLARKE: At the same six different markers?
DR. COTTON: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: May I ask for the same permission, your Honor?

THE COURT: Proceed.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. CLARKE: Does that mean, Dr. Cotton, that you obtained the exact same results for 84-a as you did for 84-b, the clipping?
DR. COTTON: It does.
MR. CLARKE: And then lastly, with regard to this item, 84-b, referring your attention to the right scrapings, did you also test those using PCR?
DR. COTTON: Yes, we did.
MR. CLARKE: With what results?
DR. COTTON: They are consistent with Nicole Brown and Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman are excluded.
MR. CLARKE: And were these the exact same results as in the earlier two nail clippings and scrapings results?
DR. COTTON: They are.

bobaugust

yes and I will post the mistakes her lab made.

We can't be anymore specific about it. There's no flying DNA. And that is, you have to have appreciation of how mistakes can happen with this technology. And we learned something about that from Dr. Robin Cotton. If you recall, the California association of crime lab directors gave a proficiency test where they used degraded samples in 1989. And in this test, they gave samples to Cellmark and to other labs, and they were false positives and Cellmark got two false positives, the first and the second time. You remember what Dr. Cotton told you about what they learned of that? When they did these tests, the second one in particular, the way that they got a false positive through cross-contamination is that they had a degraded sample. And the CACAD study is the only one where they're really sending these labs degraded samples just like here. It's a degraded sample. That creates a risk of cross-contamination, when you degrade out the initial DNA. And the only thing--you recall this. The only thing they could isolate is that they were handling the reference sample at the same time they were handling the degraded sample. And what was interesting about her testimony is, she testified that they had a witness in the room. In other words, when they were doing these proficiency tests, they were witnessed. Each transfer was witnessed by somebody standing right there. And all they could reconstruct, all they could reconstruct at the end was that they had made a mistake. This discussion started at 27517. Mr. Neufeld was asking: "And you determined that it happened at some point during the extraction process? "Yes, in dealing with the sperm fractions. "But even to this date, Dr. Cotton, would it be fair to say you don't know how the accidental contamination occurred during the extraction process? "Yes, that would be fair to say. "Question: And would it also be fair to say this cross-contamination, this accidental cross-contamination happened in spite of the fact that all of the sample transfers were witnessed by a second person to make sure no errors occurred?

"Answer: You are exactly right." Now, just think of the analogy. This is 1989. Actually, the second one also happened in 1990.

[bobaugust]

yes and I will post the mistakes her lab made.

We can't be anymore specific about it. There's no flying DNA. And that is, you have to have appreciation of how mistakes can happen with this technology. And we learned something about that from Dr. Robin Cotton. If you recall, the California association of crime lab directors gave a proficiency test where they used degraded samples in 1989. And in this test, they gave samples to Cellmark and to other labs, and they were false positives and Cellmark got two false positives, the first and the second time. You remember what Dr. Cotton told you about what they learned of that? When they did these tests, the second one in particular, the way that they got a false positive through cross-contamination is that they had a degraded sample. And the CACAD study is the only one where they're really sending these labs degraded samples just like here. It's a degraded sample. That creates a risk of cross-contamination, when you degrade out the initial DNA. And the only thing--you recall this. The only thing they could isolate is that they were handling the reference sample at the same time they were handling the degraded sample. And what was interesting about her testimony is, she testified that they had a witness in the room. In other words, when they were doing these proficiency tests, they were witnessed. Each transfer was witnessed by somebody standing right there. And all they could reconstruct, all they could reconstruct at the end was that they had made a mistake. This discussion started at 27517. Mr. Neufeld was asking: "And you determined that it happened at some point during the extraction process? "Yes, in dealing with the sperm fractions. "But even to this date, Dr. Cotton, would it be fair to say you don't know how the accidental contamination occurred during the extraction process? "Yes, that would be fair to say. "Question: And would it also be fair to say this cross-contamination, this accidental cross-contamination happened in spite of the fact that all of the sample transfers were witnessed by a second person to make sure no errors occurred?

"Answer: You are exactly right." Now, just think of the analogy. This is 1989. Actually, the second one also happened in 1990.


Do you know of any evidence that a mistake was made when these tests were conducted?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Do you know of any evidence that a mistake was made when these tests were conducted?

bobaugust

Yes.

[bobaugust]

Yes.

Post it.

[William Anthony]

Post it.

It has been posted so many times that I really see no need to repost it. I think that, if you look at Barry's closing argument you will see the reference to the evidence you want posted. I think we need to be clear. When you speak of when these tests were conducted, you would include the evidence of improper collection methods, packaging and storing, contamination before the evidence was collected, cross contamination and Cotton's testimony on the effects of contamination upon degradation, as argued and pointed out by Barry. Oops, I think I posted it again, sorry.

[bobaugust]

It has been posted so many times that I really see no need to repost it. I think that, if you look at Barry's closing argument you will see the reference to the evidence you want posted. I think we need to be clear. When you speak of when these tests were conducted, you would include the evidence of improper collection methods, packaging and storing, contamination before the evidence was collected, cross contamination and Cotton's testimony on the effects of contamination upon degradation, as argued and pointed out by Barry. Oops, I think I posted it again, sorry.

You have not and can not post any evidence of any mistake made in the conducting of DNA testing on the finger nail scrapings from Nicole. The fact is that those test revealed only Nicole's DNA and that fact supports Matheson's testimony that the blood found under her finger nails on her hand that was lying in a pool of her own blood was her own degraded blood.


November 13, 1996 Dr. Cotton

Q. Okay. Now, we haven't put all of the test results that you got in connection with the Bundy crime scene on this board. But I'd like to ask you about one other one that you did. Did you do some testing on evidence item number 84?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us what evidence item number 84 is, please.
Q. The --
A. The item was broken down into -- there's fingernail clippings, fingernail scrapings from the right and left hand.
Q. And those are from the Nicole Brown fingernail scrapings?
A. That's right.
Q. From whom did you receive those fingernail scrapings?
A. We received extracted DNA from the California Department of Justice Lab.
Q. And did you subject those fingernail scrapings to any tests?
A. Yes, we did, the PM and the DQ Alpha 184 test.
Q. What test results did you get?
A. The test results we got were the same types as Nicole Brown's types.
Q. So the DQ Alpha type for the blood from under the fingernails was 1.1, 1.1?
A. That's right.
Q. The polymarker types in this AB, B system that you described before that matched Nicole at all five of those polymorphic marker locations?
A. That's right.

Q. These tests, this PCR test that you did on the fingernails, that's a sensitive test; isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you -- would you be able to determine from that test if any other person's blood was in with the blood that you tested? In other words, if there was more than one person's blood in there?
A. Well, I have to answer that yes and no.
Q. Okay.
A. Yes. It's a sensitive test, but it does have limitations. So you have to have enough blood to get a result. You could have a mixture of two people and have so little of one person and so much of the second person, that you would only see the major contributor. You could have a mixture of two people where the amounts in that mixture were more -- were more even and you would see both people. So, yes, it's a sensitive test. It will not always pick up a mixture, but it can pick up a mixture if two components are there in amounts. At least that would reflect a 1 to 20 or a -- or above. That is, the parts would be present 1 to 20 or one to one in that range.
Q. In other words, if you had one part of one person's blood and 20 parts of another person's 11 blood, you could detect both of their blood types?
A. You would possibly see that you had a mixture if you had one part, one part of one and five parts of the other, you would do that even better. If you had one part of one person and a hundred parts of another person, you wouldn't see that.
Q. And in this particular test for evidence item 84, did you see any evidence of any additional person other than the one who's types you obtained?
A. No.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You have not and can not post any evidence of any mistake made in the conducting of DNA testing on the finger nail scrapings from Nicole. The fact is that those test revealed only Nicole's DNA and that fact supports Matheson's testimony that the blood found under her finger nails on her hand that was lying in a pool of her own blood was her own degraded blood.


November 13, 1996 Dr. Cotton

Q. Okay. Now, we haven't put all of the test results that you got in connection with the Bundy crime scene on this board. But I'd like to ask you about one other one that you did. Did you do some testing on evidence item number 84?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us what evidence item number 84 is, please.
Q. The --
A. The item was broken down into -- there's fingernail clippings, fingernail scrapings from the right and left hand.
Q. And those are from the Nicole Brown fingernail scrapings?
A. That's right.
Q. From whom did you receive those fingernail scrapings?
A. We received extracted DNA from the California Department of Justice Lab.
Q. And did you subject those fingernail scrapings to any tests?
A. Yes, we did, the PM and the DQ Alpha 184 test.
Q. What test results did you get?
A. The test results we got were the same types as Nicole Brown's types.
Q. So the DQ Alpha type for the blood from under the fingernails was 1.1, 1.1?
A. That's right.
Q. The polymarker types in this AB, B system that you described before that matched Nicole at all five of those polymorphic marker locations?
A. That's right.

Q. These tests, this PCR test that you did on the fingernails, that's a sensitive test; isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you -- would you be able to determine from that test if any other person's blood was in with the blood that you tested? In other words, if there was more than one person's blood in there?
A. Well, I have to answer that yes and no.
Q. Okay.
A. Yes. It's a sensitive test, but it does have limitations. So you have to have enough blood to get a result. You could have a mixture of two people and have so little of one person and so much of the second person, that you would only see the major contributor. You could have a mixture of two people where the amounts in that mixture were more -- were more even and you would see both people. So, yes, it's a sensitive test. It will not always pick up a mixture, but it can pick up a mixture if two components are there in amounts. At least that would reflect a 1 to 20 or a -- or above. That is, the parts would be present 1 to 20 or one to one in that range.
Q. In other words, if you had one part of one person's blood and 20 parts of another person's 11 blood, you could detect both of their blood types?
A. You would possibly see that you had a mixture if you had one part, one part of one and five parts of the other, you would do that even better. If you had one part of one person and a hundred parts of another person, you wouldn't see that.
Q. And in this particular test for evidence item 84, did you see any evidence of any additional person other than the one who's types you obtained?
A. No.

bobaugust

With all due respect, this is the Issues in the Criminal Trial thread. I have posted what Cotton said, as argued by Barry, in the criminal trial and her testimony in the criminal trial that there could have been four people at the scene. If you want to start a thread about the Civil trial or a comparison of the two trials, that would be fine, imho.

[bobaugust]

With all due respect, this is the Issues in the Criminal Trial thread. I have posted what Cotton said, as argued by Barry, in the criminal trial and her testimony in the criminal trial that there could have been four people at the scene. If you want to start a thread about the Civil trial or a comparison of the two trials, that would be fine, imho.

It doesn't matter what you say you posted but what ever it was I don't believe it involved any mistake made by Dr. Cotton in the DNA testing of Nicole's fingernail scrapings. It you think it did then support your claim please and post it. Be sure and include the dates.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

It doesn't matter what you say you posted but what ever it was I don't believe it involved any mistake made by Dr. Cotton in the DNA testing of Nicole's fingernail scrapings. It you think it did then support your claim please and post it. Be sure and include the dates.

bobaugust

I think I explained my position clearly. I see no need to further explain. Garbage in, garbage out, in regard to the evidence that was submitted to her lab for testing.

[bobaugust]

I think I explained my position clearly. I see no need to further explain. Garbage in, garbage out, in regard to the evidence that was submitted to her lab for testing.

Right, when the evidence contradicts your beliefs simply call it garbage and that somehow proves you are right, funny. And now you are even calling the California Department of Justice Lab, garbage. Unbelievable. Your claims do not change the fact that Dr. Cotton made no mistakes in the testing of Nicole's fingernail scrapings. The fact is that there is absolutely no evidence that anyone else was at Bundy at the time of these murders except for three people, the two victims and Simpson. No matter how much you wish it to be different, it isn't.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Right, when the evidence contradicts your beliefs simply call it garbage and that somehow proves you are right, funny. And now you are even calling the California Department of Justice Lab, garbage. Unbelievable. Your claims do not change the fact that Dr. Cotton made no mistakes in the testing of Nicole's fingernail scrapings. The fact is that there is absolutely no evidence that anyone else was at Bundy at the time of these murders except for three people, the two victims and Simpson. No matter how much you wish it to be different, it isn't.

bobaugust

I think there might be a misunderstanding. I was talking about the tests that were done on the evidence from the Simpson case, when I said garbage in, garbage out. If you are talking about the proficiency tests, I have posted the wrong results.

[William Anthony]

May 12

"MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, Dr. Cotton, that degradation occurs more quickly under the combined effects of moisture and heat?

DR. COTTON: Yes, I would.

MR. NEUFELD: In your laboratory, Dr. Cotton, where you are the laboratory director, would it be scientifically acceptable to let wet plastic stains remain in sealed plastic bags--

THE COURT: Would you want to rephrase that. You said "Wet plastic stains."

MR. NEUFELD: Sorry. Because that is what I have written here. At least I can read correctly, your Honor. I just can't type correctly, I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Let me do it.

MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Cotton, in your laboratory would it be scientifically acceptable to let swatches of wet bloodstains remain in sealed plastic bags in the rear of a parked truck unrefrigerated and unair-conditioned in the middle of June for up to seven hours?

MR. CLARKE: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. COTTON: I don't think that would be my first choice, but please keep in mind that my laboratory doesn't collect evidence and so we don't collect it, we don't have a truck, we just receive it from someone else who has already collected it.

MR. NEUFELD: And as a result of that, Dr. Cotton, there is no way that you can control the extent to which the offering agency either degraded those samples or cross-contaminated those samples; isn't that right?

DR. COTTON: Of course."

[weezer]

May 12

"MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, Dr. Cotton, that degradation occurs more quickly under the combined effects of moisture and heat?

DR. COTTON: Yes, I would.

MR. NEUFELD: In your laboratory, Dr. Cotton, where you are the laboratory director, would it be scientifically acceptable to let wet plastic stains remain in sealed plastic bags--

THE COURT: Would you want to rephrase that. You said "Wet plastic stains."

MR. NEUFELD: Sorry. Because that is what I have written here. At least I can read correctly, your Honor. I just can't type correctly, I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Let me do it.

MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Cotton, in your laboratory would it be scientifically acceptable to let swatches of wet bloodstains remain in sealed plastic bags in the rear of a parked truck unrefrigerated and unair-conditioned in the middle of June for up to seven hours?

MR. CLARKE: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. COTTON: I don't think that would be my first choice, but please keep in mind that my laboratory doesn't collect evidence and so we don't collect it, we don't have a truck, we just receive it from someone else who has already collected it.

MR. NEUFELD: And as a result of that, Dr. Cotton, there is no way that you can control the extent to which the offering agency either degraded those samples or cross-contaminated those samples; isn't that right?

DR. COTTON: Of course."

and nothing could change someone else's DNA into orenthal's -- not cross contamination -- not poor collection techniqus -- nothing.

[bobaugust]

I think there might be a misunderstanding. I was talking about the tests that were done on the evidence from the Simpson case, when I said garbage in, garbage out. If you are talking about the proficiency tests, I have posted the wrong results.

I think you are misunderstanding, The discussion was about Nicole's fingernail scrapings and Matheson's testimony how BA blood can degrade to B. You brought up the subject of proficiency tests regarding Dr. Cotton's lab years before this case when you were informed that only Nicole's DNA was found in her fingernail scrapings. There was no evidence of a fourth person being involved in these murders.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

and nothing could change someone else's DNA into orenthal's -- not cross contamination -- not poor collection techniqus -- nothing.

Perhaps, you did not read what Barry said was her testimony on cross by Nufeld on the effects of cross-contamination, contamination and degradation. The problem is that they were using poor collection "techniqus" instead of proper collection techniques, imho.

[William Anthony]

I think you are misunderstanding, The discussion was about Nicole's fingernail scrapings and Matheson's testimony how BA blood can degrade to B. You brought up the subject of proficiency tests regarding Dr. Cotton's lab years before this case when you were informed that only Nicole's DNA was found in her fingernail scrapings. There was no evidence of a fourth person being involved in these murders.

bobaugust

I am certain that you misunderstand. The discussion was about the poster's post, which said there was no evidence for the magnificent one to say to the jury that there were four people at Bundy on June 12. I brought up testimony from the criminal trial to show what contamination, cross contamination and degradation have on making proper interpretation of test results. You brought up some testimony from the civil trial, of which the magnificent JC was not a part. I posted Cotton's testimony from the criminal trial in which she said four people could have contributed the allele she saw. This is the stuff from which excellent arguments are made. As I have said, if you want to start a thread to discuss issues in the civil trial or to compare the two trials, I will not object (pun intended).:)

[tv]

I am certain that you misunderstand. The discussion was about the poster's post, which said there was no evidence for the magnificent one to say to the jury that there were four people at Bundy on June 12. I brought up testimony from the criminal trial to show what contamination, cross contamination and degradation have on making proper interpretation of test results. You brought up some testimony from the civil trial, of which the magnificent JC was not a part. I posted Cotton's testimony from the criminal trial in which she said four people could have contributed the allele she saw. This is the stuff from which excellent arguments are made. As I have said, if you want to start a thread to discuss issues in the civil trial or to compare the two trials, I will not object (pun intended).:)William, why don't you just start the thread and get it over with?

[William Anthony]

William, why don't you just start the thread and get it over with?

It seems another poster is interested in posting testimony from the civil trial.

[tv]

It seems another poster is interested in posting testimony from the civil trial.For Pete's sake.

[bobaugust]

I am certain that you misunderstand. The discussion was about the poster's post, which said there was no evidence for the magnificent one to say to the jury that there were four people at Bundy on June 12. I brought up testimony from the criminal trial to show what contamination, cross contamination and degradation have on making proper interpretation of test results. You brought up some testimony from the civil trial, of which the magnificent JC was not a part. I posted Cotton's testimony from the criminal trial in which she said four people could have contributed the allele she saw. This is the stuff from which excellent arguments are made. As I have said, if you want to start a thread to discuss issues in the civil trial or to compare the two trials, I will not object (pun intended).:)

I posted Dr. Cotton's criminal trial and civil trial testimony about the DNA results from tests conducted on Nicole's fingernail scrapings. I have not seen any posted testimony where Dr. Cotton said that that four people could have contributed the allele she saw regarding this issue. Just in case you missed it I'm posting the criminal trial testimony again in which you first responded you would post the mistakes her lab made and then posted something that happened years before this case. There was no evidence found in Nicole's fingernail scrapings of a fourth person being involved in these murders.

May 11, 1995 Dr. Robin Cotton

MR. CLARKE: With regard to no. 84-a the left nail clippings and scrapings, did you test
that particular item?
DR. COTTON: Yes, we did.
MR. CLARKE: And did you observe that or was it tested using PCR?
DR. COTTON: Yes, it was.
MR. CLARKE: With what results?
DR. COTTON: We are now on 84-a?
MR. CLARKE: Yes.
DR. COTTON: Okay. The results from the PCR testing on 84-a are consistent with Nicole
Brown Simpson and exclude Ronald Goldman and Mr. Simpson.
MR. CLARKE: All right. And that was at again six genetic markers?
DR. COTTON: That's right.

MR. CLARKE: All right. Your Honor, with the Court's permission as to that item, the
left nail clippings and scrapings, I'm going to ask for permission to remove the covers.
THE COURT: Yes.
(Brief pause.)

MR. CLARKE: Turning your attention now to what is marked 84-a, the right nail clippings
and scrapings from Nicole Brown, did you also perform testing on that item?
DR. COTTON: Yes, we did.
MR. CLARKE: With what result?
DR. COTTON: They are consistent with Nicole Brown and they exclude Mr. Goldman and Mr.
Simpson.
MR. CLARKE: At the same six different markers?
DR. COTTON: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: May I ask for the same permission, your Honor?

THE COURT: Proceed.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. CLARKE: Does that mean, Dr. Cotton, that you obtained the exact same results for
84-a as you did for 84-b, the clipping?
DR. COTTON: It does.
MR. CLARKE: And then lastly, with regard to this item, 84-b, referring your attention
to the right scrapings, did you also test those using PCR?
DR. COTTON: Yes, we did.
MR. CLARKE: With what results?
DR. COTTON: They are consistent with Nicole Brown and Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman are
excluded.
MR. CLARKE: And were these the exact same results as in the earlier two nail clippings
and scrapings results?
DR. COTTON: They are.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I posted Dr. Cotton's criminal trial and civil trial testimony about the DNA results from tests conducted on Nicole's fingernail scrapings. I have not seen any posted testimony where Dr. Cotton said that that four people could have contributed the allele she saw regarding this issue. Just in case you missed it I'm posting the criminal trial testimony again in which you first responded you would post the mistakes her lab made and then posted something that happened years before this case. There was no evidence found in Nicole's fingernail scrapings of a fourth person being involved in these murders.

May 11, 1995 Dr. Robin Cotton

MR. CLARKE: With regard to no. 84-a the left nail clippings and scrapings, did you test
that particular item?
DR. COTTON: Yes, we did.
MR. CLARKE: And did you observe that or was it tested using PCR?
DR. COTTON: Yes, it was.
MR. CLARKE: With what results?
DR. COTTON: We are now on 84-a?
MR. CLARKE: Yes.
DR. COTTON: Okay. The results from the PCR testing on 84-a are consistent with Nicole
Brown Simpson and exclude Ronald Goldman and Mr. Simpson.
MR. CLARKE: All right. And that was at again six genetic markers?
DR. COTTON: That's right.

MR. CLARKE: All right. Your Honor, with the Court's permission as to that item, the
left nail clippings and scrapings, I'm going to ask for permission to remove the covers.
THE COURT: Yes.
(Brief pause.)

MR. CLARKE: Turning your attention now to what is marked 84-a, the right nail clippings
and scrapings from Nicole Brown, did you also perform testing on that item?
DR. COTTON: Yes, we did.
MR. CLARKE: With what result?
DR. COTTON: They are consistent with Nicole Brown and they exclude Mr. Goldman and Mr.
Simpson.
MR. CLARKE: At the same six different markers?
DR. COTTON: That's right.
MR. CLARKE: May I ask for the same permission, your Honor?

THE COURT: Proceed.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. CLARKE: Does that mean, Dr. Cotton, that you obtained the exact same results for
84-a as you did for 84-b, the clipping?
DR. COTTON: It does.
MR. CLARKE: And then lastly, with regard to this item, 84-b, referring your attention
to the right scrapings, did you also test those using PCR?
DR. COTTON: Yes, we did.
MR. CLARKE: With what results?
DR. COTTON: They are consistent with Nicole Brown and Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman are
excluded.
MR. CLARKE: And were these the exact same results as in the earlier two nail clippings
and scrapings results?
DR. COTTON: They are.

bobaugust

I posted the testimony about the allele and see no need to repost it and that it could have been four people. I posted testimony that showed by conventional blood typing Simpson, Goldman, and Brown were excluded from the results, not just 84-a but also 84-b, I reminded the poster of the unidentified Caucasian hair. This is the evidence that allowed the magnificent JC to argue there was a fourth person at Bundy. That was the topic of the discussion, because the poster claimed the evidence did not exist.

[William Anthony]

For Pete's sake.

No, for Bob's sake. :)

[bobaugust]

I posted the testimony about the allele and see no need to repost it and that it could have been four people. I posted testimony that showed by conventional blood typing Simpson, Goldman, and Brown were excluded from the results, not just 84-a but also 84-b, I reminded the poster of the unidentified Caucasian hair. This is the evidence that allowed the magnificent JC to argue there was a fourth person at Bundy. That was the topic of the discussion, because the poster claimed the evidence did not exist.

You evidently feel no need to post this supposed testimony because it has nothing to do with Nicole's fingernail scrapings. So post the message number where you say you posted this testimony please so that we can see if it actually says what you claim it says. Nicole Brown was not excluded as a source of the stain if it was her degraded blood.. The short light brown Caucasian hair found on the killer's right hand glove is not evidence of a fourth person being at Bundy since it was more likely Ron Goldman's hair.


May 2, 1995
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us what you wrote there as depicted on this particular report, if you can read it off the screen?

MR. MATHESON: Yes. It says: "Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson. However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. So would it be a fair reading of the report if someone were to say that this categorically excluded Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson of being a donor of the material underneath the fingernail?

MR. MATHESON: Well, categorically excludes two of them. It does not absolutely exclude Nicole Simpson or Nicole Brown.

MR. GOLDBERG: What about Nicole Brown? Okay. Now, when you wrote that second sentence, that Nicole Brown could not be excluded as a possible donor, why did you write that?

MR. MATHESON: The reason that it's in there is first off, there's two markers that were identified in those items, the PGM subtype and the EAP. Used the PGM subtype to eliminate the other two parties involved. That left Nicole Brown. And then this issue knowing that a BA can be degraded into a B, I wanted to include that in there so that there was no confusion as to an absolute statement of exclusion on her part.


June 30, 1995
MS. CLARK: Okay. Of all of the samples that you compared, including those of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, was there any one sample that did come close to exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics as those in the short light brown Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: The only sample that had an area of the hair that was close was the known sample from Ronald Goldman, and that would have been the proximal portion of the hair only, that nearest the root.

MS. CLARK: And that hair on the Rockingham glove, that was naturally shed?

MR. DEEDRICK: That was naturally shed and it was about an inch long, right, and his hairs were about five or so, five and a half.

MS. CLARK: And you had no naturally shed hairs from the Coroner's office for Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: Do people shed their hairs--I think you indicated earlier--naturally every day on their clothing, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I've read a hundred hairs a day may be shed during the day.

MS. CLARK: Let me pose to you a hypothetical, sir. If Ronald Goldman at the time that he was attacked had naturally shed hairs already on his shirt and then was attacked by the killer wearing the glove found at Rockingham, could that account for the naturally shed hair found on the Rockingham glove that did not exactly exhibit the same
characteristics microscopically as those of Ronald Goldman?

MR. BAILEY: Object, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: I've stated previously that hairs can be transferred either directly from the head, which would be a primary type transfer, or secondarily. Hairs that are found on the clothing of an individual may be transferred during that contact just as well, and it happens frequently. So the possibility does exist that that hair may have been on the clothing of Ron Goldman during the contact and been exchanged.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Nicole Brown was not excluded as a source of the stain if it was her degraded blood.. The short light brown Caucasian hair found on the killer's right hand glove is not evidence of a fourth person being at Bundy since it was more likely Ron Goldman's hair.


May 2, 1995
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us what you wrote there as depicted on this particular report, if you can read it off the screen?

MR. MATHESON: Yes. It says: "Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson.


June 30, 1995
MS. CLARK: Okay. Of all of the samples that you compared, including those of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, was there any one sample that did come close to exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics as those in the short light brown Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: The only sample that had an area of the hair that was close was the known sample from Ronald Goldman, and that would have been the proximal portion of the hair only, that nearest the root.

MS. CLARK: And that hair on the Rockingham glove, that was naturally shed?

MR. DEEDRICK: That was naturally shed and it was about an inch long, right, and his hairs were about five or so, five and a half.

MS. CLARK: And you had no naturally shed hairs from the Coroner's office for Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: Do people shed their hairs--I think you indicated earlier--naturally every day on their clothing, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I've read a hundred hairs a day may be shed during the day.

MS. CLARK: Let me pose to you a hypothetical, sir. If Ronald Goldman at the time that he was attacked had naturally shed hairs already on his shirt and then was attacked by the killer wearing the glove found at Rockingham, could that account for the naturally shed hair found on the Rockingham glove that did not exactly exhibit the same
characteristics microscopically as those of Ronald Goldman?

MR. BAILEY: Object, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: I've stated previously that hairs can be transferred either directly from the head, which would be a primary type transfer, or secondarily. Hairs that are found on the clothing of an individual may be transferred during that contact just as well, and it happens frequently. So the possibility does exist that that hair may have been on the clothing of Ron Goldman during the contact and been exchanged.

bobaugust

I do not need to post about the blood found under the fingernails as you have posted it and to include his direct exclusion of Simpson, Goldman and Nicole. His speculations of what could be means nothing. Who he expressly excluded does.

As far as the hair goes, coulda, shoulda, woulda, comes to mind.

I repeat the evidence was there for the magnificent JC to make the argument he made.

[weezer]

I do not need to post about the blood found under the fingernails as you have posted it and to include his direct exclusion of Simpson, Goldman and Nicole. His speculations of what could be means nothing. Who he expressly excluded does.

As far as the hair goes, coulda, shoulda, woulda, comes to mind.

I repeat the evidence was there for the magnificent JC to make the argument he made.

you don't happen to know what kind of car jc drove do you?

[William Anthony]

you don't happen to know what kind of car jc drove do you?

No, but I'll bet it was an eloquent, classy, stylish, one with winning lines that were admired by all who had the ability to appreciate it when they saw it.

[weezer]

No, but I'll bet it was an eloquent, classy, stylish, one with winning lines that were admired by all who had the ability to appreciate it when they saw it.

that's kinda what I thought too -- it might have even looked 'exactly' like the one orenthal used to drive. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

that's kinda what I thought too -- it might have even looked 'exactly' like the one orenthal used to drive. :tongue:

No, Simpson drove a Bronco, except for the night of June 12, 1994, or at least there is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he drove it on the aforementioned night.

[tv]

No, Simpson drove a Bronco, except for the night of June 12, 1994, or at least there is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he drove it on the aforementioned night.Jill Shively and the man walking his dog down Rockingham that night would disagree. :)

[bobaugust]

I do not need to post about the blood found under the fingernails as you have posted it and to include his direct exclusion of Simpson, Goldman and Nicole. His speculations of what could be means nothing. Who he expressly excluded does.

As far as the hair goes, coulda, shoulda, woulda, comes to mind.

I repeat the evidence was there for the magnificent JC to make the argument he made.

Matheson was not speculating that AB blood degrades to B. Dr. Cotton was not speculating when she testified that only Nicole's DNA was found in the the scrapings from Nicole's fingernails. Deedrick was not speculating when he testified that the short light brown hair had some of the same characteristics as Ron Goldman's hair. Cochran was the one speculating if he said what you claim he said that these two pieces of physical evidence is evidence of a fourth person at Bundy.

I respectfully request that you stop cutting portions of testimony to try to deceivingly support your claims. Yes Matheson started his report saying that "Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson." and continued with "However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."

And that's exactly what happened. Nicole's BA blood degraded to B and when the blood was tested for DNA only Nicole's DNA was found proving the blood under her fingernails was her blood not some fourth person's blood.

It seems not only are you refusing to support your claim that you posted some testimony where Dr. Cotton said four people could have contributed the allele she saw but now you even refuse to post the message number of the post where you say you posted that testimony. I can only conclude that what you actually posted, if indeed you did post some testimony, does not say what you claim it says unless you can support what you said.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

No, Simpson drove a Bronco, except for the night of June 12, 1994, or at least there is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he drove it on the aforementioned night.

The fact is that Simpson's Bronco was not parked on Rockingham at 10:22 PM or at about 10:40. Simpson was not seen or heard on his estate until about 10:55 PM. Simpson's blood was later found splattered all around the interior of the Bronco and mixed with both victims blood in some blood stains on the center console. If Simpson wasn't the one driving his Bronco that night who do you think his driver was?

bobaugust

[martin II]

Jill Shively and the man walking his dog down Rockingham that night would disagree. :)

If i can find the story of the man walking the dog on Rockingham i will post it for you.He was suspect because of the way he interjected himself into the case. I think he was north of ashford when he walked his dog.

[William Anthony]

Jill Shively and the man walking his dog down Rockingham that night would disagree. :)

Jill Shively did not testify in either trial, because neither the prosecution nor the plaintiff's had a belief that her testimony was credible beyond a reasonable doubt, imho. Even if you believe she did see Simpson, he could not have dropped the glove at Rockingham due to the time she claimed to have seen Simpson.

[William Anthony]

Matheson was not speculating that AB blood degrades to B. Dr. Cotton was not speculating when she testified that only Nicole's DNA was found in the the scrapings from Nicole's fingernails. Deedrick was not speculating when he testified that the short light brown hair had some of the same characteristics as Ron Goldman's hair. Cochran was the one speculating if he said what you claim he said that these two pieces of physical evidence is evidence of a fourth person at Bundy.

Yes Matheson started his report saying that "Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson." and continued with "However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."


I can only conclude that what you actually posted, if indeed you did post some testimony, does not say what you claim it says unless you can support what you said.

bobaugust

Let's start at the end. I have posted the testimony. It is not my job to point out to you what I posted, unless I choose to so do. Let me respectfully say it is not your job to say that something I posted did not support my position that cotton could not exclude for people as the being the contributor of the allele, unless you can support that as I have done with your posts, imho.

[William Anthony]

Matheson was not speculating that AB blood degrades to B. Dr. Cotton was not speculating when she testified that only Nicole's DNA was found in the the scrapings from Nicole's fingernails. Deedrick was not speculating when he testified that the short light brown hair had some of the same characteristics as Ron Goldman's hair. Cochran was the one speculating if he said what you claim he said that these two pieces of physical evidence is evidence of a fourth person at Bundy.

I respectfully request that you stop cutting portions of testimony to try to deceivingly support your claims. Yes Matheson started his report saying that "Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson." and continued with "However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."

And that's exactly what happened. Nicole's BA blood degraded to B and when the blood was tested for DNA only Nicole's DNA was found proving the blood under her fingernails was her blood not some fourth person's blood.

It seems not only are you refusing to support your claim that you posted some testimony where Dr. Cotton said four people could have contributed the allele she saw but now you even refuse to post the message number of the post where you say you posted that testimony. I can only conclude that what you actually posted, if indeed you did post some testimony, does not say what you claim it says unless you can support what you said.

bobaugust

Let's start at the end. I have posted the testimony. It is not my job to point out to you what I posted, unless I choose to so do. Let me respectfully say it is not your job to say that something I posted did not support my position that cotton could not exclude for people as the being the contributor of the allele, unless you can support that as I have done with your posts, imho.

Matheson said if the blood degraded it could be Nicole's. That is speculating that it did degrade. Let me respectfully connect the dots for you. Fingernail scrapings are not blood. You are assuming that Nicole did not scratch the killer when she was struggling for her life. You bring in a totally irrelevant and non germane piece of evidence to attempt to negate Matheson's conclusion that the blood under her fingernails did not come from Simpson, Goldman or Nicole. You are comparing apples with hard heads, imho, and your entire hypothesis is not supported by any evidence that Nicole did not scratch her killer. The fact that there was no one else's DNA found under her fingernails, does not account for the body being moved or the blanket being injected into the crime scene, nor does it account for the fact that she may have touched a part of the killer's body that was bleeding. These are the reasons that the magnificent JC could make the argument he made without misstating the evidence, despite anyone's claim that the evidence did not exist that a fourth person was at Bundy, i.e. meaning the killer.

As to the testimony that hair has some of the same characteristics of some other hair, assuming that you are Caucasian and not totally bald and have the same color hair as Ronald, I'll bet that your hair has some of the same characteristics as Ronald's. The fact, which you wish to change is that it was an unidentified Caucasian hair, which is evidence that it was proper to argue that a fourth person was at the scene.

[William Anthony]

The fact is that Simpson's Bronco was not parked on Rockingham at 10:22 PM or at about 10:40. Simpson was not seen or heard on his estate until about 10:55 PM. Simpson's blood was later found splattered all around the interior of the Bronco and mixed with both victims blood in some blood stains on the center console. If Simpson wasn't the one driving his Bronco that night who do you think his driver was?

bobaugust

I am sure you understand the concept of planting evidence in connection with"beyond a reasonable doubt." The prosecution did not produce any evidence during the trial that Simpson was not on his estate from at or about the times in your post.

[martin II]

I don't believe charles Cale would be able to see the bronco at the rock gate from where he said he was.
He had tried to get the community to force oj to move.
He was a lawyer,self employed private investigator and regardless on modia reports he did not know the bronco on rockingham had anything to do with the murders until January. hhmm
imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

I don't believe charles Cale would be able to see the bronco at the rock gate from where he said he was.
He had tried to get the community to force oj to move.
He was a lawyer,self employed private investigator and regardless on modia reports he did not know the bronco on rockingham had anything to do with the murders until January. hhmm
imo
martin II

So, he was not a part of the criminal case, and in January he had a June recollection, correct?

[William Anthony]

Correction/edit

Let me respectfully say it is not your job to say that something I posted did not support my position that cotton could not exclude four people as the being the contributor of the allele, unless you can support that as I have done with your posts, imho.

[William Anthony]

I don't believe charles Cale would be able to see the bronco at the rock gate from where he said he was.
He had tried to get the community to force oj to move.

He was a lawyer,self employed private investigator and regardless on modia reports he did not know the bronco on rockingham had anything to do with the murders until January. hhmm
imo
martin II

I did read his testimony and see that he was a part of the trial. I don't understand Shiparo's questions about the limousine and the driver. I see why he had such a small role in the trial. There was an obvious question that I don't recall him asking. I am going to reread it so that I can be sure, before I post about it. The question was could he say for certain that the Bronco was not inside Simpson's property in the Rockingham driveway closer to the entrance to the home. In Shiparo's defense, he indicated that he was unprepared, because Cale would not talk with him.

[William Anthony]

Cross contamination and degradation leads to false positives.

"If you recall, the California association of crime lab directors gave a proficiency test where they used degraded samples in 1989. And in this test, they gave samples to Cellmark and to other labs, and they were false positives and Cellmark got two false positives, the first and the second time. You remember what Dr. Cotton told you about what they learned of that? When they did these tests, the second one in particular, the way that they got a false positive through cross-contamination is that they had a degraded sample."

If you believe the fingernail scrapings touched the degraded blood, if you believe the blood degraded from AB to B, then you can't trust the fingernail scrapings results, imho. This is the problem with the prosecution's argument, imho. If you believe there was degradation, then the results are consistent with Nicole. If you believe there was no degradation, then the results are consistent with Nicole. I want to eat this cake but still have it to eat.

[martin II]

I did read his testimony and see that he was a part of the trial. I don't understand Shiparo's questions about the limousine and the driver. I see why he had such a small role in the trial. There was an obvious question that I don't recall him asking. I am going to reread it so that I can be sure, before I post about it. The question was could he say for certain that the Bronco was not inside Simpson's property in the Rockingham driveway closer to the entrance to the home. In Shiparo's defense, he indicated that he was unprepared, because Cale would not talk with him.

From where Cale said he stood, there is a small lamp at Ashford & rockingham
and he was some ways away from that corner. That lamp illumination stoped
long before the place where the bronco was found. Since he said that street
was always very dark, i don't see how he could have been close enough to see the bronco at 200 ft.

It was reported that he wanted to be in the case but did not want to come forward himself. So he had a friend call the DA and ask them to contact him,
6 months after the murders.imo

[martin II]

Cross contamination and degradation leads to false positives.

"If you recall, the California association of crime lab directors gave a proficiency test where they used degraded samples in 1989. And in this test, they gave samples to Cellmark and to other labs, and they were false positives and Cellmark got two false positives, the first and the second time. You remember what Dr. Cotton told you about what they learned of that? When they did these tests, the second one in particular, the way that they got a false positive through cross-contamination is that they had a degraded sample."

If you believe the fingernail scrapings touched the degraded blood, if you believe the blood degraded from AB to B, then you can't trust the fingernail scrapings results, imho. This is the problem with the prosecution's argument, imho. If you believe there was degradation, then the results are consistent with Nicole. If you believe there was no degradation, then the results are consistent with Nicole. I want to eat this cake but still have it to eat.

That was only ONE of the problems with this junk case.

[bobaugust]

Let's start at the end. I have posted the testimony. It is not my job to point out to you what I posted, unless I choose to so do. Let me respectfully say it is not your job to say that something I posted did not support my position that cotton could not exclude for people as the being the contributor of the allele, unless you can support that as I have done with your posts, imho.

William, you say you posted some testimony where Dr. Cotton said four people could have contributed the allele she saw. I've read your messages where you posted testimony regarding fingernail scrapings and I do not see any testimony where Dr. Cotton said that. I asked you to either repost the testimony or just provide the message number of the post that includes that testimony so I can read it for myself. For some reason you refuse to do either. It's your job to support a statement of fact that you have made.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Let's start at the end. I have posted the testimony. It is not my job to point out to you what I posted, unless I choose to so do. Let me respectfully say it is not your job to say that something I posted did not support my position that cotton could not exclude for people as the being the contributor of the allele, unless you can support that as I have done with your posts, imho.

Matheson said if the blood degraded it could be Nicole's. That is speculating that it did degrade. Let me respectfully connect the dots for you. Fingernail scrapings are not blood. You are assuming that Nicole did not scratch the killer when she was struggling for her life. You bring in a totally irrelevant and non germane piece of evidence to attempt to negate Matheson's conclusion that the blood under her fingernails did not come from Simpson, Goldman or Nicole. You are comparing apples with hard heads, imho, and your entire hypothesis is not supported by any evidence that Nicole did not scratch her killer. The fact that there was no one else's DNA found under her fingernails, does not account for the body being moved or the blanket being injected into the crime scene, nor does it account for the fact that she may have touched a part of the killer's body that was bleeding. These are the reasons that the magnificent JC could make the argument he made without misstating the evidence, despite anyone's claim that the evidence did not exist that a fourth person was at Bundy, i.e. meaning the killer.

As to the testimony that hair has some of the same characteristics of some other hair, assuming that you are Caucasian and not totally bald and have the same color hair as Ronald, I'll bet that your hair has some of the same characteristics as Ronald's. The fact, which you wish to change is that it was an unidentified Caucasian hair, which is evidence that it was proper to argue that a fourth person was at the scene.

This is what the report said,
"Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson. However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."

Matheson said his report was a narrative explanation and he explained the reason for his second sentence. "The reason that it's in there is first off, there's two markers that were identified in those items, the PGM subtype and the EAP. Used the PGM subtype to eliminate the other two parties involved. That left Nicole Brown. And then this issue knowing that a BA can be degraded into a B, I wanted to include that in there so that there was no confusion as to an absolute statement of exclusion on her part.

The prosecution read into the record a passage from "Forensic Science Handbook" by Richard Saferstein. At that time, this book was renowned for being the bible on it's subject. The passage read by Matheson said:

"The A isoenzymes are the least stable and the C isoenzymes the most stable, thus one might expect the A bands in BA and CA types to be lost before the B or C bands are lost and this in fact has been observed."

You William intentionally deleted that second sentence of that report in your response to infer that Nicole was absolutely excluded when in fact she was not. Based on additional testing for DNA on those fingernail scrapings only Nicole's DNA was found. Nicole's fingernail scrapings are not evidence of a fourth person.

The fact that a clean blanket was used to cover Nicole's body has nothing to do with Nicole's fingernail scrapings and nothing to do with the fact that there was no physical evidence or blood evidence of a fourth person found at the murder scene.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Cross contamination and degradation leads to false positives.

"If you recall, the California association of crime lab directors gave a proficiency test where they used degraded samples in 1989. And in this test, they gave samples to Cellmark and to other labs, and they were false positives and Cellmark got two false positives, the first and the second time. You remember what Dr. Cotton told you about what they learned of that? When they did these tests, the second one in particular, the way that they got a false positive through cross-contamination is that they had a degraded sample."

If you believe the fingernail scrapings touched the degraded blood, if you believe the blood degraded from AB to B, then you can't trust the fingernail scrapings results, imho. This is the problem with the prosecution's argument, imho. If you believe there was degradation, then the results are consistent with Nicole. If you believe there was no degradation, then the results are consistent with Nicole. I want to eat this cake but still have it to eat.

The fact is that when blood is outside a body it starts to degrade. When Nicole's fingernail scrapings were collected the blood under her fingernails was degrading blood. The fact is that when BA blood degrades the A band can be lost before the B band resulting in the blood appearing to be type B. The fact is that when DNA tests were conducted on the fingernail scrapings the only DNA found was Nicole's DNA. The scrapings taken from under Nicole's fingernails is not evidence of a fourth person.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I am sure you understand the concept of planting evidence in connection with"beyond a reasonable doubt." The prosecution did not produce any evidence during the trial that Simpson was not on his estate from at or about the times in your post.

I'm would think you would understand the reality that Allan Park testified the Bronco was not parked outside the Rockingham gate when he arrived at about 10:22 PM or when he returned to the gate at about 10:40 PM. I would also think you would understand that there is no evidence of blood being planted in Simpson's Bronco.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I'm would think you would understand the reality that Allan Park testified the Bronco was not parked outside the Rockingham gate when he arrived at about 10:22 PM or when he returned to the gate at about 10:40 PM. I would also think you would understand that there is no evidence of blood being planted in Simpson's Bronco.

bobaugust

Then bob consider Park saw a car that was not there and did not see a car thatr was there on 6/12 so if i were a jury member i would give his testimony a blank.He was confused about what he saw that night.imo

[William Anthony]

Then bob consider Park saw a car that was not there and did not see a car thatr was there on 6/12 so if i were a jury member i would give his testimony a blank.He was confused about what he saw that night.imo

Thank you for correcting to what Park actually testified. Although, I don't think it will make any difference to some.

[William Anthony]

The fact is that when blood is outside a body it starts to degrade. When Nicole's fingernail scrapings were collected the blood under her fingernails was degrading blood. The fact is that when BA blood degrades the A band can be lost before the B band resulting in the blood appearing to be type B. The fact is that when DNA tests were conducted on the fingernail scrapings the only DNA found was Nicole's DNA. The scrapings taken from under Nicole's fingernails is not evidence of a fourth person.

bobaugust

The fact is that Matheson never testified it was degraded blood. He testified that the blood did not come from Simpson, Nicole or Ronald. He testified that the only way he could include Nicole as being the donor was if the blood degraded it could have been Nicole's. If's and could have are the stuff for civil verdicts, not criminal ones, imho.

[William Anthony]

This is what the report said,
"Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson. However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."

Matheson said his report was a narrative explanation and he explained the reason for his second sentence. "The reason that it's in there is first off, there's two markers that were identified in those items, the PGM subtype and the EAP. Used the PGM subtype to eliminate the other two parties involved. That left Nicole Brown. And then this issue knowing that a BA can be degraded into a B, I wanted to include that in there so that there was no confusion as to an absolute statement of exclusion on her part.

The prosecution read into the record a passage from "Forensic Science Handbook" by Richard Saferstein. At that time, this book was renowned for being the bible on it's subject. The passage read by Matheson said:

"The A isoenzymes are the least stable and the C isoenzymes the most stable, thus one might expect the A bands in BA and CA types to be lost before the B or C bands are lost and this in fact has been observed."

You William intentionally deleted that second sentence of that report in your response to infer that Nicole was absolutely excluded when in fact she was not. Based on additional testing for DNA on those fingernail scrapings only Nicole's DNA was found. Nicole's fingernail scrapings are not evidence of a fourth person.

The fact that a clean blanket was used to cover Nicole's body has nothing to do with Nicole's fingernail scrapings and nothing to do with the fact that there was no physical evidence or blood evidence of a fourth person found at the murder scene.

bobaugust

Do not worry bobaugust I have not adopted your tactics, as my light shines brightly. I posted enough of the testimony to show my point which was that there was evidence to show that the magnificent JC could properly argue there were four people at Bundy. The portion you refer to was also later addressed, which I posted. Blasier got Matheson to admit that he should not have identified the stain as being degraded by the route of degradation as described by Saferstein. Blaiser then went on to have Matheson read from the code of ethical conduct for criminalist, the part where a criminalist should not interpret results to favor the side that hired him.

I anticipated that you would make this type of claim, which is why I handled it. This is what a person is able to do when the person correctly connects the dots, imho. I thought you would have understood. However, you want to start to accuse me, impugn my character and insult me. Since you want to continue in this fashion, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

The fact is that when blood is outside a body it starts to degrade. When Nicole's fingernail scrapings were collected the blood under her fingernails was degrading blood. The fact is that when BA blood degrades the A band can be lost before the B band resulting in the blood appearing to be type B. The fact is that when DNA tests were conducted on the fingernail scrapings the only DNA found was Nicole's DNA. The scrapings taken from under Nicole's fingernails is not evidence of a fourth person.

bobaugust

Before I say good bye, there was not testimony that the blood was degraded; the testimony was that if it was degraded.:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Only because I have been accused of intentionally deleting testimony, do I think I need to set the record straight. The poster who made the accusation against me would lead posters to believe that the portion he posted was in some proximity to where I stopped quoting the testimony. Because I was not sure how much of the testimony I could get in this post, I stopped at this point but I think my point is clear-I did not delete the portion he referred to. I may have had to read the entire testimony to find the part he posted, which is irrelevant since I already addressed it before he posted the false accusation.

"MR. MATHESON: Yes. It says: "Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson. However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. So would it be a fair reading of the report if someone were to say that this categorically excluded Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson of being a donor of the material underneath the fingernail?

MR. MATHESON: Well, categorically excludes two of them. It does not absolutely exclude Nicole Simpson or Nicole Brown.

MR. GOLDBERG: What about Nicole Brown? Okay. Now, when you wrote that second sentence, that Nicole Brown could not be excluded as a possible donor, why did you write that?

MR. MATHESON: The reason that it's in there is first off, there's two markers that were identified in those items, the PGM subtype and the EAP. Used the PGM subtype to eliminate the other two parties involved. That left Nicole Brown. And then this issue knowing that a BA can be degraded into a B, I wanted to include that in there so that there was no confusion as to an absolute statement of exclusion on her part.

MR. GOLDBERG: That's fine.

MR. GOLDBERG: Let us see the serology results board. Hold on.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Let's put the board up a little bit.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, you were saying that you could exclude, of the three individuals that we have the reference vials for, everyone except Nicole Brown as to item no. 84-A and B, the nail scrapings; is that correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now using this chart, can you show us where the PGM subtype result is for the fingernail scrapings, 84-A and 84-B?

MR. MATHESON: Well, if you go across from the column marked 84, 84-B, there's two empty squares and then you get a notation of a 1 plus. That is under the column marked "PGM subtype."

MR. GOLDBERG: And why do you say that you can exclude Orenthal Simpson as being a donor of that particular material?

MR. MATHESON: Because in the PGM subtype system, he is a 2 plus 2 minus and the result obtained on those was a 1 plus.

MR. GOLDBERG: So in reporting that, have you looked at our chart and compared the 1 plus under 84-A and B to the 2 plus 2 minus under 17, Orenthal Simpson?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe you can point with the pointer so we can all see where you're looking at, please.

MR. MATHESON: Okay. The results on the two evidence items, 84-A and 84-B, are in this column right here like I described before, three over from the item description, 1 plus and 1 plus, and up in the top under the same column, PGM subtype opposite item no. 17 is the notation 2 plus 2 minus.

MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us how it is that Ronald Goldman can be excluded as a donor of 84-A and b?

MR. MATHESON: Well, it's in the same system. The two evidence items again gave us a 1 plus and a 1 plus. Mr. Goldman was a 2 plus 1 plus. So in the absence of the 2 plus here, he can be eliminated as a source of the blood.

MR. GOLDBERG: And why is it that you can not eliminate Nicole Brown as being a source of the blood?

MR. MATHESON: Again, on the nail scrapings, the PGM subtype is a 1 plus in both instances and she was bound to be a PGM subtype 1 plus.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But what about the difference in EAP type?

MR. MATHESON: Well, as noted in the report, initially she is excluded. However, we also have to consider the fact that BA can degrade to look like a B. So on face value, on the results that were obtained, she can be excluded. However, taking into account the degradation route of that particular enzyme, I would not do a total exclusion on her.

MR. GOLDBERG: I would like to mark as People's next in order an electrophoresis work sheet that contains a reference to 84-A and b.

THE COURT: All right. People's 219.

(Peo's 219 for id = work sheet)

MR. GOLDBERG: I'll just place a 219 on the reverse side of this.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, what is the document that we're looking at now?

MR. MATHESON: What you're seeing is kind of enlarged portion of a section of a work sheet that we have that's called electrophoresis work sheet.

MR. GOLDBERG: And was part of this document filled out by you?

MR. MATHESON: All except for a couple of initials is filled out by myself.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the 85-A and 85-B results--excuse me--84-A and 84-B results. That's the fingernails scrapings we're talking about; is that correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, what did you write on the electrophoresis work sheet when you filled out this document with respect to those results?

MR. MATHESON: Okay. Under the column that's marked EAP, there's two rows of letters. The one on the left is the row that I put in when I first read the plate, and opposite--you go from the left to the right reading--it's got the DR number associated with this case, 84-A and 84-B on those two lines. You'll notice that the first column under EAP has a B with a question mark on it.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is that what you wrote?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: What does the question mark signify, because I see you have it a number of places?

MR. MATHESON: It indicates that on my first reading, I wasn't sure. It looked like a B, but I wasn't absolutely positive of it.

MR. GOLDBERG: And why is it that you had that question in your mark--question in your mind that caused you to put the question mark on the electrophoresis work sheet?

MR. MATHESON: Well, on this particular item, I believe the bands were on the light side and kind of defused, ..."

[William Anthony]

I have looked for the reading of the report into evidence on the day that Matheson testified that Simpson, Goldman and Nicole could be excluded as being the donor of 84-A & B. I have seen nowhere where the prosecution read the report into evidence on that day, which I was accused of intentionally deleting. The date of the testimony I posted was May 2. Bobaugust, please show me where the prosecution read that report into evidence on May 2? If you can not, I respectfully request that you respect this community and offer an apology to the members.

[weezer]

no apology needed for me -- I understood that the report and testimony said that Nicole Brown could not be excluded as a source.

[William Anthony]

no apology needed for me -- I understood that the report and testimony said that Nicole Brown could not be excluded as a source.

I understand your loyalty to the poster from whom the request for an apology was made. Likewise, I have asked you to apologize to the community for posting that I said something that I did not, i.e, "Kennedy should go to jail." What I do not understand is your reason for changing the reason the apology was requested. It was requested because this poster said I intentionally deleted something and I asked his to post proof and he has not yet been able to do so.I posted testimony from May 2 and he claimed I deleted a part of the report the prosecution read into the record. I asked him to post where the prosecution read that into the record on May 2nd and then I posted numerous lines of testimony after the portion of the testimony I posted from May 2nd, showing no reading of the report into the record by anyone.

The request for an apology to the community from this poster was made several days ago, as was my request for you to apologize to the community. Imho, these are examples of the type of irresponsible postings that do a disservice to this community. I understand that there was a time when these type of postings might have been allowed in this community and in another. Certain posters are attempting to raise the level of postings in this community and I understand that old habits are hard to break. It is with this understanding that I extend an offer to you and the aforementioned poster to join in the effort to elevate the level of posting in this community.

The witness read his report where he stated that Nicole, Simpson, and Goldman could not have been the source of the blood under Nicole's fingernails. He then went on to say that if the blood degraded Nicole could not be excluded. He then went on to tell how blood degrades. On cross, he was forced to admit that from the book he relied on it was stated that blood did not degrade in the manner he used to opine that if the blood degraded Nicole could not be excluded. Further, Blazier read from the code of ethics from his profession, showing that he should not favor the side that hired him. I think Blaizer was indicating that truth should trump loyalty.

[weezer]

if you consider respect to be loyalty, then so be it. I respect the knowledge the 'other poster' has brought to and shared with this board. the treatment the 'other poster' has received on this board by certain posters is outrageous. imo

as far as you believing you deserve an apology from me because I put into words your insinuations -- oh well.

[William Anthony]

if you consider respect to be loyalty, then so be it. I respect the knowledge the 'other poster' has brought to and shared with this board. the treatment the 'other poster' has received on this board by certain posters is outrageous. imo

as far as you believing you deserve an apology from me because I put into words your insinuations -- oh well.

We obviously have a different definition of respect and outrageous. I do not intend to get into a discussion with you that does nothing to improve the quality of posting on this board and the apology I requested from you was to the community, of which I will admit to being a part. I have explained my position on Kennedy and the presumption of innocence. Because of my respect for the community and my profound desire for it to improve with equality for all, which to me is rational and respectful, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

One of the issues in the criminal trial was the allegation that there was a rush to judgment. This is from Vannatter's testimony on March 20th.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT YOU BELIEVED THAT YOU HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT ON JUNE 13TH; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OKAY.

A: AND THIS TERM "PROBABLE CAUSE," WHAT DOES THAT TERM MEAN? HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE IT?

A: PROBABLE CAUSE IS A STRONG AND HONEST SUSPICION THAT WOULD LEAD A REASONABLE PERSON TO BELIEVE THAT THE SUSPECT IS INVOLVED IN THE CRIME THAT YOU ARE INVESTIGATING.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU HARBORED SUCH A STRONG AND HONEST SUSPICION THAT DAY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: OKAY. BUT YOU ALSO TOLD US LAST WEEK THAT YOU FELT THAT YOU NEEDED MORE BEFORE YOU COULD PRESENT THE CASE TO THE D.A.'S OFFICE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I WANTED MORE, YES.

Q: AND WHY? WHY IS THAT?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: KNOWING THE FILING POLICY OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THEY WANT MORE THAN PROBABLE CAUSE. THEY WANT EVIDENCE THAT WILL LEAD TO A CONVICTION, WHICH IS MUCH FARTHER THAN PROBABLE CAUSE EVIDENCE.

Simpson was arrested on the 17th. Vannatter's explanation of probable cause differs from what I have been taught about it. His definition is more in line with the civil cause, imho. It is my belief from my learning that it requires more than a strong and honest suspicion in that the officer must be able to articulate the reasons he held such a suspicion. I think that there was a rush to judgment on who committed these murders.

[William Anthony]

Here is the definition that comports with what I was taught.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probable+cause

I would be interested in seeing the affidavit for probable cause to make the arrest, based on this statement, "Probable cause is a level of reasonable belief, based on facts that can be articulated,..."

[weezer]

I think the blood on the drive, in the foyer and Bronco, and the matching glove pretty well 'articulates' probable cause for me.

PROBABLE CAUSE. When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. Cro. Eliz. 70; 2 T. R. 231; 1 Wend. 140, 345; 5 Humph. 357; 3 B. Munr. 4. See 1 P. S. R. 234; 6 W. & S. 236; 1 Meigs, 84; 3 Brev. 94. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears.

[William Anthony]

I think the blood on the drive, in the foyer and Bronco, and the matching glove pretty well 'articulates' probable cause for me.

PROBABLE CAUSE. When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. Cro. Eliz. 70; 2 T. R. 231; 1 Wend. 140, 345; 5 Humph. 357; 3 B. Munr. 4. See 1 P. S. R. 234; 6 W. & S. 236; 1 Meigs, 84; 3 Brev. 94. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears.

I understand that may do it for you but I would still like to see the affidavit, because I do not know if that is sufficient articulation, especially the glove and the blood trail no where near the place the glove was allegedly found and none of Simpson's blood on the glove. I would think it would take more than blood on a person's property to reach probable cause. This is not to say that there was not articulation sufficient for probable cause. I see that you may have cited books or law journals. This is different from case law and the probable cause you cite relates to charging a person and not to arresting a person. In fact, as I read your post, it seems to mitigate LE's responsibility for false arrest and abuse of process if there could have been malicious intent on the part of the accuser. It does not address the articulation needed by LE when LE decides there is probable cause to make an arrest based upon their own independent decision.

[tv]

I understand that may do it for you but I would still like to see the affidavit, because I do not know if that is sufficient articulation, especially the glove and the blood trail no where near the place the glove was allegedly found and none of Simpson's blood on the glove. I would think it would take more than blood on a person's property to reach probable cause. This is not to say that there was not articulation sufficient for probable cause. I see that you may have cited books or law journals. This is different from case law and the probable cause you cite relates to charging a person and not to arresting a person. In fact, as I read your post, it seems to mitigate LE's responsibility for false arrest and abuse of process if there could have been malicious intent on the part of the accuser. It does not address the articulation needed by LE when LE decides there is probable cause to make an arrest based upon their own independent decision.
Simpson's blood as well as the blood of the two victims was found on the Rockingham glove.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Dna.htm