Issues In The Criminal Trial

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .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."

you're the one that said this comported with what you had been taught. my post was from your link.

[fgump2]

*Snipped*

you're the one that said this comported with what you had been taught. my post was from your link.
I think there were some other reasons for making a arrest, for assuming guilt. The police thought that the killer was probably OJS, and the killer probably had a cut on his left hand. When OJS arrived in LA he had a cut on his left hand.
Also when an LA cop phoned OJS when OJS was in Chicago, OJS responded in a manner more consistent with guilt than with innocence. He said 'Oh Nicole is dead', even though he had two ex wives in LA and the cop hadn't told him which one. Also both over the phone and in LA he didn't ask for details about the death. This is unusual. In the police interview he acted like he knew almost nothing about the death, but he didn't ask any questions about the death, nor did he volunteer any information about Nicole associating with undesireables. Most cops have interviewed both innocent and guilty people and the think they can tell the innocent from the guilty. I don't claim they are always correct; but other people, including news and legal commentators also thought he was acting guilty, such as .... Johnnie Cochran.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

you're the one that said this comported with what you had been taught. my post was from your link.

My point is that the part you posted may not have been on point with the discussion on what I was taught was needed by LE to have probable cause to make an arrest.

Here is the remainder of what you did not post and it seems to me to deal with malicious prosecution and the mitigating factors to be considered.

"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.
2. In an action, then, for a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is bound to show total absence of probable cause, whether the original proceedings were civil or criminal. 5 Taunt. 580; 1 Camp. N. P. C. 199; 2 Wils. 307; 1 Chit. Pr. 48; Hamm. N. P. 273. Vide Malicious prosecution, and 7 Cranch, 339; 1 Mason's R. 24; Stewart's Adm. R. 115; 11 Ad. & El. 483; 39 E. C. L. R. 150; 24 Pick. 81; 8 Watts, 240; 3 Wash. C. C. R. 31: 6 Watts & Serg. 336; 2 Wend. 424 1 Hill, S. C. 82; 3 Gill & John. 377; 1 Pick. 524; 8 Mass. 122; 9 Conn. 309; 3 Blackf. 445; Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t."

[William Anthony]

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

IIRC, Simpson's blood was not found on the Rockingham glove.

[William Anthony]

I think there were some other reasons for making a arrest, for assuming guilt. The police thought that the killer was probably OJS, and the killer probably had a cut on his left hand. When OJS arrived in LA he had a cut on his left hand.
Also when an LA cop phoned OJS when OJS was in Chicago, OJS responded in a manner more consistent with guilt than with innocence. He said 'Oh Nicole is dead', even though he had two ex wives in LA and the cop hadn't told him which one. Also both over the phone and in LA he didn't ask for details about the death. This is unusual. In the police interview he acted like he knew almost nothing about the death, but he didn't ask any questions about the death, nor did he volunteer any information about Nicole associating with undesireables. Most cops have interviewed both innocent and guilty people and the think they can tell the innocent from the guilty. I don't claim they are always correct; but other people, including news and legal commentators also thought he was acting guilty, such as .... Johnnie Cochran.

I do not think what the police probably thought or what others thought is enough for probable cause. I think most of your post indicates reasonable suspicion and not probable cause. However, I am not saying that any of the posters are not correct, which is why I posted I wanted to see the affidavit in order to see what facts LE relied on to arrest Simpson for the murders within 5 days.

[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 think that I should make what I meant clear. I learned that a member of LE must articulate specific facts that would lead a prudent person to belief there was probable cause to make the arrest. That is why I wanted to see the affidavit in light of the fact that other possible suspects had been eliminated within 5 days, as it pertains to the rush to judgment.

[William Anthony]

snipped
Also when an LA cop phoned OJS when OJS was in Chicago, OJS responded in a manner more consistent with guilt than with innocence. He said 'Oh Nicole is dead', even though he had two ex wives in LA and the cop hadn't told him which one.

I do not think there was any reason for him to ask which wife.

February 17th

"Q: AND AT THAT POINT, WHEN YOU SAID YOU HAD TO RELAY SOME BAD INFORMATION TO HIM, DID YOU PREFACE IT BY SAYING, "YOUR CHILDREN ARE ALL RIGHT, MR. SIMPSON?" REMEMBER SAYING THAT TO HIM?

A: THE CHILDREN WERE BROUGHT UP LATER IN THE CONVERSATION.

Q: NO. I'M ASKING YOU NOW, WHEN YOU SAID, "I'VE GOT SOME BAD INFORMATION FOR YOU, BUT YOUR CHILDREN ARE ALL RIGHT," DID YOU SAY THAT AT AN EARLY POINT IN THE CONVERSATION?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT.

Q: IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU SAID, "YOUR CHILDREN ARE ALL RIGHT," WORDS TO THAT EFFECT?

A: IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THAT I COULD HAVE SAID IT. I JUST DON'T RECALL SAYING IT.

Q: I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND. IT'S BEEN SOMETIME, RIGHT? ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THEREAFTER, YOU THEN AT SOME POINT IN THE CONVERSATION SAID TO MR. SIMPSON THAT, "YOUR EX-WIFE, NICOLE HAD BEEN KILLED"; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SAID THAT, MR. SIMPSON BECAME VERY, VERY UPSET ON THE PHONE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, HE DID. "

[William Anthony]

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

Here is a link that mentions the Rockingham glove and the blood.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE6D8153CF931A15750C0A9639582 60

[tv]

IIRC, Simpson's blood was not found on the Rockingham glove.You are incorrect. OJ Simpson's blood was found on the Rockingham glove inside of the glove by the wrist notch, outside of the glove by the wrist notch and in the stitching of the wrist notch.

[tv]

Here is a link that mentions the Rockingham glove and the blood.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE6D8153CF931A15750C0A9639582 60This link only shows how the defense tried to negate the DNA evidence. You are incorrect to say there was no blood from OJ Simpson found on the Rockingham glove.

[William Anthony]

This link only shows how the defense tried to negate the DNA evidence. You are incorrect to say there was no blood from OJ Simpson found on the Rockingham glove.

You are probably correct and I stand corrected.

[tv]

You are probably correct and I stand corrected.


Do you feel that this additional DNA presence which you previously thought didn't exist lends itself to further articulate specific facts that would lead a prudent person to believe there was probable cause to make the arrest?

[William Anthony]

Do you feel that this additional DNA presence which you previously thought didn't exist lends itself to further articulate specific facts that would lead a prudent person to believe there was probable cause to make the arrest?

Without going into the evidence of missing blood and planting, I will only say that I never stated there was not enough articulation to make the arrest; only that I wanted to see what was articulated before the arrest. I do not think that the DNA results were available at the time of the arrest.

[tv]

Without going into the evidence of missing blood and planting, I will only say that I never stated there was not enough articulation to make the arrest; only that I wanted to see what was articulated before the arrest. I do not think that the DNA results were available at the time of the arrest.

You are the one that erroneously stated no blood from OJ Simpson was found on the Rockingham glove. If the DNA results weren't available at the time of the arrest warrant why did you include that in your speculation of what was included in the warrant?

[William Anthony]

You are the one that erroneously stated no blood from OJ Simpson was found on the Rockingham glove. If the DNA results weren't available at the time of the arrest warrant why did you include that in your speculation of what was included in the warrant?


Because there would have been none at the time the arrest warrant was issued. However, I did not think any blood belonging to Simpson was found on that glove at any time and I stated I stood corrected.

[William Anthony]

You are the one that erroneously stated no blood from OJ Simpson was found on the Rockingham glove. If the DNA results weren't available at the time of the arrest warrant why did you include that in your speculation of what was included in the warrant?

Just so the record is clear, I never speculated as to what was in the affidavit. Other posters speculated to what was included and I responded to those speculations. I was stating my desire to see what facts were articulated in the affidavit to sustain probable cause to, within 5 days of the murders, make the arrest.

[martin II]

This link only shows how the defense tried to negate the DNA evidence. You are incorrect to say there was no blood from OJ Simpson found on the Rockingham glove.

tv
Had the lab test of the glove been completed when oj was arrested??5 days after collected? or when he was put in hand cuffs on tv on 6/13??

[tv]

tv
Had the lab test of the glove been completed when oj was arrested??5 days after collected? or when he was put in hand cuffs on tv on 6/13??

I have no idea. I was responding to William's post. I've been over this ground with William before. He seems to have a mental block where the Rockingham glove is concerned so I was trying to help him out.

[fgump2]

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.
If we take some of Cochran's statements about the murder we wind up with some inconsistencies, or at least a widely improbably scenario.

Cochran said, out of court, to the news media that it was a typical drug killing. I wonder how many people believed this? Typical drug killings are with guns with silencers, not knives. Also typical drug killers don't wear expensive shoes or gloves.

Cochran, or at least the dream team, also said that that there was a 4th person's blood there, in other words a second killer.

The dream team also said that the killings could have taken as long as 20 minutes. So this means that with two killers, it would have taken 20 minutes or so to kill Ron? Nicole was killed quickly, so most of the time would have been either killing Ron, or hacking away at Nicole's throat after she was dead.
Doesn't sound very professional to me.

Of course, Johnnie Cochran was a hired gun, hired to keep OJS out of jail, not to tell the truth. But if Johnnie Cochran is so great, and the case against OJS was weak, why the BS?

[martin II]

I have no idea. I was responding to William's post. I've been over this ground with William before. He seems to have a mental block where the Rockingham glove is concerned so I was trying to help him out.

if the lab results of blood had not been completed then it is unlikely that oj was arrested as a result of blood on the glove or blood anyplace. right?

[martin II]

If we take some of Cochran's statements about the murder we wind up with some inconsistencies, or at least a widely improbably scenario.

Cochran said, out of court, to the news media that it was a typical drug killing. I wonder how many people believed this? Typical drug killings are with guns with silencers, not knives. Also typical drug killers don't wear expensive shoes or gloves.

Cochran, or at least the dream team, also said that that there was a 4th person's blood there, in other words a second killer.

The dream team also said that the killings could have taken as long as 20 minutes. So this means that with two killers, it would have taken 20 minutes or so to kill Ron? Nicole was killed quickly, so most of the time would have been either killing Ron, or hacking away at Nicole's throat after she was dead.
Doesn't sound very professional to me.

Of course, Johnnie Cochran was a hired gun, hired to keep OJS out of jail, not to tell the truth. But if Johnnie Cochran is so great, and the case against OJS was weak, why the BS?


No one knows how long the killings took.We only have opinions.
There have been many ways that people have been killed in the drug business.
There is no way to know what type shoes drug killers wear unless in instances where they were caught in the act.imo

[martin II]

I have no idea. I was responding to William's post. I've been over this ground with William before. He seems to have a mental block where the Rockingham glove is concerned so I was trying to help him out.

tv
i may be a little behind in reading but what evidence was used to arrest oj.
He was put in handcuffs imediately when he arrived from Chicago.A process of arrest. But then i guess he was unarrested.5 days later he was arrested based on what. Lab test or what? the glove on his property?

[tv]

tv
i may be a little behind in reading but what evidence was used to arrest oj.
He was put in handcuffs imediately when he arrived from Chicago.A process of arrest. But then i guess he was unarrested.5 days later he was arrested based on what. Lab test or what? the glove on his property?

There was blood in his Bronco, on his property, in his house and a bloody glove was found on his estate that matched the one from Bundy. His statements to the police were contradictory, evasive and vague. He didn't have a consistent story about his actions the night of the murders nor was he able to establish an alibi. He had an unexplained cut on his finger and offered different statements as to how it occurred. There was enough evidence to arrest him when he was cuffed after arriving from Chicago but once again he was given kid glove treatment and LE enforcement waited for the DQ-Alpha results on the blood instead of relying on presumptive test results. So the answer to your question is they had lab results on the blood before arresting him. I'm surprised you didn't already know this since you followed the case so closely.

[tv]

No one knows how long the killings took.We only have opinions.
There have been many ways that people have been killed in the drug business.
There is no way to know what type shoes drug killers wear unless in instances where they were caught in the act.imoThe coroner stated in the trial that in 20 years he'd never seen the 'columbian necktie' scenario that the defense offered up.

[martin II]

The coroner stated in the trial that in 20 years he'd never seen the 'columbian necktie' scenario that the defense offered up.

The coronor? The guy that did autopsy offered the idea that there were two knifes. right. The guy that read the coronors report said the first guy made 30 mistakes.So-----

I doubt he knew what columbian necktie was.

imo

does this mean that in 20 years he never had a body killed with a knife.

[martin II]

There was blood in his Bronco, on his property, in his house and a bloody glove was found on his estate that matched the one from Bundy. His statements to the police were contradictory, evasive and vague. He didn't have a consistent story about his actions the night of the murders nor was he able to establish an alibi. He had an unexplained cut on his finger and offered different statements as to how it occurred. There was enough evidence to arrest him when he was cuffed after arriving from Chicago but once again he was given kid glove treatment and LE enforcement waited for the DQ-Alpha results on the blood instead of relying on presumptive test results. So the answer to your question is they had lab results on the blood before arresting him. I'm surprised you didn't already know this since you followed the case so closely.

i guess i will have to look for that info unless you can give it to me.

[tv]

The coronor? The guy that did autopsy offered the idea that there were two knifes. right. The guy that read the coronors report said the first guy made 30 mistakes.So-----

I doubt he knew what columbian necktie was.

imo

does this mean that in 20 years he never had a body killed with a knife.No, it means that in 20 years Dr. Sathyavagiswaran, the coroner, said he never had a body where the throat was slashed and the tongue pulled through the wound. If you think a columbian necktie just means that the person was killed with a knife then you don't what it means.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE3DF1731F937A25755C0A9639582 60

[tv]

i guess i will have to look for that info unless you can give it to me.

What info are you looking for? You asked what evidence that they had to arrest Simpson and I told you. You asked if they had lab results before arresting him and I told you. If there's something else you want to know you didn't ask.

[William Anthony]

If we take some of Cochran's statements about the murder we wind up with some inconsistencies, or at least a widely improbably scenario.

Cochran said, out of court, to the news media that it was a typical drug killing. I wonder how many people believed this? Typical drug killings are with guns with silencers, not knives. Also typical drug killers don't wear expensive shoes or gloves.

Cochran, or at least the dream team, also said that that there was a 4th person's blood there, in other words a second killer.

The dream team also said that the killings could have taken as long as 20 minutes. So this means that with two killers, it would have taken 20 minutes or so to kill Ron? Nicole was killed quickly, so most of the time would have been either killing Ron, or hacking away at Nicole's throat after she was dead.
Doesn't sound very professional to me.

Of course, Johnnie Cochran was a hired gun, hired to keep OJS out of jail, not to tell the truth. But if Johnnie Cochran is so great, and the case against OJS was weak, why the BS?

The argument I quoted was from Barry.

I am not as familiar as you seem to be with typical drug killings.

Fourth person could still only mean one killer or two.

I do not think any of us know who was killed first.

It was not BS to point to the mistakes, or human errors, or contamination, or cross contamination, or poor handling collection and handling techniques or evidence of planting or lies, as evidenced by the verdict, imho.

[William Anthony]

I have no idea. I was responding to William's post. I've been over this ground with William before. He seems to have a mental block where the Rockingham glove is concerned so I was trying to help him out.

I guess I was afflicted with what seems to be an disease of epidemic proportions, such as those who do not want to accept the criminal verdict and want to say the civil verdict found Simpson liable for murder. Do you know if they have found an antidote for these mental blocks? :)

[William Anthony]

There was blood in his Bronco, on his property, in his house and a bloody glove was found on his estate that matched the one from Bundy. His statements to the police were contradictory, evasive and vague. He didn't have a consistent story about his actions the night of the murders nor was he able to establish an alibi. He had an unexplained cut on his finger and offered different statements as to how it occurred. There was enough evidence to arrest him when he was cuffed after arriving from Chicago but once again he was given kid glove treatment and LE enforcement waited for the DQ-Alpha results on the blood instead of relying on presumptive test results. So the answer to your question is they had lab results on the blood before arresting him. I'm surprised you didn't already know this since you followed the case so closely.

I think I understand. LE had finished their investigation by the time he returned from Chicago and had eliminated all other suspects. I do not think he gave a statement before he returned from Chicago. Oh yes, they summarily dismissed the report that someone was crouching in the bushes.

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .I do not think any of us know who was killed first. . ."

as the evidence indicated and testimony was given, Ron was killed first.

[martin II]

What info are you looking for? You asked what evidence that they had to arrest Simpson and I told you. You asked if they had lab results before arresting him and I told you. If there's something else you want to know you didn't ask.

maby the source of your info.

[martin II]

*Snipped*

as the evidence indicated and testimony was given, Ron was killed first.

Those were only opinion as no one that testified was there.

[martin II]

No, it means that in 20 years Dr. Sathyavagiswaran, the coroner, said he never had a body where the throat was slashed and the tongue pulled through the wound. If you think a columbian necktie just means that the person was killed with a knife then you don't what it means.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE3DF1731F937A25755C0A9639582 60

well i guees there were no columbian necktie killings in all the places he had been in 20 years.All this was just talk.It never really happened.But on the other hand there is always a first for most things.imo

[martin II]

There was blood in his Bronco, on his property, in his house and a bloody glove was found on his estate that matched the one from Bundy. His statements to the police were contradictory, evasive and vague. He didn't have a consistent story about his actions the night of the murders nor was he able to establish an alibi. He had an unexplained cut on his finger and offered different statements as to how it occurred. There was enough evidence to arrest him when he was cuffed after arriving from Chicago but once again he was given kid glove treatment and LE enforcement waited for the DQ-Alpha results on the blood instead of relying on presumptive test results. So the answer to your question is they had lab results on the blood before arresting him. I'm surprised you didn't already know this since you followed the case so closely.

OJ arrived back from Chicago at about 12 1 pm he had not even given blood for a comparison lab test by that time. fung was still collecting blood evidence at that time as i think he did not finish until about 6 pm on 6/12. so what blood evidence did le have from test that proved that the blood fung had in his truck on 6/13 came from OJ?

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

as the evidence indicated and testimony was given, Ron was killed first.

Please post the date of the testimony and the witness who testified to such.

[weezer]

OJ arrived back from Chicago at about 12 1 pm he had not even given blood for a comparison lab test by that time. fung was still collecting blood evidence at that time as i think he did not finish until about 6 pm on 6/12. so what blood evidence did le have from test that proved that the blood fung had in his truck on 6/13 came from OJ?

orenthal wasn't arrested on 6/12 --

[martin II]

orenthal wasn't arrested on 6/12 --

OJ was handcuffed on his return and then unhancuffed so i guess that can be considered as a half arrest.

A post was made saying there was enough evidence to arrest oj when he returned from chicago.So i am asking what was that evidence on 6/13 at about 1 pm.

[martin II]

orenthal wasn't arrested on 6/12 --

correction 6/13

[martin II]

*Snipped*

as the evidence indicated and testimony was given, Ron was killed first.

What evidence do you have that caused you to say ron was killed first?
can your post this evidence. What testimony proved this. please give the links to your statements.
thanks in advance.

[tv]

maby the source of your info.martin, it's not required to provide a link to the source of the info when the subject matter has been gone over numerous times and is considered common knowledge. You asked the questions and I answered them.

[tv]

well i guees there were no columbian necktie killings in all the places he had been in 20 years.All this was just talk.It never really happened.But on the other hand there is always a first for most things.imoYou're correct. The talk of a drug hit was just that -- a lot of talk.

[martin II]

You're correct. The talk of a drug hit was just that -- a lot of talk.

Wrong
I was referances all the talk prior to the killings by le and the general community.

[martin II]

martin, it's not required to provide a link to the source of the info when the subject matter has been gone over numerous times and is considered common knowledge. You asked the questions and I answered them.

i have never seem the proof of the claimes you made and that is why i asked for links.

[weezer]

Wrong
I was referances all the talk prior to the killings by le and the general community.

:shrug: you want to try saying that again? :biggrin:

[weezer]

i have never seem the proof of the claimes you made and that is why i asked for links.

:shrug: you want to try saying that again? :biggrin:

[tv]

i have never seem the proof of the claimes you made and that is why i asked for links.martin, if you've never read or heard that there was blood found on Simpson's property and home, a glove matching the Bundy glove on his property, no alibi, changing stories about how he cut himself and DQ-Alpha blood testing done then you've been sleepwalking through these forums. There is no single source for all these things, sorry. :shrug:

[martin II]

martin, if you've never read or heard that there was blood found on Simpson's property and home, a glove matching the Bundy glove on his property, no alibi, changing stories about how he cut himself and DQ-Alpha blood testing done then you've been sleepwalking through these forums. There is no single source for all these things, sorry. :shrug:

I know there was blood found on his peoperty,but did not know that this blood had been tested on the day oj arrived from chicago before he gave blood samples and this caused you to say they had enough 'EVIDENCE' to arrest him when he did arrive from chicago as you said.He had not been interviewed at that point.

[martin II]

martin, if you've never read or heard that there was blood found on Simpson's property and home, a glove matching the Bundy glove on his property, no alibi, changing stories about how he cut himself and DQ-Alpha blood testing done then you've been sleepwalking through these forums. There is no single source for all these things, sorry. :shrug:

IF your multiple claims are evidence/testimony, there is a source for all the claims you made.

[martin II]

:shrug: you want to try saying that again? :biggrin:

I think a better idea would be for you to post the links to back up the claim you made a few post back so the community can see if your claim is true or not.imo

[William Anthony]

martin, if you've never read or heard that there was blood found on Simpson's property and home, a glove matching the Bundy glove on his property, no alibi, changing stories about how he cut himself and DQ-Alpha blood testing done then you've been sleepwalking through these forums. There is no single source for all these things, sorry. :shrug:

I did not know he did not have an alibi.

[William Anthony]

I know very little about the Columbian necktie thing and do not want to enter into a discussion where the victims are blamed. I briefly read some of the testimony and it would appear that, if the tongue was pulled through the wound, it could represent a signal that someone was enraged about the victim talking about something.

[tv]

I guess I was afflicted with what seems to be an disease of epidemic proportions, such as those who do not want to accept the criminal verdict and want to say the civil verdict found Simpson liable for murder. Do you know if they have found an antidote for these mental blocks? :)I don't think you would want an antidote. That would take all the fun out of trying to prove someone wrong. :)

[tv]

IF your multiple claims are evidence/testimony, there is a source for all the claims you made.

"The last time anyone saw Simpson before the murders was around 9:35 PM when Simpson's houseguest friend, Kato Kaelin says he and Simpson returned to Simpson's house after going to McDonald's for a hamburger. The first time anyone saw Simpson thereafter is around 10:55 PM, when the limo driver saw a large black figure, who turned out to be Simpson, even by the defense's own admission, enter the front door of his home. At the trial, the defense presented no evidence attesting to the whereabouts of Simpson between 9:35 and 10:55 PM and the murders occurred around the same time, between 10:15 and 10;40 PM."

OUTRAGE: The Five Reasons OJ Simpson Got Away with Murder by Vincent Bugliosi, pages 105-106.

[tv]

I know there was blood found on his peoperty,but did not know that this blood had been tested on the day oj arrived from chicago before he gave blood samples and this caused you to say they had enough 'EVIDENCE' to arrest him when he did arrive from chicago as you said.He had not been interviewed at that point.

I didn't say they had already tested his blood. I said they had enough evidence to arrest him but wanted to wait until his blood was tested. The blood trail from Bundy led to his Bronco and estate. That would have been enough. Plus the fact that he really didn't have an alibi. I was going to search around and post links for all my statements but I've decided not to do that. These are all things that you already know.

[tv]

I did not know he did not have an alibi.Now you know. :)

[tv]

I know very little about the Columbian necktie thing and do not want to enter into a discussion where the victims are blamed. I briefly read some of the testimony and it would appear that, if the tongue was pulled through the wound, it could represent a signal that someone was enraged about the victim talking about something.Refreshing. :beer:

[William Anthony]

I don't think you would want an antidote. That would take all the fun out of trying to prove someone wrong. :)

It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove someone wrong in this instance. The evidence is entirely, imho, circumstantial, which allows people to draw their own reasonable inferences. My endeavors are attempts to persuade others that there is more than one way to view the evidence. Take note of my signature. :)

[William Anthony]

"The last time anyone saw Simpson before the murders was around 9:35 PM when Simpson's houseguest friend, Kato Kaelin says he and Simpson returned to Simpson's house after going to McDonald's for a hamburger. The first time anyone saw Simpson thereafter is around 10:55 PM, when the limo driver saw a large black figure, who turned out to be Simpson, even by the defense's own admission, enter the front door of his home. At the trial, the defense presented no evidence attesting to the whereabouts of Simpson between 9:35 and 10:55 PM and the murders occurred around the same time, between 10:15 and 10;40 PM."

OUTRAGE: The Five Reasons OJ Simpson Got Away with Murder by Vincent Bugliosi, pages 105-106.

With all due respect to Mr. Bugliosi, the defense did not have to prove where Simpson was during that time. The prosecution did, which they failed to do, imho.

[William Anthony]

I didn't say they had already tested his blood. I said they had enough evidence to arrest him but wanted to wait until his blood was tested. The blood trail from Bundy led to his Bronco and estate. That would have been enough. Plus the fact that he really didn't have an alibi. I was going to search around and post links for all my statements but I've decided not to do that. These are all things that you already know.

I did not know there was a blood trail from Bundy to where his Bronco was parked on Rockingham. Oh yes, now I do. :)

[William Anthony]

Now you know. :)

All this time, I thought the evidence was that he was at Rockingham and the prosecution's evidence was that he was at Bundy. Did he have to have an alibi?:)

[tv]

It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove someone wrong in this instance. The evidence is entirely, imho, circumstantial, which allows people to draw their own reasonable inferences. My endeavors are attempts to persuade others that there is more than one way to view the evidence. Take note of my signature. :) I was just kidding with you, William. :)

[William Anthony]

Refreshing. :beer:

Thanks for the root beer. I did not see the ice cream for the float.

[tv]

With all due respect to Mr. Bugliosi, the defense did not have to prove where Simpson was during that time. The prosecution did, which they failed to do, imho.They proved that no living person admitted to seeing him during that time period. How could they prove where he was with no witnesses? :rolleyes:

[tv]

Thanks for the root beer. I did not see the ice cream for the float.Hey, things happen. :)

[William Anthony]

I was just kidding with you, William. :)

See how wrong we can be!

[William Anthony]

They proved that no living person admitted to seeing him during that time period. How could they prove where he was with no witnesses? :rolleyes:

Thanks, that's my point. :)

[tv]

All this time, I thought the evidence was that he was at Rockingham and the prosecution's evidence was that he was at Bundy. Did he have to have an alibi?:)I'm willing to say he was at Bundy, no problem. :D

[tv]

Thanks, that's my point. :)It's started as a pleasant day, please don't start twisting. :)

[William Anthony]

I'm willing to say he was at Bundy, no problem. :D

I am willing to say there is no proof that he was at Bundy, imho.

[tv]

I did not know there was a blood trail from Bundy to where his Bronco was parked on Rockingham. Oh yes, now I do. :)Yes, now you do. :)

[William Anthony]

It's started as a pleasant day, please don't start twisting. :)

I am not twisting. You made an astute observation, imho, which has to do with lack of proof or reasonable doubt, in light of the jury instruction on reasonable doubt. I would say that the evidence allows for two reasonable inferences and, according to the jury instruction, they must take that inference that points toward innocence (but I will say not guilty).

[weezer]

I am willing to say there is no proof that he was at Bundy, imho.

you mean except for his hair, blood, hat, glove, fiber and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints, right?

[tv]

I am willing to say there is no proof that he was at Bundy, imho.No living person has come forward to say they saw him on Nicole's property but I do believe Robert Heidstra saw his vehicle and possibly heard his voice.

[William Anthony]

Yes, now you do. :)

I wonder why LE did not collect those drops? :)

[William Anthony]

you mean except for his hair, blood, hat, glove, fiber and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints, right?

Correction, there is no evidence, other than circumstantial, that he was at Bundy on the night of June 12th.

[tv]

I am not twisting. You made an astute observation, imho, which has to do with lack of proof or reasonable doubt, in light of the jury instruction on reasonable doubt. I would say that the evidence allows for two reasonable inferences and, according to the jury instruction, they must take that inference that points toward innocence (but I will say not guilty).Not guilty is much more appropriate in this case. I would prefer to change the term 'not guilty' to 'not proven' like it is in Scotland but you can't have everything.

[weezer]

Correction, there is no evidence that he was at Bundy on the night of June 12th.

sure there was --

[William Anthony]

No living person has come forward to say they saw him on Nicole's property but I do believe Robert Heidstra saw his vehicle and possibly heard his voice.

I realize that this is what you believe. However, I believe that Heidstra did not identify the vehicle or the voice.

[William Anthony]

Not guilty is much more appropriate in this case. I would prefer to change the term 'not guilty' to 'not proven' like it is in Scotland but you can't have everything.

Not guilty is short for not proven guilty as charged. I think it is sufficient. :)

[William Anthony]

sure there was --

Saying it is does not make it so. like the pigeon-toed shoe prints. :)

[tv]

Correction, there is no evidence, other than circumstantial, that he was at Bundy on the night of June 12th.Come on, William. ;)

[tv]

Not guilty is short for not proven guilty as charged. I think it is sufficient. :)As long as it's acknowledged that 'not guilty' doesn't mean innocent I guess it's okay.

[William Anthony]

Come on, William. ;)

The prosecution may have had a stronger argument and case, had LE not injected the blanket into the scene and Vannatter not brought his blood to the scene.

[tv]

I realize that this is what you believe. However, I believe that Heidstra did not identify the vehicle or the voice.Then Jill Shively saw the Simpson driving the vehicle a few moments later. It all fits together like a jigsaw puzzle...I really like it when that happens.

[William Anthony]

As long as it's acknowledged that 'not guilty' doesn't mean innocent I guess it's okay.

Who among us other than I is truly innocent?:)

[William Anthony]

Then Jill Shively saw the Simpson driving the vehicle a few moments later. It all fits together like a jigsaw puzzle...I really like it when that happens.

Jill Shively, that's funny and now you are truly making this a pleasant day. You have a choice to believe Jill or Kato, (not the dog) or neither.

[tv]

The prosecution may have had a stronger argument and case, had LE not injected the blanket into the scene and Vannatter not brought his blood to the scene.You'd probably be really happy to know that your favorite detective, Mark Fuhrman, agrees 100%. To me, they're just minor incidents.

[William Anthony]

You'd probably be really happy to know that your favorite detective, Mark Fuhrman, agrees 100%. To me, they're just minor incidents.

You're turning against your favorite. I am not surprised at the convicted perjurer, genocidal speaking, as supported by the evidence, and proven racist, as the prosecution conceded, MF wants to blame everyone but himself.

[tv]

Jill Shively, that's funny and now you are truly making this a pleasant day. You have a choice to believe Jill or Kato, (not the dog) or neither.What's so funny about Jill Shively? Please let me in on the joke...I like funny stories. :)

[William Anthony]

What's so funny about Jill Shively? Please let me in on the joke...I like funny stories. :)

Her testimony was the joke. That's why neither the prosecution or the plaintiff's used it, imho.

[tv]

You're turning against your favorite. I am not surprised at the convicted perjurer, genocidal speaking, as supported by the evidence, and proven racist, as the prosecution conceded, MF wants to blame everyone but himself.LOL...I wanted to see how many adjectives you could come up with if I mentioned Det. Fuhrman. I must say you didn't disappoint me. :D

[tv]

Her testimony was the joke. That's why neither the prosecution or the plaintiff's used it, imho.I beg to differ.

[William Anthony]

LOL...I wanted to see how many adjectives you could come up with if I mentioned Det. Fuhrman. I must say you didn't disappoint me. :D


Elated to make your day. :)

[tv]

Who among us other than I is truly innocent?:)Depends on what they're being accused of doing I suppose.

[William Anthony]

I beg to differ.

You've never begged before. :)

[tv]

Elated to make your day. :)Thank you, your efforts are much appreciated.

[tv]

You've never begged before. :)It really is a first for me but I feel strongly about the Jill Shively sighting of your favorite guy.

[William Anthony]

Thank you, your efforts are much appreciated.

Rest assured that every time you mention your favorite, I will describe him with the adjectives I believe befitting to one of his character.

[tv]

Rest assured that every time you mention your favorite, I will describe him with the adjectives I believe befitting to one of his character.I expect nothing less. However, he's not my favorite detective. I reserve that for Jim Rockford. :)

[William Anthony]

It really is a first for me but I feel strongly about the Jill Shively sighting of your favorite guy.

What, I did not Know that Ms. Shively saw the omnipotent JC or the lawyer JC or MLK or JFK or Ghandi or Mandella.

[William Anthony]

I expect nothing less. However, he's not my favorite detective. I reserve that for Jim Rockford. :)

We have reached a point of agreement.

[tv]

What, I did not Know that Ms. Shively saw the omnipotent JC or the lawyer JC or MLK or JFK or Ghandi or Mandella.I've not heard you speak so tirelessly on behalf of any of those people as you have OJ Simpson. Except for the maleficent Johnny Cochran...oh, I meant magnificent of course. :)

[tv]

We have reached a point of agreement.:) :) :)

[William Anthony]

I've not heard you speak so tirelessly on behalf of any of those people as you have OJ Simpson. Except for the maleficent Johnny Cochran...oh, I meant magnificent of course. :)

I forgot one, Morris Dees. I do not speak on behalf of Simpson. I speak on behalf of the jury, the verdict and reasonable doubt.

[tv]

I forgot one, Morris Dees. I do not speak on behalf of Simpson. I speak on behalf of the jury, the verdict and reasonable doubt.I see, it's purely altruism on your part. Do you feel the same way about the civil jury, the civil verdict and the preponderance of the evidence in the civil trial?

[William Anthony]

I see, it's purely altruism on your part. Do you feel the same way about the civil jury, the civil verdict and the preponderance of the evidence in the civil trial?

I think that you have been around long enough to know what I said, which was that I accept the civil verdict even though I believe it's rulings and evidence admitted indicate it was a political production in protest of the criminal verdict.

[martin II]

They proved that no living person admitted to seeing him during that time period. How could they prove where he was with no witnesses? :rolleyes:

That was the prosecutions responsibility and their problem.

[martin II]

"The last time anyone saw Simpson before the murders was around 9:35 PM when Simpson's houseguest friend, Kato Kaelin says he and Simpson returned to Simpson's house after going to McDonald's for a hamburger. The first time anyone saw Simpson thereafter is around 10:55 PM, when the limo driver saw a large black figure, who turned out to be Simpson, even by the defense's own admission, enter the front door of his home. At the trial, the defense presented no evidence attesting to the whereabouts of Simpson between 9:35 and 10:55 PM and the murders occurred around the same time, between 10:15 and 10;40 PM."

OUTRAGE: The Five Reasons OJ Simpson Got Away with Murder by Vincent Bugliosi, pages 105-106.

tv
i have a problem accepting what the limo driver said he saw that night.
His testimony was different at different times and some made no sense
* one time he said he did not kow if the AA person was male or female.
* Then he said he saw two cars in thst same driveway when there was only
one.
* One time he said He did not see the bronco when he arrived and then said
he was not looking for the bronco he was looking for the address.
* Then he said he did not see the bronco when leaving when it was 3 feet
from his window and he looked at the spot where it was.
* At different times he gave different versions of what bags he loaded as
opposed to what others loaded.
* Then he testified that oj came out of the house wearing a black overcoat
which kato denied seeing.

He seemed to have a problem with facts and details. I think the jury had a problem with his testimonies also.

[martin II]

"The last time anyone saw Simpson before the murders was around 9:35 PM when Simpson's houseguest friend, Kato Kaelin says he and Simpson returned to Simpson's house after going to McDonald's for a hamburger. The first time anyone saw Simpson thereafter is around 10:55 PM, when the limo driver saw a large black figure, who turned out to be Simpson, even by the defense's own admission, enter the front door of his home. At the trial, the defense presented no evidence attesting to the whereabouts of Simpson between 9:35 and 10:55 PM and the murders occurred around the same time, between 10:15 and 10;40 PM."

OUTRAGE: The Five Reasons OJ Simpson Got Away with Murder by Vincent Bugliosi, pages 105-106.

i would think you would have a better source than this nut.imo

[martin II]

I've not heard you speak so tirelessly on behalf of any of those people as you have OJ Simpson. Except for the maleficent Johnny Cochran...oh, I meant magnificent of course. :)

you got it right by the end

[martin II]

Then Jill Shively saw the Simpson driving the vehicle a few moments later. It all fits together like a jigsaw puzzle...I really like it when that happens.

I think Jill 'REMEMBERED' where she was that night after she found the telephone number to THE NATIONAL INQUIRER.

[weezer]

Her testimony was the joke. That's why neither the prosecution or the plaintiff's used it, imho.

what testimony?

[William Anthony]

what testimony?

In the GJ or either the preliminary hearing.

[weezer]

Parks had no reason to lie -- I thought he was very credible. His testimony was consistent and comported with the other testimony about that night. imo

tv
i have a problem accepting what the limo driver said he saw that night.
His testimony was different at different times and some made no sense
* one time he said he did not kow if the AA person was male or female.
* Then he said he saw two cars in thst same driveway when there was only
one.
* One time he said He did not see the bronco when he arrived and then said
he was not looking for the bronco he was looking for the address.
* Then he said he did not see the bronco when leaving when it was 3 feet
from his window and he looked at the spot where it was.
* At different times he gave different versions of what bags he loaded as
opposed to what others loaded.
* Then he testified that oj came out of the house wearing a black overcoat
which kato denied seeing.

He seemed to have a problem with facts and details. I think the jury had a problem with his testimonies also.

[weezer]

i would think you would have a better source than this nut.imo

LOL -- you did not just call Vincent Bugliosi a 'nut'?! This from a poster defending orenthal james simpson on a message board -- LOL

[William Anthony]

Parks had no reason to lie -- I thought he was very credible. His testimony was consistent and comported with the other testimony about that night. imo

Since when does the law require a suspect or an accused to have someone watch him at all times prior to the time that he has become a suspect or accused of any crime. Since when is it against the law to be alone and the fact that you are alone can be held against you in a court of law. I reiterate that I think the law requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not where he said he was and that he committed the crime of which he was accused, which, contrary to Bugliosi assertions, the prosecution failed to prove, imho.

[weezer]

Since when does the law require a suspect or an accused to have someone watch him at all times prior to the time that he has become a suspect or accused of any crime. Since when is it against the law to be alone and the fact that you are alone can be held against you in a court of law. I reiterate that I think the law requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not where he said he was and that he committed the crime of which he was accused, which, contrary to Bugliosi assertions, the prosecution failed to prove, imho.

and this has what to do with my post?

[William Anthony]

and this has what to do with my post?

Oops, I answered the wrong post of yours. I meant to answer this one.

"LOL -- you did not just call Vincent Bugliosi a 'nut'?! This from a poster defending orenthal james simpson on a message board -- LOL
Reply With Quote"

So, I will restate it.

"Since when does the law require a suspect or an accused to have someone watch him at all times prior to the time that he has become a suspect or accused of any crime. Since when is it against the law to be alone and the fact that you are alone can be held against you in a court of law. I reiterate that I think the law requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not where he said he was and that he committed the crime of which he was accused, which, contrary to Bugliosi assertions, the prosecution failed to prove, imho."

[martin II]

LOL -- you did not just call Vincent Bugliosi a 'nut'?! This from a poster defending orenthal james simpson on a message board -- LOL

Blabber mouth nut is more accurate.

[martin II]

Parks had no reason to lie -- I thought he was very credible. His testimony was consistent and comported with the other testimony about that night. imo

WEEZER

Parks testimonies were as he gave them.Those were his words.

[Kate Sachel]

Blabber mouth nut is more accurate.

Vincent Bugliosi is considered one of the most magnificent prosecutors in history, much the same as Johnnie Cochran is considered to have been one of the most magnificent defense attorneys.

What specifically has made you come to the conclusion that Mr. Bugliosi is a nut? Or better yet, a blabber mouth nut?

Kate

[tv]

i would think you would have a better source than this nut.imo

Please enlighten me as to why you consider Vincent Bugliosi to be a nut. He successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials for the Los Angeles District Attorney's office; 21 murder convictions without a loss. He is now a defense attorney. Alan Dershowitz states "Bugliosi is as good a prosecutor as there ever was." He's a bestselling author. His book was well-researched and he spoke with most of the major players in the Simpson case personally. He was fair in his book to both prosecution and defense. Even though you state IMO something must have given you a negative impression of him so I'd be interested in a link. My suspicion is that you don't like him because he thinks OJ Simpson is guilty.

[tv]

Vincent Bugliosi is considered one of the most magnificent prosecutors in history, much the same as Johnnie Cochran is considered to have been one of the most magnificent defense attorneys.

What specifically has made you come to the conclusion that Mr. Bugliosi is a nut? Or better yet, a blabber mouth nut?

KateOops, Kate. I went on my rant before I saw your reply.

[tv]

you got it right by the endI won't try to discredit your hero. I won't even call him a blabber mouth nut.

[tv]

That was the prosecutions responsibility and their problem.Murder suspects are routinely asked for their whereabouts during the crime they're suspected of committing. You keep saying the defense had no obligation to do anything. Why did OJ Simpson even bother to hire lawyers especially expensive ones? According to you, he could have just sat there and offered no defense at all since he had no obligation to do anything.

[tv]

Blabber mouth nut is more accurate.Yet you give credibility to people like Wagner and Dear. :D

[tv]

tv
i have a problem accepting what the limo driver said he saw that night.
His testimony was different at different times and some made no sense
* one time he said he did not kow if the AA person was male or female.
* Then he said he saw two cars in thst same driveway when there was only
one.
* One time he said He did not see the bronco when he arrived and then said
he was not looking for the bronco he was looking for the address.
* Then he said he did not see the bronco when leaving when it was 3 feet
from his window and he looked at the spot where it was.
* At different times he gave different versions of what bags he loaded as
opposed to what others loaded.
* Then he testified that oj came out of the house wearing a black overcoat
which kato denied seeing.

He seemed to have a problem with facts and details. I think the jury had a problem with his testimonies also.What the heck does all this have to do with Simpson's alibi? Are you saying that Park saw Simpson before he saw him outside of the house? That makes no sense.

[William Anthony]

Murder suspects are routinely asked for their whereabouts during the crime they're suspected of committing. You keep saying the defense had no obligation to do anything. Why did OJ Simpson even bother to hire lawyers especially expensive ones? According to you, he could have just sat there and offered no defense at all since he had no obligation to do anything.

If I might, you are quite right. If he thought the evidence was so weak that no jury would convict and that a judge would ensure that his rights were not violated by improper tactics, such as waving an objection by failing to state one. However, that is not the judge's job. That is theoretically why they have court appointed lawyers. However, most court appointed lawyers work with the prosecution to spare the state the expense of a trial, since they are getting paid very little or may be working pro bono, imho. His defense, which was magnificently done, imho, was to show why the prosecution's evidence could not be trusted beyond a reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

What the heck does all this have to do with Simpson's alibi? Are you saying that Park saw Simpson before he saw him outside of the house? That makes no sense.

What??? Aren't you the poster who said Simpson had no alibi?:)

[William Anthony]

Vincent Bugliosi is considered one of the most magnificent prosecutors in history, much the same as Johnnie Cochran is considered to have been one of the most magnificent defense attorneys.

sniped

Kate

Well stated.

[tv]

What??? Aren't you the poster who said Simpson had no alibi?:)Let me see...yes, he did have an alibi or more accurately alibis. He was chipping golf balls, he was sleeping, he was taking a shower, he was rushing around getting ready...I hope I didn't forget one of his alibis. No one saw him doing any of these things which equals no alibi.

[tv]

If I might, you are quite right. If he thought the evidence was so weak that no jury would convict and that a judge would ensure that his rights were not violated by improper tactics, such as waving an objection by failing to state one. However, that is not the judge's job. That is theoretically why they have court appointed lawyers. However, most court appointed lawyers work with the prosecution to spare the state the expense of a trial, since they are getting paid very little or may be working pro bono, imho. His defense, which was magnificently done, imho, was to show why the prosecution's evidence could not be trusted beyond a reasonable doubt.Apparently he didn't consider the evidence as weak as you do.

[William Anthony]

Let me see...yes, he did have an alibi or more accurately alibis. He was chipping golf balls, he was sleeping, he was taking a shower, he was rushing around getting ready...I hope I didn't forget one of his alibis. No one saw him doing any of these things which equals no alibi.

I get it. Since Kato was there, he should have said watch me chip golf balls, watch my while I sleep until I wake up, watch me while I shower and watch me rush around getting ready for my trip, because someone may accuse me of a crime and, in case they do, I am going to need an alibi.

[William Anthony]

Apparently he didn't consider the evidence as weak as you do.

No, he did not but the dream team and the jury did, imho.

[tv]

I get it. Since Kato was there, he should have said watch me chip golf balls, watch my while I sleep until I wake up, watch me while I shower and watch me rush around getting ready for my trip, because someone may accuse me of a crime and, in case they do, I am going to need an alibi.William, this is a silly argument and you know it.

[William Anthony]

William, this is a silly argument and you know it.

I beg to differ and, as much as Bugliosi's is respected, I do not think that he needed to prove his alibi or alibis. The prosecution needed to disprove them in order to place him at Bundy.

[tv]

I beg to differ and, as much as Bugliosi's is respected, I do not think that he needed to prove his alibi or alibis. The prosecution needed to disprove them in order to place him at Bundy.

Now you're begging? :) William, with all due respect you can't really believe that Vincent Bugliosi is the only person that believes OJ Simpson's alibi(s) aren't credible.

[tv]

No, he did not but the dream team and the jury did, imho.Hmm...wonder why he didn't think the evidence was weak?

[William Anthony]

Hmm...wonder why he didn't think the evidence was weak?

Hmn, because he was not a lawyer and did not realize the dream team would do such a magnificent job in exposing the weaknesses to the jury.

[William Anthony]

Now you're begging? :) William, with all due respect you can't really believe that Vincent Bugliosi is the only person that believes OJ Simpson's alibi(s) aren't credible.

Believing and proving are two different things, imho.

[tv]

Hmn, because he was not a lawyer and did not realize the dream team would do such a magnificent job in exposing the weaknesses to the jury.Hmm, wrong answer. It was because he knew all the evidence was valid.

[William Anthony]

Here is a link on the California Penal Code for murder, which would include what the prosecution must prove.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/187-199.html

[tv]

Believing and proving are two different things, imho.If you know of anything that proves OJ Simpson was home during the entire time period of the murders I'm open to that information.

[William Anthony]

If you know of anything that proves OJ Simpson was home during the entire time period of the murders I'm open to that information.

His statements that were not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt, imho, keeping in my the presumption of innocence.

[tv]

Here is a link on the California Penal Code for murder, which would include what the prosecution must prove.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/187-199.htmlThank you, but I didn't see anything outlining what the prosecutor must prove. Did I overlook it?

[William Anthony]

Hmm, wrong answer. It was because he knew all the evidence was valid.

Including the evidence of planting, contamination, cross contamination, mistakes, human errors or lies, the gloves that did not fit, the blood not were the glove was found, the blood trail leading from Rockingham street into the front door, no blood on his carpet, the missing blood, the magical socks, the blanket being injected into the crime scene, the gloves that did not fit, the rush to judgment and the testimony of a dead expert.

[tv]

His statements that were not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt, imho, keeping in my the presumption of innocence.For bob's sake, William. An alibi is only good if you can back it up. Besides, they backed up his guilt with the DNA evidence among other things.

[William Anthony]

Thank you, but I didn't see anything outlining what the prosecutor must prove. Did I overlook it?

You must have because they must prove every element of the crime.

[William Anthony]

For bob's sake, William. An alibi is only good if you can back it up.

Show me where the law says the defendant must prove his alibi. It said that if it is justified the defendant must prove that.

[tv]

Including the evidence of planting, contamination, cross contamination, mistakes, human errors or lies, the gloves that did not fit, the blood not were the glove was found, the blood trail leading from Rockingham street into the front door, no blood on his carpet, the missing blood, the magical socks, the blanket being injected into the crime scene, the gloves that did not fit, the rush to judgment and the testimony of a dead expert.All bogus and invented by the defense. Judge Ito even rejected those notions.

[tv]

Show me where the law says the defendant must prove his alibi. It said that if it is justified the defendant must prove that.He doesn't have to prove his alibi but it's useless to even offer one that can't be substantiated because it's worthless.

[tv]

You must have because they must prove every element of the crime.I didn't see that there but I'll defer to your greater knowledge of the law in this instance.

[martin II]

Hmm...wonder why he didn't think the evidence was weak?

His agenda would not allow him to.

[tv]

His agenda would not allow him to.His agenda? :D

[martin II]

Murder suspects are routinely asked for their whereabouts during the crime they're suspected of committing. You keep saying the defense had no obligation to do anything. Why did OJ Simpson even bother to hire lawyers especially expensive ones? According to you, he could have just sat there and offered no defense at all since he had no obligation to do anything.

The defense can offer no defense and allow the jury to decide based on the prosecutions presentation. But oj felt it was necassary to hire the dream team
to show that the prosecution could not prove those charges beyone a reasonable doubt and they did.And he walked.imo

[martin II]

He doesn't have to prove his alibi but it's useless to even offer one that can't be substantiated because it's worthless.

He was asked where he was and he told them where he was.The prosecution could not prove that he was not where he said he was.That was a problem for them. It may be that the jury was waiting for them to do just that and in the end thay could not do it.imo

[tv]

He was asked where he was and he told them where he was.The prosecution could not prove that he was not where he said he was.That was a problem for them. It may be that the jury was waiting for them to do just that and in the end thay could not do it.imoIf he could have backed up his alibis he would have. He was lying or he wouldn't have come up with so many different scenarios about his activities that night. Not believable.

[martin II]

If you know of anything that proves OJ Simpson was home during the entire time period of the murders I'm open to that information.

It is my belief that as Park sat at the gate oj brought the two bag down from upstairs to his front porch and returned inside to collect the other bag.Park testified he saw the bags already on the porch when he drove to the door.imo
martin II

[martin II]

If he could have backed up his alibis he would have. He was lying or he wouldn't have come up with so many different scenarios about his activities that night. Not believable.


If you were alone in your home last night, could you prove to le that you were and not some other place.

[martin II]

His agenda? :D

VB was on the outside trying to tell the prosecution how to run their case
and critizeing the defense as if he was the MASTER judge and jury in the case.He was just selling magazines to his readers for Vanity fair.imo
Was it charles manson he put in jail? If so that must have been very difficult to do.hahaha The prosecutors office in la county wim about 90% of all their cases anyway.imo

[martin II]

Please enlighten me as to why you consider Vincent Bugliosi to be a nut. He successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials for the Los Angeles District Attorney's office; 21 murder convictions without a loss. He is now a defense attorney. Alan Dershowitz states "Bugliosi is as good a prosecutor as there ever was." He's a bestselling author. His book was well-researched and he spoke with most of the major players in the Simpson case personally. He was fair in his book to both prosecution and defense. Even though you state IMO something must have given you a negative impression of him so I'd be interested in a link. My suspicion is that you don't like him because he thinks OJ Simpson is guilty.

Did you read his book on the "ASSINATION OF JFK"

[William Anthony]

He doesn't have to prove his alibi but it's useless to even offer one that can't be substantiated because it's worthless.

I think you may be confusing the worth of alibi to an investigation rather than to what the prosecution has to prove in a trial.

[William Anthony]

I didn't see that there but I'll defer to your greater knowledge of the law in this instance.

Thank you but this could be a learning experience for all, including me. If you would like, we could begin with certain stipulations. The first thing that the prosecution would have to prove is that the killings were unlawful, according to the penal code and I think we can stipulate to that.

[William Anthony]

The next thing the prosecution most prove is that there was malice aforethought and this is the pertinent definition and how to prove it.

"188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart.
When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional
doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no
other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of
malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act
within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite
such awareness is included within the definition of malice."

I think that given the manner of death we can say there was "manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature." I do not think that the defense argued whoever committed the murders did so unintentionally. The prosecution did not have to prove that the accused knew he was obligated to not kill the victims or that, although he knew he was violating the laws, he committed murder despite the knowledge.

[William Anthony]

The next thing the prosecution had to prove was whether or not it was first or second degree murder. This is what the relevant part of what first degree murder is.

"by any other kind of willful, deliberate,
and premeditated killing, , is murder of the first degree."

In order to convict for first degree the prosecution had to prove that the murders were willful, deliberate and premeditated. This is what they did not have to prove for deliberate and premeditated.

"To prove the killing was "deliberate and premeditated," it shall
not be necessary to prove the defendant maturely and meaningfully
reflected upon the gravity of his or her act."

[William Anthony]

This seems to be the only elements the prosecution had to prove for murder in the first degree, which meant that they had to produce sufficient evidence and persuade the jury that the accused committed the murders beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the defense was that he did not do it, then justifiable homicide and insanity were not issues. When we look at the seemingly givens, intent, malice aforethought, deliberateness, premeditation and unlawfulness, it seems that the prosecution only had to prove that Simpson did it and they failed, imho.

[William Anthony]

I think that we should begin with the discussion of the weapon. We know that the murders were committed by means of one or more knives. The prosecution did a thorough search in California and Chicago and no knife was found. Had the prosecution been able to produce a knife which could be linked to Simpson, this may have aided them in their burden of persuasion, in order to show that there was a deliberate intent by Simpson.

[tv]

If you were alone in your home last night, could you prove to le that you were and not some other place.I'm seldom alone at home but if I couldn't back up my whereabouts my alibi would be useless.

[tv]

VB was on the outside trying to tell the prosecution how to run their case
and critizeing the defense as if he was the MASTER judge and jury in the case.He was just selling magazines to his readers for Vanity fair.imo
Was it charles manson he put in jail? If so that must have been very difficult to do.hahaha The prosecutors office in la county wim about 90% of all their cases anyway.imoPlease provide a link to prove that Mr. Bugliosi tried to tell the prosecution how to run their case. I would put him more in the context of the many commentators on the case. martin, it's extremely rude of you to laugh at the prosecution of Charles Manson. I'll just chalk it up to your ignorance of the facts of what you're talking about.

[tv]

Did you read his book on the "ASSINATION OF JFK"No, but I will eventually. I read all his books. Why?

[tv]

I think you may be confusing the worth of alibi to an investigation rather than to what the prosecution has to prove in a trial.I'm not confused. This conversation started with whether or not LE had enough evidence to arrest Simpson for the murders when he first arrived from Chicago. I cited, among other things, the lack of an alibi. You and martin carried it off the deep end.

[tv]

I think that we should begin with the discussion of the weapon. We know that the murders were committed by means of one or more knives. The prosecution did a thorough search in California and Chicago and no knife was found. Had the prosecution been able to produce a knife which could be linked to Simpson, this may have aided them in their burden of persuasion, in order to show that there was a deliberate intent by Simpson.Al Cowlings told Jennifer Peace that the knife sleeps with the fishes. Since 70 to 75% of Earth is covered by water I'm not surprised it never turned up.:)

[tv]

It is my belief that as Park sat at the gate oj brought the two bag down from upstairs to his front porch and returned inside to collect the other bag.Park testified he saw the bags already on the porch when he drove to the door.imo
martin IIDoes this have something to do with the alibi?

[William Anthony]

I'm not confused. This conversation started with whether or not LE had enough evidence to arrest Simpson for the murders when he first arrived from Chicago. I cited, among other things, the lack of an alibi. You and martin carried it off the deep end.

Yes that's how the conversation started. If you are now saying that what you call a lack of an alibi has to be shown by the prosecution as false, then we are in total agreement.

[William Anthony]

Al Cowlings told Jennifer Peace that the knife sleeps with the fishes. Since 70 to 75% of Earth is covered by water I'm not surprised it never turned up.:)

Hearsay on top of hearsay.

[William Anthony]

It would seem that the prosecution focused on Second degree murder as they tried to prove Simpson was enraged and an argument ensued, There seems to be a conflict if we believe he took the knife from the box in his bathroom to Bundy.

[martin II]

Does this have something to do with the alibi?

Yes.
martin II

[William Anthony]

According to the following link, Simpson was charged with two counts of first degree murder. I do not know if the charges were reduced to second degree.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE4DA123DF933A15755C0A9629582 60

[martin II]

Al Cowlings told Jennifer Peace that the knife sleeps with the fishes. Since 70 to 75% of Earth is covered by water I'm not surprised it never turned up.:)

After AC and Jennifer Peace were no longer togeather she made this claim.AC never said he told her any such thing and the prosecution must have ignored her claim. It was reported that Jennifer was not pleased that AC had moved on without her. imo

[martin II]

I'm not confused. This conversation started with whether or not LE had enough evidence to arrest Simpson for the murders when he first arrived from Chicago. I cited, among other things, the lack of an alibi. You and martin carried it off the deep end.

When oj first arrived from Chicago he was handcuffed 1/2 arrested imo but had not had the interview with Vanhatter/Lang at that point so i am not sure he had told them where he was.imo

[martin II]

No, but I will eventually. I read all his books. Why?

He received strong critizism on that book.

[martin II]

Al Cowlings told Jennifer Peace that the knife sleeps with the fishes. Since 70 to 75% of Earth is covered by water I'm not surprised it never turned up.:)

AC testified that he never told Jennifer Peace that.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution had Simpson dressed in some sort of disguise with a knife. Those circumstances indicate murder in the first. The prosecution then theorized that Simpson wore a dark sweat suit, the one found in the washing machine, but
no blood was seen on the sweat suit and no blood found in the washing machine. So far the prosecution's evidence is that we believe Simpson took the knife from his bathroom and we believe he dressed in a sweat suit and we believe he committed the murders.

[weezer]

AC testified that he never told Jennifer Peace that.

how credible is ac? he plead the 5th!

[William Anthony]

how credible is ac? he plead the 5th!

If she did not bring forth the alleged statement until after the relationship with AC ended, how credible is she? Why did she choose to withhold the information? Did she testify under oath?

[Kate Sachel]

He received strong critizism on that book.

That's all you have to say? That the book recieved strong criticism?

Have you read the book martin? If so, rather than making a general statement as you did above, why don't you tell us exactly what you didn't like about the book? Specifically, I am looking for something that is your own personal opinion rather than reviews you may dredge up from a website.

Do you have any of your own opinions regarding Vincent Bugliosi or do you rely only on secondhand opinions? How much do you know about his legal history, his personal and professional accomplishments, his lifestyle, his style in the courtroom, etc?

Worth noting, by the way, that Johnnie Cochran's book regarding the OJ trial recieved strong criticism as well. Should I take that to mean that he wasn't a great defense attorney?

Kate

[William Anthony]

Let's continue the exploration of the prosecution's evidence. We believe that he dressed in a sweat suit, took a knife and murdered two people by cutting their throats, although we have no evidence to support this. We further believe that he wore a pair of size 12 dress shoes, although we did not find the shoes, with the sweat suit and drove to Bundy from his Rockingham location in his Bronco to commit the murders, although we have no person, who could say that he got in any of his cars and drove anyplace, after he and Kato went to get something to eat at a fast food restaurant. We believe that Simpson was the only person with a size 12 foot that wore that particular type of dress shoe and knew Nicole. We believe that Simpson parked his Bronco in the alleyway behind Nicole's condo, although no one saw him or the Bronco parked there.

[martin II]

The prosecution had Simpson dressed in some sort of disguise with a knife. Those circumstances indicate murder in the first. The prosecution then theorized that Simpson wore a dark sweat suit, the one found in the washing machine, but
no blood was seen on the sweat suit and no blood found in the washing machine. So far the prosecution's evidence is that we believe Simpson took the knife from his bathroom and we believe he dressed in a sweat suit and we believe he committed the murders.

Vanhatter and Lang said on tv that the box in ojs bathroom had nothing to do with the case and they did not know why furhman continues to talk about it.imo

[Kate Sachel]

Vanhatter and Lang said on tv that the box in ojs bathroom had nothing to do with the case and they did not know why furhman continues to talk about it.imo

Let us recall that you denounce Vanatter and Lange as liars at every turn. I think it fair to ask the question ... why do you believe Vanatter and Lange on this particular point? Simply because it's a strike against Fuhrman?

Kate

[tv]

He received strong critizism on that book.That's life.

[martin II]

Let's continue the exploration of the prosecution's evidence. We believe that he dressed in a sweat suit, took a knife and murdered two people by cutting their throats, although we have no evidence to support this. We further believe that he wore a pair of size 12 dress shoes, although we did not find the shoes, with the sweat suit and drove to Bundy from his Rockingham location in his Bronco to commit the murders, although we have no person, who could say that he got in any of his cars and drove anyplace, after he and Kato went to get something to eat at a fast food restaurant. We believe that Simpson was the only person with a size 12 foot that wore that particular type of dress shoe and knew Nicole. We believe that Simpson parked his Bronco in the alleyway behind Nicole's condo, although no one saw him or the Bronco parked there.

And that a phone call from his girlfriend caused him to flip out and go kill someone else.

[tv]

AC testified that he never told Jennifer Peace that.Then I suppose she made it up. After all, AC Cowlings woould never lie for OJ Simpson. HAHA

[William Anthony]

Vanhatter and Lang said on tv that the box in ojs bathroom had nothing to do with the case and they did not know why furhman continues to talk about it.imo

If we credit what the lead detectives say, then I will edit my prior post to read the following;

The prosecution had Simpson dressed in some sort of disguise with a knife. Those circumstances indicate murder in the first. The prosecution then theorized that Simpson wore a dark sweat suit, the one found in the washing machine, but
no blood was seen on the sweat suit and no blood found in the washing machine. So far the prosecution's evidence is that we believe Simpson took the knife from his bathroom or from somewhere and we believe he dressed in a sweat suit and we believe he committed the murders.

[tv]

Let's continue the exploration of the prosecution's evidence. We believe that he dressed in a sweat suit, took a knife and murdered two people by cutting their throats, although we have no evidence to support this. We further believe that he wore a pair of size 12 dress shoes, although we did not find the shoes, with the sweat suit and drove to Bundy from his Rockingham location in his Bronco to commit the murders, although we have no person, who could say that he got in any of his cars and drove anyplace, after he and Kato went to get something to eat at a fast food restaurant. We believe that Simpson was the only person with a size 12 foot that wore that particular type of dress shoe and knew Nicole. We believe that Simpson parked his Bronco in the alleyway behind Nicole's condo, although no one saw him or the Bronco parked there.I hope you don't think this is a fair representation of the prosecution or LE case because it's not. If you're trying to be fair it's not working.

[William Anthony]

And that a phone call from his girlfriend caused him to flip out and go kill someone else.

Duly noted and added.

Let's continue the exploration of the prosecution's evidence. We believe that he dressed in a sweat suit, took a knife and murdered two people by cutting their throats, although we have no evidence to support this. We further believe that he wore a pair of size 12 dress shoes, although we did not find the shoes, with the sweat suit and drove to Bundy from his Rockingham location in his Bronco to commit the murders, although we have no person, who could say that he got in any of his cars and drove anyplace, after he and Kato went to get something to eat at a fast food restaurant. We believe that Simpson was the only person with a size 12 foot that wore that particular type of dress shoe and knew Nicole. We believe that Simpson parked his Bronco in the alleyway behind Nicole's condo, although no one saw him or the Bronco parked there. we further believe that a phone call from his girlfriend caused him to flip out and go kill someone else

[weezer]

If she did not bring forth the alleged statement until after the relationship with AC ended, how credible is she? Why did she choose to withhold the information? Did she testify under oath?

you guys crack me up! everybody is lying except the one person whose blood, hair, fiber, hat, glove and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints were found at the scene. the one person who had a history of abuse toward Nicole. the one person that had been threatening and stalking Nicole: orenthal james simpson.

[William Anthony]

I hope you don't think this is a fair representation of the prosecution or LE case because it's not. If you're trying to be fair it's not working.

Yes, I think it is a fair representation. However, if you think there was evidence of the things I have thus far enumerated (and I will address the evidence they did present when I come to it), then please feel free to offer the evidence on the points enumerated for consideration.

[William Anthony]

you guys crack me up! everybody is lying except the one person whose blood, hair, fiber, hat, glove and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints were found at the scene. the one person who had a history of abuse toward Nicole. the one person that had been threatening and stalking Nicole: orenthal james simpson.

I have not said that she was lying or that AC was telling the truth. I just wanted to get the evidence so that we may make a consideration as to the credibility of the two.

[tv]

Hearsay on top of hearsay.Only in a court of law. This is a discussion forum.

[William Anthony]

Only in a court of law. This is a discussion forum.

Quite right and that is my addition to the discussion forum.

[martin II]

Then I suppose she made it up. After all, AC Cowlings woould never lie for OJ Simpson. HAHA

I believe she was argry and made it up as i see no reason ac would tell this lady this stuff. After all many have said oj took those items to Chicago in an black duffle bag, napsack,briefcase etc.

[martin II]

I hope you don't think this is a fair representation of the prosecution or LE case because it's not. If you're trying to be fair it's not working.

Does that sound like parts of M Clarke closing argument?

[martin II]

Duly noted and added.

Let's continue the exploration of the prosecution's evidence. We believe that he dressed in a sweat suit, took a knife and murdered two people by cutting their throats, although we have no evidence to support this. We further believe that he wore a pair of size 12 dress shoes, although we did not find the shoes, with the sweat suit and drove to Bundy from his Rockingham location in his Bronco to commit the murders, although we have no person, who could say that he got in any of his cars and drove anyplace, after he and Kato went to get something to eat at a fast food restaurant. We believe that Simpson was the only person with a size 12 foot that wore that particular type of dress shoe and knew Nicole. We believe that Simpson parked his Bronco in the alleyway behind Nicole's condo, although no one saw him or the Bronco parked there. we further believe that a phone call from his girlfriend caused him to flip out and go kill someone else

And that Mc Donalds sold oj one of their EDTA triple loaded special burgers.imo

[William Anthony]

Let's continue the exploration of the prosecution's evidence. We believe that he dressed in a sweat suit, took a knife and murdered two people by cutting their throats, although we have no evidence to support this. We further believe that he wore a pair of size 12 dress shoes, although we did not find the shoes, with the sweat suit and drove to Bundy from his Rockingham location in his Bronco to commit the murders, although we have no person, who could say that he got in any of his cars and drove anyplace, after he and Kato went to get something to eat at a fast food restaurant. We believe that Simpson was the only person with a size 12 foot that wore that particular type of dress shoe and knew Nicole. We believe that Simpson parked his Bronco in the alleyway behind Nicole's condo, although no one saw him or the Bronco parked there. we further believe that a phone call from his girlfriend caused him to flip out and go kill someone else. We received a report of a Caucasian crouching in the bushes by Nicole's condominium but, because the witness who saw this Caucasian could not provide us with enough of a description to find him, we decided he had nothing to do with the murders, because he did not have on a dark sweat suit, no knife was seen and no car was seen, and, although there was an unidentified Caucasian hair found at the scene, even though we use the same evidence to believe Simpson did it, it was our decision that this unidentified Caucasian played no part in the murders, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe the Caucasian hair could have been one of Ronald Goldman's naturally shed hair and, because this is our belief, we eliminated the unidentified Caucasian.

[martin II]

Let's continue the exploration of the prosecution's evidence. We believe that he dressed in a sweat suit, took a knife and murdered two people by cutting their throats, although we have no evidence to support this. We further believe that he wore a pair of size 12 dress shoes, although we did not find the shoes, with the sweat suit and drove to Bundy from his Rockingham location in his Bronco to commit the murders, although we have no person, who could say that he got in any of his cars and drove anyplace, after he and Kato went to get something to eat at a fast food restaurant. We believe that Simpson was the only person with a size 12 foot that wore that particular type of dress shoe and knew Nicole. We believe that Simpson parked his Bronco in the alleyway behind Nicole's condo, although no one saw him or the Bronco parked there. we further believe that a phone call from his girlfriend caused him to flip out and go kill someone else. We received a report of a Caucasian crouching in the bushes by Nicole's condominium but, because the witness who saw this Caucasian could not provide us with enough of a description to find him, we decided he had nothing to do with the murders, because he did not have on a dark sweat suit, no knife was seen and no car was seen, and, although there was an unidentified Caucasian hair found at the scene, even though we use the same evidence to believe Simpson did it, it was our decision that this unidentified Caucasian played no part in the murders, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe the Caucasian hair could have been one of Ronald Goldman's naturally shed hair and, because this is our belief, we eliminated the unidentified Caucasian.

There were two ojs that night. One we believe was at Bundy and Dorothy at 10:45 pm and another we believe was in the south pathway of ojs house at 10:45 pm banging against a wall.

[tv]

Does that sound like parts of M Clarke closing argument?I don't recall any of the prosecutors saying "...but we don't have evidence to support this" after every statement.

[William Anthony]

There were two ojs that night. One we believe was at Bundy and Dorothy at 10:45 pm and another we believe was in the south pathway of ojs house at 10:45 pm banging against a wall.

Yes, I was headed toward that. However I will add it, now.

Let's continue the exploration of the prosecution's evidence. We believe that he dressed in a sweat suit, took a knife and murdered two people by cutting their throats, although we have no evidence to support this. We further believe that he wore a pair of size 12 dress shoes, although we did not find the shoes, with the sweat suit and drove to Bundy from his Rockingham location in his Bronco to commit the murders, although we have no person, who could say that he got in any of his cars and drove anyplace, after he and Kato went to get something to eat at a fast food restaurant. We believe that Simpson was the only person with a size 12 foot that wore that particular type of dress shoe and knew Nicole. We believe that Simpson parked his Bronco in the alleyway behind Nicole's condo, although no one saw him or the Bronco parked there. we further believe that a phone call from his girlfriend caused him to flip out and go kill someone else. We received a report of a Caucasian crouching in the bushes by Nicole's condominium but, because the witness who saw this Caucasian could not provide us with enough of a description to find him, we decided he had nothing to do with the murders, because he did not have on a dark sweat suit, no knife was seen and no car was seen, and, although there was an unidentified Caucasian hair found at the scene, even though we use the same evidence to believe Simpson did it, it was our decision that this unidentified Caucasian played no part in the murders, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe the Caucasian hair could have been one of Ronald Goldman's naturally shed hair and, because this is our belief, we eliminated the unidentified Caucasian. Further, we believe there were two ojs that night. One we believe was at Bundy and Dorothy at 10:45 pm and another we believe was in the south pathway of ojs house at 10:45 pm banging against a wall.

[William Anthony]

I don't recall any of the prosecutors saying "...but we don't have evidence to support this" after every statement.

They didn't say it nor did they produce any evidence to support their beliefs beyond a reasonable doubt. This is just a look at the case they presented.

[weezer]

They didn't say it nor did they produce any evidence to support their beliefs beyond a reasonable doubt. This is just a look at the case they presented.

actually, it was a look at YOUR version and interpretation -- not very credible and not accurate. imo

[William Anthony]

actually, it was a look at YOUR version and interpretation -- not very credible and not accurate. imo

Feel free to correct me with evidence to support your opinion.

[weezer]

Feel free to correct me with evidence to support your opinion.

I could and would but it's not worth the effort. :seeya:

[tv]

There were two ojs that night. One we believe was at Bundy and Dorothy at 10:45 pm and another we believe was in the south pathway of ojs house at 10:45 pm banging against a wall.

It doesn't matter how many times your factual errors are pointed out you continue to make the same statements. The banging noises were heard by Kato around 10:51 to 10:52 not at 10:45.

[tv]

I could and would but it's not worth the effort. :seeya:Same for me. They will just continue to post their misleading and erroneous information so there's really no point.

[martin II]

It doesn't matter how many times your factual errors are pointed out you continue to make the same statements. The banging noises were heard by Kato around 10:51 to 10:52 not at 10:45.

Kato and his girlfriend did testify that he heard the noise at 10:45 and i am sure you know i have posted his testimony on this before.:cool:

[tv]

Kato and his girlfriend did testify that he heard the noise at 10:45 and i am sure you know i have posted his testimony on this before.:cool:Kato also said he wasn't looking at the clock. This has all been cleared up before -- the thumps were at 10:51 to 10:52.

[William Anthony]

Same for me. They will just continue to post their misleading and erroneous information so there's really no point.

Saying it's so does not make it so. If you think there is evidence supporting the prosecution's points on what I have enumerated then post it.

[tv]

Saying it's so does not make it so. If you think there is evidence supporting the prosecution's points on what I have enumerated then post it.Likewise because posting erroneous information doesn't make it so.

[martin II]

Kato also said he wasn't looking at the clock. This has all been cleared up before -- the thumps were at 10:51 to 10:52.



Neither did Heidstra.

10:45 south path
10:45 bundy/dorothy

Kato and girlfriends testimony

[tv]

Neither did Heidstra.

10:45 south path
10:45 bundy/dorothy

Kato and girlfriends testimonyPhone records support the thumps being heard at 10:51 to 10:52. We've all been over this numerous times.

[martin II]

Phone records support the thumps being heard at 10:51 to 10:52. We've all been over this numerous times.


10:30 + 10 minutes = 10:40
------

Q: WAS THERE ONE PARTICULAR TIME THAT NIGHT WHEN YOU ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED WHAT TIME IT WAS DURING YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. KAELIN?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT?

A: 10:30.

Q: OKAY. AND THAT WAS HOW LONG BEFORE YOU -- HE TOLD YOU ABOUT THE BANG?

A: ABOUT TEN MINUTES BEFORE.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU ARE CERTAIN OF THAT TIME?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND WHY IS THAT?

A: UMM, JUST BECAUSE OF HOW MUCH LONGER WE TALKED.

[weezer]

Ms. Clark: Mr. Kaelin, You Indicated Yesterday That When
You Came Back From Mc Donald's You Made A Phone Call To
Your Friend Tom In San Diego At 9:37; Is That Right?
Mr. Kaelin: Yes.
Ms. Clark: So You Last Saw The Defendant Standing By The
Bentley At 9:35. Was That Your Testimony?
******
Mr. Kaelin: Yes.
Ms. Clark: By Ms. Clark: At 9:35?
Mr. Kaelin: It Would Be, Yes, To Walk -- About 9:35, 9:36.
Ms. Clark: Uh-huh. Did You See The Defendant At 9:45?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 9:45?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 9:50?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 9:50?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 9:55?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 9:55?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 10:15?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 10:15?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 10:20?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 10:20?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 10:30?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 10:30?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 10:40?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 10:40?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 10:45?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Do You Know Where He Was At 10:45?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 10:50?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 10:50?
Mr. Kaelin: No.

[martin II]

26 CLARK: HOW LONG AFTER HEARING THE THUMP DID YOU --
27 HOW LONG AFTER YOU MADE THE PHONE CALL DID YOU HEAR THE
28 THUMP?
1 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?
2 KATO: WHEN I CALLED HER UP, WHEN DID I HEAR IT DURING
3 OUR CONVERSATION? HOW LONG HAD I BEEN ON?
4 CLARK: YES.
5 KATO: I'M THINKING ABOUT A HALF-HOUR.
6 CLARK: SO IT WAS A HALF-HOUR INTO THE CALL?
7 KATO: I THINK SO.
8 I THINK IN THE PHONE RECORD IT WILL SHOW.
9 CLARK: HOW LONG AFTER HEARING THE THUMP DID YOU HANG
10 UP THAT PHONE?
11 KATO: 5 MINUTES AFTER I HEARD THE THUMP.
12 IT WAS PRETTY FAST. I MEAN, WITHIN 1 TO 5
13 MINUTES.
*** Fuhrman testified time estimated as 10:45, made the morning of June 13th ***
Fuhrman: {Kaelin} SAID ABOUT 10:45 P.M. THE PREVIOUS NIGHT, I BELIEVE HE SAID HE WAS TALKING ON THE PHONE. HE SAID HE HEARD A CRASH OR A THUMP ON HIS WALL. HE THOUGHT THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN EARTHQUAKE AND HIS PICTURE SHOOK.

[martin II]

Ms. Clark: Mr. Kaelin, You Indicated Yesterday That When
You Came Back From Mc Donald's You Made A Phone Call To
Your Friend Tom In San Diego At 9:37; Is That Right?
Mr. Kaelin: Yes.
Ms. Clark: So You Last Saw The Defendant Standing By The
Bentley At 9:35. Was That Your Testimony?
******
Mr. Kaelin: Yes.
Ms. Clark: By Ms. Clark: At 9:35?
Mr. Kaelin: It Would Be, Yes, To Walk -- About 9:35, 9:36.
Ms. Clark: Uh-huh. Did You See The Defendant At 9:45?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 9:45?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 9:50?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 9:50?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 9:55?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 9:55?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 10:15?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 10:15?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 10:20?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 10:20?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 10:30?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 10:30?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 10:40?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 10:40?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 10:45?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Do You Know Where He Was At 10:45?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 10:50?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 10:50?
Mr. Kaelin: No.


Kato went to his room in the back of the property to eat his food and talk on the phone.No one told him he was to be out looking for oj.He only came out after hearing the noise at 10:45 while sitting on his bed talking to his girlfriend.imo

[weezer]

26 CLARK: HOW LONG AFTER HEARING THE THUMP DID YOU --
27 HOW LONG AFTER YOU MADE THE PHONE CALL DID YOU HEAR THE
28 THUMP?
1 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?
2 KATO: WHEN I CALLED HER UP, WHEN DID I HEAR IT DURING
3 OUR CONVERSATION? HOW LONG HAD I BEEN ON?
4 CLARK: YES.
5 KATO: I'M THINKING ABOUT A HALF-HOUR.
6 CLARK: SO IT WAS A HALF-HOUR INTO THE CALL?
7 KATO: I THINK SO.
8 I THINK IN THE PHONE RECORD IT WILL SHOW.
9 CLARK: HOW LONG AFTER HEARING THE THUMP DID YOU HANG
10 UP THAT PHONE?
11 KATO: 5 MINUTES AFTER I HEARD THE THUMP.
12 IT WAS PRETTY FAST. I MEAN, WITHIN 1 TO 5
13 MINUTES.
*** Fuhrman testified time estimated as 10:45, made the morning of June 13th ***
Fuhrman: {Kaelin} SAID ABOUT 10:45 P.M. THE PREVIOUS NIGHT, I BELIEVE HE SAID HE WAS TALKING ON THE PHONE. HE SAID HE HEARD A CRASH OR A THUMP ON HIS WALL. HE THOUGHT THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN EARTHQUAKE AND HIS PICTURE SHOOK.

I'm not sure what you feel this proves. there are phone records from that night that show when the phone call was.

[weezer]

Kato went to his room in the back of the property to eat his food and talk on the phone.No one told him he was to be out looking for oj.He only came out after hearing the noise at 10:45 while sitting on his bed talking to his girlfriend.imo

I'm sure you meant to say he came out 'after hearing the noise AFTER 10:45' didn't you?

[William Anthony]

Likewise because posting erroneous information doesn't make it so.

I again extend the offer for you to post any evidence that proves what I have posted thus far about the prosecution's case erroneous.

[William Anthony]

Ms. Clark: Mr. Kaelin, You Indicated Yesterday That When
You Came Back From Mc Donald's You Made A Phone Call To
Your Friend Tom In San Diego At 9:37; Is That Right?
Mr. Kaelin: Yes.
Ms. Clark: So You Last Saw The Defendant Standing By The
Bentley At 9:35. Was That Your Testimony?
******
Mr. Kaelin: Yes.
Ms. Clark: By Ms. Clark: At 9:35?
Mr. Kaelin: It Would Be, Yes, To Walk -- About 9:35, 9:36.
Ms. Clark: Uh-huh. Did You See The Defendant At 9:45?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 9:45?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 9:50?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 9:50?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 9:55?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 9:55?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 10:15?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 10:15?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 10:20?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 10:20?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 10:30?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 10:30?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 10:40?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 10:40?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 10:45?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Do You Know Where He Was At 10:45?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You See The Defendant At 10:50?
Mr. Kaelin: No.
Ms. Clark: Did You Know Where He Was At 10:50?
Mr. Kaelin: No.

Your point is?

[William Anthony]

Let's continue the exploration of the prosecution's evidence. We believe that he dressed in a sweat suit, took a knife and murdered two people by cutting their throats, although we have no evidence to support this. We further believe that he wore a pair of size 12 dress shoes, although we did not find the shoes, with the sweat suit and drove to Bundy from his Rockingham location in his Bronco to commit the murders, although we have no person, who could say that he got in any of his cars and drove anyplace, after he and Kato went to get something to eat at a fast food restaurant. We believe that Simpson was the only person with a size 12 foot that wore that particular type of dress shoe and knew Nicole. We believe that Simpson parked his Bronco in the alleyway behind Nicole's condo, although no one saw him or the Bronco parked there. we further believe that a phone call from his girlfriend caused him to flip out and go kill someone else. We received a report of a Caucasian crouching in the bushes by Nicole's condominium but, because the witness who saw this Caucasian could not provide us with enough of a description to find him, we decided he had nothing to do with the murders, because he did not have on a dark sweat suit, no knife was seen and no car was seen, and, although there was an unidentified Caucasian hair found at the scene, even though we use the same evidence to believe Simpson did it, it was our decision that this unidentified Caucasian played no part in the murders, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe the Caucasian hair could have been one of Ronald Goldman's naturally shed hair and, because this is our belief, we eliminated the unidentified Caucasian. Further, we believe there were two ojs that night. One we believe was at Bundy and Dorothy at 10:45 pm and another we believe was in the south pathway of ojs house at 10:45 pm banging against a wall.

We found blood drops at Bundy that we determined belonged to Simpson. We did not collect all the blood drops and washed some of the blood away, because we believed Simpson did it. we believe the uncollected blood would have belonged to either Simpson, Nicole or Goldman. We did not believe that the uncollected blood could have belonged to the unidentified crouching person or that the unidentified Caucasian hair belonged to the unidentified crouching person. We found a drop of blood under Nicole's fingernails that excluded Simpson, Nicole and Goldman but we did not believe it excluded Nicole because her fingernails scrapings had not degraded but we believe the blood did degrade and we had an expert testify that he relied on the author of a book to say that the blood degraded in a manner that the author disagreed with, because we believe Simpson did it. We had a criminalist testify that he collected blood but actually a trainee, who did not remember seeing a gate that we say had blood on it, collected most of the evidence. We believe that this testimony is irrelevant, because we believe Simpson did it. By the way we did go back several weeks later and collect the blood from the gate, after the scene had been washed down and the blood on the gate had not degraded, even thought it was exposed to the elements. We believe that this was very fortuitous, because we believe that Simpson did it. By the way even thought the criminalist testified that he did not see one of the blood spots in a picture taken of the gate on the 13th, and he subsequently changed the number of the spot and took a picture of the spot several weeks later, we believe it was there on the 13th and was left by Simpson, because we believe Simpson did it.

[tv]

I again extend the offer for you to post any evidence that proves what I have posted thus far about the prosecution's case erroneous.Even though you provided no links to back up your statements I'm sure I wouldn't be given the same privilege. I suggest we do this same little exercise in the context of the civil trial. :)

[William Anthony]

Even though you provided no links to back up your statements I'm sure I wouldn't be given the same privilege. I suggest we do this same little exercise in the context of the civil trial. :)

That might be an excellent idea. I am sure that there will be those who will be delighted to partake in that endeavor. I stated that I accept the verdict in what was, imho, a political production. There are those here who will not accept the criminal verdict and that is why I think we should explore the prosecution's case. I am sure you will find some that will not accept the verdict in what was, imho, s political production.

[William Anthony]

Even though you provided no links to back up your statements I'm sure I wouldn't be given the same privilege. I suggest we do this same little exercise in the context of the civil trial. :)

As one poster stated, you do not have to supply a link to what is commonly known. :)

[tv]

As one poster stated, you do not have to supply a link to what is commonly known. :)Then I'll say it's commonly known that Kato said Simpson was wearing a dark sweat suit the night of the murders. Did the prosecution present evidence at the trial that there was a person crouching in the bushes?

[William Anthony]

Then I'll say it's commonly known that Kato said Simpson was wearing a dark sweat suit the night of the murders. Did the prosecution present evidence at the trial that there was a person crouching in the bushes?

I think it is commonly known that Kato said it was more like a jogging suit. Yes didn't one of the detectives testify that they had interviewed the witness twice, once 11 months afterwards, IIRC, and the witness could not adequately describe the crouching person.

[tv]

I think it is commonly known that Kato said it was more like a jogging suit. Yes didn't one of the detectives testify that they had interviewed the witness twice, once 11 months afterwards, IIRC, and the witness could not adequately describe the crouching person.
Was that information brought out by the defense or the prosecution?

[martin II]

Was that information brought out by the defense or the prosecution?

I think it was det Lang who worked for the prosecution.:D

[martin II]

I think it is commonly known that Kato said it was more like a jogging suit. Yes didn't one of the detectives testify that they had interviewed the witness twice, once 11 months afterwards, IIRC, and the witness could not adequately describe the crouching person.

Kato said it had a white zipper down the front which was a different discreption given be the lady that purchased it for the video shoot.

[tv]

I think it was det Lang who worked for the prosecution.:Dmartin, I'm asking if the defense brought it out during the trial or if it was the prosecution.

[tv]

Kato said it had a white zipper down the front which was a different discreption given be the lady that purchased it for the video shoot.IIRC, there is a photo of OJ Simpson wearing a dark sweat suit with a white or silver zipper down the front but since that was brought out in the civil trial I won't mention it here. :)

[William Anthony]

Was that information brought out by the defense or the prosecution?

He was called as a prosecution witness and the evidence was put on during their case in chief, IIRC. It may have been brought out on cross but it was the prosecution's witness and, as such, their evidence. If you are asking should the prosecution have brought it out on direct, then yes, I think they should have. It made them look as thought they were trying to hide something, imho.

[William Anthony]

IIRC, there is a photo of OJ Simpson wearing a dark sweat suit with a white or silver zipper down the front but since that was brought out in the civil trial I won't mention it here. :)

Jogging suit is different from sweat suit. Did the sweat suit allegedly found in the washing machine have a white zipper? You know the one the prosecution believed he wore.

[tv]

He was called as a prosecution witness and the evidence was put on during their case in chief, IIRC. It may have been brought out on cross but it was the prosecution's witness and, as such, their evidence. If you are asking should the prosecution have brought it out on direct, then yes, I think they should have. It made them look as thought they were trying to hide something, imho.So, when you put it in your summary of the prosecution's case you were being misleading. Here is what you posted:

We received a report of a Caucasian crouching in the bushes by Nicole's condominium but, because the witness who saw this Caucasian could not provide us with enough of a description to find him, we decided he had nothing to do with the murders, because he did not have on a dark sweat suit, no knife was seen and no car was seen, and, although there was an unidentified Caucasian hair found at the scene, even though we use the same evidence to believe Simpson did it, it was our decision that this unidentified Caucasian played no part in the murders, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe the Caucasian hair could have been one of Ronald Goldman's naturally shed hair and, because this is our belief, we eliminated the unidentified Caucasian.

Disingenuous would be a nice way to describe this post. :mad: Please direct the members of this community to a link to back up either of the prosectuors saying these things.

[tv]

Here is the next part of your version of the prosecution's case which is complete fiction --

Further, we believe there were two ojs that night. One we believe was at Bundy and Dorothy at 10:45 pm and another we believe was in the south pathway of ojs house at 10:45 pm banging against a wall.

Please post a source to this information or admit that it's bogus.

[tv]

Jogging suit is different from sweat suit. Did the sweat suit allegedly found in the washing machine have a white zipper? You know the one the prosecution believed he wore.Those two terms are often used to describe the same garment. I don't know if there was a white zipper on the clothing in the washer but you don't know that there wasn't.

[tv]

By the way, those were the only two items I chose to challenge. The rest of it isn't any better.

[martin II]

Those two terms are often used to describe the same garment. I don't know if there was a white zipper on the clothing in the washer but you don't know that there wasn't.

I don't think Fung described a white zipper in his report and he did make a video of it. It may have been played in court. not sure but i think it would have been if it was evidence. At any rate Park testified that oj was wearing a black overcoat when he came down stairs.imo

[martin II]

So, when you put it in your summary of the prosecution's case you were being misleading. Here is what you posted:

We received a report of a Caucasian crouching in the bushes by Nicole's condominium but, because the witness who saw this Caucasian could not provide us with enough of a description to find him, we decided he had nothing to do with the murders, because he did not have on a dark sweat suit, no knife was seen and no car was seen, and, although there was an unidentified Caucasian hair found at the scene, even though we use the same evidence to believe Simpson did it, it was our decision that this unidentified Caucasian played no part in the murders, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe the Caucasian hair could have been one of Ronald Goldman's naturally shed hair and, because this is our belief, we eliminated the unidentified Caucasian.

Disingenuous would be a nice way to describe this post. :mad: Please direct the members of this community to a link to back up either of the prosectuors saying these things.


Detective Lang interviewed the skate board person several months later and determined that there was not enough info to attempt to find the croughing person. The blond hair was mentioned but i am not sure any identity effort was ever made.It seemed to have been just left hanging.

[martin II]

Here is the next part of your version of the prosecution's case which is complete fiction --

Further, we believe there were two ojs that night. One we believe was at Bundy and Dorothy at 10:45 pm and another we believe was in the south pathway of ojs house at 10:45 pm banging against a wall.

Please post a source to this information or admit that it's bogus.

It is common knowledge that Heidstre testified that he saw a person in a white suv at 10:45 on 6/12 and many have indicated that they believe oj was driving.

It is common knowledge that Kato and his girlfriend testified that he heard the noise at 10:45 on 6/12 and many have indicated that they believe it was oj making the noise.

The source is criminal trial testimony.

[William Anthony]

So, when you put it in your summary of the prosecution's case you were being misleading. Here is what you posted:

We received a report of a Caucasian crouching in the bushes by Nicole's condominium but, because the witness who saw this Caucasian could not provide us with enough of a description to find him, we decided he had nothing to do with the murders, because he did not have on a dark sweat suit, no knife was seen and no car was seen, and, although there was an unidentified Caucasian hair found at the scene, even though we use the same evidence to believe Simpson did it, it was our decision that this unidentified Caucasian played no part in the murders, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe the Caucasian hair could have been one of Ronald Goldman's naturally shed hair and, because this is our belief, we eliminated the unidentified Caucasian.

Disingenuous would be a nice way to describe this post. :mad: Please direct the members of this community to a link to back up either of the prosectuors saying these things.

I have not said the prosecution said these things. I do say that it is the case they presented. I do not need a link to something I have not quoted the prosecution as saying, imho.