Issues In The Criminal Trial

[William Anthony]

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 watched the trial and saw the picture. There was no white zipper in the garment in the picture of the sweat suit they claimed to have found in the washer.

[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 though 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.

Now we want to talk about the blood spot found on the gate. We had an expert, who we later found should have been dead by his results, test the stain for the presence of a preservative. The expert who should have been dead found results in his own blood similar to that found in the gate stain. We decided not to call the expert because he should have been dead by his results, which meant that Simpson should have been dead, because we alleged Simpson was the source of the gate stain. The defense called the expert who should have been dead and introduced his results. We in turn called another expert who stated it was the ghost in the machine that caused the results. We believe this ghost of a theory is valid, because we believe Simpson did it.

[weezer]

I watched the trial and saw the picture. There was no white zipper in the garment in the picture of the sweat suit they claimed to have found in the washer.

arnelle testified that it was her lingerie in the washing machine and she and the maid testified that the laundry basket was arnelle's. the maid said the lingerie wasn't in the washer and the basket wasn't on the washer when she left on Friday afternoon. arnelle testified that she did not do her wash that weekend. what's your scenario on how that sweat suit and lingerie got in the washing machine with arnelle's lingerie in orenthal's laundry room in orenthal's locked house?

[martin II]

The jury listened and said 'Not proven beyond a reasonable doubt"

[weezer]

The jury listened and said 'Not proven beyond a reasonable doubt"

:eek: :confused: :shrug:

[martin II]

arnelle testified that it was her lingerie in the washing machine and she and the maid testified that the laundry basket was arnelle's. the maid said the lingerie wasn't in the washer and the basket wasn't on the washer when she left on Friday afternoon. arnelle testified that she did not do her wash that weekend. what's your scenario on how that sweat suit and lingerie got in the washing machine with arnelle's lingerie in orenthal's laundry room in orenthal's locked house?

We don't really know if the sweat suit was in the washer or on the floor in the washroom.I know it would make no sense to wash the suite if one intended to get rid of it.Why wash a sweat suite when oj could have taken it with him to chicago in one of the many bags if that was the case.makes no sense.

[William Anthony]

arnelle testified that it was her lingerie in the washing machine and she and the maid testified that the laundry basket was arnelle's. the maid said the lingerie wasn't in the washer and the basket wasn't on the washer when she left on Friday afternoon. arnelle testified that she did not do her wash that weekend. what's your scenario on how that sweat suit and lingerie got in the washing machine with arnelle's lingerie in orenthal's laundry room in orenthal's locked house?

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 though 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.

Now we want to talk about the blood spot found on the gate. We had an expert, who we later found should have been dead by his results, test the stain for the presence of a preservative. The expert who should have been dead found results in his own blood similar to that found in the gate stain. We decided not to call the expert because he should have been dead by his results, which meant that Simpson should have been dead, because we alleged Simpson was the source of the gate stain. The defense called the expert who should have been dead and introduced his results. We in turn called another expert who stated it was the ghost in the machine that caused the results. We believe this ghost of a theory is valid, because we believe Simpson did it.

Now, in regard to the sweat suit that we believe was bloody, we believe that Arnelle Simpson aided her father in covering up the murders by washing the bloody sweat suit, even though we cannot place her in the washroom and there was no blood found in the washing machine and even though it is not the jogging suit described by kato, because we believe Simpson did it.

[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. 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 though 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.

Now we want to talk about the blood spot found on the gate. We had an expert, who we later found should have been dead by his results, test the stain for the presence of a preservative. The expert who should have been dead found results in his own blood similar to that found in the gate stain. We decided not to call the expert because he should have been dead by his results, which meant that Simpson should have been dead, because we alleged Simpson was the source of the gate stain. The defense called the expert who should have been dead and introduced his results. We in turn called another expert who stated it was the ghost in the machine that caused the results. We believe this ghost of a theory is valid, because we believe Simpson did it.

Now, in regard to the sweat suit that we believe was bloody, we believe that Arnelle Simpson aided her father in covering up the murders by washing the bloody sweat suit, even though we cannot place her in the washroom and there was no blood found in the washing machine and even though it is not the jogging suit described by kato, because we believe Simpson did it.

It is also not the sweat suite described by the person that purchased the sweat suite worn in the video.

[weezer]

We don't really know if the sweat suit was in the washer or on the floor in the washroom.I know it would make no sense to wash the suite if one intended to get rid of it.Why wash a sweat suite when oj could have taken it with him to chicago in one of the many bags if that was the case.makes no sense.

that's kinda what I was thinking -- but maybe orenthal wasn't thinking clearly when he returned from butchering two human beings. ;)

hey, do you suppose orenthal borrowed arnelle's lingerie? I mean, how else would his killing 'suite' be mixed up with her lingerie unless he was wearing it? :shrug:

[martin II]

that's kinda what I was thinking -- but maybe orenthal wasn't thinking clearly when he returned from butchering two human beings. ;)

hey, do you suppose orenthal borrowed arnelle's lingerie? I mean, how else would his killing 'suite' be mixed up with her lingerie unless he was wearing it? :shrug:

I have no idea as to what you are trying to say.

[William Anthony]

It is also not the sweat suite described by the person that purchased the sweat suite worn in the video.

With all due respect, the issue is what Simpson was wearing on the night of the murders and not what he wore in a video. The prosecution never argued that Simpson wore Arnelle's under garments only that he was dressed in a dark sweat suit and dress shoes. The evidence is that there were three people at the home before the police arrival. Kato's hair length would have been more appropriate for wearing women's under garments, if we are going to speculate, imho.

[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. 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 though 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.

Now we want to talk about the blood spot found on the gate. We had an expert, who we later found should have been dead by his results, test the stain for the presence of a preservative. The expert who should have been dead found results in his own blood similar to that found in the gate stain. We decided not to call the expert because he should have been dead by his results, which meant that Simpson should have been dead, because we alleged Simpson was the source of the gate stain. The defense called the expert who should have been dead and introduced his results. We in turn called another expert who stated it was the ghost in the machine that caused the results. We believe this ghost of a theory is valid, because we believe Simpson did it.

Now, in regard to the sweat suit that we believe was bloody, we believe that Arnelle Simpson aided her father in covering up the murders by washing the bloody sweat suit, even though we cannot place her in the washroom and there was no blood found in the washing machine and even though it is not the jogging suit described by kato, because we believe Simpson did it.
I don't think the prosecution said Arnelle washed the bloody sweat suit in their case. This was Petrocelli's theory. No matter...your version of the criminal prosecution is not truthful and could be very misleading to someone who's not familliar with the facts. I think you should add a disclaimer to this nonsense.

[tv]

With all due respect, the issue is what Simpson was wearing on the night of the murders and not what he wore in a video. The prosecution never argued that Simpson wore Arnelle's under garments only that he was dressed in a dark sweat suit and dress shoes. The evidence is that there were three people at the home before the police arrival. Kato's hair length would have been more appropriate for wearing women's under garments, if we are going to speculate, imho.Now you're saying that all men with long hair are feminine? That's very prejudicial of you. ;)

[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. 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 though 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.

Now we want to talk about the blood spot found on the gate. We had an expert, who we later found should have been dead by his results, test the stain for the presence of a preservative. The expert who should have been dead found results in his own blood similar to that found in the gate stain. We decided not to call the expert because he should have been dead by his results, which meant that Simpson should have been dead, because we alleged Simpson was the source of the gate stain. The defense called the expert who should have been dead and introduced his results. We in turn called another expert who stated it was the ghost in the machine that caused the results. We believe this ghost of a theory is valid, because we believe Simpson did it.

Now, in regard to the sweat suit that we believe was bloody, we believe that Arnelle Simpson aided her father in covering up the murders by washing the bloody sweat suit, even though we cannot place her in the washroom and there was no blood found in the washing machine and even though it is not the jogging suit described by kato, because we believe Simpson did it.

Isn't this post nearly identical to post #1734? What is the reason you subjected us to it twice?

[William Anthony]

I don't think the prosecution said Arnelle washed the bloody sweat suit in their case. This was Petrocelli's theory. No matter...your version of the criminal prosecution is not truthful and could be very misleading to someone who's not familliar with the facts. I think you should add a disclaimer to this nonsense.

My posts are an accurate assessment of the prosecution's case, imho, and I see no need to add a disclaimer.

[William Anthony]

Now you're saying that all men with long hair are feminine? That's very prejudicial of you. ;)

No, that is not what I am saying as I have had long hair in my lifetime. The issue presented by another poster was the speculation that Simpson could have worn Arnelle's under garment. I did not take that as an insinuation that all black men wear women's under garments. I pointed to the evidence that only three people were at Rockingham, who had access to the washing machine and the under garment on the night of or early morning hours of June 12th and 13th respectively. Although I have no familiarity with what some men, who dress as women, wear under the women clothing they have on and I have seen some specials where they do dress in women's undergarments, it seems that they all either have long hair or wigs. I do not recall any wigs being introduced into evidence. Therefore, a logical and reasonable speculation is that, if Arnelle did not wear them, they were probably worn by Kato. I was limiting my speculation to this particular set of circumstances. :)

[William Anthony]

Isn't this post nearly identical to post #1734? What is the reason you subjected us to it twice?

I do not believe my last paragraph was included in my prior post. When I am finished, I think I will have presented a full and accurate assessment of the prosecution's case.

[William Anthony]

I don't think the prosecution said Arnelle washed the bloody sweat suit in their case. This was Petrocelli's theory. No matter...your version of the criminal prosecution is not truthful and could be very misleading to someone who's not familliar with the facts. I think you should add a disclaimer to this nonsense.

As you do not believe that Arnelle was accused in the prosecution's case I will edit my post to reflect that.

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 though 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.

Now we want to talk about the blood spot found on the gate. We had an expert, who we later found should have been dead by his results, test the stain for the presence of a preservative. The expert who should have been dead found results in his own blood similar to that found in the gate stain. We decided not to call the expert because he should have been dead by his results, which meant that Simpson should have been dead, because we alleged Simpson was the source of the gate stain. The defense called the expert who should have been dead and introduced his results. We in turn called another expert who stated it was the ghost in the machine that caused the results. We believe this ghost of a theory is valid, because we believe Simpson did it.

Now, in regard to the sweat suit that we believe was bloody, we believe that someone must have aided Simpson in covering up the murders by washing the bloody sweat suit, even though we cannot place anyone in the washroom and there was no blood found in the washing machine and even though it is not the jogging suit described by kato, because we believe Simpson did it.

[tv]

I do not believe my last paragraph was included in my prior post. When I am finished, I think I will have presented a full and accurate assessment of the prosecution's case.
Notice I included the word 'nearly' as in 'almost identical". You are not accurate in your assessment.

[William Anthony]

Notice I included the word 'nearly' as in 'almost identical". You are not accurate in your assessment.

I would guess that the last sentence of your post is your opinion, correct?

[weezer]

I would guess that the last sentence of your post is your opinion, correct?

she was being kind -- your rendition of 'my hero orenthal -- the butcher of brentwood' is innocent is not only not accurate, it is in some places downright dishonest. IMO

[bobaugust]

As you do not believe that Arnelle was accused in the prosecution's case I will edit my post to reflect that.

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 though 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.

Now we want to talk about the blood spot found on the gate. We had an expert, who we later found should have been dead by his results, test the stain for the presence of a preservative. The expert who should have been dead found results in his own blood similar to that found in the gate stain. We decided not to call the expert because he should have been dead by his results, which meant that Simpson should have been dead, because we alleged Simpson was the source of the gate stain. The defense called the expert who should have been dead and introduced his results. We in turn called another expert who stated it was the ghost in the machine that caused the results. We believe this ghost of a theory is valid, because we believe Simpson did it.

Now, in regard to the sweat suit that we believe was bloody, we believe that someone must have aided Simpson in covering up the murders by washing the bloody sweat suit, even though we cannot place anyone in the washroom and there was no blood found in the washing machine and even though it is not the jogging suit described by kato, because we believe Simpson did it.

The evidence is that the killer wore dark colored cotton clothing. The evidence is that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders. The fact is that the same blue black cotton fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt and found on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks.

The evidence is that photographs taken nine months before the murders show Simpson wearing shoes with the exact same sole pattern that was consistent with making the bloody shoe prints found on the walkway at the murder scene and the partial bloody shoe print found on Simpson's Bronco carpet.

The unidentified hair that could have been Ron Goldman's hair found on the killer's right hand glove at Rockingham could not have come from the unidentified Caucasian seen near Nicole's condo two hours before the murders.

The evidence is that Kaelin heard someone behind his room at about 10:51, 10:52 a few minutes before Allan Park saw Simpson for the first time that night when Simpson walked up from his driveway and entered his house and lights came on.

All of the blood that was collected at Bundy the morning after the murders by the criminalists was collected before Simpson became a suspect in these murders.

The only DNA identified in Nicole's fingernail scrapings was Nicole's DNA.

Seven witnesses testified to seeing blood on the rear gate the morning after the murders and a crime scene photograph taken that morning documented one of the blood drops on the bottom of the rear gate. Dennis Fung testified as to what the photographs showed. Numbers were not changed relating to the blood on the rear gate.

The expert who tested the gate and sock blood evidence conclusively determined from the documented results from all the tests that the evidence stains did not come from EDTA preserved blood reference samples. The small trace amount of EDTA that was found in the third test was the result of an artifact in the testing equipment.

A freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders along with clothing belonging to Arnelle Simpson. The evidence is that someone was in Simpson's house some time after Kaelin set the house alarm and before the police arrived the next morning. The fact is that Arnelle Simpson testified to facts relating to this issue that were contradicted by four detectives and Kato Kaelin.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

she was being kind -- your rendition of 'my hero orenthal -- the butcher of brentwood' is innocent is not only not accurate, it is in some places downright dishonest. IMO

Since she was being kind, I think we should all strive for that goal. I understand your opinion and respectfully disagree with it, expressed in the kindest way possible.

[William Anthony]

The evidence is that the killer wore dark colored cotton clothing. [QUOTE]
Please show the dark colored clothing the prosecution placed into evidence as being worn by the killer?

The evidence is that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders.[QUOTE]
Please, show the testimony that Simpson wore a dark colored Sweat suit on June 12th.

The fact is that the same blue black cotton fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt and found on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks. [QUOTE]
I will address this when I come to it.

The evidence is that photographs taken nine months before the murders show Simpson wearing shoes with the exact same sole pattern that was consistent with making the bloody shoe prints found on the walkway at the murder scene and the partial bloody shoe print found on Simpson's Bronco carpet. [QUOTE]
We believe that the shoes in these photos that were taken nine months earlier than the date of the murders are the shoes that Simpson wore on the night of the murders, even though we cannot say that they are the same shoes, or do we have the shoes but they must be, because we believe Simpson did it, although any number of people with a size 12 foot could have made the shoe prints. I will address the blood "IN" the Bronco when I come to it.

The unidentified hair that could have been Ron Goldman's hair found on the killer's right hand glove at Rockingham could not have come from the unidentified Caucasian seen near Nicole's condo two hours before the murders. [QUOTE]
The evidence as I recall it was that the unidentified Caucasian was seen crouching in the bushes near Nicole's condo within a half an hour of the time she could have been murdered. The evidence is that the hair was unidentified but we (the prosecution) want you to believe that it was Ronald's and not the unidentified Caucasian, because we believe Simpson did it, even though we can only say it could have been Ronald's hair.

The evidence is that Kaelin heard someone behind his room at about 10:51, 10:52 a few minutes before Allan Park saw Simpson for the first time that night when Simpson walked up from his driveway and entered his house and lights came on. [QUOTE]
We do not want you to believe the evidence of the time of the thumps Kato's and his girlfriend's testimonies, because it does not fit with our theory, because we believe Simpson did it.

All of the blood that was collected at Bundy the morning after the murders by the criminalists was collected before Simpson became a suspect in these murders. [QUOTE]
We did not collect the all the blood at Bundy but, if we had, we want you to believe that it could only have belonged to Simpson, Nicole or Ronald, because we believe Simpson did it.

The only DNA identified in Nicole's fingernail scrapings was Nicole's DNA. [QUOTE]
The blood under Nicole's fingernail scrapings excluded Nicole, Simpson and Ronald. However, we want you to believe it was Nicole's, because we believe Simpson did it.

Seven witnesses testified to seeing blood on the rear gate the morning after the murders and a crime scene photograph taken that morning documented one of the blood drops on the bottom of the rear gate. Dennis Fung testified as to what the photographs showed. Numbers were not changed relating to the blood on the rear gate. [QUOTE]

We want you to believe that there were three blood drops on the gate, even though the criminalist admitted that he could not see the drop in the photo and we want you to believe that seven others saw what we could not photograph, because we believe Simpson did it.

The expert who tested the gate and sock blood evidence conclusively determined from the documented results from all the tests that the evidence stains did not come from EDTA preserved blood reference samples. The small trace amount of EDTA that was found in the third test was the result of an artifact in the testing equipment.

A freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders along with clothing belonging to Arnelle Simpson. The evidence is that someone was in Simpson's house some time after Kaelin set the house alarm and before the police arrived the next morning. The fact is that Arnelle Simpson testified to facts relating to this issue that were contradicted by four detectives and Kato Kaelin.

bobaugust


I do not have time to address the remainder of your post at the present but, rest assured I will and I will post the other parts of the assessment of the prosecution's case which I have added in response to your post. I will also correct this post so that there will be no confusion as to who said what.

[weezer]

Since she was being kind, I think we should all strive for that goal. I understand your opinion and respectfully disagree with it, expressed in the kindest way possible.

I thought you were striving to make this a better and happier place? :shrug:

at any rate, you have gone on for paragraphs reinventing testimony and evidence to suit your scenario -- playing fast and loose with the truth. But, if you want to say that any of this is more than just your opinion, maybe you can post links to the disputed parts?

[weezer]

". . .I do not have time to address the remainder of your post at the present but, rest assured I will and I will post the other parts of the assessment of the prosecution's case which I have added in response to your post. I will also correct this post so that there will be no confusion as to who said what."

be sure to include 'imo' -- :D

[William Anthony]

I thought you were striving to make this a better and happier place? :shrug:

at any rate, you have gone on for paragraphs reinventing testimony and evidence to suit your scenario -- playing fast and loose with the truth. But, if you want to say that any of this is more than just your opinion, maybe you can post links to the disputed parts?

Yes, I and some others are striving to make this a better and happier place. Since you posted that you considered her post to be kind, I said we should all strive to be kind. I do not know why you desire to take exception to that.

I have not reinvented anything. To the contrary, I presented the evidence as it was presented and, if something needed correcting, I corrected it. The trial by its very nature is a dispute. There is no need to post links to the dispute, unless you want me to post the entire trial, which I am vehemently opposed to doing.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9101665][QUOTE=bobaugust;9101659]The evidence is that the killer wore dark colored cotton clothing. [QUOTE]
Please show the dark colored clothing the prosecution placed into evidence as being worn by the killer?

The evidence is that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders.[QUOTE]
Please, show the testimony that Simpson wore a dark colored Sweat suit on June 12th.

The fact is that the same blue black cotton fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt and found on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks. [QUOTE]
I will address this when I come to it.

The evidence is that photographs taken nine months before the murders show Simpson wearing shoes with the exact same sole pattern that was consistent with making the bloody shoe prints found on the walkway at the murder scene and the partial bloody shoe print found on Simpson's Bronco carpet. [QUOTE]

We believe that the shoes in these photos that were taken nine months earlier than the date of the murders are the shoes that Simpson wore on the night of the murders, even though we cannot say that they are the same shoes, or do we have the shoes but they must be, because we believe Simpson did it, although any number of people with a size 12 foot could have made the shoe prints. I will address the blood "IN" the Bronco when I come to it.

The unidentified hair that could have been Ron Goldman's hair found on the killer's right hand glove at Rockingham could not have come from the unidentified Caucasian seen near Nicole's condo two hours before the murders. [QUOTE]

The evidence as I recall it was that the unidentified Caucasian was seen crouching in the bushes near Nicole's condo within a half an hour of the time she could have been murdered. The evidence is that the hair was unidentified but we (the prosecution) want you to believe that it was Ronald's and not the unidentified Caucasian, because we believe Simpson did it, even though we can only say it could have been Ronald's hair.

The evidence is that Kaelin heard someone behind his room at about 10:51, 10:52 a few minutes before Allan Park saw Simpson for the first time that night when Simpson walked up from his driveway and entered his house and lights came on. [QUOTE]

All of the blood that was collected at Bundy the morning after the murders by the criminalists was collected before Simpson became a suspect in these murders. [QUOTE]

We did not collect the all the blood at Bundy but, if we had, we want you to believe that it could only have belonged to Simpson, Nicole or Ronald, because we believe Simpson did it.

[William Anthony]

First allow me to thank you for responding in a more polite civil and respectful manner. Continuation of correction.

The only DNA identified in Nicole's fingernail scrapings was Nicole's DNA.

The blood under Nicole's fingernail scrapings excluded Nicole, Simpson and Ronald. However, we want you to believe it was Nicole's, because we believe Simpson did it.


Seven witnesses testified to seeing blood on the rear gate the morning after the murders and a crime scene photograph taken that morning documented one of the blood drops on the bottom of the rear gate. Dennis Fung testified as to what the photographs showed. Numbers were not changed relating to the blood on the rear gate.

A freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders along with clothing belonging to Arnelle Simpson. The evidence is that someone was in Simpson's house some time after Kaelin set the house alarm and before the police arrived the next morning. The fact is that Arnelle Simpson testified to facts relating to this issue that were contradicted by four detectives and Kato Kaelin. bobaugust


I do not have time to address the remainder of your post at the present but, rest assured I will and I will post the other parts of the assessment of the prosecution's case which I have added in response to your post. I will also correct this post so that there will be no confusion as to who said what. I hope that this is now clear and I will expound and add to the assessment based on your post.[/QUOTE]

[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 particulartypeof dress shoe and knew Nicole. We believe that the shoes in these photos that were taken nine months earlier than the date of the murders are the shoes that Simpson wore on the night of the murders, even though we cannot say that they are the same shoes, or do we have the shoes but they must be, because we believe Simpson did it, although any number of people with a size 12 foot could have made the shoe prints.

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. we believe the unidentified hair that could have been Ron Goldman's hair found on the killer's right hand glove at Rockingham could not have come from the unidentified Caucasian seen near Nicole's condo two hours before the murders. Although there is evidence that the unidentified Caucasian was seen crouching in the bushes near Nicole's condo within a half an hour of the time she could have been murdered, and, even though there is evidence the hair was unidentified but we (the prosecution) want you to believe that it was Ronald's and not the unidentified Caucasian, because we believe Simpson did it, even though we can only say it could have been Ronald's hair.

we believe the evidence is that Kaelin heard someone behind his room at about 10:51, 10:52 a few minutes before Allan Park saw Simpson for the first time that night when Simpson walked up from his driveway and entered his house and lights came on, even though Kato and his girlfriend testified that Kato said he heard the thumps at about 10:45. 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, because we believe Simpson did it.

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. Although we did not collect the all the blood at Bundy but, if we had, we want you to believe that it could only have belonged to Simpson, Nicole or Ronald, because we believe Simpson did it. Let us remind you that all of the blood that was collected at Bundy the morning after the murders by the criminalists was collected before Simpson became a suspect in these murders, which we believe the uncollected blood would have only belonged to either Simpson, Goldman or Nicole, because we did not believe anyone else could have done it.

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 though 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.

Now we want to talk about the blood spot found on the gate. We had an expert, who we later found should have been dead by his results, test the stain for the presence of a preservative. The expert who should have been dead found results in his own blood similar to that found in the gate stain. We decided not to call the expert because he should have been dead by his results, which meant that Simpson should have been dead, because we alleged Simpson was the source of the gate stain. The defense called the expert who should have been dead and introduced his results. We in turn called another expert who stated it was the ghost in the machine that caused the results. We believe this ghost of a theory is valid, because we believe Simpson did it.Even though we believe the expert who tested the gate and sock blood evidence conclusively determined from the documented results from all the tests that the evidence stains did not come from EDTA preserved blood reference samples, and the defense expert said those amounts would mean the expert and the source of the stains were dead, and our expert called to rebut the proposition that our first expert would be dead testified that our expert did not know that he was dead by his results, we believe our rebuttal expert explained that the small trace amount of EDTA that was found in the third test was the result of a ghost in the testing equipment and wrote in a report that our experts had to be explained, we believe all this is logical and reasonable, because we believe Simpson did it.

Now, in regard to the sweat suit that we believe was bloody, we believe that someone must have aided Simpson in covering up the murders by washing the bloody sweat suit, even though we cannot place anyone in the washroom and there was no blood found in the washing machine and even though it is not the jogging suit described by kato, because we believe Simpson did it.

I hope the additions will address most of the issues presented by the posters. I am not forgetting the post about the blood in the Bronco and have not reached that part of the assessment yet.

[William Anthony]

Continuation of the PROSECUTION'S case.

Although there is evidence that Simpson and Nicole had an off and on relationship and that hear testimony from his long time barber that Simpson had dandruff in his hair every summer and it is probable that Simpson played with his kids and the dog while at Bundy, we believe that the Simpson was at Bundy on June 12th, even though no one saw this well known celebrity of the Bronco there, we have his hair, absent dandruff, and his blood that the criminalist who was mistaken about who collected most of the evidence and did not see the blood in the photo of June 13th and forgot to collect the blood from the gate and who made several other mistakes and the testimony of a detective that brought Simpson's reference sample to the blood scene, and you will hear evidence that there was missing blood from Simpson's reference sample, and evidence that another detective injected a blanket from inside Nicole's condo into the scene, and that the evidence was moved by LE members, we believe that none of this matters because the criminalist and the blood-totting detective will testify that the blood appeared fresh several hours after the murders were committed on a night in June with a waxing moon, because we believe that Simpson did it.

[William Anthony]

Continuation of the PROSECUTION'S case.

Although there is evidence that Simpson and Nicole had an off and on relationship and that hear testimony from his long time barber that Simpson had dandruff in his hair every summer and it is probable that Simpson played with his kids and the dog while at Bundy, we believe that the Simpson was at Bundy on June 12th, even though no one saw this well known celebrity of the Bronco there, we have his hair, absent dandruff, and his blood that the criminalist who was mistaken about who collected most of the evidence and did not see the blood in the photo of June 13th and forgot to collect the blood from the gate and who made several other mistakes and the testimony of a detective that brought Simpson's reference sample to the blood scene, and you will hear evidence that there was missing blood from Simpson's reference sample, and evidence that another detective injected a blanket from inside Nicole's condo into the scene, and that the evidence was moved by LE members, we believe that none of this matters because the criminalist and the blood-totting detective will testify that the blood appeared fresh several hours after the murders were committed on a night in June with a waxing moon, because we believe that Simpson did it.

We now look at how the Bronco was parked. We believe that the suspicious nature of the way it was parked shows that Simpson did it. We ask you to look at the way it is parked and determine that Simpson was the murderer, because that is the way all murderers who are in a hurry park their vehicles. We believe Simpson parked in such a manner, even though we have no one seeing him driving it or parking it, because we believe that Simpson did it.

[martin II]

Continuation of the PROSECUTION'S case.

Although there is evidence that Simpson and Nicole had an off and on relationship and that hear testimony from his long time barber that Simpson had dandruff in his hair every summer and it is probable that Simpson played with his kids and the dog while at Bundy, we believe that the Simpson was at Bundy on June 12th, even though no one saw this well known celebrity of the Bronco there, we have his hair, absent dandruff, and his blood that the criminalist who was mistaken about who collected most of the evidence and did not see the blood in the photo of June 13th and forgot to collect the blood from the gate and who made several other mistakes and the testimony of a detective that brought Simpson's reference sample to the blood scene, and you will hear evidence that there was missing blood from Simpson's reference sample, and evidence that another detective injected a blanket from inside Nicole's condo into the scene, and that the evidence was moved by LE members, we believe that none of this matters because the criminalist and the blood-totting detective will testify that the blood appeared fresh several hours after the murders were committed on a night in June with a waxing moon, because we believe that Simpson did it.

We now look at how the Bronco was parked. We believe that the suspicious nature of the way it was parked shows that Simpson did it. We ask you to look at the way it is parked and determine that Simpson was the murderer, because that is the way all murderers who are in a hurry park their vehicles. We believe Simpson parked in such a manner, even though we have no one seeing him driving it or parking it, because we believe that Simpson did it.

Ojs car was parked exactly as one would exect to see it parked if one drove the car from inside the driveway and made a sharp right turm on Rockingham a few feet from the driveway. Front wheeles at the curb and the back wheels a few inches from the curb.imo

[William Anthony]

Ojs car was parked exactly as one would exect to see it parked if one drove the car from inside the driveway and made a sharp right turm on Rockingham a few feet from the driveway. Front wheeles at the curb and the back wheels a few inches from the curb.imo

I frequently park in the manner that Simpson's bronco was parked. Sometimes I just do not feel like straightening out.

[tv]

William, to be honest with you, I'm shocked that you would post this biased version of the prosecution's case. There are so many inaccuracies I don't know where to begin. I really thought you had a much better understanding of the state's case than this. Your commentary after each point of so-called "evidence" is misleading, erroneous and just plain fiction. :confused:

[weezer]

William, to be honest with you, I'm shocked that you would post this biased version of the prosecution's case. There are so many inaccuracies I don't know where to begin. I really thought you had a much better understanding of the state's case than this. Your commentary after each point of so-called "evidence" is misleading, erroneous and just plain fiction. :confused:

:beer: :beer: :beer:

[martin II]

William, to be honest with you, I'm shocked that you would post this biased version of the prosecution's case. There are so many inaccuracies I don't know where to begin. I really thought you had a much better understanding of the state's case than this. Your commentary after each point of so-called "evidence" is misleading, erroneous and just plain fiction. :confused:

I dissagree

[tv]

I dissagreeNow I'm really shocked. :eek:

[martin II]

Continuation of the PROSECUTION'S case.

Although there is evidence that Simpson and Nicole had an off and on relationship and that hear testimony from his long time barber that Simpson had dandruff in his hair every summer and it is probable that Simpson played with his kids and the dog while at Bundy, we believe that the Simpson was at Bundy on June 12th, even though no one saw this well known celebrity of the Bronco there, we have his hair, absent dandruff, and his blood that the criminalist who was mistaken about who collected most of the evidence and did not see the blood in the photo of June 13th and forgot to collect the blood from the gate and who made several other mistakes and the testimony of a detective that brought Simpson's reference sample to the blood scene, and you will hear evidence that there was missing blood from Simpson's reference sample, and evidence that another detective injected a blanket from inside Nicole's condo into the scene, and that the evidence was moved by LE members, we believe that none of this matters because the criminalist and the blood-totting detective will testify that the blood appeared fresh several hours after the murders were committed on a night in June with a waxing moon, because we believe that Simpson did it.

We now look at how the Bronco was parked. We believe that the suspicious nature of the way it was parked shows that Simpson did it. We ask you to look at the way it is parked and determine that Simpson was the murderer, because that is the way all murderers who are in a hurry park their vehicles. We believe Simpson parked in such a manner, even though we have no one seeing him driving it or parking it, because we believe that Simpson did it.

Thanks for your ongoing presentaton of issues the prosecution tried to fool the jury and others with.Some may have decided to ignore these defects in their case but the jury was not fooled.imo

[martin II]

William, to be honest with you, I'm shocked that you would post this biased version of the prosecution's case. There are so many inaccuracies I don't know where to begin. I really thought you had a much better understanding of the state's case than this. Your commentary after each point of so-called "evidence" is misleading, erroneous and just plain fiction. :confused:

tv
One issue.
The prosecution through their witnesses tried to suggest that a rear tire of the bronce being a few inches from the curb, PROVES, that oj murdered Nicole and RON and parked irridically as he returned.imo
nonsense.

[bobaugust]

Please show the dark colored clothing the prosecution placed into evidence as being worn by the killer?

Please, show the testimony that Simpson wore a dark colored Sweat suit on June 12th.

We believe that the shoes in these photos that were taken nine months earlier than the date of the murders are the shoes that Simpson wore on the night of the murders, even though we cannot say that they are the same shoes, or do we have the shoes but they must be, because we believe Simpson did it, although any number of people with a size 12 foot could have made the shoe prints.

The evidence as I recall it was that the unidentified Caucasian was seen crouching in the bushes near Nicole's condo within a half an hour of the time she could have been murdered. The evidence is that the hair was unidentified but we (the prosecution) want you to believe that it was Ronald's and not the unidentified Caucasian, because we believe Simpson did it, even though we can only say it could have been Ronald's hair.

We do not want you to believe the evidence of the time of the thumps Kato's and his girlfriend's testimonies, because it does not fit with our theory, because we believe Simpson did it.

The blood under Nicole's fingernail scrapings excluded Nicole, Simpson and Ronald. However, we want you to believe it was Nicole's, because we believe Simpson did it.




The dark colored cotton clothing the killer wore was never entered into evidence only the fibers from that clothing were. The same blue black cotton fibers found all over Ron's shirt and found on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks. That fiber evidence ties Simpson to the murders.

Kato Kaelin consistently testified that Simpson was wearing a dark colored cotton like sweat suit about an hour or so before the murders were committed.

The imported shoes that Simpson is shown wearing in over thirty photographs taken by two different photographers nine months before the murders have soles whose pattern and size are are consistent with having made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

The evidence is that the unidentified Caucasian male who was seen near Nicole's condo about two hours before the murders were committed had dark colored hair. The unidentified hair found on the killer's right hand glove that had some of the same microscopic characteristics as Ron Goldman's hair was a light brown hair.

Kaelin and Ferrara only guessed at the times they estimated. Neither looked at a watch or a clock. Kaelin testified that he left his room two to three minutes after hearing the noises. We know from telephone records that Park saw Kaelin come around the house with a flashlight at about 10:55, the same time Park saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up to his front door and enter his house. Based on that documented time the actual time Kaelin heard the noises behind his room was about 10:51 to 10:52.

The blood under Nicole's fingernails was her own degraded blood. That fact was proven when only Nicole's DNA was identified in tests conducted on her fingernail scrapings.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

William, to be honest with you, I'm shocked that you would post this biased version of the prosecution's case. There are so many inaccuracies I don't know where to begin. I really thought you had a much better understanding of the state's case than this. Your commentary after each point of so-called "evidence" is misleading, erroneous and just plain fiction. :confused:

Begin at the beginning. My commentary is that they believed Simpson did it. Are you saying they did not?

[martin II]

The dark colored cotton clothing the killer wore was never entered into evidence only the fibers from that clothing were. The same blue black cotton fibers found all over Ron's shirt and found on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks. That fiber evidence ties Simpson to the murders.

Kato Kaelin consistently testified that Simpson was wearing a dark colored cotton like sweat suit about an hour or so before the murders were committed.

The imported shoes that Simpson is shown wearing in over thirty photographs taken by two different photographers nine months before the murders have soles whose pattern and size are are consistent with having made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

The evidence is that the unidentified Caucasian male who was seen near Nicole's condo about two hours before the murders were committed had dark colored hair. The unidentified hair found on the killer's right hand glove that had some of the same microscopic characteristics as Ron Goldman's hair was a light brown hair.

Kaelin and Ferrara only guessed at the times they estimated. Neither looked at a watch or a clock. Kaelin testified that he left his room two to three minutes after hearing the noises. We know from telephone records that Park saw Kaelin come around the house with a flashlight at about 10:55, the same time Park saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up to his front door and enter his house. Based on that documented time the actual time Kaelin heard the noises behind his room was about 10:51 to 10:52.

The blood under Nicole's fingernails was her own degraded blood. That fact was proven when only Nicole's DNA was identified in tests conducted on her fingernail scrapings.

bobaugust

That is if one believes Park.

[tv]

tv
One issue.
The prosecution through their witnesses tried to suggest that a rear tire of the bronce being a few inches from the curb, PROVES, that oj murdered Nicole and RON and parked irridically as he returned.imo
nonsense.No, they did say try to say it PROVES that he murdered Ron and Nicole. It was just another link in the circumstantial evidence. You and William are both being ridiculous.

[tv]

Begin at the beginning. My commentary is that they believed Simpson did it. Are you saying they did not?Your commentary says much more than that and you know it. If you want to continue posting this with no links and no IMO please enjoy yourself. :no:

[martin II]

No, they did say try to say it PROVES that he murdered Ron and Nicole. It was just another link in the circumstantial evidence. You and William are both being ridiculous.

The rear wheel being a few inches from the curb PROVES that oj did not make a perfect park. Front and rear wheel exactly next to the curb.Nothing else.imo

[martin II]

Your commentary says much more than that and you know it. If you want to continue posting this with no links and no IMO please enjoy yourself. :no:

As has been claimed by other posters, imo is not required for post that is considered general knowledge that has been discussed at length.

[William Anthony]

No, they did say try to say it PROVES that he murdered Ron and Nicole. It was just another link in the circumstantial evidence. You and William are both being ridiculous.

I thought you were one of the posters who wanted to raise the level of postings. Calling other people ridiculous, imho, does not raise the level of posting. Please explain, "No, they did say try to say it PROVES that he murdered Ron and Nicole." Imho, if they did not believe that it (the manner in which the Bronco was parked) was evidence of the murders, then it should not have been introduced on the basis of relevancy.

[tv]

I thought you were one of the posters who wanted to raise the level of postings. Calling other people ridiculous, imho, does not raise the level of posting. Please explain, "No, they did say try to say it PROVES that he murdered Ron and Nicole." Imho, if they did not believe that it (the manner in which the Bronco was parked) was evidence of the murders, then it should not have been introduced on the basis of relevancy.


Actually, his DNA and the victim's DNA at the crime scene and at Rockingham, sometimes mixed together, is enough. When you post things that are misleading and not factual I consider that ridiculous. You're not raising the level of anything by this. When you quote me please do it in context. I also said "It was just another link in the circumstantial evidence." I also didn't include 'not' in my sentence. It should have been "No, they did not say it PROVES that he murdered Ron and Nicole."

[tv]

As has been claimed by other posters, imo is not required for post that is considered general knowledge that has been discussed at length.The general knowledge must be accurate and accepted as factual by the rest of the community. For William to say the prosecutors made statements that they didn't isn't general knowledge.

[William Anthony]

The dark colored cotton clothing the killer wore was never entered into evidence only the fibers from that clothing were. The same blue black cotton fibers found all over Ron's shirt and found on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks. That fiber evidence ties Simpson to the murders.

Kato Kaelin consistently testified that Simpson was wearing a dark colored cotton like sweat suit about an hour or so before the murders were committed.

The imported shoes that Simpson is shown wearing in over thirty photographs taken by two different photographers nine months before the murders have soles whose pattern and size are are consistent with having made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.

The evidence is that the unidentified Caucasian male who was seen near Nicole's condo about two hours before the murders were committed had dark colored hair. The unidentified hair found on the killer's right hand glove that had some of the same microscopic characteristics as Ron Goldman's hair was a light brown hair.

Kaelin and Ferrara only guessed at the times they estimated. Neither looked at a watch or a clock. Kaelin testified that he left his room two to three minutes after hearing the noises. We know from telephone records that Park saw Kaelin come around the house with a flashlight at about 10:55, the same time Park saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up to his front door and enter his house. Based on that documented time the actual time Kaelin heard the noises behind his room was about 10:51 to 10:52.

The blood under Nicole's fingernails was her own degraded blood. That fact was proven when only Nicole's DNA was identified in tests conducted on her fingernail scrapings.

bobaugust

We believe that the killer wore dark colored clothing even though "the dark colored cotton clothing" we believe "the killer wore was never entered into evidence." We believe that, although we never found the dark colored cotton clothing we believe Simpson wore and probably most people own similar clothing and might have come from the dress Nicole had own, "the same blue black cotton fibers found all over Ron's shirt and found on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks", which "that fiber evidence ties Simpson to the murders." Although there was evidence that the socks, (which have been referred to by a poster as magical) were not in the location that they should have been at the time Simpson's room was videotaped and the criminalist, who was mistaken about who collected what, was mistaken about the time he collected them, because he changed his testimony when the defense pointed out that the socks were magical does not matter, because we believe Simpson did it. Although there was EDTA found in the socks near the level the testifying dead expert said were in his own preserved blood should not be trusted and there was only EDTA found in the sock stain due to the ghost in the machine, we believe this because we believe Simpson did it.

Although you will hear evidence that the glove was moved and at one point placed on the blanket and one of the detectives "touched the glove", and that trace evidence, such as hair and fibers are easily transferable, and that several officers carefully tromped through the scene, without wearing protective gear, we think that none of this matters, because we think Simpson did it.

I will address the remainder of your post after I have edited the assessment to include the evidence you wanted included.

[William Anthony]

Continuation of the PROSECUTION'S case.

Although there is evidence that Simpson and Nicole had an off and on relationship and that hear testimony from his long time barber that Simpson had dandruff in his hair every summer and it is probable that Simpson played with his kids and the dog while at Bundy, we believe that the Simpson was at Bundy on June 12th, even though no one saw this well known celebrity of the Bronco there, we have his hair, absent dandruff, and his blood that the criminalist who was mistaken about who collected most of the evidence and did not see the blood in the photo of June 13th and forgot to collect the blood from the gate and who made several other mistakes and the testimony of a detective that brought Simpson's reference sample to the blood scene, and you will hear evidence that there was missing blood from Simpson's reference sample, and evidence that another detective injected a blanket from inside Nicole's condo into the scene, and that the evidence was moved by LE members, we believe that none of this matters because the criminalist and the blood-totting detective will testify that the blood appeared fresh several hours after the murders were committed on a night in June with a waxing moon, because we believe that Simpson did it.

We now look at how the Bronco was parked. We believe that the suspicious nature of the way it was parked shows that Simpson did it. We ask you to look at the way it is parked and determine that Simpson was the murderer, because that is the way all murderers who are in a hurry park their vehicles. We believe Simpson parked in such a manner, even though we have no one seeing him driving it or parking it, because we believe that Simpson did it.

We believe that the killer wore dark colored clothing even though "the dark colored cotton clothing" we believe "the killer wore was never entered into evidence." We believe that, although we never found the dark colored cotton clothing we believe Simpson wore and probably most people own similar clothing and might have come from the dress Nicole had own, "the same blue black cotton fibers found all over Ron's shirt and found on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks", which "that fiber evidence ties Simpson to the murders." Although there was evidence that the socks, (which have been referred to by a poster as magical) were not in the location that they should have been at the time Simpson's room was videotaped and the criminalist, who was mistaken about who collected what, was mistaken about the time he collected them, because he changed his testimony when the defense pointed out that the socks were magical does not matter, because we believe Simpson did it. Although there was EDTA found in the socks near the level the testifying dead expert said were in his own preserved blood should not be trusted and there was only EDTA found in the sock stain due to the ghost in the machine, we believe this because we believe Simpson did it.

Although you will hear evidence that the glove was moved and at one point placed on the blanket and one of the detectives "touched the glove", and that trace evidence, such as hair and fibers are easily transferable, and that several officers carefully tromped through the scene, without wearing protective gear, we think that none of this matters, because we think Simpson did it.

[William Anthony]

Actually, his DNA and the victim's DNA at the crime scene and at Rockingham, sometimes mixed together, is enough. When you post things that are misleading and not factual I consider that ridiculous. You're not raising the level of anything by this. When you quote me please do it in context. I also said "It was just another link in the circumstantial evidence." I also didn't include 'not' in my sentence. It should have been "No, they did not say it PROVES that he murdered Ron and Nicole."

Here is my part of my post with your quote, which I asked you to explain.

I thought you were one of the posters who wanted to raise the level of postings. Calling other people ridiculous, imho, does not raise the level of posting. Please explain, "No, they did say try to say it PROVES that he murdered Ron and Nicole." Imho, if they did not believe that it (the manner in which the Bronco was parked) was evidence of the murders, then it should not have been introduced on the basis of relevancy.

You will see that I quoted your statement, exactly. Again, I will reiterate, if they were not offering evidence to prove Simpson was guilty of the murders, then the evidence is irrelevant. If you want to say that the manner in which the Bronco was parked was not evidence of the murders, then I think the dream team was smart enough to have the evidence allegedly found in or on the Bronco suppressed, due to the fact that Bronco was impounded and, IIRC, there had been no blood other than the owner's found on the outside of the Bronco and leading to his front doorway, imho.

So before you resort to personal attacks let's explore you statement I quoted.
"No, they did say... it PROVES that he murdered Ron and Nicole.", or "No, they ... try to say it PROVES that he murdered Ron and Nicole." I did not see the word "Not" in your post. I think you owe the community an apology for unwarranted personal attacks. Here is your statement which did not include anything that you consider our posts as ridiculous and was not expressed as your opinion of our posts. It was stated as a factual personal attack. Here it is.

"You and William are both being ridiculous."

[tv]

Here is my part of my post with your quote, which I asked you to explain.

I thought you were one of the posters who wanted to raise the level of postings. Calling other people ridiculous, imho, does not raise the level of posting. Please explain, "No, they did say try to say it PROVES that he murdered Ron and Nicole." Imho, if they did not believe that it (the manner in which the Bronco was parked) was evidence of the murders, then it should not have been introduced on the basis of relevancy.

You will see that I quoted your statement, exactly. Again, I will reiterate, if they were not offering evidence to prove Simpson was guilty of the murders, then the evidence is irrelevant. If you want to say that the manner in which the Bronco was parked was not evidence of the murders, then I think the dream team was smart enough to have the evidence allegedly found in or on the Bronco suppressed, due to the fact that Bronco was impounded and, IIRC, there had been no blood other than the owner's found on the outside of the Bronco and leading to his front doorway, imho.

So before you resort to personal attacks let's explore you statement I quoted.
"No, they did say... it PROVES that he murdered Ron and Nicole.", or "No, they ... try to say it PROVES that he murdered Ron and Nicole." I did not see the word "Not" in your post. I think you owe the community an apology for unwarranted personal attacks.The word was inadvertantly left out of my sentence. You are the only one that owes this community an apology. I'm done. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

The dark colored cotton clothing the killer wore was never entered into evidence only the fibers from that clothing were. The same blue black cotton fibers found all over Ron's shirt and found on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks. That fiber evidence ties Simpson to the murders.

Kato Kaelin consistently testified that Simpson was wearing a dark colored cotton like sweat suit about an hour or so before the murders were committed.

The imported shoes that Simpson is shown wearing in over thirty photographs taken by two different photographers nine months before the murders have soles whose pattern and size are are consistent with having made the bloody shoe prints at Bundy.
WeW
The evidence is that the unidentified Caucasian male who was seen near Nicole's condo about two hours before the murders were committed had dark colored hair. The unidentified hair found on the killer's right hand glove that had some of the same microscopic characteristics as Ron Goldman's hair was a light brown hair.

Kaelin and Ferrara only guessed at the times they estimated. Neither looked at a watch or a clock. Kaelin testified that he left his room two to three minutes after hearing the noises. We know from telephone records that Park saw Kaelin come around the house with a flashlight at about 10:55, the same time Park saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up to his front door and enter his house. Based on that documented time the actual time Kaelin heard the noises behind his room was about 10:51 to 10:52.

The blood under Nicole's fingernails was her own degraded blood. That fact was proven when only Nicole's DNA was identified in tests conducted on her fingernail scrapings.

bobaugust

I think Martin and I have addressed and included what kato actually testified about the clothing he saw Simpson in. If I am wrong, I will address it.

I think that I have already addressed the shoes and the photos.

I think that I have already addressed the unidentified crouching Caucasian, the glove and the socks.


We believe Kaelin and Ferrara only guessed at the times they estimated. Neither looked at a watch or a clock. Kaelin testified that he left his room two to three minutes after hearing the noises, we believe this estimation but reject the estimation of Kato and Rachel, because we believe Simpson did it. We know from telephone records that Park saw Kaelin come around the house with a flashlight at about 10:55, we believe it took Kato less than a minute to locate the flashlight, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe that at the same time Park saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up to his front door and enter his house, although he did not identify the person he said could have been wearing a bath robe, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe that the actual time Kaelin heard the noises behind his room was about 10:51 to 10:52, as opposed to the earlier time, because this would have given Simpson, who we believe was bleeding to scale the fence bump into the wall three times, get into the house without being seen by Kato or Park, come out on the driveway and place a bag there and walk back to the door where park observed someone that could have had on a bath robe, even though no blood was found near the location in which the glove was allegedly found and no blood found leading into any other entrance except the front door of Simpson's home.

I will add your inclusion to the assessment.

[William Anthony]

The word was inadvertantly left out of my sentence. You are the only one that owes this community an apology. I'm done. :seeya:

I see. I am being called ridiculous because of your inadvertence. I really had a higher opinion or you and your willingness to raise the level of postings in the community. :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Continuation of the PROSECUTION'S case.

Although there is evidence that Simpson and Nicole had an off and on relationship and that hear testimony from his long time barber that Simpson had dandruff in his hair every summer and it is probable that Simpson played with his kids and the dog while at Bundy, we believe that the Simpson was at Bundy on June 12th, even though no one saw this well known celebrity of the Bronco there, we have his hair, absent dandruff, and his blood that the criminalist who was mistaken about who collected most of the evidence and did not see the blood in the photo of June 13th and forgot to collect the blood from the gate and who made several other mistakes and the testimony of a detective that brought Simpson's reference sample to the blood scene, and you will hear evidence that there was missing blood from Simpson's reference sample, and evidence that another detective injected a blanket from inside Nicole's condo into the scene, and that the evidence was moved by LE members, we believe that none of this matters because the criminalist and the blood-totting detective will testify that the blood appeared fresh several hours after the murders were committed on a night in June with a waxing moon, because we believe that Simpson did it.

We now look at how the Bronco was parked. We believe that the suspicious nature of the way it was parked shows that Simpson did it. We ask you to look at the way it is parked and determine that Simpson was the murderer, because that is the way all murderers who are in a hurry park their vehicles. We believe Simpson parked in such a manner, even though we have no one seeing him driving it or parking it, because we believe that Simpson did it.

We believe that the killer wore dark colored clothing even though "the dark colored cotton clothing" we believe "the killer wore was never entered into evidence." We believe that, although we never found the dark colored cotton clothing we believe Simpson wore and probably most people own similar clothing and might have come from the dress Nicole had own, "the same blue black cotton fibers found all over Ron's shirt and found on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks", which "that fiber evidence ties Simpson to the murders." Although there was evidence that the socks, (which have been referred to by a poster as magical) were not in the location that they should have been at the time Simpson's room was videotaped and the criminalist, who was mistaken about who collected what, was mistaken about the time he collected them, because he changed his testimony when the defense pointed out that the socks were magical does not matter, because we believe Simpson did it. Although there was EDTA found in the socks near the level the testifying dead expert said were in his own preserved blood should not be trusted and there was only EDTA found in the sock stain due to the ghost in the machine, we believe this because we believe Simpson did it.

Although you will hear evidence that the glove was moved and at one point placed on the blanket and one of the detectives "touched the glove", and that trace evidence, such as hair and fibers are easily transferable, and that several officers carefully tromped through the scene, without wearing protective gear, we think that none of this matters, because we think Simpson did it.

We believe Kaelin and Ferrara only guessed at the times they estimated. Neither looked at a watch or a clock. Kaelin testified that he left his room two to three minutes after hearing the noises, we believe this estimation but reject the estimation of Kato and Rachel, because we believe Simpson did it. We know from telephone records that Park saw Kaelin come around the house with a flashlight at about 10:55, we believe it took Kato less than a minute to locate the flashlight, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe that at the same time Park saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up to his front door and enter his house, although he did not identify the person he said could have been wearing a bath robe, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe that the actual time Kaelin heard the noises behind his room was about 10:51 to 10:52, as opposed to the earlier time, because this would have given Simpson, who we believe was bleeding to scale the fence bump into the wall three times, get into the house without being seen by Kato or Park, come out on the driveway and place a bag there and walk back to the door where park observed someone that could have had on a bath robe, even though no blood was found near the location in which the glove was allegedly found and no blood found leading into any other entrance except the front door of Simpson's home.

[martin II]

The general knowledge must be accurate and accepted as factual by the rest of the community. For William to say the prosecutors made statements that they didn't isn't general knowledge.

Th issues in Williams post have been discussed many times here without a doubt.So as you have said No link required.

[weezer]

That is if one believes Park.

you mean instead of believing orenthal james simpson -- who beat, abused, stalked and threatened her? Yah -- that's a hard choice. :eek:

[martin II]

you mean instead of believing orenthal james simpson -- who beat, abused, stalked and threatened her? Yah -- that's a hard choice. :eek:

Weezer
Why is it that when i make a post, you twist my words and then tell me what i meant in my post.

NO i made no mention of oj in my post so please stop twisting my words. Very bad habit for one to practice.

THAT IS IF ONE BELIEVES PARK.

[weezer]

Weezer
Why is it that when i make a post, you twist my words and then tell me what i meant in my post.

NO i made no mention of oj in my post so please stop twisting my words. Very bad habit for one to practice.

THAT IS IF ONE BELIEVES PARK.

you mean instead of believing orenthal james simpson -- who beat, abused, stalked, and threatened her? Yah -- that's a hard choice.

[William Anthony]

The general knowledge must be accurate and accepted as factual by the rest of the community. For William to say the prosecutors made statements that they didn't isn't general knowledge.

I have posted an assessment of what the prosecution's case is with attention paid to all the evidence that I can readily remember. I have posted no quotation marks around what the prosecution said, IIRC. I use the word we to represent their position or, if you will, what they believed. Many have claimed that the prosecution had a mountain of evidence and I think it is only fair to judge the size of the rocks that compose this alleged mountain.

[martin II]

The general knowledge must be accurate and accepted as factual by the rest of the community. For William to say the prosecutors made statements that they didn't isn't general knowledge.

The opinions expressed in discussions of issues on the thread does not have to be accepted as fact by anyone.

[martin II]

I have posted an assessment of what the prosecution's case is with attention paid to all the evidence that I can readily remember. I have posted no quotation marks around what the prosecution said, IIRC. I use the word we to represent their position or, if you will, what they believed. Many have claimed that the prosecution had a mountain of evidence and I think it is only fair to judge the size of the rocks that compose this alleged mountain.

The American way.

:beer: :beer: :beer: :patriot:

[William Anthony]

Continuation of the assessment of the PROSECUTION'S case, with corrections.

Although there is evidence that Simpson and Nicole had an off and on relationship and that hear testimony from his long time barber that Simpson had dandruff in his hair every summer and it is probable that Simpson played with his kids and the dog while at Bundy, we believe that the Simpson was at Bundy on June 12th, even though no one saw this well known celebrity or the Bronco there, we have his hair, absent dandruff, and his blood that the criminalist, who was mistaken about who collected most of the evidence and did not see the blood in the photo of June 13th and forgot to collect the blood from the gate and who made several other mistakes, and the testimony of a detective that brought Simpson's reference sample to the bloody crime scene, and you will hear evidence that there was missing blood from Simpson's reference sample, and evidence that another detective injected a blanket from inside Nicole's condo into the scene, and that the evidence was moved by LE members, we believe that none of this matters because the criminalist and the blood-totting detective will testify that the blood appeared fresh several hours after the murders were committed on a night in June with a waxing moon, because we believe that Simpson did it.

We now look at how the Bronco was parked. We believe that the suspicious nature of the way it was parked shows that Simpson did it, in connection with the other evidence that was alleged to have been found in and on the Bronco. We ask you to look at the way it is parked in your determination that Simpson was the murderer, because that is the way all murderers who are in a hurry park their vehicles. We believe Simpson parked in such a manner, even though we have no one seeing him driving it or parking it, because we believe that Simpson did it.

We believe that the killer wore dark colored clothing even though "the dark colored cotton clothing" we believe "the killer wore was never entered into evidence." We believe that, although we never found the dark colored cotton clothing we believe Simpson wore and probably most people own similar clothing and might have come from the dress Nicole had own, "the same blue black cotton fibers found all over Ron's shirt and found on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks", which "that fiber evidence ties Simpson to the murders." Although there was evidence that the socks, (which have been referred to by a poster as magical) were not in the location that they should have been at the time Simpson's room was videotaped and the criminalist, who was mistaken about who collected what, was mistaken about the time he collected them, because he changed his testimony when the defense pointed out that the socks were magical does not matter, because we believe Simpson did it. Although there was EDTA found in the socks near the level the testifying dead expert said were in his own unpreserved blood should not be trusted and there was only EDTA found in the sock stain due to the ghost in the machine, we believe this because we believe Simpson did it.

Although you will hear evidence that the glove was moved and at one point placed on the blanket and one of the detectives "touched the glove", and that trace evidence, such as hair and fibers are easily transferable, and that several officers carefully tromped through the scene, without wearing protective gear, we think that none of this matters, because we think Simpson did it.

We believe Kaelin and Ferrara only guessed at the times they estimated. Neither looked at a watch or a clock. Kaelin testified that he left his room two to three minutes after hearing the noises, we believe this estimation but reject the estimation of Kato and Rachel, because we believe Simpson did it. We know from telephone records that Park saw Kaelin come around the house with a flashlight at about 10:55, we believe it took Kato less than a minute to locate the flashlight, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe that at the same time Park saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up to his front door and enter his house, although he did not identify the person he said could have been wearing a bath robe, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe that the actual time Kaelin heard the noises behind his room was about 10:51 to 10:52, as opposed to the earlier time, because this would have given Simpson, who we believe was bleeding to scale the fence bump into the wall three times, get into the house without being seen by Kato or Park, come out on the driveway and place a bag there and walk back to the door where park observed someone that could have had on a bath robe, even though no blood was found near the location in which the glove was allegedly found and no blood found leading into any other entrance except the front door of Simpson's home.

[William Anthony]

The American way.

:beer: :beer: :beer: :patriot:

Thank you. It is my intention to help to make America and this community a land of liberty with justice for all under the concept that all mankind was created equally and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

[martin II]

The general knowledge must be accurate and accepted as factual by the rest of the community. For William to say the prosecutors made statements that they didn't isn't general knowledge.

wrong
I don't think william put quotes by any comments.

[William Anthony]

wrong
I don't think william put quotes by any comments.

Correction-I did place quotes around the comments made by bobaugust, so that he could not say that I did not include his interpretation of the evidence.

[William Anthony]

Continuation of the assessment of the PROSECUTION'S case, with corrections.

Although there is evidence that Simpson and Nicole had an off and on relationship and that you heard testimony from his long time barber that Simpson had dandruff in his hair every summer and it is probable that Simpson played with his kids and the dog while at Bundy, we believe that the Simpson was at Bundy on June 12th, even though no one saw this well known celebrity or the Bronco there, we have his hair, absent dandruff, and his blood that the criminalist, who was mistaken about who collected most of the evidence and did not see the blood in the photo of June 13th and forgot to collect the blood from the gate and who made several other mistakes, and the testimony of a detective that brought Simpson's reference sample to the bloody crime scene, and you will hear evidence that there was missing blood from Simpson's reference sample, and evidence that another detective injected a blanket from inside Nicole's condo into the scene, and that the evidence was moved by LE members, we believe that none of this matters because the criminalist and the blood-totting detective will testify that the blood appeared fresh several hours after the murders were committed on a night in June with a waxing moon, because we believe that Simpson did it.

We now look at how the Bronco was parked. We believe that the suspicious nature of the way it was parked shows that Simpson did it, in connection with the other evidence that was alleged to have been found in and on the Bronco. We ask you to look at the way it is parked in your determination that Simpson was the murderer, because that is the way all murderers who are in a hurry park their vehicles. We believe Simpson parked in such a manner, even though we have no one seeing him driving it or parking it, because we believe that Simpson did it.

We believe that the killer wore dark colored clothing even though "the dark colored cotton clothing" we believe "the killer wore was never entered into evidence." We believe that, although we never found the dark colored cotton clothing we believe Simpson wore and probably most people own similar clothing and might have come from the dress Nicole had own, "the same blue black cotton fibers found all over Ron's shirt and found on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks", which "that fiber evidence ties Simpson to the murders." Although there was evidence that the socks, (which have been referred to by a poster as magical) were not in the location that they should have been at the time Simpson's room was videotaped and the criminalist, who was mistaken about who collected what, was mistaken about the time he collected them, because he changed his testimony when the defense pointed out that the socks were magical does not matter, because we believe Simpson did it. Although there was EDTA found in the socks near the level the testifying dead expert said were in his own unpreserved blood should not be trusted and there was only EDTA found in the sock stain due to the ghost in the machine, we believe this because we believe Simpson did it.

Although you will hear evidence that the glove was moved and at one point placed on the blanket and one of the detectives "touched the glove", and that trace evidence, such as hair and fibers are easily transferable, and that several officers carefully tromped through the scene, without wearing protective gear, we think that none of this matters, because we think Simpson did it.

We believe Kaelin and Ferrara only guessed at the times they estimated. Neither looked at a watch or a clock. Kaelin testified that he left his room two to three minutes after hearing the noises, we believe this estimation but reject the estimation of Kato and Rachel, because we believe Simpson did it. We know from telephone records that Park saw Kaelin come around the house with a flashlight at about 10:55, we believe it took Kato less than a minute to locate the flashlight, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe that at the same time Park saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up to his front door and enter his house, although he did not identify the person he said could have been wearing a bath robe, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe that the actual time Kaelin heard the noises behind his room was about 10:51 to 10:52, as opposed to the earlier time, because this would have given Simpson, who we believe was bleeding to scale the fence bump into the wall three times, get into the house without being seen by Kato or Park, come out on the driveway and place a bag there and walk back to the door where park observed someone that could have had on a bath robe, even though no blood was found near the location in which the glove was allegedly found and no blood found leading into any other entrance except the front door of Simpson's home.

We realize that there may be some things in our theory that might be thought illogical or unreasonable, such as our wanting to narrow the time line that Simpson returned home and was seen by Park, in light of the fact that we believe Simpson had time to conceal the weapon and shoes, wipe blood in the Bronco, scale a fence, and bang into the wall three times, get to the front door without being seen by Kato and Park and having nothing incriminatory in his hands that was seen by Park, but we believe this is the time, because we may have to introduce the testimony of Ms. Shively who said she saw Simpson near Bundy at the same time Kato and Rachel testified he heard the three thumps. We realize that some may think it is illogical that Simpson tried to establish and alibi by asking Kato for change and alerting him that he was leaving, when we believe the evidence is that Simpson was able to leave and return without anyone seeing him leave and return. We believe that, despite these illogicalities and unreasonable positions, Simpson is the murderer, because we believe Simpson did it.

[tv]

I see. I am being called ridiculous because of your inadvertence. I really had a higher opinion or you and your willingness to raise the level of postings in the community. :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:No, I said you were being ridiculous because of the last few days of lengthy inaccurate posts about the prosecution's case. I'm not even sure what your agenda is about my comments on the way the Bronco was parked and frankly I don't care.

[tv]

wrong
I don't think william put quotes by any comments.So your new rule is that as long as you don't put quotes around what you're stating as fact you don't have to support it with a source or say it's only opinion? Thanks for informing the members of this forum or your new rule.

[tv]

The opinions expressed in discussions of issues on the thread does not have to be accepted as fact by anyone.William didn't state that his version of the prosecution's case was his opinion.

[William Anthony]

No, I said you were being ridiculous because of the last few days of lengthy inaccurate posts about the prosecution's case. I'm not even sure what your agenda is about my comments on the way the Bronco was parked and frankly I don't care.

Frankly, I was commenting on your posts about the Bronco. There was one inaccurate thing in my post, which I will correct. That concerned the blood found on the magical socks. It was alleged to be Nicole's unpreserved blood. I will correct that immediately.

I will address your other posts on the alleged new rules and stating opinion and the one in which my nic was mentioned. I do not believe there is a new rule and unless you can show where I said the prosecution said something, then I think you may owe an apology to the community. My posts have clearly been an assessment of the case offered by the prosecution and I have addressed any issues brought up by the posters in light of all the evidence presented to see if there was truly a mountain of evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If you don't care to understand that, then frankly Charlette so be it.

[William Anthony]

I did some quick research and it appears I did not say who the source of the stain on the magical socks, imho, was.

[tv]

I did some quick research and it appears I did not say who the source of the stain on the magical socks, imho, was.I'm beginning to believe you really don't know how many inaccuracies are in your posts. Have a lovely evening. :)

[William Anthony]

I'm beginning to believe you really don't know how many inaccuracies are in your posts. Have a lovely evening. :)

I am beginning to believe that you think that anyone, who does not see the trial as you do, is inaccurate. I hope you have an enjoyable evening. :)

[martin II]

I am beginning to believe that you think that anyone, who does not see the trial as you do, is inaccurate. I hope you have an enjoyable evening. :)

I do agree 100%
That is a great note to begin the evening on.

[William Anthony]

I'm beginning to believe you really don't know how many inaccuracies are in your posts. Have a lovely evening. :)

It seems I did make an inaccurate post when I inadvertently referred to you as Charlette, although you did not specifically correct it. Um? In any event it was a reference to the movie, Gone With the Wind, and I meant Scarlett.

[weezer]

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.
2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway, (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

[weezer]

1. Simpson did not testify at his criminal trial. Defense attorneys will almost always call as a witness an articulate client that they believe to be innocent.
2. Subsequent to the trial defense attorneys talking about the trial have been careful to say "the jury did the right thing," while not stating that Simpson was in fact innocent.

3. Subsequent to the trial, Simpson has devoted no real effort to tracking down the "real killer," nor has any significant evidence surfaced suggesting that the killer was anyone other than Simpson.

4. The jury was not allowed to hear testimony concerning Simpson's rumored jailhouse confession to Rosie Grier.

5. Subsequent to the criminal trial other evidence of Simpson's guilt surfaced. The most significant of the new evidence may have been photographs of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes. The new evidence, together with much of the evidence considered in the criminal trial, convinced a civil jury that Simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.


6. In his 2007 book, If I Did It, Simpson (for all intents and purposes) confessed. The book describes in detail events leading up to the moment of the murders.

[weezer]

A list of the 45 bloodstains introduced at trial, with their DNA evidence.
(Two types of DNA tests were used, RFLP* and PCR**. RFLP tests are more precise, but require much more DNA. PCR tests are used when only small amounts of DNA are present.)
Identification Key: OJS = O.J. Simpson, NBS = Nicole Brown Simpson, RG = Ronald Goldman
LOCATION OF STAIN - NOT EXCLUDED***

ROCKINGHAM PROPERTY
Rockingham trail (item 6) OJS
Rockingham trail (item 7) OJS
Rockingham foyer OJS
Rockingham master bathroom floor OJS

BUNDY CRIME SCENE
Blood pool by Nicole Brown Simpson NBS
Blood drop by Nicole Brown Simpson OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 48) OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 49) OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 50) OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 52) OJS
Shoe impression NBS
Blood drop on Goldman boot NBS & RG
Brown Simpson's fingernails NBS
Back gate (item 115) OJS
Back gate (item 116) OJS
Back gate (item 117) OJS

Rockingham Glove
Inside/ back of wrist NBS & RG
Inside/ back of index finger NBS & RG
Inside/ side of middle finger NBS & RG
Inside/ back of ring finger RG
Inside/ back of hand NBS & RG
Inside/ by wrist notch OJS & RG
Outside/ near wrist notch (item G-11) OJS, NBS & RG
Outside/ near wrist notch (item G-12) NBS & RG
Stitching/ wrist notch OJS, NBS & RG
Inside/ back of cuff NBS & RG

Rockingham Socks
Ankle NBS
Near ankle (item 42-B1) NBS
Near ankle (item 42-B2) NBS
Upper sock/ opposite side OJS
Upper sock/ same side OJS
Upper toe OJS

Simpson's Bronco
Driver door interior OJS
Instrument panel OJS
Driver side carpet OJS
Steering wheel OJS & NBS
Center console (item 30) OJS
Center console (item 31) OJS
Driver side wall OJS
Driver side carpet NBS
Center console (combination of 3 below) * OJS
Center console (item 303) * OJS
Center console (item 304) * OJS
Center console (item 305) * OJS
45 Total blood stains tested

*RFLP= Typing using restriction length polymorphisms.
**PCR= Amplification of specific genes using the process known as plymerase chain reaction.

[weezer]

9:36 P.M. Simpson, wearing a dark sweat suit, is seen by Kato Kaelin.
9:30-9:45 Charles Cale, walking his dog by Simpson's Rockingham residence, does not see Bronco.

10:02 Simpson attempts to call Paula Barbieri on the cell phone from his Bronco.

10:15 (prosecution)-10:40 (defense) Period during which murders took place.

10:22-10:30 Limo driver Allan Park, scheduled to take Simpson to airport, does not see Bronco on Rockingham.

10:40, 10:43, 10:49 Allan Park buzzes Simpson's intercom, but gets no response.

10:50 White or light bronco observed at the intersection of Bundy and Dorothy.

10:51 or 10:52 Kato Kaelin hears three thumps on the wall outside his room.

10:54 Allan Park sees a man wearing dark clothes, about 6-feet tall and 200 pounds, walk across the driveway of the Simpson residence.

10:55 Simpson lies to Allan Park.

[weezer]

Vannatter: How did you get the injury on your hand?

Simpson: I don't know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but at the house I was just running around.

Vannatter: How did you do it in Chicago?

Simpson: I broke a glass. One of you guys had just called me, and I was in the bathroom, and I just kind of went bonkers for a little bit.

Lange: Is that how you cut it?

Simpson: Mmm, it was cut before, but I think I just opened it again, I'm not sure.

Lange: Do you recall bleeding at all in your truck, in the Bronco?

Simpson: I recall bleeding at my house and then I went to the Bronco. The last thing I did before I left, when I was rushing, was went and got my phone out of the Bronco.

[weezer]

Lange: So do you recall bleeding at all?

Simpson: Yeah, I mean, I knew I was bleeding, but it was no big deal. I bleed all the time. I play golf and stuff, so there's always something, nicks and stuff here and there.

Lange: So did you do anything? When did you put the Band-Aid on it?

Simpson: Actually, I asked the girl this morning for it.

Lange: And she got it?

Simpson: Yeah, 'cause last night with Kato, when I was leaving, he was saying something to me, and I was rushing to get my phone, and I put a little thing on it, and it stopped.

[William Anthony]

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.
2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway, (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

We believe that the 9-11 call shows that Simpson had a temper about his wife having intimate relationships in the home when the kids were there and he committed spousal abuse against Nicole, although we reject the testimony of the eminent doctor on spousal abusers, who go on to commit murder, that Simpson did not have the tendencies of spousal abusers, who commit murder.

Already addressed point two.

Will address the fibers from the Bronco later.

Will address the glove issue later.

Think I have addressed the blood drops at Bundy but will add to later, if necessary.

Think I have already addressed the shoe print evidence but will add to later, if necessary.

Will address the remainder when I come to it.

I will add the first paragraph of my response to the assessment.

[weezer]

Vannatter: You haven't had any problems with her lately, have you, OJ?

Simpson: I always have problems with her, you know? Our relationship has been a problem relationship. Probably lately for me, and I say this only because I said it to Ron yesterday at the -- Ron Fishman, whose wife is Cora -- at the dance recital, when he came up to me and went, "Oooh, boy, what's going on?" and everybody was beefing with everybody. And I said, "Well, I'm just glad I'm out of the mix." You know, because I was like dealing with him and his problems with his wife and Nicole and evidently some new problems that a guy named Christian was having with his girl, and he was staying at Nicole's house, and something was going on, but I don't think it's pertinent to this.

[William Anthony]

Continuation of the assessment of the PROSECUTION'S case, with corrections.

Although there is evidence that Simpson and Nicole had an off and on relationship and that you heard testimony from his long time barber that Simpson had dandruff in his hair every summer and it is probable that Simpson played with his kids and the dog while at Bundy, we believe that the Simpson was at Bundy on June 12th, even though no one saw this well known celebrity or the Bronco there, we have his hair, absent dandruff, and his blood that the criminalist, who was mistaken about who collected most of the evidence and did not see the blood in the photo of June 13th and forgot to collect the blood from the gate and who made several other mistakes, and the testimony of a detective that brought Simpson's reference sample to the bloody crime scene, and you will hear evidence that there was missing blood from Simpson's reference sample, and evidence that another detective injected a blanket from inside Nicole's condo into the scene, and that the evidence was moved by LE members, we believe that none of this matters because the criminalist and the blood-totting detective will testify that the blood appeared fresh several hours after the murders were committed on a night in June with a waxing moon, because we believe that Simpson did it.

We now look at how the Bronco was parked. We believe that the suspicious nature of the way it was parked shows that Simpson did it, in connection with the other evidence that was alleged to have been found in and on the Bronco. We ask you to look at the way it is parked in your determination that Simpson was the murderer, because that is the way all murderers who are in a hurry park their vehicles. We believe Simpson parked in such a manner, even though we have no one seeing him driving it or parking it, because we believe that Simpson did it.

We believe that the killer wore dark colored clothing even though "the dark colored cotton clothing" we believe "the killer wore was never entered into evidence." We believe that, although we never found the dark colored cotton clothing we believe Simpson wore and probably most people own similar clothing and might have come from the dress Nicole had own, "the same blue black cotton fibers found all over Ron's shirt and found on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks", which "that fiber evidence ties Simpson to the murders." Although there was evidence that the socks, (which have been referred to by a poster as magical) were not in the location that they should have been at the time Simpson's room was videotaped and the criminalist, who was mistaken about who collected what, was mistaken about the time he collected them, because he changed his testimony when the defense pointed out that the socks were magical does not matter, because we believe Simpson did it. Although there was EDTA found in the socks near the level the testifying dead expert said were in his own unpreserved blood should not be trusted and there was only EDTA found in the sock stain due to the ghost in the machine, we believe this because we believe Simpson did it.

Although you will hear evidence that the glove was moved and at one point placed on the blanket and one of the detectives "touched the glove", and that trace evidence, such as hair and fibers are easily transferable, and that several officers carefully tromped through the scene, without wearing protective gear, we think that none of this matters, because we think Simpson did it.

We believe Kaelin and Ferrara only guessed at the times they estimated. Neither looked at a watch or a clock. Kaelin testified that he left his room two to three minutes after hearing the noises, we believe this estimation but reject the estimation of Kato and Rachel, because we believe Simpson did it. We know from telephone records that Park saw Kaelin come around the house with a flashlight at about 10:55, we believe it took Kato less than a minute to locate the flashlight, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe that at the same time Park saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up to his front door and enter his house, although he did not identify the person he said could have been wearing a bath robe, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe that the actual time Kaelin heard the noises behind his room was about 10:51 to 10:52, as opposed to the earlier time, because this would have given Simpson, who we believe was bleeding to scale the fence bump into the wall three times, get into the house without being seen by Kato or Park, come out on the driveway and place a bag there and walk back to the door where park observed someone that could have had on a bath robe, even though no blood was found near the location in which the glove was allegedly found and no blood found leading into any other entrance except the front door of Simpson's home.

We realize that there may be some things in our theory that might be thought illogical or unreasonable, such as our wanting to narrow the time line that Simpson returned home and was seen by Park, in light of the fact that we believe Simpson had time to conceal the weapon and shoes, wipe blood in the Bronco, scale a fence, and bang into the wall three times, get to the front door without being seen by Kato and Park and having nothing incriminatory in his hands that was seen by Park, but we believe this is the time, because we may have to introduce the testimony of Ms. Shively who said she saw Simpson near Bundy at the same time Kato and Rachel testified he heard the three thumps. We realize that some may think it is illogical that Simpson tried to establish and alibi by asking Kato for change and alerting him that he was leaving, when we believe the evidence is that Simpson was able to leave and return without anyone seeing him leave and return. We believe that, despite these illogicalities and unreasonable positions, Simpson is the murderer, because we believe Simpson did it.

We believe that the 9-11 call shows that Simpson had a temper about his wife having intimate relationships in the home when the kids were there and he committed spousal abuse against Nicole, although we reject the testimony of the eminent doctor on spousal abusers, who go on to commit murder, that Simpson did not have the tendencies of spousal abusers, who commit murder.

[William Anthony]

A list of the 45 bloodstains introduced at trial, with their DNA evidence.
(Two types of DNA tests were used, RFLP* and PCR**. RFLP tests are more precise, but require much more DNA. PCR tests are used when only small amounts of DNA are present.)
Identification Key: OJS = O.J. Simpson, NBS = Nicole Brown Simpson, RG = Ronald Goldman
LOCATION OF STAIN - NOT EXCLUDED***

ROCKINGHAM PROPERTY
Rockingham trail (item 6) OJS
Rockingham trail (item 7) OJS
Rockingham foyer OJS
Rockingham master bathroom floor OJS

BUNDY CRIME SCENE
Blood pool by Nicole Brown Simpson NBS
Blood drop by Nicole Brown Simpson OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 48) OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 49) OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 50) OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 52) OJS
Shoe impression NBS
Blood drop on Goldman boot NBS & RG
Brown Simpson's fingernails NBS
Back gate (item 115) OJS
Back gate (item 116) OJS
Back gate (item 117) OJS

Rockingham Glove
Inside/ back of wrist NBS & RG
Inside/ back of index finger NBS & RG
Inside/ side of middle finger NBS & RG
Inside/ back of ring finger RG
Inside/ back of hand NBS & RG
Inside/ by wrist notch OJS & RG
Outside/ near wrist notch (item G-11) OJS, NBS & RG
Outside/ near wrist notch (item G-12) NBS & RG
Stitching/ wrist notch OJS, NBS & RG
Inside/ back of cuff NBS & RG

Rockingham Socks
Ankle NBS
Near ankle (item 42-B1) NBS
Near ankle (item 42-B2) NBS
Upper sock/ opposite side OJS
Upper sock/ same side OJS
Upper toe OJS

Simpson's Bronco
Driver door interior OJS
Instrument panel OJS
Driver side carpet OJS
Steering wheel OJS & NBS
Center console (item 30) OJS
Center console (item 31) OJS
Driver side wall OJS
Driver side carpet NBS
Center console (combination of 3 below) * OJS
Center console (item 303) * OJS
Center console (item 304) * OJS
Center console (item 305) * OJS
45 Total blood stains tested

*RFLP= Typing using restriction length polymorphisms.
**PCR= Amplification of specific genes using the process known as plymerase chain reaction.

I think that I have addressed the blood stains at Bundy. I think that I have addressed the blood stains on the socks but I will add to that, because you made me realize another illogical and unreasonable part of the prosecution's case. Stay tuned. I have not yet began to address the Bronco, other than the manner it was parked and the blood trail, but will do so. I have not fully adressed the gloves but will do so.

[weezer]

Expert says crime scene DNA matched Simpson's blood


November 13, 1996
Web posted at: 10:45 p.m. EST
SANTA MONICA, California (CNN) -- A DNA expert said Wednesday that the DNA of O.J. Simpson's blood matches the DNA of blood found at the scene where Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were killed.

Dr. Robin Cotton testified that the chance of the blood being someone else's other than Simpson's was one-in-170 million or more.

[William Anthony]

Vannatter: How did you get the injury on your hand?

Simpson: I don't know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but at the house I was just running around.

Vannatter: How did you do it in Chicago?

Simpson: I broke a glass. One of you guys had just called me, and I was in the bathroom, and I just kind of went bonkers for a little bit.

Lange: Is that how you cut it?

Simpson: Mmm, it was cut before, but I think I just opened it again, I'm not sure.

Lange: Do you recall bleeding at all in your truck, in the Bronco?

Simpson: I recall bleeding at my house and then I went to the Bronco. The last thing I did before I left, when I was rushing, was went and got my phone out of the Bronco.

Not a part of the prosecution's case.

[William Anthony]

Lange: So do you recall bleeding at all?

Simpson: Yeah, I mean, I knew I was bleeding, but it was no big deal. I bleed all the time. I play golf and stuff, so there's always something, nicks and stuff here and there.

Lange: So did you do anything? When did you put the Band-Aid on it?

Simpson: Actually, I asked the girl this morning for it.

Lange: And she got it?

Simpson: Yeah, 'cause last night with Kato, when I was leaving, he was saying something to me, and I was rushing to get my phone, and I put a little thing on it, and it stopped.

Not part of the prosecution case.

[William Anthony]

Expert says crime scene DNA matched Simpson's blood


November 13, 1996
Web posted at: 10:45 p.m. EST
SANTA MONICA, California (CNN) -- A DNA expert said Wednesday that the DNA of O.J. Simpson's blood matches the DNA of blood found at the scene where Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were killed.

Dr. Robin Cotton testified that the chance of the blood being someone else's other than Simpson's was one-in-170 million or more.

Not part of the prosecution's case.

[weezer]

I would hope that anyone posting opinion/speculation on the evidence in this case would not stray off into neverland and post nonsense that has been dreamed up and does not relate to what the testimony and evidence tells us. :no:

[William Anthony]

I would hope that anyone posting opinion/speculation on the evidence in this case would not stray off into neverland and post nonsense that has been dreamed up and does not relate to what the testimony and evidence tells us. :no:

I hope that anyone posting opinions/speculation on the evidence in this case would not stray off into the never never land by posting information from a trial that was not part of the prosecution's case or not look at the presumption of innocence and how it pertains and not consider all the evidence as it was presented, because they believed from the beginning that Simpson did it.

[martin II]

I would hope that anyone posting opinion/speculation on the evidence in this case would not stray off into neverland and post nonsense that has been dreamed up and does not relate to what the testimony and evidence tells us. :no:

If that is your feelings then stop.

[William Anthony]

Continuation of the assessment of the PROSECUTION'S case, with corrections.

Although there is evidence that Simpson and Nicole had an off and on relationship and that you heard testimony from his long time barber that Simpson had dandruff in his hair every summer and it is probable that Simpson played with his kids and the dog while at Bundy, we believe that the Simpson was at Bundy on June 12th, even though no one saw this well known celebrity or the Bronco there, we have his hair, absent dandruff, and his blood that the criminalist, who was mistaken about who collected most of the evidence and did not see the blood in the photo of June 13th and forgot to collect the blood from the gate and who made several other mistakes, and the testimony of a detective that brought Simpson's reference sample to the bloody crime scene, and you will hear evidence that there was missing blood from Simpson's reference sample, and evidence that another detective injected a blanket from inside Nicole's condo into the scene, and that the evidence was moved by LE members, we believe that none of this matters because the criminalist and the blood-totting detective will testify that the blood appeared fresh several hours after the murders were committed on a night in June with a waxing moon, because we believe that Simpson did it.

We now look at how the Bronco was parked. We believe that the suspicious nature of the way it was parked shows that Simpson did it, in connection with the other evidence that was alleged to have been found in and on the Bronco. We ask you to look at the way it is parked in your determination that Simpson was the murderer, because that is the way all murderers who are in a hurry park their vehicles. We believe Simpson parked in such a manner, even though we have no one seeing him driving it or parking it, because we believe that Simpson did it.

We believe that the killer wore dark colored clothing even though "the dark colored cotton clothing" we believe "the killer wore was never entered into evidence." We believe that, although we never found the dark colored cotton clothing we believe Simpson wore and probably most people own similar clothing and might have come from the dress Nicole had own, "the same blue black cotton fibers found all over Ron's shirt and found on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks", which "that fiber evidence ties Simpson to the murders." Although there was evidence that the socks, (which have been referred to by a poster as magical) were not in the location that they should have been at the time Simpson's room was videotaped and the criminalist, who was mistaken about who collected what, was mistaken about the time he collected them, because he changed his testimony when the defense pointed out that the socks were magical does not matter, because we believe Simpson did it. Although there was EDTA found in the socks near the level the testifying dead expert said were in his own unpreserved blood should not be trusted and there was only EDTA found in the sock stain due to the ghost in the machine, we believe this because we believe Simpson did it.

Although you will hear evidence that the glove was moved and at one point placed on the blanket and one of the detectives "touched the glove", and that trace evidence, such as hair and fibers are easily transferable, and that several officers carefully tromped through the scene, without wearing protective gear, we think that none of this matters, because we think Simpson did it.

We believe Kaelin and Ferrara only guessed at the times they estimated. Neither looked at a watch or a clock. Kaelin testified that he left his room two to three minutes after hearing the noises, we believe this estimation but reject the estimation of Kato and Rachel, because we believe Simpson did it. We know from telephone records that Park saw Kaelin come around the house with a flashlight at about 10:55, we believe it took Kato less than a minute to locate the flashlight, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe that at the same time Park saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up to his front door and enter his house, although he did not identify the person he said could have been wearing a bath robe, because we believe Simpson did it. We believe that the actual time Kaelin heard the noises behind his room was about 10:51 to 10:52, as opposed to the earlier time, because this would have given Simpson, who we believe was bleeding to scale the fence bump into the wall three times, get into the house without being seen by Kato or Park, come out on the driveway and place a bag there and walk back to the door where park observed someone that could have had on a bath robe, even though no blood was found near the location in which the glove was allegedly found and no blood found leading into any other entrance except the front door of Simpson's home.

We realize that there may be some things in our theory that might be thought illogical or unreasonable, such as our wanting to narrow the time line that Simpson returned home and was seen by Park, in light of the fact that we believe Simpson had time to conceal the weapon and shoes, wipe blood in the Bronco, scale a fence, and bang into the wall three times, get to the front door without being seen by Kato and Park and having nothing incriminatory in his hands that was seen by Park, but we believe this is the time, because we may have to introduce the testimony of Ms. Shively who said she saw Simpson near Bundy at the same time Kato and Rachel testified he heard the three thumps. We realize that some may think it is illogical that Simpson tried to establish and alibi by asking Kato for change and alerting him that he was leaving, when we believe the evidence is that Simpson was able to leave and return without anyone seeing him leave and return. We believe that, despite these illogicalities and unreasonable positions, Simpson is the murderer, because we believe Simpson did it.

We believe that the 9-11 call shows that Simpson had a temper about his wife having intimate relationships in the home when the kids were there and he committed spousal abuse against Nicole, although we reject the testimony of the eminent doctor on spousal abusers, who go on to commit murder, that Simpson did not have the tendencies of spousal abusers, who commit murder.

We believe that Simpson dressed in a dark colored sweat suit and dress socks and dress shoes to go and commit the murders and, although he had time to dispose of or clean all the incriminating clothing, except for the glove that we allege he dropped at Rockingham, he did not have time to get rid of the smallest Item of clothing we allege he was wearing, a pair of magical dress socks. Although we had never been to or inside his Rockingham estate, we collected those magical socks not because we saw blood on them but, because we believed they looked out of place in his bedroom, because we believe Simpson did it.

[William Anthony]

A list of the 45 bloodstains introduced at trial, with their DNA evidence.
(Two types of DNA tests were used, RFLP* and PCR**. RFLP tests are more precise, but require much more DNA. PCR tests are used when only small amounts of DNA are present.)
Identification Key: OJS = O.J. Simpson, NBS = Nicole Brown Simpson, RG = Ronald Goldman
LOCATION OF STAIN - NOT EXCLUDED***

ROCKINGHAM PROPERTY
Rockingham trail (item 6) OJS
Rockingham trail (item 7) OJS
Rockingham foyer OJS
Rockingham master bathroom floor OJS

BUNDY CRIME SCENE
Blood pool by Nicole Brown Simpson NBS
Blood drop by Nicole Brown Simpson OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 48) OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 49) OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 50) OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 52) OJS
Shoe impression NBS
Blood drop on Goldman boot NBS & RG
Brown Simpson's fingernails NBS
Back gate (item 115) OJS
Back gate (item 116) OJS
Back gate (item 117) OJS

Rockingham Glove
Inside/ back of wrist NBS & RG
Inside/ back of index finger NBS & RG
Inside/ side of middle finger NBS & RG
Inside/ back of ring finger RG
Inside/ back of hand NBS & RG
Inside/ by wrist notch OJS & RG
Outside/ near wrist notch (item G-11) OJS, NBS & RG
Outside/ near wrist notch (item G-12) NBS & RG
Stitching/ wrist notch OJS, NBS & RG
Inside/ back of cuff NBS & RG

Rockingham Socks
Ankle NBS
Near ankle (item 42-B1) NBS
Near ankle (item 42-B2) NBS
Upper sock/ opposite side OJS
Upper sock/ same side OJS
Upper toe OJS

Simpson's Bronco
Driver door interior OJS
Instrument panel OJS
Driver side carpet OJS
Steering wheel OJS & NBS
Center console (item 30) OJS
Center console (item 31) OJS
Driver side wall OJS
Driver side carpet NBS
Center console (combination of 3 below) * OJS
Center console (item 303) * OJS
Center console (item 304) * OJS
Center console (item 305) * OJS
45 Total blood stains tested

*RFLP= Typing using restriction length polymorphisms.
**PCR= Amplification of specific genes using the process known as plymerase chain reaction.

According to your post there were only eight drops of blood found at Bundy that were consistent from coming from Simpson, 2 from Nicole, including the blood pool, and 1 that was a mixture of Nicole and Ronald. I will be glad to include this information in the assessment, if necessary. One of the blood drops from Simpson indicated he was dead and, I guess this would lend credibility to Martin's point that the prosecution believed there were two ojs.

[weezer]

According to your post there were only eight drops of blood found at Bundy that were consistent from coming from Simpson, 2 from Nicole, including the blood pool, and 1 that was a mixture of Nicole and Ronald. I will be glad to include this information in the assessment, if necessary. One of the blood drops from Simpson indicated he was dead and, I guess this would lend credibility to Martin's point that the prosecution believed there were two ojs.

you must be confused. of the 45 bloodstains introduced at trial, orenthal james simpson could NOT be excluded as contributing to 29 of them. plain and simple. your recitations as to how YOU believe/think/dream the murders happened cannot and are not supported by evidence or testimony.

I believe in a way there were two orenthals: the orenthal presented to the outside world who was charming and charismatic and then there is the orenthal that Nicole knew. the orenthal who beat, abused, stalked, threatened and finally murdered her.

[tv]

It seems I did make an inaccurate post when I inadvertently referred to you as Charlette, although you did not specifically correct it. Um? In any event it was a reference to the movie, Gone With the Wind, and I meant Scarlett.I knew who you were talking about and saw no need to correct it. Interesting choice of movies to reference but I won't be taking the bait or taking offense. :)

[weezer]

I'm not usually prone to long posts but since there is a poster who has taken it upon him/herself to present his/her interpretation of the prosecution's case, I feel that this is relevant: M.L. Rantala, O.J. Unmasked

"If O.J. Were Innocent: Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

If O.J. Simpson did not commit the brutal murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, then the following must be true:

It is just a coincident that Simpson cut himself at his home, leaving blood in his Bronco, his driveway, his foyer, and his bathroom at about the time the murders occurred.

There is an innocent explanation for how, after he cut himself at his Rockingham home, he could not recall how he did this when he spoke to police only about fifteen hours later.

It is a coincidence that Simpson cut himself on his left hand that there are drops of blood to the left of bloody footprints leaving the murder scene.

Simpson then cut himself again on the same hand at a hotel room in Chicago only a few hours later.

It is just a coincidence that the bloody shoe impressions walking away from the murder scene were in O.J.'s size and that the shoes which made them were quite expensive - $160 a pair. It is just another coincidence that he regularly purchased size 12 shoes at one of only forty stores in the U.S. which sold these expensive shoes.

The bloody impression on the Bronco carpet, while consistent with the Bruno Magli shoe impressions left at the murder scene, was not made by a Bruno Magli shoe. If it was left by Fuhrman, then he somehow stepped in blood at the murder scene and left no record of it there. Sometime later, atter at least forty-five minutes, he rewetted his shoes - perhaps by stepping in wet grass - and left the impression in the Bronco without leaving any grass or dirt.

There is an innocent explanation for why Simpson failed to answer the limousine driver's buss for twenty minutes and a similarly good explanation for why several seemingly conflicting alibis have been offered by Simpson and his lawyers.

The thumps which frightened Kato had nothing to do with the murders or with O.J. Simpson or with the glove being dropped near the source of the thumps and there is another explanation for these occurrences, although no one has yet managed to guess what that explanation might be. The fact that Kato reached the front of the Rockingham estate to investigate these thumps at about the same time Simpson reached the front of his house is a coincidence.

While Allan Park, the limousine driver, did not see the Bronco on Rockingham when he first arrived at Simpson's home, it was nonetheless there.

It is mere coincidence that defense witness Robert Heidstra saw a white sports utility vehicle with tinted windows near the murder scene at a time which could coincide with the aftermath of the murders and that Simpson drives a white sports utility vehicle with tinted windows. It is also mere coincidence that Heidstra overheard two raised voices, one which he described as that of a black man.

[weezer]

Continued: M.L. Rantala, O.J. Unmasked:

There is an innocent explanation for why Simpson's defense lawyers brought all of his luggage from the night of the murders to court except the knapsack he wouldn't let anyone else carry.

The hat found at the murder scene containing hairs consistent with Simpson's can be attributed to cross-contamination, coincidental matching, or the fact that Simpson might have left it there days or weeks in advance of the murders.

It is a coincidence that the murderer left blue-black cotton fibers on his victims and Simpson was seen wearing dark blue or black clothing the night of the murders.

There is nothing significant in the fact that the bed Simpson slept in while in Chicago has blood on both the lower and upper sheets while there is no blood on the bathroom counter or in the sink full of the broken glass on which he cut his finger.

The fact that the doctor Simpson went to a few days after the murders (at the behest of his lawyer) found numerous cuts and abrasions on his left hand is of no significance.

It is nothing more than an unfortunate coincidence that on the day fo the murders Paula Barbieri broke up with Simpson and that Nicole would not save him a seat at their daughter's dance recital.

Many women like Nicole have safety deposit boxes and there isn't any particular significance to the fact that she kept photos there depicting her beaten body.

[weezer]

Continued: M.L. Rantala, O.J. Unmasked:

The reason the Bundy blood drops matched Simpson with various DNA tests at various laboratories is because they were somehow contaminated with his own blood or his own blood was purposely planted.

The reason the Rockingham glove was shown to have some of Simpson's blood on it is because Collin Yamauchi was very sloppy the day he handled and tested it.

The reason Ron Goldman's blood was found in the Bronco just after the murders is because it was planted or because the DNA tests were contaminated. Even if the explanation is contamination, it is still true that Fuhrman made the Bronco footprint, and the contaminated results showing Ron's alleles in the Bronco was a stroke of good luck for the prosecution and the cops.

The reason the blood on the back gate matched Simpson is because it was planted almost three weeks after the murders. The numerous police officers who saw that blood just after the murders are deluded or lying, or the blood they saw was carefully removed by the conspirators before being replaced with Simpson's.

The reason Nicole's blood was found on Simpson's sock is because it was planted.

Later, the conspirators put more blood in the Bronco, but were careful to plant so little that there was a danger that it could not be typed using DNA tests.

[weezer]

Continued: M.L. Rantala, O.J. Unmasked:

Simpson fled from the police five days after the murders with a passport, cheap disguise, some $8,000 and a gun even though he was innocent.

It is an astounding coincidence that the killer wore gloves from a batch of only a few hundred, of which Nicole purchased two pairs and Simpson has been depicted wearing two pairs.

The Rockingham glove found on Simpson's property contained rare fibers matching the carpet in Simpson's Bronco either through unfortunate coincidence or because a conspirator used the glove inside Simpson's Bronco.

It is just Simpson's extraordinary bad luck that the woman he beat, threatened, stalked, and terrorized was killed by someone else, for a completely unknown and unfathomable motive, under circumstances where Simpson had opportunity and no good alibi.

Numerous police officers collaborated in a conspiracy to frame this popular celebrity, and although some of these officers were occasionally sloppy in following police procedures, they were always conscientious, and often brilliant, in executing their conspiracy, so that not a single scrap fo evidence definitely indicating a frame-up attempt exists.

[weezer]

"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

[tv]

Thanks weezer...that poor OJ Simpson just can't catch a decent break when it comes to evidence. That's a lot of coincidences but I'm not sure I believe in coincidence.

Speaking of degraded blood -- I saw a program the other day where a woman's rape kit had been unrefrigerated for 16 years and they were still able to do a DNA test and match it someone. Some people just don't get that degradation doesn't turn someone's blood into another person's blood.

[weezer]

You're welcome. It seems that sometimes in order to further their arguments, the OJI's have a tendency to forget the proven evidence and testimony in the case.

I have more you know -- :D

[weezer]

Police find keys to Nicole's condo in orenthal's possession. Nicole reported a set of keys missing a few weeks before the slayings.

James Williams counted only three bags when OJ got out of the car. He said he noticed Simpson standing by a trash can afterward which led prosecutors to speculate that Simpson stuffed the small bag into the bin. Defense attorney's failed to produce the missing black bag.

A week before her death, Nicole tells friend Cici Shahian: "He's going to kill me and get away with it and charm the world because he's OJ Simpson".

Pals Faye Resnick and Robin Greir say Nicole told them OJ was going to kill her.

Nicole confides in therapist Susan Forward she feared OJ would murder her.

1982, OJ throws Nicole against a wall; 1987, he shoves her to the ground; 1989, he slaps her and pushes her from a moving car.

Nicole makes out her will five weeks before she was murdered.

Police respond to a 911 call on New Year's Day 1989 to find a bruised and bleeding Nicole hiding in the bushes, wearing only a bra and sweatpants, crying: "He's going to kill me! He's going to kill me!"

Just on the blood evidence alone, there's only one out of 57 billion chance that Simpson is innocent. Fifty-seven billion is approximately 10 times the current population of the entire world.

Only 299 pairs of size 12 rare Italian-made Bruno Magli shoes were ever distributed in the United States in 1991 and 1992, and were sold in olny 40 stores in the entire country, one of which is Bloomingdales in New York, where Simpson just happens to be a regular customer during the same period.

A bloody glove matching the one at the murder scene is found behind OJ's house near the air-conditioning unit, where Kato hears three thumps.

The glove at the murder scene and the glove at OJ's home are extra large: OJ's size. And they are a matching right and left glove.

Both gloves are identical to the type Nicole bought at Bloomingdales in December of 1990, one of only two hundred pairs like them sold through out the whole country that year. Photos and videos of OJ show him wearing the gloves that match the ones found at his home and the murder scene.

[tv]

You're welcome. It seems that sometimes in order to further their arguments, the OJI's have a tendency to forget the proven evidence and testimony in the case.

I have more you know -- :D

I'm counting on it! :tongue:

[William Anthony]

you must be confused. of the 45 bloodstains introduced at trial, orenthal james simpson could NOT be excluded as contributing to 29 of them. plain and simple. your recitations as to how YOU believe/think/dream the murders happened cannot and are not supported by evidence or testimony.

I believe in a way there were two orenthals: the orenthal presented to the outside world who was charming and charismatic and then there is the orenthal that Nicole knew. the orenthal who beat, abused, stalked, threatened and finally murdered her.

Yes, and of the 29 only 8 drops from Bundy were consistent with Simpson's blood. I am pointing to the evidence as the prosecution presented it and it was rebutted by the defense; not just considering one side.

I would be glad to add your last paragraph to the assesment, if you would like because it seems that you and Martin agree that the prosecution in some way wanted to say there were two O. J. Simpsons.

[William Anthony]

Continued: M.L. Rantala, O.J. Unmasked:

The reason the Bundy blood drops matched Simpson with various DNA tests at various laboratories is because they were somehow contaminated with his own blood or his own blood was purposely planted.

The reason the Rockingham glove was shown to have some of Simpson's blood on it is because Collin Yamauchi was very sloppy the day he handled and tested it.

The reason Ron Goldman's blood was found in the Bronco just after the murders is because it was planted or because the DNA tests were contaminated. Even if the explanation is contamination, it is still true that Fuhrman made the Bronco footprint, and the contaminated results showing Ron's alleles in the Bronco was a stroke of good luck for the prosecution and the cops.

The reason the blood on the back gate matched Simpson is because it was planted almost three weeks after the murders. The numerous police officers who saw that blood just after the murders are deluded or lying, or the blood they saw was carefully removed by the conspirators before being replaced with Simpson's.

The reason Nicole's blood was found on Simpson's sock is because it was planted.

Later, the conspirators put more blood in the Bronco, but were careful to plant so little that there was a danger that it could not be typed using DNA tests.

Not part of the Prosecution's case.

[William Anthony]

"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

Are you on a diet? :)

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;9101996 sniped, because not in the prosecution's case



Only 299 pairs of size 12 rare Italian-made Bruno Magli shoes were ever distributed in the United States in 1991 and 1992, and were sold in olny 40 stores in the entire country, one of which is Bloomingdales in New York, where Simpson just happens to be a regular customer during the same period.

A bloody glove matching the one at the murder scene is found behind OJ's house near the air-conditioning unit, where Kato hears three thumps.

The glove at the murder scene and the glove at OJ's home are extra large: OJ's size. And they are a matching right and left glove.

Both gloves are identical to the type Nicole bought at Bloomingdales in December of 1990, one of only two hundred pairs like them sold through out the whole country that year. Photos and videos of OJ show him wearing the gloves that match the ones found at his home and the murder scene.[/QUOTE]

Will address as the continuation continues.

[William Anthony]

Thanks weezer...that poor OJ Simpson just can't catch a decent break when it comes to evidence. That's a lot of coincidences but I'm not sure I believe in coincidence.

Speaking of degraded blood -- I saw a program the other day where a woman's rape kit had been unrefrigerated for 16 years and they were still able to do a DNA test and match it someone. Some people just don't get that degradation doesn't turn someone's blood into another person's blood.

Some people can't grasp that there were false results give by the lab where the prosecution sent samples for testing due to cross contamination and degradation, which was evidence in the criminal trial. Let me again, reiterate that I am not espousing any view on whether or not Simpson is the murderer. I am assessing the prosecution's alleged mountain of evidence case, judging the size of the rocks that composed the alleged mountain in the context of reasonable doubt, since there are so many who do not want to accept the criminal verdict.

[William Anthony]

I knew who you were talking about and saw no need to correct it. Interesting choice of movies to reference but I won't be taking the bait or taking offense. :)

No offense or baiting intended. When you used the words frankly, you did not care in your post, I thought you were referencing the movie and I took no offense. :)

[weezer]

*Snipped*"Some people can't grasp that there were false results give by the lab where the prosecution sent samples for testing due to cross contamination and degradation, which was evidence in the criminal trial. . ."

and some can't grasp that it wasn't ONE lab that tested the samples and found the same results:


"The reason the Bundy blood drops matched Simpson with various DNA tests at various laboratories is because they were somehow contaminated with his own blood or his own blood was purposely planted."

[weezer]

*Snipped*Yes, and of the 29 only 8 drops from Bundy were consistent with Simpson's blood. . ."

I think I understand your problem now -- you don't understand the evidence. imo

There were 45 samples from different areas, locations, items; of those 45 samples, 29 did NOT exclude orenthal james simpson.

[William Anthony]

Continuation of the assessment of the PROSECUTION'S case

You will hear evidence about a detective named Mark Fuhrman, hereinafter MF. You will hear that one of the detectives knew his name. You will hear evidence that MF is a racist, which we concede. You will hear evidence that MF harbored hatred of interracial couples and the defendant and his ex-wife were such a couple. You will hear evidence that MF said he would stop interracial couples and then find a reason for having stopped them. Although this is against the law, we believe that you should not hold this against MF. You will hear evidence that MF was removed from the case, along with his partner, and you will hear evidence that another police officer asked MF to look at the body of Ronald Goldman from a different vantage point, after MF had been removed from the case. You will hear evidence that MF complied with the request and from that vantage point, when he was specifically asked about seeing one glove, MF said he saw two. You will hear evidence that seven other witnesses testified that there was only one glove by Ronald Goldman. You will hear evidence that MF saw evidence that no one else saw, such as bloody fingerprints on a light switch at Bundy and them when he was asked specifically about seeing a glove. You will hear evidence that MF knew where Simpson, whose ex-wife was white, lived. You will hear evidence that MF allegedly found the Rockingham glove when he was alone. You will hear evidence that MF had the motive, means and opportunity to plant the glove at Rockingham after he was specifically asked about seeing one glove at Bundy and responded with I saw them. You will hear evidence that the glove was not collected and taken to make a comparison of the Bundy glove but MF was asked to leave Rockingham, after he allegedly said he found the glove at Rockingham to make a visual comparison of the gloves and then he could go home. We ask you not to speculate that the detective knew of MF's tendencies, even though he knew his name. We ask you not to speculate that there was anything suspicios about MF being sent home, after calming to have found the glove at Rockingham, even though the detective testified there was no blood near where MF allegedly found the Glove and he believed the killer was bleeding at the time and that the blood trail led from the Bronco into the front door of the Rockingham residence. We ask you to reject the above and the evidence of MF's motive, means and opportunity to plant one of the glove, he said, by is testimony, he saw at Bundy, because we believe Simpson did it.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

I think I understand your problem now -- you don't understand the evidence. imo

There were 45 samples from different areas, locations, items; of those 45 samples, 29 did NOT exclude orenthal james simpson.

I think you do not understand the assessment. I am focusing on the blood found at Bundy in the assessment and will include the others when I reach that point of the assessment. I counted 8 drops from Bundy that were alleged that Simpson was the source. I am willing, at this point, to add the fact that there were 8 blood drops found at Bundy that were alleged to have been consistent with Simpson.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

and some can't grasp that it wasn't ONE lab that tested the samples and found the same results:


"The reason the Bundy blood drops matched Simpson with various DNA tests at various laboratories is because they were somehow contaminated with his own blood or his own blood was purposely planted."

Some can't understand that garbage in means garbage out.

[weezer]

Poor ole orenthal's bad luck: "Numerous police officers collaborated in a conspiracy to frame this popular celebrity, and although some of these officers were occasionally sloppy in following police procedures, they were always conscientious, and often brilliant, in executing their conspiracy, so that not a single scrap of evidence definitely indicating a frame-up attempt exists." :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Poor ole orenthal's bad luck: "Numerous police officers collaborated in a conspiracy to frame this popular celebrity, and although some of these officers were occasionally sloppy in following police procedures, they were always conscientious, and often brilliant, in executing their conspiracy, so that not a single scrap of evidence definitely indicating a frame-up attempt exists." :shrug:


Quite a learned observation on your part. The defense did not have to conclusively prove there was a conspiracy or even remotely prove there was a conspiracy. All they had to do was provide evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that the prosecution's evidence and case could not be trusted for a variety of reasons.

[weezer]

Quite a learned observation on your part. The defense did not have to conclusively prove there was a conspiracy or even remotely prove there was a conspiracy. All they had to do was provide evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that the prosecution's evidence and case could not be trusted for a variety of reasons.

which they were unable to do for anyone with common sense who could -- and did -- draw the reasonable inference that orenthal james simpson is the Butcher of Brentwood. imo

[martin II]

Quite a learned observation on your part. The defense did not have to conclusively prove there was a conspiracy or even remotely prove there was a conspiracy. All they had to do was provide evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that the prosecution's evidence and case could not be trusted for a variety of reasons.

That imo is the core issue that some are not aware of or just desire to ignore.
:beer:

[William Anthony]

which they were unable to do for anyone with common sense who could -- and did -- draw the reasonable inference that orenthal james simpson is the Butcher of Brentwood. imo

I think most in the legal community realize that the prosecution failed to meet it burden of proof in the criminal trial. I do believe that Buglioski even admitted or intimated the same. I will not disagree with your assertion that those, who only have common sense may have drawn the inference that they believed it was reasonable to convict Simpson on the evidence presented. However, it would seem that the majority, of those who have more than common sense and have some training or sophistication on or in understanding legal concepts, such as the criminal jury displayed, imho, disagree with those who only possess or choose to use only common sense.

[tv]

I think most in the legal community realize that the prosecution failed to meet it burden of proof in the criminal trial. I do believe that Buglioski even admitted or intimated the same. I will not disagree with your assertion that those, who only have common sense may have drawn the inference that they believed it was reasonable to convict Simpson on the evidence presented. However, it would seem that the majority, of those who have more than common sense and have some training or sophistication on or in understanding legal concepts, such as the criminal jury displayed, imho, disagree with those who only possess or choose to use only common sense.You can't really believe the criminal jury was sophicated in legal concepts. :eek: For bob's sake, they thought the blood at Bundy could belong to Sidney or Justin. The only concept they understood was Johnnie Cochran's call to them for jury nullification.

[weezer]

I think most in the legal community realize that the prosecution failed to meet it burden of proof in the criminal trial. I do believe that Buglioski even admitted or intimated the same. I will not disagree with your assertion that those, who only have common sense may have drawn the inference that they believed it was reasonable to convict Simpson on the evidence presented. However, it would seem that the majority, of those who have more than common sense and have some training or sophistication on or in understanding legal concepts, such as the criminal jury displayed, imho, disagree with those who only possess or choose to use only common sense.

LOL (or as one of the other posters likes to indicate) hahahahaha. Thanks for the giggle.

[tv]

LOL (or as one of the other posters likes to indicate) hahahahaha. Thanks for the giggle.Let's not forget that they thought Henry Lee was the most impressive witness because he smiled at the jury. That's some real legal sophistication there.

[weezer]

Let's not forget that they thought Henry Lee was the most impressive witness because he smiled at the jury. That's some real legal sophistication there.

LOL -- how about saying they didn't pay attention to the DNA because they didn't understand it? LOL

or saying that some of the blood could be one of the criminalist? LOL

[tv]

LOL -- how about saying they didn't pay attention to the DNA because they didn't understand it? LOL

or saying that some of the blood could be one of the criminalist? LOL
I forget about that...maybe the poster would like to rethink his opinion of their legal sophistication...but probably not.

[weezer]

I forget about that...maybe the poster would like to rethink his opinion of their legal sophistication...but probably not.

now wait a minute -- I might want to rethink his statement. I've been on four juries and served as foreperson on one of those. Heeeeey, I guess I'm one of the legally sophisticated people he's talking about. Thanks william. :D

[William Anthony]

now wait a minute -- I might want to rethink his statement. I've been on four juries and served as foreperson on one of those. Heeeeey, I guess I'm one of the legally sophisticated people he's talking about. Thanks william. :D

You are welcome but I would like to add the caveat that experience does not automatically equate to a sophisticated understanding of the legal concepts involved in a trial. For instance, when someone feels the defense must prove something other than an affirmative defense, despite how many times and in what roles they might have served on a jury.

[William Anthony]

Let's not forget that they thought Henry Lee was the most impressive witness because he smiled at the jury. That's some real legal sophistication there.

Correct, as credibility of the witness is always an issue. It is important for the party offering the witness to make sure that the witness is able to relate to the jury. I think this post will serve to answer your and fbgweezer's posts on what the jury thought, did not listen or did not understand. I think very few people understood or understand DNA, other than knowing some of the purposes for which it is used.

The legal sophistication I was speaking of is their oath to not form an opinion until they have heard all the evidence, listen and adhere to the judges instructions on the applicable law, adhere to the presumption of innocence, weigh and assign credibility to the evidence, and hold the prosecution to their burden of proof, keeping in mind that the defense did not have to prove anything, unless they offered an affirmative defense.

[weezer]

Correct, as credibility of the witness is always an issue. It is important for the party offering the witness to make sure that the witness is able to relate to the jury. I think this post will serve to answer your and fbgweezer's posts on what the jury thought, did not listen or did not understand. I think very few people understood or understand DNA, other than knowing some of the purposes for which it is used.

The legal sophistication I was speaking of is their oath to not form an opinion until they have heard all the evidence, listen and adhere to the judges instructions on the applicable law, adhere to the presumption of innocence, weigh and assign credibility to the evidence, and hold the prosecution to their burden of proof, keeping in mind that the defense did not have to prove anything, unless they offered an affirmative defense.

what a lovely thought. too bad the simpson criminal jury was unable to fulfill that oath.

[weezer]

You are welcome but I would like to add the caveat that experience does not automatically equate to a sophisticated understanding of the legal concepts involved in a trial. For instance, when someone feels the defense must prove something other than an affirmative defense, despite how many times and in what roles they might have served on a jury.

well, then what if I represented myself in a hearing or took correspondent courses?

[William Anthony]

what a lovely thought. too bad the simpson criminal jury was unable to fulfill that oath.

To the contrary, I think they fulfilled it valiantly, even though they realized they would probably be scorned by most of America.

[weezer]

To the contrary, I think they fulfilled it valiantly, even though they realized they would probably be scorned by most of America.

I don't think it was most of America that they were worried about -- I think it was probably much closer to home.

[William Anthony]

well, then what if I represented myself in a hearing or took correspondent courses?

Anyone who has represented themselves in a legal administrative hearing and in the courtrooms of 4 occasions and, having lost only once in a federal court, where it was obvious that the judge was prejudiced and later evidence of this prejudice was shown by another person, a celebrity, who exposed the judge on appeal, I would say has of necessity shown a great deal of sophistication for legal concepts. As for you correspondence course, I can not speak to that, as I have not had that personal experience. If you took that correspondence course and they did not teach you that the defense does not have to prove anything in a criminal trial and may win a directed verdict, although rarely done, I would strongly urge you to seek to get a refund on any money you paid.

[William Anthony]

I don't think it was most of America that they were worried about -- I think it was probably much closer to home.

Oh yes, I think that they realized that they would meet some outraged members of most of America close to their homes.

[weezer]

Oh yes, I think that they realized that they would meet some outraged members of most of America close to their homes.

we agree. in fact, I remember Darden writing about his personal experience on that very matter in his book.

[weezer]

Anyone who has represented themselves in a legal administrative hearing and in the courtrooms of 4 occasions and, having lost only once in a federal court, where it was obvious that the judge was prejudiced and later evidence of this prejudice was shown by another person, a celebrity, who exposed the judge on appeal, I would say has of necessity shown a great deal of sophistication for legal concepts. As for you correspondence course, I can not speak to that, as I have not had that personal experience. If you took that correspondence course and they did not teach you that the defense does not have to prove anything in a criminal trial and may win a directed verdict, although rarely done, I would strongly urge you to seek to get a refund on any money you paid.

". . .in a legal administrative hearing and in the courtrooms of 4 occasions and, having lost only once in a federal court. . ."

I don't know but one out of four doesn't sound all that sophisticated.

:confused: :shrug:

[William Anthony]

we agree. in fact, I remember Darden writing about his personal experience on that very matter in his book.

While I believe that Darden can be colorfully described as a member of most of America, I do not believe that he can be described as a member of the criminal jury in any fashion, despite what I believe may have been one of his most fondest desires.

[William Anthony]

". . .in a legal administrative hearing and in the courtrooms of 4 occasions and, having lost only once in a federal court. . ."

I don't know but one out of four doesn't sound all that sophisticated.

:confused: :shrug:

How many times have you represented yourself in any legal proceeding. While America may be a litigious society, I am not that type of person. I have never lost in an administrative legal hearing, which, IIRC, is six times. Based on that, my record in representing myself is to the best of my recollection 9 wins and 1 loss. I think that someone from the correspondence school that you are involved with, if you are enrolled with one, might think that I was qualified to be an instructor at that school. Can you tell me how to contact the Dean, if they have one?

[weezer]

While I believe that Darden can be colorfully described as a member of most of America, I do not believe that he can be described as a member of the criminal jury in any fashion, despite what I believe may have been one of his most fondest desires.

I'm surprised that you would diss Darden. Besides, you and I both know that I was referring to his family and friends who were unhappy that he would prosecute orenthal. Although I didn't especially care for his book as far as information on the case, I do feel that I gained insight to who he was and the dynamics he was exposed to during the trial.

[William Anthony]

Continuation of the assessment of the PROSECUTION'S case

You will hear evidence about a detective named Mark Fuhrman, hereinafter MF. You will hear that one of the detectives knew his name. You will hear evidence that MF is a racist, which we concede. You will hear evidence that MF harbored hatred of interracial couples and the defendant and his ex-wife were such a couple. You will hear evidence that MF said he would stop interracial couples and then find a reason for having stopped them. Although this is against the law, we believe that you should not hold this against MF. You will hear evidence that MF was removed from the case, along with his partner, and you will hear evidence that another police officer asked MF to look at the body of Ronald Goldman from a different vantage point, after MF had been removed from the case. You will hear evidence that MF complied with the request and from that vantage point, when he was specifically asked about seeing one glove, MF said he saw two. You will hear evidence that seven other witnesses testified that there was only one glove by Ronald Goldman. You will hear evidence that MF saw evidence that no one else saw, such as bloody fingerprints on a light switch at Bundy and them when he was asked specifically about seeing a glove. You will hear evidence that MF knew where Simpson, whose ex-wife was white, lived. You will hear evidence that MF allegedly found the Rockingham glove when he was alone. You will hear evidence that MF had the motive, means and opportunity to plant the glove at Rockingham after he was specifically asked about seeing one glove at Bundy and responded with I saw them. You will hear evidence that the glove was not collected and taken to make a comparison of the Bundy glove but MF was asked to leave Rockingham, after he allegedly said he found the glove at Rockingham to make a visual comparison of the gloves and then he could go home. We ask you not to speculate that the detective knew of MF's tendencies, even though he knew his name. We ask you not to speculate that there was anything suspicios about MF being sent home, after calming to have found the glove at Rockingham, even though the detective testified there was no blood near where MF allegedly found the Glove and he believed the killer was bleeding at the time and that the blood trail led from the Bronco into the front door of the Rockingham residence. We ask you to reject the above and the evidence of MF's motive, means and opportunity to plant one of the glove, he said, by is testimony, he saw at Bundy, because we believe Simpson did it.

We ask you not to believe the testimony of impartial witnesses who say that they did not see blood in the Bronco. Instead, we ask you to believe MF, who said he saw blood in the Bronco at a time when he clamined he had not looked in the Bronco, but later there was blood found in the Bronco. We ask you to reject the prior evidence of MF's means, motive and opportunity and not consider that he could have been in the Bronco when he said he saw blood in the Bronco and ask you to forget that MF had the uncanny ability to see things that others did not and ask you to forget that MF lied on the witness stand. We believe that MF did not lie on the stand about the blood he saw in the Bronco, even though he denied saying it, because we believe Simpson did it.

[William Anthony]

I'm surprised that you would diss Darden. Besides, you and I both know that I was referring to his family and friends who were unhappy that he would prosecute orenthal. Although I didn't especially care for his book as far as information on the case, I do feel that I gained insight to who he was and the dynamics he was exposed to during the trial.

I was not dissing him. I think that the prosecution fought vigorously but that the evidence was just not there to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. I would hope that my family and friends would know me well enough to know that, if I had a job to do and I believed doing the job would not violate my principles, I respected the law and myself enough to do my job. If they did not, then they did not know me and I had wasted my life around people who did not understand me and I would move on (pun intended, smile) with my life and job.

[William Anthony]

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of this community. We have disagreed without being disagreeable for the most part. :) I hope that everyone realizes that this trial brought forth issues that we hold strong opinions about. Some about the verdict and the trial. Some about the law. Some about the jury. I am happy to see the recent improvement in the posts. As I have said and firmly believe some levity helps to lighten the tension. I think we all respect each other's opinions, even if we do not agree with them. This is just my way of saying that I am enjoying the discussion and hope they will continue in this vein and improve, if possible. :)

[weezer]

*Snipped*Continuation of the assessment of the PROSECUTION'S case.

william, it does nothing to 'improve' discussion when you continue to post this diatribe of made up stuff -- especially the cut and paste over and over again. If you want to discuss the evidence, then pick one and discuss it. imo

[weezer]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9102074]How many times have you represented yourself in any legal proceeding. While America may be a litigious society, I am not that type of person. I have never lost in an administrative legal hearing, which, IIRC, is six times. Based on that, my record in representing myself is to the best of my recollection 9 wins and 1 loss. I think that someone from the correspondence school that you are involved with, if you are enrolled with one, might think that I was qualified to be an instructor at that school. Can you tell me how to contact the Dean, if they have one? [QUOTE]

[QUOTE]no correspondence courses for me -- I have my degree. And, I've never had to represent myself -- but then, I haven't been in a position for that to happen. I think it might take more than being the plaintiff/defendant to qualify as an instructor. :tongue:

I could be wrong but it looks to me like your math sux!
". . .I have never lost in an administrative legal hearing, which, IIRC, is six times. Based on that, my record in representing myself is to the best of my recollection 9 wins and 1 loss. . ."[Quote]

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

william, it does nothing to 'improve' discussion when you continue to post this diatribe of made up stuff -- especially the cut and paste over and over again. If you want to discuss the evidence, then pick one and discuss it. imo

This is not made up stuff. It is a look at the evidence, including the cross and how the evidence tied into the overall picture of the case. We have discussed the evidence piece by piece and I found that it only lead to hostile feelings, because neither side was willing to consider the other. I have stated it is not my goal to prove Simpson, guilty or innocent. It is my belief that, as the evidence unfolded, there was reasonable doubt in the case. I was only showing how one could look at the evidence and what the prosecution wanted others to believe, despite how the evidence played out, in order to meet their burden of proof. Simply put, like it or not, imho, the defense took apart the prosecution's case and when I watched the trial I learned a valuable lesson from the defense one that I have used repeatedly used successfully.

I used it on the day we submitted our Answer to a Complaint in a mock trial. When the other side got upset, I told our side, we just won. There were members on my side, who did not understand and fought me. When the verdict came back for our side, they asked me how I knew so early. I laughed and said trade secret, not knowing if I would one day have to face them in a courtroom. It was something I learned from the dream team.

The prosecution lost that trial early on, imho, when they fell victim to a tactic used by the dream team. The tactic was neither unlawful nor unethical. It was just a tactic that served its purpose, because it rattled the prosecution.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9102074]How many times have you represented yourself in any legal proceeding. While America may be a litigious society, I am not that type of person. I have never lost in an administrative legal hearing, which, IIRC, is six times. Based on that, my record in representing myself is to the best of my recollection 9 wins and 1 loss. I think that someone from the correspondence school that you are involved with, if you are enrolled with one, might think that I was qualified to be an instructor at that school. Can you tell me how to contact the Dean, if they have one? [QUOTE]

[QUOTE]no correspondence courses for me -- I have my degree. And, I've never had to represent myself -- but then, I haven't been in a position for that to happen. I think it might take more than being the plaintiff/defendant to qualify as an instructor. :tongue:

I could be wrong but it looks to me like your math sux!
". . .I have never lost in an administrative legal hearing, which, IIRC, is six times. Based on that, my record in representing myself is to the best of my recollection 9 wins and 1 loss. . ."[Quote]

6 times successfully and 3 times successfully in a court room with one lost out of 4 equals 9 wins and 1 lost. I guess I have to keep looking for a job. :)

[weezer]

*Snipped*"This is not made up stuff. . ."

you have tried your hand at rewriting history and are trying to pass it off as something that YOU believe could have happened. The things you post are not based in reality and your rendition is often laughable.

I do not think that you care one way or the other about orenthal's guilt or innocence -- I do think that -- for whatever reason -- you hate LE and/or CJS. That's what I find as the dichotomy in your interest in law.

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;9102081][QUOTE=William Anthony;9102074]How many times have you represented yourself in any legal proceeding. While America may be a litigious society, I am not that type of person. I have never lost in an administrative legal hearing, which, IIRC, is six times. Based on that, my record in representing myself is to the best of my recollection 9 wins and 1 loss. I think that someone from the correspondence school that you are involved with, if you are enrolled with one, might think that I was qualified to be an instructor at that school. Can you tell me how to contact the Dean, if they have one? [QUOTE]

[QUOTE]no correspondence courses for me -- I have my degree. And, I've never had to represent myself -- but then, I haven't been in a position for that to happen. I think it might take more than being the plaintiff/defendant to qualify as an instructor. :tongue:

I could be wrong but it looks to me like your math sux!
". . .I have never lost in an administrative legal hearing, which, IIRC, is six times. Based on that, my record in representing myself is to the best of my recollection 9 wins and 1 loss. . ."

6 times successfully and 3 times successfully in a court room with one lost out of 4 equals 9 wins and 1 lost. I guess I have to keep looking for a job. :)

1. ". . .in a legal administrative hearing and in the courtrooms of 4 occasions and, having lost only once in a federal court. . ."

2. ". . .I have never lost in an administrative legal hearing, which, IIRC, is six times. Based on that, my record in representing myself is to the best of my recollection 9 wins and 1 loss. . ."

:confused:

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

you have tried your hand at rewriting history and are trying to pass it off as something that YOU believe could have happened. The things you post are not based in reality and your rendition is often laughable.

I do not think that you care one way or the other about orenthal's guilt or innocence -- I do think that -- for whatever reason -- you hate LE and/or CJS. That's what I find as the dichotomy in your interest in law.

You are quite incorrect in your assessment of me and my rendition. This is exactly what the prosecution would ask the jury to believe, if they were to have found him guilty. I do not hate LE. I do not like it when things are blatantly unequal and there is an abuse of power by those who have sworn to serve and protect, or by those who think fame, career and winning are more important than liberty and justice.

You are right that I do not care whether Simpson was guilty or innocent. What I care about is whether or not a jury should be criticized unmercifully, because most do not agree with their verdict, even though most in the legal profession agree that the prosecution failed to meet its burden.

There will be guilty that go free and innocent that will be incarcerated. I care that the law was upheld, even though the verdict may be wrong.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9102085][QUOTE=fbgweezer;9102081][QUOTE=William Anthony;9102074]How many times have you represented yourself in any legal proceeding. While America may be a litigious society, I am not that type of person. I have never lost in an administrative legal hearing, which, IIRC, is six times. Based on that, my record in representing myself is to the best of my recollection 9 wins and 1 loss. I think that someone from the correspondence school that you are involved with, if you are enrolled with one, might think that I was qualified to be an instructor at that school. Can you tell me how to contact the Dean, if they have one? [QUOTE]



1. ". . .in a legal administrative hearing and in the courtrooms of 4 occasions and, having lost only once in a federal court. . ."

2. ". . .I have never lost in an administrative legal hearing, which, IIRC, is six times. Based on that, my record in representing myself is to the best of my recollection 9 wins and 1 loss. . ."

:confused:

In total 10 times I have represented myself, IIRC. I know that there was only one loss. That loss occurred in court. I know I have represent myself 4 times in court, which means 3 wins and 1 loss. This means, IIRC, there were 6 additional wins in administrative hearings. 6 plus 3 equals 9 wins and 1 loss. I think I understand your confusion. The federal court, my loss, was included in the four times I represented myself in court.

[weezer]

You are quite incorrect in your assessment of me and my rendition. This is exactly what the prosecution would ask the jury to believe, if they were to have found him guilty. I do not hate LE. I do not like it when things are blatantly unequal and there is an abuse of power by those who have sworn to serve and protect, or by those who think fame, career and winning are more important than liberty and justice.

You are right that I do not care whether Simpson was guilty or innocent. What I care about is whether or not a jury should be criticized unmercifully, because most do not agree with their verdict, even though most in the legal profession agree that the prosecution failed to meet its burden.

There will be guilty that go free and innocent that will be incarcerated. I care that the law was upheld, even though the verdict may be wrong.

and I don't like when the guilty walk free because some lawyer stops at nothing to 'win'. Unfortunately, william, you sound like you are on course to be one of those lawyers.

If you have fooled yourself into believing that the jury considered the evidence -- sad. The defense team put LE on trial -- making sure that orenthal's guilt was not the issue. The credible evidence in the simpson case proved orenthal is the Butcher of Brentwood. He left his hair, blood, fiber, cap, glove and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the scene. The criminal jury told us they didn't understand and didn't consider the evidence. The criminal jury gave the black power salute, said "We take care of our own," "Of course the gloves fit. Anybody could see that."

No william, you have fooled yourself into believing the hype and in your zest to 'win', you have disrespected what you should be fighting for: justice for all. And justice for all includes the victims.

You do know that it was the defense team that was sanctioned for lying and cheating in the trial, right?

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;9102087][QUOTE=William Anthony;9102085][QUOTE=fbgweezer;9102081][QUOTE=William Anthony;9102074]How many times have you represented yourself in any legal proceeding. While America may be a litigious society, I am not that type of person. I have never lost in an administrative legal hearing, which, IIRC, is six times. Based on that, my record in representing myself is to the best of my recollection 9 wins and 1 loss. I think that someone from the correspondence school that you are involved with, if you are enrolled with one, might think that I was qualified to be an instructor at that school. Can you tell me how to contact the Dean, if they have one?

In total 10 times I have represented myself, IIRC. I know that there was only one loss. That loss occurred in court. I know I have represent myself 4 times in court, which means 3 wins and 1 loss. This means, IIRC, there were 6 additional wins in administrative hearings. 6 plus 3 equals 9 wins and 1 loss. I think I understand your confusion. The federal court, my loss, was included in the four times I represented myself in court.

I guess that's one way to achieve your goal -- on the job training. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

and I don't like when the guilty walk free because some lawyer stops at nothing to 'win'. Unfortunately, william, you sound like you are on course to be one of those lawyers.

If you have fooled yourself into believing that the jury considered the evidence -- sad. The defense team put LE on trial -- making sure that orenthal's guilt was not the issue. The credible evidence in the simpson case proved orenthal is the Butcher of Brentwood. He left his hair, blood, fiber, cap, glove and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the scene. The criminal jury told us they didn't understand and didn't consider the evidence. The criminal jury gave the black power salute, said "We take care of our own," "Of course the gloves fit. Anybody could see that."

No william, you have fooled yourself into believing the hype and in your zest to 'win', you have disrespected what you should be fighting for: justice for all. And justice for all includes the victims.

You do know that it was the defense team that was sanctioned for lying and cheating in the trial, right?

That stop at nothing to win is not limited to the defense. That evidence may be credible to you but the jury is sworn to consider all the evidence, including how the evidence got where it was allegedly found. I do not know what you are talking about when you say anybody could see that. There have been many trials in which whites took care of their own and even a time when blacks had no legal recourse. I also do not like when the guilty walk free but I do believe that it is better to let a thousand guilty walk free than to convict one innocent person. Yes, the victim and the defendant have rights and the court and the lawyers must weigh those rights. Justice for all means justice for the victims, justice for the defendant, justice for society to include future and past generations, which is rooted in precedent, res judicata, and stare decisis. This is the fight I wish to wage and even it means overturning precedent, res judicata and stare decisis, then so be it. Very few lawyers get a chance to accomplish such a feat. I would relish the opportunity on some civil rights, employment and discrimination decisions.

There were sanctions given against both sides, IIRC. I want to fight for a system were justice is administered equally, without regard to race, gender, age, etc. etc. to ensure that there is liberty and justice for all, not just show outrage over the verdicts we believe were unjust to members of our respective races but to show outrage to verdicts that were unjust to members of other races. That is the American judicial system that I want to be a part of and fight for.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9102089][QUOTE=fbgweezer;9102087][QUOTE=William Anthony;9102085][QUOTE=fbgweezer;9102081]

I guess that's one way to achieve your goal -- on the job training. :tongue:

Yes, it has often be said the experience is the best teacher.

[weezer]

That stop at nothing to win is not limited to the defense. That evidence may be credible to you but the jury is sworn to consider all the evidence, including how the evidence got where it was allegedly found. I do not know what you are talking about when you say anybody could see that. There have been many trials in which whites took care of their own and even a time when blacks had no legal recourse. I also do not like when the guilty walk free but I do believe that it is better to let a thousand guilty walk free than to convict one innocent person. Yes, the victim and the defendant have rights and the court and the lawyers must weigh those rights. Justice for all means justice for the victims, justice for the defendant, justice for society to include future and past generations, which is rooted in precedent, res judicata, and stare decisis. This is the fight I wish to wage and even it means overturning precedent, res judicata and stare decisis, then so be it. Very few lawyers get a chance to accomplish such a feat. I would relish the opportunity on some civil rights, employment and discrimination decisions.

There were sanctions given against both sides, IIRC. I want to fight for a system were justice is administered equally, without regard to race, gender, age, etc. etc. to ensure that there is liberty and justice for all, not just show outrage over the verdicts we believe were unjust to members of our respective races but to show outrage to verdicts that were unjust to members of other races. That is the American judicial system that I want to be a part of and fight for.

I don't remember the prosecution being sanctioned so can you post that please. The fact that you believe the simpson case was race based for most of us is laughable. The outrage had nothing to do with black/white -- it had everything to do with a guilty man walking free.

I can only offer this as unsolicited help. You will take away from it what you will:

your posts are verbose and riddled with inaccuracies when it comes to the trial. The made-up and pretend stuff you come up with does a disservice to this board.

Your posts concerning the community and your vision of the justice system, are quite lovely statements. Unfortunately, those statements come off as insincere and phoney.

You have couched disrespect for members of this community in your verbose posts. I can only assume that you think you're just too smart and witty for the rest of us to understand what you're doing. We do understand. You may or may not have noticed that for the most part, the number of people willing to post with you is down -- considerably. Don't be surprised to see it go down yet again.

I suggest that you re-examine your reasons for wanting to enter law. My guess is it has nothing to do with justice.

[William Anthony]

I don't remember the prosecution being sanctioned so can you post that please. The fact that you believe the simpson case was race based for most of us is laughable. The outrage had nothing to do with black/white -- it had everything to do with a guilty man walking free.

I can only offer this as unsolicited help. You will take away from it what you will:

your posts are verbose and riddled with inaccuracies when it comes to the trial. The made-up and pretend stuff you come up with does a disservice to this board.

Your posts concerning the community and your vision of the justice system, are quite lovely statements. Unfortunately, those statements come off as insincere and phoney.

You have couched disrespect for members of this community in your verbose posts. I can only assume that you think you're just too smart and witty for the rest of us to understand what you're doing. We do understand. You may or may not have noticed that for the most part, the number of people willing to post with you is down -- considerably. Don't be surprised to see it go down yet again.

I suggest that you re-examine your reasons for wanting to enter law. My guess is it has nothing to do with justice.

Rest assured that I have noticed the tendency of some to personally attack me and not want to take what I say in the light it was intended. I do not think that I am smarter than anyone. I do not apologize for my verbosity. I have noticed that after I point out what posters say about me which is untrue, such as this one and point out that their posts do a disservice to the community and ask for an apology to the community, some do not want to apologize and do not post. I am sure there is was a concerted effort on the part of some not to post to me. I am fine with that, as you see there are threads that I do not post on, unless there is something in the post that strikes a nerve.

I can't help what you can't remember and see no need to furnish a link to refresh your memory about something that is common knowledge. However, in the spirit to be helpful, I will remind you, if you watched the trial and are not relying on the memory of other posters, of Clark's outrage when Neufeld ask for monetary sanctions. You seem to have a selective memory defect but yet accuse me of posting inaccuracies. I think that this community may be better served if those who refuse to apologize stop posting. If you are going to be one of the ones who will no longer post to me, then so be it.

I do not know how my statements could come off as insincere and fake, unless that is your assessment (pun intended). I had thought that there might be a chance to post with you in a polite, civil and respectful manner, even though you brought up the issue of slavery after you protested endlessly and loudly about the issue being off topic. You then gave a half-hearted apology to the community, claiming that you inadvertently gave a platform to the I am victim mentality. This feigned apology was fake, insincere, disrespectful, rude and uncivil, imho. However, because I did want to improve on the level of posting in this community, I did not comment on it as I could have. It is obvious to me why some of you returned from that other community where your moderator friend ruled, imho. I do believe that that community was closed down and that some came back seeking to get this one closed. However, I was determined not to let that happen and asked other posters to raise the level of posting in this community with equality. I have received some information about the moderator on the other board, which causes me some suspicion that she is alive and well here. I do not want to become too loquacious as some might see it as operating from a ream of superior intelligence, even though they have accused me of taking courses from a correspondence school and intended to raise my ire by snidely posting about correspondence school. Yet, from my desire not to have this community closed down and raise the level of posting, I refrained from posting in a manner befitting that post. I would like to take this opportunity to extend to those, who returned from the other community with the intention of ruining this one, the opportunity to return to that other community where they thought the grass was greener, keeping in mind that what looks like grass may be weeds.

[William Anthony]

sniped
I suggest that you re-examine your reasons for wanting to enter law. My guess is it has nothing to do with justice.

You know what they say opinions are like and I would include guesses in that class.

[William Anthony]

sniped

I can only offer this as unsolicited help. You will take away from it what you will:

.

Nothing.

[William Anthony]

I don't remember the prosecution being sanctioned so can you post that please. The fact that you believe the simpson case was race based for most of us is laughable. The outrage had nothing to do with black/white -- it had everything to do with a guilty man walking free.

I can only offer this as unsolicited help. You will take away from it what you will:

your posts are verbose and riddled with inaccuracies when it comes to the trial. The made-up and pretend stuff you come up with does a disservice to this board.

Your posts concerning the community and your vision of the justice system, are quite lovely statements. Unfortunately, those statements come off as insincere and phoney.

You have couched disrespect for members of this community in your verbose posts. I can only assume that you think you're just too smart and witty for the rest of us to understand what you're doing. We do understand. You may or may not have noticed that for the most part, the number of people willing to post with you is down -- considerably. Don't be surprised to see it go down yet again.

I suggest that you re-examine your reasons for wanting to enter law. My guess is it has nothing to do with justice.

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[weezer]

Exactly what was expected. :seeya:

[martin II]

I don't remember the prosecution being sanctioned so can you post that please. The fact that you believe the simpson case was race based for most of us is laughable. The outrage had nothing to do with black/white -- it had everything to do with a guilty man walking free.

I can only offer this as unsolicited help. You will take away from it what you will:

your posts are verbose and riddled with inaccuracies when it comes to the trial. The made-up and pretend stuff you come up with does a disservice to this board.

Your posts concerning the community and your vision of the justice system, are quite lovely statements. Unfortunately, those statements come off as insincere and phoney.

You have couched disrespect for members of this community in your verbose posts. I can only assume that you think you're just too smart and witty for the rest of us to understand what you're doing. We do understand. You may or may not have noticed that for the most part, the number of people willing to post with you is down -- considerably. Don't be surprised to see it go down yet again.

I suggest that you re-examine your reasons for wanting to enter law. My guess is it has nothing to do with justice.


I think that this type negative PERSONAL comments attacking a community member is uncalled for.You have the option of simply stating your dissagreement. It does not have to be stated as a personal attack.

Your last line about the posters career choice is way over the top and i for one would request that you stop these kind of personal attack.:flamemad:

[William Anthony]

I think that this type negative PERSONAL comments attacking a community member is uncalled for.You have the option of simply stating your dissagreement. It does not have to be stated as a personal attack.

Your last line about the posters career choice is way over the top and i for one would request that you stop these kind of personal attack.:flamemad:

Thank you Martin. I chose to share the information with you about what I learned about a former moderator of this community. I do not want to falsely accuse anyone and, judging from the way we were treated in the past in this community, I thought I should share that with you. I know that some members of this community may be at a disadvantage, because they do not know the history of this community or the information I acquired about the moderator.

I want to make this community the best that it can be and I appreciate your help and the help of others, who I choose to let remain nameless, even though I know one poster can hold their own.

[William Anthony]

Exactly what was expected. :seeya:

Glad I did not disappoint you. Expected but not denied, thank you for your honesty, imho.

[martin II]

we agree. in fact, I remember Darden writing about his personal experience on that very matter in his book.

Darden turned out to be a big cry baby. Blamming the community for his
court room blunders.Poor Darden his feelings were hurt.

[William Anthony]

Darden turned out to be a big cry baby. Blamming the community for his
court room blunders.Poor Darden his feelings were hurt.

I have learned that I can get along very well without the companionship of those who do not understand or respect me. I think this is a lesson Darden should have learned.

[weezer]

I think that this type negative PERSONAL comments attacking a community member is uncalled for.You have the option of simply stating your dissagreement. It does not have to be stated as a personal attack.

Your last line about the posters career choice is way over the top and i for one would request that you stop these kind of personal attack.:flamemad:

it actually wasn't a personal attack. :shrug:

[weezer]

Thank you Martin. I chose to share the information with you about what I learned about a former moderator of this community. I do not want to falsely accuse anyone and, judging from the way we were treated in the past in this community, I thought I should share that with you. I know that some members of this community may be at a disadvantage, because they do not know the history of this community or the information I acquired about the moderator.

I want to make this community the best that it can be and I appreciate your help and the help of others, who I choose to let remain nameless, even though I know one poster can hold their own.

I do believe it is against the rules to 'out' another poster. :no:

[William Anthony]

it actually wasn't a personal attack. :shrug:

It was clearly a personal attack, imho, and obviously in Martin's.

[William Anthony]

I do believe it is against the rules to 'out' another poster. :no:

Which is why I did not. To say that someone is alive and well here is not the same as saying they are posting here under multiple nics, because we do have guests. I take it that you may know of the information that I received, judging from your post.

[weezer]

Which is why I did not. To say that someone is alive and well here is not the same as saying they are posting here under multiple nics, because we do have guests. I take it that you may know of the information that I received, judging from your post.

sounds like 'outing' to me:

". . .I chose to share the information with you about what I learned about a former moderator of this community. . ."

". . .I have received some information about the moderator on the other board, which causes me some suspicion that she is alive and well here. . ."

[William Anthony]

sounds like 'outing' to me:

". . .I chose to share the information with you about what I learned about a former moderator of this community. . ."

". . .I have received some information about the moderator on the other board, which causes me some suspicion that she is alive and well here. . ."

There is no rule that I am aware of which states that you cannot acknowledge the possible presence of a guest, who is one that does not post, according to my understanding. There is a rule that I am well aware of regarding outing a poster. In fact, I was banned after someone outed me on the other community, with similar if not identical rules, and, to my knowledge, that poster was not punished. I am well aware of the rule against outing by accusing a poster of using multiple nics and I have not accused anyone of doing this.

If you want to continue the false accusations, then :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

So that there will be no accusation that I broke the rules, I will post the relevant portions of my prior posts.

"I have received some information about the moderator on the other board, which causes me some suspicion that she is alive and well here."

I never said she was posting and only had a suspicion, not an accusation.

"Thank you Martin. I chose to share the information with you about what I learned about a former moderator of this community. I do not want to falsely accuse anyone and, judging from the way we were treated in the past in this community, I thought I should share that with you. I know that some members of this community may be at a disadvantage, because they do not know the history of this community or the information I acquired about the moderator.

As you see I did not accuse anyone and stated that I did not want to accuse anyone falsely and explained why I chose to share the information with Martin.

[William Anthony]

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to this community for allowing my emotions to get the best of me. However, I think that those, who have a modicum of understanding on how I feel about equality, will understand why the recent posts of another poster was designed, imho, to strike a nerve. I allowed my emotions to cloud my judgment and for this I offer an apology. I want to see this community strive and improve and I should have just said goodbye to the poster who began , imho, the personal attack. Again, I apologize to the community.

[martin II]

it actually wasn't a personal attack. :shrug:

It was clearly a personal attack on that poster Especially the part aboput his career choices.I have never read such a personal attack as that you made towards William and actually i believe you own him an apology as well as the community.So i am waiting.

[martin II]

I do believe it is against the rules to 'out' another poster. :no:

it is also against the rules for you to make such personal attacks as you have made on william.

[martin II]

I have learned that I can get along very well without the companionship of those who do not understand or respect me. I think this is a lesson Darden should have learned.

Darden loves to pander to his book target just as he did when he thought he had oj with that glove demo and when he cried on national tv after loosing. He needed someone to blame and he shifted his failure to his comminity and he wonders why some looked at him with one eye closed.:cool:

[martin II]

it actually wasn't a personal attack. :shrug:

This is a personal attack by you against william.i suggest that you stop.

"can only assume that you think you're just too smart and witty for the rest of us to understand what you're doing. We do understand. You may or may not have noticed that for the most part, the number of people willing to post with you is down -- considerably. Don't be surprised to see it go down yet again."

"I suggest that you re-examine your reasons for wanting to enter law. My guess is it has nothing to do with justice."

[William Anthony]

Darden loves to pander to his book target just as he did when he thought he had oj with that glove demo and when he cried on national tv after loosing. He needed someone to blame and he shifted his failure to his comminity and he wonders why some looked at him with one eye closed.:cool:

It is easy to blame/accuse others when you do not like what is happening. I think this is a human tendency. No one in his community, other than those on the prosecution team, influenced him to do the glove demonstration, imho.

[William Anthony]

This is a personal attack by you against william.i suggest that you stop.

"can only assume that you think you're just too smart and witty for the rest of us to understand what you're doing. We do understand. You may or may not have noticed that for the most part, the number of people willing to post with you is down -- considerably. Don't be surprised to see it go down yet again."

"I suggest that you re-examine your reasons for wanting to enter law. My guess is it has nothing to do with justice."

Martin,

I would like to thank you for your stand and the request for an apology to the community. I think rather than seeking punishment for people, who we believe broke the rules, that we should first offer the poster a chance to apologize.

[William Anthony]

Continuation of the assessment of the PROSECUTION'S case

You will hear evidence about a detective named Mark Fuhrman, hereinafter MF. You will hear that one of the detectives knew his name. You will hear evidence that MF is a racist, which we concede. You will hear evidence that MF harbored hatred of interracial couples and the defendant and his ex-wife were such a couple. You will hear evidence that MF said he would stop interracial couples and then find a reason for having stopped them. Although this is against the law, we believe that you should not hold this against MF. You will hear evidence that MF was removed from the case, along with his partner, and you will hear evidence that another police officer asked MF to look at the body of Ronald Goldman from a different vantage point, after MF had been removed from the case. You will hear evidence that MF complied with the request and from that vantage point, when he was specifically asked about seeing one glove, MF said he saw two. You will hear evidence that seven other witnesses testified that there was only one glove by Ronald Goldman. You will hear evidence that MF saw evidence that no one else saw, such as bloody fingerprints on a light switch at Bundy and them when he was asked specifically about seeing a glove. You will hear evidence that MF knew where Simpson, whose ex-wife was white, lived. You will hear evidence that MF allegedly found the Rockingham glove when he was alone. You will hear evidence that MF had the motive, means and opportunity to plant the glove at Rockingham after he was specifically asked about seeing one glove at Bundy and responded with I saw them. You will hear evidence that the glove was not collected and taken to make a comparison of the Bundy glove but MF was asked to leave Rockingham, after he allegedly said he found the glove at Rockingham to make a visual comparison of the gloves and then he could go home. We ask you not to speculate that the detective knew of MF's tendencies, even though he knew his name. We ask you not to speculate that there was anything suspicios about MF being sent home, after calming to have found the glove at Rockingham, even though the detective testified there was no blood near where MF allegedly found the Glove and he believed the killer was bleeding at the time and that the blood trail led from the Bronco into the front door of the Rockingham residence. We ask you to reject the above and the evidence of MF's motive, means and opportunity to plant one of the glove, he said, by is testimony, he saw at Bundy, because we believe Simpson did it.

We ask you not to believe the testimony of impartial witnesses who say that they did not see blood in the Bronco. Instead, we ask you to believe MF, who said he saw blood in the Bronco at a time when he clamined he had not looked in the Bronco, but later there was blood found in the Bronco. We ask you to reject the prior evidence of MF's means, motive and opportunity and not consider that he could have been in the Bronco when he said he saw blood in the Bronco and ask you to forget that MF had the uncanny ability to see things that others did not and ask you to forget that MF lied on the witness stand. We believe that MF did not lie on the stand about the blood he saw in the Bronco, even though he denied saying it, because we believe Simpson did it.

Before we talk more about the Bronco, let's go back to the glove. You will hear evidence that MF touched the glove, but we think the evidence is that he lifted the glove with a pen, even though MF lied on the stand, because we believe he did not bring any trace back from Rockingham when he touched the glove, because we believe Simpson did it. You will hear evidence that the photographer, who took the picture of MF pointing at the glove, was confused about the time he took the picture due to the drugs he took because of his sickness, even though the day before he told the defense he took the photograph on the night of June 12, i.e. the early morning hours of June 13th and testified that he took the photo while it was night time and switched his testimony, stating that he took the photo at sometime near 7am on the morning of the 13th, and we want you to believe that he took the photo near 7am, because we believe Simpson did it. We want you to believe this because it eliminates any possibility that the Rockingham scene could have been contaminated by MF, specifically the glove, which by the evidence he had motive, means and opportunity to plant, because we do not believe this evidence, because we believe Simpson did it. You will hear testimony from another member of LE that this photographer sat in her car for nearly 3 hours, waiting for MF to direct him as to what pictures to take, even though MF had been removed from the case and there were other officers, who could have pointed out the evidence. We ask you to believe this, because we believe Simpson did it. You will hear evidence that MF directed this photographer to take, IIRC, 30 some photos and not one was of the glove and this photographer sat idly chatting with the female LE member for 3 hours, which he forgot, waiting on MF to finish directing him and the next item he photographed was the glove that MF moved. We ask you to believe that MF lifted the glove with a pen because he could not compare it by looking at one side, because the other side may have been different, because we believe Simpson did it.

[fgump2]

Neither did Heidstra.

10:45 south path
10:45 bundy/dorothy

Kato and girlfriends testimony
WA and Martin are overlooking the fact time estimates under these circumstances are likely to be inaccurate. If consider that each time estimate may be about 5 - 10 minutes off, the problems disappear. According to Elizabeth Loftus, a forensic memory expert most people overestimate the accuracy of their own memories and that of others. Of course a lot of people who haven't studied forensic memory have come to the same conclusion.
None of these people had reasons to believe that the exact time would be important until a day or more later.

[fgump2]

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.
If it is OK for the world's best criminologist to mistake trowel marks in the cement for a more recent foot print, it should be OK for the police criminologists to make a few mistakes. It just isn't possible to process a mountain of evidence without making numerous mistakes.
Washing the clothes may seem illogical, but most people are likely to do illogical things when they are upset, and OJS would have been upset and in a hurry when he got back home to go to the airport. The person cleaning up for him (Arnelle?) would have been upset also. The person washing the clothes could have been afraid that a homeless person would find the clothing and notice the blood, and suspect a crime had been committed.

[martin II]

WA and Martin are overlooking the fact time estimates under these circumstances are likely to be inaccurate. If consider that each time estimate may be about 5 - 10 minutes off, the problems disappear. According to Elizabeth Loftus, a forensic memory expert most people overestimate the accuracy of their own memories and that of others. Of course a lot of people who haven't studied forensic memory have come to the same conclusion.
None of these people had reasons to believe that the exact time would be important until a day or more later.


If we as you suggest add 5-10 minutes to Katos and his girlfriends time then can we add 5-10 minutes to Heidstras time. He did not look at a clock during his walk.So he could have seen the bronco 5-10 minutes earlier of later.Park said he saw the AA person and got off the phone with his boss.is he correct or was his memory of when he got off the phone off by 5-10 minutes.

do we believe the estimates that fit our opinions and claim the others were mistaken?

[martin II]

If it is OK for the world's best criminologist to mistake trowel marks in the cement for a more recent foot print, it should be OK for the police criminologists to make a few mistakes. It just isn't possible to process a mountain of evidence without making numerous mistakes.
Washing the clothes may seem illogical, but most people are likely to do illogical things when they are upset, and OJS would have been upset and in a hurry when he got back home to go to the airport. The person cleaning up for him (Arnelle?) would have been upset also. The person washing the clothes could have been afraid that a homeless person would find the clothing and notice the blood, and suspect a crime had been committed.



if as some believe oj put some shoes and kinfe in a bag and took them to Chicago,what would have prevented him from putting that sweat suite in the bags he brought from the house and taking them to Chicago with the other stuff? Why leave that item behind to be found.
There was no homeless person in ojs house.

[William Anthony]

Good for you William. I still have problems with your 'alleged'. It is, or it isn't.

It remains an allegation until proven. The jury was not asked to answer whether or not it was Simpson's blood but we know what the verdict was.

[William Anthony]

If it is OK for the world's best criminologist to mistake trowel marks in the cement for a more recent foot print, it should be OK for the police criminologists to make a few mistakes. It just isn't possible to process a mountain of evidence without making numerous mistakes.
Washing the clothes may seem illogical, but most people are likely to do illogical things when they are upset, and OJS would have been upset and in a hurry when he got back home to go to the airport. The person cleaning up for him (Arnelle?) would have been upset also. The person washing the clothes could have been afraid that a homeless person would find the clothing and notice the blood, and suspect a crime had been committed.

A person should not be convicted on mistakes made by LE, imho. The prosecution had the burden to put on evidence that could be trusted beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution had the opportunity to point out the mistakes of the defense and vice versa. The difference is in which party bears the burden of proof, imho.

[William Anthony]

If we as you suggest add 5-10 minutes to Katos and his girlfriends time then can we add 5-10 minutes to Heidstras time. He did not look at a clock during his walk.So he could have seen the bronco 5-10 minutes earlier of later.Park said he saw the AA person and got off the phone with his boss.is he correct or was his memory of when he got off the phone off by 5-10 minutes.

do we believe the estimates that fit our opinions and claim the others were mistaken?

Excellent post.

[William Anthony]

If it is OK for the world's best criminologist to mistake trowel marks in the cement for a more recent foot print, it should be OK for the police criminologists to make a few mistakes. It just isn't possible to process a mountain of evidence without making numerous mistakes.
Washing the clothes may seem illogical, but most people are likely to do illogical things when they are upset, and OJS would have been upset and in a hurry when he got back home to go to the airport. The person cleaning up for him (Arnelle?) would have been upset also. The person washing the clothes could have been afraid that a homeless person would find the clothing and notice the blood, and suspect a crime had been committed.

I wonder what the population is of the homeless in Brentwood.

[martin II]

If it is OK for the world's best criminologist to mistake trowel marks in the cement for a more recent foot print, it should be OK for the police criminologists to make a few mistakes. It just isn't possible to process a mountain of evidence without making numerous mistakes.
Washing the clothes may seem illogical, but most people are likely to do illogical things when they are upset, and OJS would have been upset and in a hurry when he got back home to go to the airport. The person cleaning up for him (Arnelle?) would have been upset also. The person washing the clothes could have been afraid that a homeless person would find the clothing and notice the blood, and suspect a crime had been committed.

Protocols set for the collection of evidence, when followed, eliminates collection mistakes.That was the burden le had as they are charged with the collection and processing of the evidence not the defense. One cannot admit "numerous mistakes" and then say it is fair to convict using these mistakes as proof. What is expected of the jury that sees these 'Numerous mistakes" in the collection.Do we expect them to believe the testimony out right.

[William Anthony]

If it is OK for the world's best criminologist to mistake trowel marks in the cement for a more recent foot print, it should be OK for the police criminologists to make a few mistakes. It just isn't possible to process a mountain of evidence without making numerous mistakes.
Washing the clothes may seem illogical, but most people are likely to do illogical things when they are upset, and OJS would have been upset and in a hurry when he got back home to go to the airport. The person cleaning up for him (Arnelle?) would have been upset also. The person washing the clothes could have been afraid that a homeless person would find the clothing and notice the blood, and suspect a crime had been committed.

The prosecution had numerous mistakes, changes in testimony, human error and lies. I do not think this is the criteria to support a conviction.

[Kate Sachel]

Martin,

I would like to thank you for your stand and the request for an apology to the community. I think rather than seeking punishment for people, who we believe broke the rules, that we should first offer the poster a chance to apologize.

Can we please take a moment to step back and reflect? How is this type of exchange between yourself and martin helping to elevate the standard of posting in this community?

Perhaps it would serve better to simply state that you felt attacked and then move forward. If martin would like to echo that he felt it was a personal attack as well then fine but, again, move forward in the aftermath rather than continuing to fuel a fire.

Respectfully,

Kate

[William Anthony]

Can we please take a moment to step back and reflect? How is this type of exchange between yourself and martin helping to elevate the standard of posting in this community?

Perhaps it would serve better to simply state that you felt attacked and then move forward. If martin would like to echo that he felt it was a personal attack as well then fine but, again, move forward in the aftermath rather than continuing to fuel a fire.

Respectfully,

Kate

Respectfully accepted. I did reflect before I answered. I think it serves the community well when all voices are heard and others are willing to stand up for what they feel. There have been many times when a few people repeatedly voiced their opinions on what they thought I had done, such as being off topic, thread derailment and responding uncivilly to a particular poster. They did more than just repeatedly voice (what I will respectfully call) their opinions. They had massive reports of my alleged conduct. When one's perception is that he/she was unfairly and unequally disciplined it can lead to further hard feelings. A poster posted that he had no respect for me. I did not see one post, reprimanding the poster for that statement. It was after that statement and, after I answered in a way, perhaps, that did not serve to improve this community, I felt obligated to not let this community disintegrate into what took place on some others. I asked others to participate in raising the level of posting in this community.

I read one of your posts about Martin's posts and I responded with a post recognizing what had gone on in the past and hoping for an improvement. Martin responded with a post, stating that he did not respond to certain posters. While I believe that is his right, I would like to see everyone be able to respond to each other in a polite, civil and cordial manner without personal attacks. Martin and others have expressed their desire to elevate the level of postings in this community. I thanked Martin for standing up, or, if you will, participating in the effort to raise the level of posting. I understand that posters sometimes say things in the heat of battle that they later regret saying, which is why I think that we should first offer posters a chance to apologize. While my thoughts were addressed to Martin, they were meant for the entire community. I think honest and sincere apologies may be the first medication in mending old wounds. I do not think that it was either Martin's or my intention to fuel the fire. I see it as a way to extinguish it.

If posters are not man/woman enough to give apologies, then so be it. I would personally like to see more of the community speak their voices about raising the level of postings, as to what is or is not acceptable. I do not think we always need to involve the moderator in solving disputes between adults.

[Kate Sachel]

Respectfully accepted. I did reflect before I answered. I think it serves the community well when all voices are heard and others are willing to stand up for what they feel. There have been many times when a few people repeatedly voiced their opinions on what they thought I had done, such as being off topic, thread derailment and responding uncivilly to a particular poster. They did more than just repeatedly voice (what I will respectfully call) their opinions. They had massive reports of my alleged conduct. When one's perception is that he/she was unfairly and unequally disciplined it can lead to further hard feelings. A poster posted that he had no respect for me. I did not see one post, reprimanding the poster for that statement. It was after that statement and, after I answered in a way, perhaps, that did not serve to improve this community, I felt obligated to not let this community disintegrate into what took place on some others. I asked others to participate in raising the level of posting in this community.

I read one of your posts about Martin's posts and I responded with a post recognizing what had gone on in the past and hoping for an improvement. Martin responded with a post, stating that he did not respond to certain posters. While I believe that is his right, I would like to see everyone be able to respond to each other in a polite, civil and cordial manner without personal attacks. Martin and others have expressed their desire to elevate the level of postings in this community. I thanked Martin for standing up, or, if you will, participating in the effort to raise the level of posting. I understand that posters sometimes say things in the heat of battle that they later regret saying, which is why I think that we should first offer posters a chance to apologize. While my thoughts were addressed to Martin, they were meant for the entire community. I think honest and sincere apologies may be the first medication in mending old wounds. I do not think that it was either Martin's or my intention to fuel the fire. I see it as a way to extinguish it.

If posters are not man/woman enough to give apologies, then so be it. I would personally like to see more of the community speak their voices about raising the level of postings, as to what is or is not acceptable. I do not think we always need to involve the moderator in solving disputes between adults.

I know that you are aware of the difference between standing up and voicing your opinion versus continuing to rehash it before the other poster of which you speak has had an opportunity to either apologize or not apologize. How many times did you and martin post about this in the aftermath before fgbweezer has even had an opportunity to put her two cents in?

Kate

[William Anthony]

I know that you are aware of the difference between standing up and voicing your opinion versus continuing to rehash it before the other poster of which you speak has had an opportunity to either apologize or not apologize. How many times did you and martin post about this in the aftermath before fgbweezer has even had an opportunity to put her two cents in?

Kate

I do not think anyone was rehashing anything. Fbgweezer posted that is was not a personal attack in the aftermath, which meant weezer felt there was nothing to apologize for. The personal attack took place against me at post# 1888. Weezer had the opportunity to put her two cents in when she personally attacked me and afterwards. After my last post to Martin, the subject was dropped and we began responding to other posters. It is obvious that she feels she does not owe an apology to the community, imho. I think both Martin and I are fine with her refusal, as the community has the ability to judge for itself.

[Kate Sachel]

I do not think anyone was rehashing anything. Fbgweezer posted that is was not a personal attack in the aftermath, which meant weezer felt there was nothing to apologize for. The personal attack took place against me at post# 1888. Weezer had the opportunity to put her two cents in when she personally attacked me and afterwards. After my last post to Martin, the subject was dropped and we began responding to other posters. It is obvious that she feels she does not owe an apology to the community, imho. I think both Martin and I are fine with her refusal, as the community has the ability to judge for itself.

I see it quite differently.

That's all. Though worthy to note that some of us having been waiting for an apology from martin for years that will never come, so he should be quite fine with it.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I see it quite differently.

That's all. Though worthy to note that some of us having been waiting for an apology from martin for years that will never come, so he should be quite fine with it.

Kate

Let me say that I am fine with the refusal. :) I would think that you understand how the community feels once an apology is requested and refused. This is why I think community voices, not just three of four, should be heard in regard to these type of issues. However, I will admit that some may harbor ill feelings if they feel they have been forced to apologize. I guess we are left with just requesting one and leaving it up to the individuals requested.

[William Anthony]

Continuation of the assessment of the PROSECUTION'S case

You will hear evidence about a detective named Mark Fuhrman, hereinafter MF. You will hear that one of the detectives knew his name. You will hear evidence that MF is a racist, which we concede. You will hear evidence that MF harbored hatred of interracial couples and the defendant and his ex-wife were such a couple. You will hear evidence that MF said he would stop interracial couples and then find a reason for having stopped them. Although this is against the law, we believe that you should not hold this against MF. You will hear evidence that MF was removed from the case, along with his partner, and you will hear evidence that another police officer asked MF to look at the body of Ronald Goldman from a different vantage point, after MF had been removed from the case. You will hear evidence that MF complied with the request and from that vantage point, when he was specifically asked about seeing one glove, MF said he saw two. You will hear evidence that seven other witnesses testified that there was only one glove by Ronald Goldman. You will hear evidence that MF saw evidence that no one else saw, such as bloody fingerprints on a light switch at Bundy and them when he was asked specifically about seeing a glove. You will hear evidence that MF knew where Simpson, whose ex-wife was white, lived. You will hear evidence that MF allegedly found the Rockingham glove when he was alone. You will hear evidence that MF had the motive, means and opportunity to plant the glove at Rockingham after he was specifically asked about seeing one glove at Bundy and responded with I saw them. You will hear evidence that the glove was not collected and taken to make a comparison of the Bundy glove but MF was asked to leave Rockingham, after he allegedly said he found the glove at Rockingham to make a visual comparison of the gloves and then he could go home. We ask you not to speculate that the detective knew of MF's tendencies, even though he knew his name. We ask you not to speculate that there was anything suspicios about MF being sent home, after calming to have found the glove at Rockingham, even though the detective testified there was no blood near where MF allegedly found the Glove and he believed the killer was bleeding at the time and that the blood trail led from the Bronco into the front door of the Rockingham residence. We ask you to reject the above and the evidence of MF's motive, means and opportunity to plant one of the glove, he said, by is testimony, he saw at Bundy, because we believe Simpson did it.

We ask you not to believe the testimony of impartial witnesses who say that they did not see blood in the Bronco. Instead, we ask you to believe MF, who said he saw blood in the Bronco at a time when he clamined he had not looked in the Bronco, but later there was blood found in the Bronco. We ask you to reject the prior evidence of MF's means, motive and opportunity and not consider that he could have been in the Bronco when he said he saw blood in the Bronco and ask you to forget that MF had the uncanny ability to see things that others did not and ask you to forget that MF lied on the witness stand. We believe that MF did not lie on the stand about the blood he saw in the Bronco, even though he denied saying it, because we believe Simpson did it.

Before we talk more about the Bronco, let's go back to the glove. You will hear evidence that MF touched the glove, but we think the evidence is that he lifted the glove with a pen, even though MF lied on the stand, because we believe he did not bring any trace back from Rockingham when he touched the glove, because we believe Simpson did it. You will hear evidence that the photographer, who took the picture of MF pointing at the glove, was confused about the time he took the picture due to the drugs he took because of his sickness, even though the day before he told the defense he took the photograph on the night of June 12, i.e. the early morning hours of June 13th and testified that he took the photo while it was night time and switched his testimony, stating that he took the photo at sometime near 7am on the morning of the 13th, and we want you to believe that he took the photo near 7am, because we believe Simpson did it. We want you to believe this because it eliminates any possibility that the Rockingham scene could have been contaminated by MF, specifically the glove, which by the evidence he had motive, means and opportunity to plant, because we do not believe this evidence, because we believe Simpson did it. You will hear testimony from another member of LE that this photographer sat in her car for nearly 3 hours, waiting for MF to direct him as to what pictures to take, even though MF had been removed from the case and there were other officers, who could have pointed out the evidence. We ask you to believe this, because we believe Simpson did it. You will hear evidence that MF directed this photographer to take, IIRC, 30 some photos and not one was of the glove and this photographer sat idly chatting with the female LE member for 3 hours, which he forgot, waiting on MF to finish directing him and the next item he photographed was the glove that MF moved. We ask you to believe that MF lifted the glove with a pen because he could not compare it by looking at one side, because the other side may have been different, because we believe Simpson did it.

Let's talk about the partial footprint found in the Bronco. You will hear evidence that one detective took a pair of Simpson's sneakers home with him and that our expert used those sneakers to compare to the partial pattern found in the Bronco. The defense will provide say that the partial shoe print was planted, because MF said he saw blood in the Bronco at a time he denied saying he had seen Blood in the Bronco and had not been in the Bronco. You are not to speculate on the possibility that this detective took the sneakers to MF, who had a hatred of interracial couples and would find a reason after stopping them to stop them, or that MF followed his professed tactics in regard to interracial couples. You are not to speculate on the impropriety of what the detective did with the sneakers or that he could have washed/cleaned them after MF was finished with them, because we believe none of this happened, because we believe Simpson did it.

[weezer]

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.
2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway, (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

[weezer]

9:36 P.M. Simpson, wearing a dark sweat suit, is seen by Kato Kaelin.
9:30-9:45 Charles Cale, walking his dog by Simpson's Rockingham residence, does not see Bronco.

10:02 Simpson attempts to call Paula Barbieri on the cell phone from his Bronco.

10:15 (prosecution)-10:40 (defense) Period during which murders took place.

10:22-10:30 Limo driver Allan Park, scheduled to take Simpson to airport, does not see Bronco on Rockingham.

10:40, 10:43, 10:49 Allan Park buzzes Simpson's intercom, but gets no response.

10:50 White or light bronco observed at the intersection of Bundy and Dorothy.

10:51 or 10:52 Kato Kaelin hears three thumps on the wall outside his room.

10:54 Allan Park sees a man wearing dark clothes, about 6-feet tall and 200 pounds, walk across the driveway of the Simpson residence.

10:55 Simpson lies to Allan Park.

[martin II]

9:36 P.M. Simpson, wearing a dark sweat suit, is seen by Kato Kaelin.
9:30-9:45 Charles Cale, walking his dog by Simpson's Rockingham residence, does not see Bronco.

10:02 Simpson attempts to call Paula Barbieri on the cell phone from his Bronco.

10:15 (prosecution)-10:40 (defense) Period during which murders took place.

10:22-10:30 Limo driver Allan Park, scheduled to take Simpson to airport, does not see Bronco on Rockingham.

10:40, 10:43, 10:49 Allan Park buzzes Simpson's intercom, but gets no response.

10:50 White or light bronco observed at the intersection of Bundy and Dorothy.

10:51 or 10:52 Kato Kaelin hears three thumps on the wall outside his room.

10:54 Allan Park sees a man wearing dark clothes, about 6-feet tall and 200 pounds, walk across the driveway of the Simpson residence.

10:55 Simpson lies to Allan Park.


Criminal trial jury
"NOT GUILTY"

[martin II]

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.
2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway, (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.


Not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.
2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway, (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

1. Refuted by Dr. Walker that Simpson had the tendency to murder, although being an abuser, imho.

2. Refuted by officers that trampled through both crime scenes, the blanket, poor evidence handling and collection techniques, contamination and cross contamination and no evidence of dandruff, imho.

3. Refuted by evidence of planting, imho.

4. No evidence or when the blood was dropped, cut on hand explained, proves nothing, especially the magical socks, imho.

5. Shows nothing, imho.

6. Not shown that he wore the killer gloves, because they did not fit, imho.

7. Testimony shows that his reaction was not strange, unless being upset is strange. Flight shows he continued to be upset, as did MF, imho.

[William Anthony]

If it is agreeable with the community, I will end the assessment, unless there is an interest to continue. I will end it by saying that the vast majority of the evidence presented by the prosecution allowed for two reasonable inferences and by the jury instruction, the jury had to accept the one that pointed toward innocence. There was only one thing that was not refuted, which was that the prosecution believed he did it. In short there was reasonable doubt. imho.

[fgump2]

Continuation of the assessment of the PROSECUTION'S case

You will hear evidence about a detective named Mark Fuhrman, hereinafter MF. You will hear that one of the detectives knew his name. You will hear evidence that MF is a racist, which we concede. You will hear evidence that MF harbored hatred of interracial couples and the defendant and his ex-wife were such a couple. You will hear evidence that MF said he would stop interracial couples and then find a reason for having stopped them. Although this is against the law, we believe that you should not hold this against MF. You will hear evidence that MF was removed from the case, along with his partner, and you will hear evidence that another police officer asked MF to look at the body of Ronald Goldman from a different vantage point, after MF had been removed from the case. You will hear evidence that MF complied with the request and from that vantage point, when he was specifically asked about seeing one glove, MF said he saw two. You will hear evidence that seven other witnesses testified that there was only one glove by Ronald Goldman. You will hear evidence that MF saw evidence that no one else saw, such as bloody fingerprints on a light switch at Bundy and them when he was asked specifically about seeing a glove. You will hear evidence that MF knew where Simpson, whose ex-wife was white, lived. You will hear evidence that MF allegedly found the Rockingham glove when he was alone. You will hear evidence that MF had the motive, means and opportunity to plant the glove at Rockingham after he was specifically asked about seeing one glove at Bundy and responded with I saw them. You will hear evidence that the glove was not collected and taken to make a comparison of the Bundy glove but MF was asked to leave Rockingham, after he allegedly said he found the glove at Rockingham to make a visual comparison of the gloves and then he could go home. We ask you not to speculate that the detective knew of MF's tendencies, even though he knew his name. We ask you not to speculate that there was anything suspicios about MF being sent home, after calming to have found the glove at Rockingham, even though the detective testified there was no blood near where MF allegedly found the Glove and he believed the killer was bleeding at the time and that the blood trail led from the Bronco into the front door of the Rockingham residence. We ask you to reject the above and the evidence of MF's motive, means and opportunity to plant one of the glove, he said, by is testimony, he saw at Bundy, because we believe Simpson did it.

We ask you not to believe the testimony of impartial witnesses who say that they did not see blood in the Bronco. Instead, we ask you to believe MF, who said he saw blood in the Bronco at a time when he clamined he had not looked in the Bronco, but later there was blood found in the Bronco. We ask you to reject the prior evidence of MF's means, motive and opportunity and not consider that he could have been in the Bronco when he said he saw blood in the Bronco and ask you to forget that MF had the uncanny ability to see things that others did not and ask you to forget that MF lied on the witness stand. We believe that MF did not lie on the stand about the blood he saw in the Bronco, even though he denied saying it, because we believe Simpson did it.

Before we talk more about the Bronco, let's go back to the glove. You will hear evidence that MF touched the glove, but we think the evidence is that he lifted the glove with a pen, even though MF lied on the stand, because we believe he did not bring any trace back from Rockingham when he touched the glove, because we believe Simpson did it. You will hear evidence that the photographer, who took the picture of MF pointing at the glove, was confused about the time he took the picture due to the drugs he took because of his sickness, even though the day before he told the defense he took the photograph on the night of June 12, i.e. the early morning hours of June 13th and testified that he took the photo while it was night time and switched his testimony, stating that he took the photo at sometime near 7am on the morning of the 13th, and we want you to believe that he took the photo near 7am, because we believe Simpson did it. We want you to believe this because it eliminates any possibility that the Rockingham scene could have been contaminated by MF, specifically the glove, which by the evidence he had motive, means and opportunity to plant, because we do not believe this evidence, because we believe Simpson did it. You will hear testimony from another member of LE that this photographer sat in her car for nearly 3 hours, waiting for MF to direct him as to what pictures to take, even though MF had been removed from the case and there were other officers, who could have pointed out the evidence. We ask you to believe this, because we believe Simpson did it. You will hear evidence that MF directed this photographer to take, IIRC, 30 some photos and not one was of the glove and this photographer sat idly chatting with the female LE member for 3 hours, which he forgot, waiting on MF to finish directing him and the next item he photographed was the glove that MF moved. We ask you to believe that MF lifted the glove with a pen because he could not compare it by looking at one side, because the other side may have been different, because we believe Simpson did it.

Let's talk about the partial footprint found in the Bronco. You will hear evidence that one detective took a pair of Simpson's sneakers home with him and that our expert used those sneakers to compare to the partial pattern found in the Bronco. The defense will provide say that the partial shoe print was planted, because MF said he saw blood in the Bronco at a time he denied saying he had seen Blood in the Bronco and had not been in the Bronco. You are not to speculate on the possibility that this detective took the sneakers to MF, who had a hatred of interracial couples and would find a reason after stopping them to stop them, or that MF followed his professed tactics in regard to interracial couples. You are not to speculate on the impropriety of what the detective did with the sneakers or that he could have washed/cleaned them after MF was finished with them, because we believe none of this happened, because we believe Simpson did it.
It is odd that you should give an explanation of the Bronco shoe print that is different than the eplanation the dream team gave. The dream team said that MF accidentally put it there when he was planting blood there. Of course it couldn’t have happened that way because the available criminologists said that only the killer stepped in a pool of blood that night. So coming up with an alternative explanation seems reasonable. But the explanation that you gave (MF deliberately planted the foot print) seems quite unlikely. The LA police force has no foot print expert; and they announced that they found a foot print in the bronco before the killer’s shoe was identified. Do you really think that MF would fake it under these circumstances? You are correct in writing that the defense doesn’t have to prove anything; they just have to raise doubts. But if for 10M if the defense can’t explain all the evidence away, isn’t it time we recognize them for the sleazy bs artists they were? And also give some more discredit to the jury? I don’t think the jury discussed the foot print. If the defense had done a better job of explaining away the evidence OJS could have had his life back. For anyone on the LA cop to fake the foot print under these circumstances, the individual would have to be more audacious than a hyperactive teenager on speed. Of course the same could be said of the whole idea of framing a famous rich man. Nobody has ever shown any evidence that MF or any of the other cops was this willing to take risks.

[martin II]

Let me say that I am fine with the refusal. :) I would think that you understand how the community feels once an apology is requested and refused. This is why I think community voices, not just three of four, should be heard in regard to these type of issues. However, I will admit that some may harbor ill feelings if they feel they have been forced to apologize. I guess we are left with just requesting one and leaving it up to the individuals requested.

William
I congratulate you on your patience.:beer: :beer:

[martin II]

It is odd that you should give an explanation of the Bronco shoe print that is different than the eplanation the dream team gave. The dream team said that MF accidentally put it there when he was planting blood there. Of course it couldn’t have happened that way because the available criminologists said that only the killer stepped in a pool of blood that night. So coming up with an alternative explanation seems reasonable. But the explanation that you gave (MF deliberately planted the foot print) seems quite unlikely. The LA police force has no foot print expert; and they announced that they found a foot print in the bronco before the killer’s shoe was identified. Do you really think that MF would fake it under these circumstances? You are correct in writing that the defense doesn’t have to prove anything; they just have to raise doubts. But if for 10M if the defense can’t explain all the evidence away, isn’t it time we recognize them for the sleazy bs artists they were? And also give some more discredit to the jury? I don’t think the jury discussed the foot print. If the defense had done a better job of explaining away the evidence OJS could have had his life back. For anyone on the LA cop to fake the foot print under these circumstances, the individual would have to be more audacious than a hyperactive teenager on speed. Of course the same could be said of the whole idea of framing a famous rich man. Nobody has ever shown any evidence that MF or any of the other cops was this willing to take risks.

The claims were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt and oj simpson got his life back.

[William Anthony]

It is odd that you should give an explanation of the Bronco shoe print that is different than the eplanation the dream team gave. The dream team said that MF accidentally put it there when he was planting blood there. Of course it couldn’t have happened that way because the available criminologists said that only the killer stepped in a pool of blood that night. So coming up with an alternative explanation seems reasonable. But the explanation that you gave (MF deliberately planted the foot print) seems quite unlikely. The LA police force has no foot print expert; and they announced that they found a foot print in the bronco before the killer’s shoe was identified. Do you really think that MF would fake it under these circumstances? You are correct in writing that the defense doesn’t have to prove anything; they just have to raise doubts. But if for 10M if the defense can’t explain all the evidence away, isn’t it time we recognize them for the sleazy bs artists they were? And also give some more discredit to the jury? I don’t think the jury discussed the foot print. If the defense had done a better job of explaining away the evidence OJS could have had his life back. For anyone on the LA cop to fake the foot print under these circumstances, the individual would have to be more audacious than a hyperactive teenager on speed. Of course the same could be said of the whole idea of framing a famous rich man. Nobody has ever shown any evidence that MF or any of the other cops was this willing to take risks.

Accidentally or on purpose there is some agreement as to the likely culprit, if there was planting. I say if because I cannot conclusively say whether he did or did not, that fact alone points to doubt. Given the other evidence that came out about his character, then a reasonable inference can be drawn that he did and, perhaps, a reasonable inference that he did not. you seem to think that the defense was obligated to explain away the evidence, i.e. to prove that their client was not guilty. This is not what I believe their duty was. I see their duty as showing why the evidence should not be trusted beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again you say that no one has shown any evidence that MF or any other cop would take such a risk. They were not duty-bound to do so. However, ihere was evidence of fraternal loyalty, or blue wall of silence. Personally, I think that anyone who could speak of burning an entire race of people simply because of their skin color displays signs of irrationality that I could neither understand or begin to explain. I know that I would put nothing past such a person. Would I credit his voice on the tape admitting to planting/fabricating/tampering with evidence due to his irrationality, yes. When I look at the evidence in totality, I say that it is reasonable to assign reasonable doubt, imho. Even if I believe that the evidence favored guilt by a margin of 60 to 40 percent, which I do not, there is still reasonable doubt due to that margin, imho.

[William Anthony]

William
I congratulate you on your patience.:beer: :beer:

Thanks but I am not too virtuous. There is always room for improvement. :)

[William Anthony]

Accidentally or on purpose there is some agreement as to the likely culprit, if there was planting. I say if because I cannot conclusively say whether he did or did not, that fact alone points to doubt. Given the other evidence that came out about his character, then a reasonable inference can be drawn that he did and, perhaps, a reasonable inference that he did not. you seem to think that the defense was obligated to explain away the evidence, i.e. to prove that their client was not guilty. This is not what I believe their duty was. I see their duty as showing why the evidence should not be trusted beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again you say that no one has shown any evidence that MF or any other cop would take such a risk. They were not duty-bound to do so. However, ihere was evidence of fraternal loyalty, or blue wall of silence. Personally, I think that anyone who could speak of burning an entire race of people simply because of their skin color displays signs of irrationality that I could neither understand or begin to explain. I know that I would put nothing past such a person. Would I credit his voice on the tape admitting to planting/fabricating/tampering with evidence due to his irrationality, yes. When I look at the evidence in totality, I say that it is reasonable to assign reasonable doubt, imho. Even if I believe that the evidence favored guilt by a margin of 60 to 40 percent, which I do not, there is still reasonable doubt due to that margin, imho.

Correction-There was evidence of fraternal loyalty, or blue wall of silence.

[William Anthony]

. If the defense had done a better job of explaining away the evidence OJS could have had his life back. sniped

Simpson would have never been able to get his life back, simply because there was no verdict saying he was innocent. The knowledgeable public would always point to the fact that the verdict was not guilty, because it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. The public would not allow a person of the black race, who was proven not guilty of murdering two people of a different race to have his former life back, imho. The verdict in the civil trial was designed to prevent him from having his former life back, imho. Do I accept both verdicts, yes. I think there has been much avoidance of saying what I have just posted but sometimes issues need to be discussed, imho, and that was an issue in the criminal trial, even though it may not have been specifically expressed, imho.

[tv]

sniped

Simpson would have never been able to get his life back, simply because there was no verdict saying he was innocent. The knowledgeable public would always point to the fact that the verdict was not guilty, because it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. The public would not allow a person of the black race, who was proven not guilty of murdering two people of a different race to have his former life back, imho. The verdict in the civil trial was designed to prevent him from having his former life back, imho. Do I accept both verdicts, yes. I think there has been much avoidance of saying what I have just posted but sometimes issues need to be discussed, imho, and that was an issue in the criminal trial, even though it may not have been specifically expressed, imho.You call this a humble opinion? You are so outraged when the criminal jury is criticized yet you have no problem saying white people wanted OJ Simpson to be found guilty because he's black. Whether you want to believe it or not, white people do not want to see an innocent man of any color put in prison. It's time you stopped with this highly insulting *humble* opinion.

[Kate Sachel]

sniped

Simpson would have never been able to get his life back, simply because there was no verdict saying he was innocent. The knowledgeable public would always point to the fact that the verdict was not guilty, because it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. The public would not allow a person of the black race, who was proven not guilty of murdering two people of a different race to have his former life back, imho. The verdict in the civil trial was designed to prevent him from having his former life back, imho. Do I accept both verdicts, yes. I think there has been much avoidance of saying what I have just posted but sometimes issues need to be discussed, imho, and that was an issue in the criminal trial, even though it may not have been specifically expressed, imho.

Does the public you speak of also include blacks and other races, or do you speak soley of whites?

Kate

[SlowHandSam]

sniped

Simpson would have never been able to get his life back, simply because there was no verdict saying he was innocent. The knowledgeable public would always point to the fact that the verdict was not guilty, because it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. The public would not allow a person of the black race, who was proven not guilty of murdering two people of a different race to have his former life back, imho. The verdict in the civil trial was designed to prevent him from having his former life back, imho. Do I accept both verdicts, yes. I think there has been much avoidance of saying what I have just posted but sometimes issues need to be discussed, imho, and that was an issue in the criminal trial, even though it may not have been specifically expressed, imho.

being a member of the public and of the race you attack, I take offense at this comment. The outrage that I, along with many others, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that oj is black. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that he used his celebrity and the race card within his community to get away with the cold blooded murder of two people. The reason the public won't "let it go" is because we believe he murdered two people. I have the same outrage for other murderers, regardless of the color of their skin.

[tv]

sniped

Simpson would have never been able to get his life back, simply because there was no verdict saying he was innocent. The knowledgeable public would always point to the fact that the verdict was not guilty, because it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. The public would not allow a person of the black race, who was proven not guilty of murdering two people of a different race to have his former life back, imho. The verdict in the civil trial was designed to prevent him from having his former life back, imho. Do I accept both verdicts, yes. I think there has been much avoidance of saying what I have just posted but sometimes issues need to be discussed, imho, and that was an issue in the criminal trial, even though it may not have been specifically expressed, imho.Are you actually saying that you believe the civil trial jury didn't come to a decision on their own but was following some predetermined plan? :eek:

[tv]

being a member of the public and of the race you attack, I take offense at this comment. The outrage that I, along with many others, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that oj is black. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that he used his celebrity and the race card within his community to get away with the cold blooded murder of two people. The reason the public won't "let it go" is because we believe he murdered two people. I have the same outrage for other murderers, regardless of the color of their skin.I agree with you 100%. Not only was the race card played in the criminal trial it's played everyday in this forum and it's getting increasingly tiresome.

[weezer]

Are you actually saying that you believe the civil trial jury didn't come to a decision on their own but was following some predetermined plan? :eek:

ahh yes -- the big conspiracy. LOL

[William Anthony]

Are you actually saying that you believe the civil trial jury didn't come to a decision on their own but was following some predetermined plan? :eek:

No, and I did not state it clearly enough. Although I believe the verdict was expected and predetermined, I do not believed there was a predetermined plan. I meant that the massive amount of damages awarded was designed to prevent him from living in the lifestyle he had become accustomed.

[William Anthony]

being a member of the public and of the race you attack, I take offense at this comment. The outrage that I, along with many others, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that oj is black. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that he used his celebrity and the race card within his community to get away with the cold blooded murder of two people. The reason the public won't "let it go" is because we believe he murdered two people. I have the same outrage for other murderers, regardless of the color of their skin.


Well stated and I believe you may be the exception. There is ample evidence that the outrage some feel is because of Simpson's color, because they repeatedly point to the black power salute and the statement of the jury that we take care of our own and disagreed with me when I offered alternatives for what the statement and salute could have meant. I do understand you can say it has "EVERYTHING TO DO WITH...THE RACE CARD WITHIN HIS COMMUNITY." His community was Brentwood, which I believe is predominately white. I do not doubt that you have the same outrage for other murders, which Simpson has not been proven to be one, but I do not see the same outcry by you nor have I once heard you speak about the many blacks, who were killed/murdered and those murderers walked free.

Here is a link that might interest you and others.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE6DA1431F930A15757C0A9619482 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

[William Anthony]

I agree with you 100%. Not only was the race card played in the criminal trial it's played everyday in this forum and it's getting increasingly tiresome.

There is no race card being played here. There have been many post saying that the race card was played in the criminal trial, including yours to which I now respond. It only means that race was an issue in the trial and should not be avoided, imho.

[tv]

There is no race card being played here. There have been many post saying that the race card was played in the criminal trial, including yours to which I now respond. It only means that race was an issue in the trial and should not be avoided, imho.The defense used race to blame the evidence on LE and the lab. If they didn't accuse those agencies of trying to frame OJ Simpson for the murders there would be no other way for them to explain the mountain of evidence that points to Simpson. It's the mother of all red herrings.

[William Anthony]

Does the public you speak of also include blacks and other races, or do you speak soley of whites?

Kate


The public I speak of includes all races. In fact a large number or militant blacks that I talked with feel that Simpson got exactly what he deserved, in regard to his lifestyle, for associating with whites. I think you know that I feel murder and murderers are color blind. It is the act of taking another's life not the color of the skin of the person whose life was taken that is appalling to me. I think that a person has the right to freely associate with whomever they choose. However, I do not think America has reached that point yet, despite the laws on the books. A most recent example of how race affects every facet of American life is the woman who called Obama an inadequate black man, not candidate, and vowed to vote for the republican, as well as the comments of the white and black priest and reverend.

Whether we like it or not, we must face the facts that the law is not yet color blind. The Supreme Court had to step in and recently say that the sentencing for crack dealers and users and cocaine dealers and users were disproportionate, and, IIRC, discriminatory. It has long been recognized within black communities that blacks get lesser sentences if the kill another black than, if they kill whites. I think you realize the import of that message. It is sad that people will not speak out about others they feel that got away with murder many years ago for many years but are outraged, which I must say is somewhat quizzical, by the playing of the race card in the Simpson case but claim that the race of the defendant and victims did not matter.

[Kate Sachel]

The public I speak of includes all races. In fact a large number or militant blacks that I talked with feel that Simpson got exactly what he deserved, in regard to his lifestyle, for associating with whites. I think you know that I feel murder and murderers are color blind. It is the act of taking another's life not the color of the skin of the person whose life was taken that is appalling to me. I think that a person has the right to freely associate with whomever they choose. However, I do not think America has reached that point yet, despite the laws on the books. A most recent example of how race affects every facet of American life is the woman who called Obama an inadequate black man, not candidate, and vowed to vote for the republican, as well as the comments of the white and black priest and reverend.

Whether we like it or not, we must face the facts that the law is not yet color blind. The Supreme Court had to step in and recently say that the sentencing for crack dealers and users and cocaine dealers and users were disproportionate, and, IIRC, discriminatory. It has long been recognized within black communities that blacks get lesser sentences if the kill another black than, if they kill whites. I think you realize the import of that message. It is sad that people will not speak out about others they feel that got away with murder many years ago for many years but are outraged, which I must say is somewhat quizzical, by the playing of the race card in the Simpson case but claim that the race of the defendant and victims did not matter.

Have you considered that perhaps the reason why some of us in this community have not spoken about others than have gotten away with murder over the years is because this is not the forum to do so?

While I cannot speak for others, I can only assure you that is the reason behind why I personally have not done so. If you can point me to a forum that is designed for such, I would be happy to join you there in conversation.

Kate

[William Anthony]

The defense used race to blame the evidence on LE and the lab. If they didn't accuse those agencies of trying to frame OJ Simpson for the murders there would be no other way for them to explain the mountain of evidence that points to Simpson. It's the mother of all red herrings.

The defense did its job and exposed the evidence that was there, which was that the detective, who allegedly found the gloves that did not fit, was a racists with motive, means and opportunity to plant the glove. The defense did not call him as a witness nor did they make him say the things he said. Race was an issue in America long before the trial and became an issue in the trial as soon as the bodies were found and Simpson was identified as the ex-husband, imho.

[William Anthony]

Have you considered that perhaps the reason why some of us in this community have not spoken about others than have gotten away with murder over the years is because this is not the forum to do so?

While I cannot speak for others, I can only assure you that is the reason behind why I personally have not done so. If you can point me to a forum that is designed for such, I would be happy to join you there in conversation.

Kate

I am sure that you are aware of the ruling in this community some time ago that discussion of other cases are permitted if they are somehow relevant to the issues in the Simpson trial.

I think that, if others have such strong emotions about others they feel got away with murder, such as Phil spector and Robert Blake, they could have continually posted their outrage on those forums or start a new thread about some other case that they feel strongly about. I am sure that there are a number of cases that happened 13 years ago, but I have not seen the outcry posted about them.

[Kate Sachel]

I am sure that you are aware of the ruling in this community some time ago that discussion of other cases are permitted if they are somehow relevant to the issues in the Simpson trial.

I think that, if others have such strong emotions about others they feel got away with murder, such as Phil spector and Robert Blake, they could have continually posted their outrage on those forums or start a new thread about some other case that they feel strongly about. I am sure that there are a number of cases that happened 13 years ago, but I have not seen the outcry posted about them.

I am unaware of that ruling on this forum, I am aware of the ruling on the 320Sycamore forum.

Tell me William, what other threads that are not part of the OJ forum have you started to discuss what you feel are injustices?

Kate

[William Anthony]

I am unaware of that ruling on this forum, I am aware of the ruling on the 320Sycamore forum.

Tell me William, what other threads that are not part of the OJ forum have you started to discuss what you feel are injustices?

Kate

I appreciate that you are aware of the ruling on this forum. As You are also aware, there was a thread started by a former moderator titled, "The Role of Race in the Criminal Trial", IIRC. However, that thread was subsequently deleted by the same former moderator, IIRC, because posters could not discuss the issue in a polite, respectful and civil manner, IIRC. I think that the level of posting has somewhat improved and the issue can be discussed in an adult fashion.

I see no need to start another thread, because this forum allows me to discuss what I feel are injustices. However, should there come an injustice that I feel is not related to the issues in this case, I will start a forum to discuss them. In the meantime I will be evaluating the amount of outcry or lack thereof in other cases and expressing my opinion of the difference as it relates to the issue of outcry over the criminal verdict and the reasons thereto.

I mean this with the utmost respect and hope you understand.

[tv]

So now we have to justify to you why we don't post on other forums? You're going to drag what you feel are other injustices to this forum and find a way to relate them to the OJ Simpson case? William, you're out of control.

[Kate Sachel]

I appreciate that you are aware of the ruling on this forum. As You are also aware, there was a thread started by a former moderator titled, "The Role of Race in the Criminal Trial", IIRC. However, that thread was subsequently deleted by the same former moderator, IIRC, because posters could not discuss the issue in a polite, respectful and civil manner, IIRC. I think that the level of posting has somewhat improved and the issue can be discussed in an adult fashion.

I see no need to start another thread, because this forum allows me to discuss what I feel are injustices. However, should there come an injustice that I feel is not related to the issues in this case, I will start a forum to discuss them. In the meantime I will be evaluating the amount of outcry or lack thereof in other cases and expressing my opinion of the difference as it relates to the issue of outcry over the criminal verdict and the reasons thereto.

I mean this with the utmost respect and hope you understand.

Respectfully taken.

The last I recalled on this forum was that the issues of race and discussion of other cases were considered taboo to discuss and thus the reason for the deletion of the above mentioned thread.

Perhaps you are not aware that I had posted in length some time ago about several cases in which I felt outraged that justice was not served and two of those cases highlighted defendants that are white. I was advised by the moderator that I was off topic and ceased further discussion.

Perhaps I have not made it clear enough at this point in time that equality in the justice system is of the utmost importance to me and that I denounce inequality in all ways. I know that I have made it clear that I agree with the OJ Simpson criminal trial verdict. Regardless, I certainly did not expect to find myself in a position of feeling as though you expect me to validate my choices in topic of discussion.

Injustices happen in all shapes and sizes and are not all race related. Do you take an equal interest in all aspects of all injustices in this world or do some capture your passion more than others?

Kate

[William Anthony]

You call this a humble opinion? You are so outraged when the criminal jury is criticized yet you have no problem saying white people wanted OJ Simpson to be found guilty because he's black. Whether you want to believe it or not, white people do not want to see an innocent man of any color put in prison. It's time you stopped with this highly insulting *humble* opinion.

I think you need to re-examine what I said before you become unnecessarily insulted. Here is my post.

"Simpson would have never been able to get his life back, simply because there was no verdict saying he was innocent. The knowledgeable public would always point to the fact that the verdict was not guilty, because it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. The public would not allow a person of the black race, who was proven not guilty of murdering two people of a different race to have his former life back, imho. The verdict in the civil trial was designed to prevent him from having his former life back, imho. Do I accept both verdicts, yes. I think there has been much avoidance of saying what I have just posted but sometimes issues need to be discussed, imho, and that was an issue in the criminal trial, even though it may not have been specifically expressed, imho."

Please, show me in my post where I said that "white people wanted OJ Simpson to be found guilty because he's black." My posts was about the prevention of his living the lifestyle to which he was accustomed and the outcry that he, a black man, was found not guilty of murdering two whites. I specifically said the "Knowledgeable public". I could say that I was offended, because your post implies that only whites are knowledgeable. However, I do not intend to engage in such tactics. I will simply read your post as stated and not accuse you of saying what I think you said.

Thanks to the other poster who shall remain nameless for pointing this out to me. :)

[tv]

Get off your high horse and stop allowing your imagination to run away with you. I never said I thought only whites are knowledgeable. I'm also insulted if you only meant that whites didn't want an innocent man to have his life back. What did this mean if not that whites wanted him found guilty because he's black?

"My posts was about the prevention of his living the lifestyle to which he was accustomed and the outcry that he, a black man, was found not guilty of murdering two whites."

[William Anthony]

Respectfully taken.

The last I recalled on this forum was that the issues of race and discussion of other cases were considered taboo to discuss and thus the reason for the deletion of the above mentioned thread.

Perhaps you are not aware that I had posted in length some time ago about several cases in which I felt outraged that justice was not served and two of those cases highlighted defendants that are white. I was advised by the moderator that I was off topic and ceased further discussion.

Perhaps I have not made it clear enough at this point in time that equality in the justice system is of the utmost importance to me and that I denounce inequality in all ways. I know that I have made it clear that I agree with the OJ Simpson criminal trial verdict. Regardless, I certainly did not expect to find myself in a position of feeling as though you expect me to validate my choices in topic of discussion.

Injustices happen in all shapes and sizes and are not all race related. Do you take an equal interest in all aspects of all injustices in this world or do some capture your passion more than others?

Kate

Thank you and let me answer your question first. The short answer would be yes, as I understand the intent of your post as to taking an equal interest in all aspects of world wide injustice. As for attention, those that capture my attention are those that I see in the media coverage. I have spend too much time reading text books to want to read anything in my leisure time, other than these posts. I was not asking you to validate your position and it was intended in that manner. I thought I had to validate my position for not starting another thread.:)

I do believe that you feel very strongly about injustice and I have read your posts on the subject and know that you agree with the criminal verdict. IIRC, we had started to discuss those cases and there was almost the same amount of outcry by some in the community as there was about the verdict, ::). As I recall the former moderator's instructions were that it was relevant but the discussion should be dropped. I recall that the thread was deleted because of the manner in which posters responded to each other and not because of the issue. In any event, that moderator is no longer a moderator here, to the best of my knowledge and the level of posting has improved since her departure, imho. I think that we can engage in polite, civil and respectful discussions about all the relevant issues in the criminal trial.

[William Anthony]

Get off your high horse and stop allowing your imagination to run away with you. I never said I thought only whites are knowledgeable. I'm also insulted if you only meant that whites didn't want an innocent man to have his life back. What did this mean if not that whites wanted him found guilty because he's black?

"My posts was about the prevention of his living the lifestyle to which he was accustomed and the outcry that he, a black man, was found not guilty of murdering two whites."

It meant just what it said. Knowledgeable members of the public know that not guilty does not mean innocent and the preservation of the status quo had been previously upheld in courts of law. The knowledgeable public knew that a massive civil award for damages would prevent him from maintaining his former lifestyle. The part about the outcry was meant to include those members of the public, who thought that the verdict was based on race, which were not only whites. This may surprise you that many blacks can not understand how he got away with those specific murders. The members of the public many who are white and some who are black often want to blame the jury by saying the jury said they would take care of their own. Many blacks feel that the outcry would have been much less if he had been accused of killing his first wife and a black man. My post was not limited to whites only and unless you can point to where I specifically said the white public I would appreciate it if you no longer make that accusation. I have already said that I would not read into your post. Please, do the same for mine?

Doc was standing on the ground in that picture, smile.

[Kate Sachel]

Thank you and let me answer your question first. The short answer would be yes, as I understand the intent of your post as to taking an equal interest in all aspects of world wide injustice. As for attention, those that capture my attention are those that I see in the media coverage. I have spend too much time reading text books to want to read anything in my leisure time, other than these posts. I was not asking you to validate your position and it was intended in that manner. I thought I had to validate my position for not starting another thread.:)

I do believe that you feel very strongly about injustice and I have read your posts on the subject and know that you agree with the criminal verdict. IIRC, we had started to discuss those cases and there was almost the same amount of outcry by some in the community as there was about the verdict, ::). As I recall the former moderator's instructions were that it was relevant but the discussion should be dropped. I recall that the thread was deleted because of the manner in which posters responded to each other and not because of the issue. In any event, that moderator is no longer a moderator here, to the best of my knowledge and the level of posting has improved since her departure, imho. I think that we can engage in polite, civil and respectful discussions about all the relevant issues in the criminal trial.

Do you discuss with all people your outrage over each and every injustice in the world? And by that I mean do you break down specifically every injustice in the world and then speak about it? What I am getting at here is the fact just because outrage over another case or injustice may not be actively expressed here does not mean that it isn't very much felt or that it has not been discussed in other areas of an individual's life outside of this forum.

As I said, I don't know with certainty what drives those on this forum. I can speak only for myself, but I know that I personally do not delve into much beyond OJ on this forum.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Do you discuss with all people your outrage over each and every injustice in the world? And by that I mean do you break down specifically every injustice in the world and then speak about it? What I am getting at here is the fact just because outrage over another case or injustice may not be actively expressed here does not mean that it isn't very much felt or that it has not been discussed in other areas of an individual's life outside of this forum.

As I said, I don't know with certainty what drives those on this forum. I can speak only for myself, but I know that I personally do not delve into much beyond OJ on this forum.

Kate

No, only the ones I have heard of, :). I understand and have posted about the outrage and the usual explanation is that there is not an adequate place for those expressions, as if they could not start one. I guess the same holds true for me, although this forum allows me to address many injustices that are related to this case. I have not thought about pursuing international law and the course I desired to take in it was not offered when I wanted it.

I really do not have the time or choose not to allocate the time to many other injustices, whichever it may be. I have found myself following the candidate race (no pun intended), because of the issues surrounding it and doing other things, so I understand. However, there are those, who strongly express their opinion over the injustice of this case as it relates to the verdict but have not done the same in others. Race is an issue, whether it is spoken about honestly or tip-toed around, imho. Let me inform the board that, if I have said that the h in imho stood for humble, I am changing it to honest.:)

[weezer]

CL offers many boards with many threads to discuss all kinds of cases. I'm not sure why anyone would feel that it must be done on this board/thread. I think anyone interested in those other cases should go to those threads to discuss.

[William Anthony]

CL also offers the opportunity for other cases to be discussed if they are related to the issues in the case or the topics being discussed, according to my understanding. There did not seem to be the amount of outcry when the Kennedy case was brought up, or when posters mentioned Nifong.

[SlowHandSam]

CL also offers the opportunity for other cases to be discussed if they are related to the issues in the case or the topics being discussed, according to my understanding. There did not seem to be the amount of outcry when the Kennedy case was brought up, or when posters mentioned Nifong.

I suspect if you started a thread, or located a thread, that discussed those topics you might find participants willing and interested in those discussions. However, for me at least, I suspect the reason there was an "outcry" here is because this isn't the appropriate forum. We're interested in discussing oj and his related matters. If I wanted to discuss Kennedy or anyone else for that matter, I'd go on the great hunt for that type of thread.

[martin II]

Get off your high horse and stop allowing your imagination to run away with you. I never said I thought only whites are knowledgeable. I'm also insulted if you only meant that whites didn't want an innocent man to have his life back. What did this mean if not that whites wanted him found guilty because he's black?

"My posts was about the prevention of his living the lifestyle to which he was accustomed and the outcry that he, a black man, was found not guilty of murdering two whites."

TV
Why do you think 85 % whites thought oj was guilty BEFORE THE TRIAL STARTED. What would cause them to have this opinion before hearing any testimony or evidence being presented.

[weezer]

TV
Why do you think 85 % whites thought oj was guilty BEFORE THE TRIAL STARTED. What would cause them to have this opinion before hearing any testimony or evidence being presented.

so you've never formed an opinion on someone's guilt or innocence before a trial? does that include Fuhrman?

[William Anthony]

I suspect if you started a thread, or located a thread, that discussed those topics you might find participants willing and interested in those discussions. However, for me at least, I suspect the reason there was an "outcry" here is because this isn't the appropriate forum. We're interested in discussing oj and his related matters. If I wanted to discuss Kennedy or anyone else for that matter, I'd go on the great hunt for that type of thread.

:seeya: seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

so you've never formed an opinion on someone's guilt or innocence before a trial? does that include Fuhrman?

If I might, I think the situation was entirely different as well as the charges. You did not have Simpson's voice saying I did it and lying about it, whereas, you had MF's lie on international tv and his voice on tapes played on international tv. I think that once those things were heard, it was possible to form an opinion of guilt or innocence. I personally did not, because I know that tapes can be altered. I suspected they had not been.

[weezer]

If I might, I think the situation was entirely different as well as the charges. You did not have Simpson's voice saying I did it and lying about it, whereas, you had MF's lie on international tv and his voice on tapes played on international tv. I think that once those things were heard, it was possible to form an opinion of guilt or innocence. I personally did not, because I know that tapes can be altered. I suspected they had not been.

when were the tapes released? when were the tapes even known about?

we had orenthal on tape screaming and ranting and raving. we had orenthal's suicide note. we had blood, hair, hat, glove, fiber and footprints at the murder scene.

[William Anthony]

when were the tapes released? when were the tapes even known about?

we had orenthal on tape screaming and ranting and raving. we had orenthal's suicide note. we had blood, hair, hat, glove, fiber and footprints at the murder scene.

As I said the situations are different. You had circumstantial evidence that Simpson was the murderer. You have direct evidence that MF lied on the stand. The tapes were heard after he lied after taking an oath to tell the truth.

[martin II]

Get off your high horse and stop allowing your imagination to run away with you. I never said I thought only whites are knowledgeable. I'm also insulted if you only meant that whites didn't want an innocent man to have his life back. What did this mean if not that whites wanted him found guilty because he's black?

"My posts was about the prevention of his living the lifestyle to which he was accustomed and the outcry that he, a black man, was found not guilty of murdering two whites."

TV
Why do you think 85 % whites thought oj was guilty BEFORE THE TRIAL STARTED. What would cause them to have this opinion before hearing any testimony or evidence being presented.

[SlowHandSam]

TV
Why do you think 85 % whites thought oj was guilty BEFORE THE TRIAL STARTED. What would cause them to have this opinion before hearing any testimony or evidence being presented.

I thought he was guilty because his footprint, blood, glove etc was found at the scene. He fled with money, disguise etc to avoid LE.

Being a "white", that's why I thought he was guilty before the trial started.

I suspect that I'm not the only one who had similar opinion.

[William Anthony]

TV
Why do you think 85 % whites thought oj was guilty BEFORE THE TRIAL STARTED. What would cause them to have this opinion before hearing any testimony or evidence being presented.

Martin, did I understand correctly your question to mean before the evidence was known?