Issues In The Criminal Trial

[martin II]

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.

Well
How did you know about the above,foot prints.blood.glove eviodence etc before this evidence was presented in court?

[martin II]

Martin, did I understand correctly your question to mean before the evidence was known?


EXACTLY.

[tv]

Martin, did I understand correctly your question to mean before the evidence was known?LOL, I love your speaking objections. ;)

[SlowHandSam]

Well
How did you know about the above,foot prints.blood.glove eviodence etc before this evidence was presented in court?

okay, remove that and you still have him fleeing with disguise, passport and a lot of cash.

explain that one away. wait, don't bother, I already know the answer.

IIRC, there was media on some of that evidence before it was presented in court. It wasn't like it was a big surprise.

[William Anthony]

LOL, I love your speaking objections. ;)

I thought the question was clear and did not understand the response. I thought someone may have read something I did not, or I overlooked or read something Martin had not said. :cool:

[martin II]

okay, remove that and you still have him fleeing with disguise, passport and a lot of cash.

explain that one away. wait, don't bother, I already know the answer.

IIRC, there was media on some of that evidence before it was presented in court. It wasn't like it was a big surprise.

Exactly what evdence did the prosecution present to the media before presenting it at trial??

[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, does you question question why 85% of whites thought Simpson was guilty before they heard all the evidence?

[martin II]

LOL, I love your speaking objections. ;)

tv
My question was addressed to you.

[SlowHandSam]

Exactly what evdence did the prosecution present to the media before presenting it at trial??

I did not say the prosecution presented anything TO the media.

I said, IIRC, that some of that evidence was presented IN the media.

I'm not going to dig back and search online for you - but I do recall news casts that indicated some of the evidence prior to trial. This is how I qualified my statement that it was not all a surprise when presented in court.

[William Anthony]

Rush to judgment was an issue in the trial.

[martin II]

Martin, does you question question why 85% of whites thought Simpson was guilty before they heard all the evidence?

The link to the cnn polls has been moved.

[martin II]

I did not say the prosecution presented anything TO the media.

I said, IIRC, that some of that evidence was presented IN the media.

I'm not going to dig back and search online for you - but I do recall news casts that indicated some of the evidence prior to trial. This is how I qualified my statement that it was not all a surprise when presented in court.

The medias only source of evidence in the hands of the prosecution would be the prosecution.I believe if there had been such leakage of evidence we would have heard from the defence.
I am not aware of any shoe,blood etc evidence reported by media before the trial commenced that would have allowed one to decide that oj was guilty before the trial.:cool:

[William Anthony]

The link to the cnn polls has been moved.

Martin, I could not find anything before the trial but I did find this that might shed some insight into some of the issues.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0108/07/tl.00.html

[SlowHandSam]

The medias only source of evidence in the hands of the prosecution would be the prosecution.I believe if there had been such leakage of evidence we would have heard from the defence.
I am not aware of any shoe,blood etc evidence reported by media before the trial commenced that would have allowed one to decide that oj was guilty before the trial.:cool:

With all due respect, I do not believe you could have seen nor recall every single report the media made prior to the trial. The prosecution would not be the only ones who could have "leaked" the information as the defenSe is given all evidence prior to trial so they can prepare their rebuttal.

You may not be aware, but I distinctly recall media reports. Just because you are not aware or recall any reports does not mean they didn't exist, Martin. Just means you don't remember or know about them.

[martin II]

William.
I ran across this.

So much for everyone believing DNA would prove oj guilty.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmusa/is_199409/ai_n18745973


LOS ANGELES - Only four of 10 people accept DNA blood tests as foolproof, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows.

The poll results present an enormous burden to prosecutors in the O.J. Simpson case, experts say. Prosecutors are relying on DNA evidence to connect Simpson with the June 12 stabbing deaths of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson, 35, and Ronald Goldman, 25.

"Horrifyingly low," former New York prosecutor Robert Tannenbaum says of the results. "The district attorney has big problems. . . . I'd have a fit if I was prosecuting this case."

Only 41% in the poll regard DNA tests as "very reliable."

[martin II]

With all due respect, I do not believe you could have seen nor recall every single report the media made prior to the trial. The prosecution would not be the only ones who could have "leaked" the information as the defenSe is given all evidence prior to trial so they can prepare their rebuttal.

You may not be aware, but I distinctly recall media reports. Just because you are not aware or recall any reports does not mean they didn't exist, Martin. Just means you don't remember or know about them.

Well since you know this evidence was in the media, tell us about it.What footprint,blood and glove evidence was in the media.

[William Anthony]

William.
I ran across this.

So much for everyone believing DNA would prove oj guilty.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmusa/is_199409/ai_n18745973


LOS ANGELES - Only four of 10 people accept DNA blood tests as foolproof, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows.

The poll results present an enormous burden to prosecutors in the O.J. Simpson case, experts say. Prosecutors are relying on DNA evidence to connect Simpson with the June 12 stabbing deaths of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson, 35, and Ronald Goldman, 25.

"Horrifyingly low," former New York prosecutor Robert Tannenbaum says of the results. "The district attorney has big problems. . . . I'd have a fit if I was prosecuting this case."

Only 41% in the poll regard DNA tests as "very reliable."

Yes, very little was known about DNA in 1995 as I have stated and that is my honest opinion. However, the jury has been criticized for their statements about DNA.

[William Anthony]

I don't know if there were any media reports other than weather reports entered into evidence in the trial. I know there were some media reports talked about during the trial.

[William Anthony]

Here is a view on how media influences public opinion, even though the reports are rarely entered into evidence, imho.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-15837274.html

[weezer]

IIRC, cochran was one of the talking heads on tv -- he thought orenthal was surely guilty. hmmmm

[William Anthony]

Maybe, the magnificent JC changed his mind after seeing the evidence or lack thereof, if you will.

[weezer]

Maybe, the magnificent JC changed his mind after seeing the evidence or lack thereof, if you will.

nah -- it was the money. you don't suppose he's the lawyer that got the Bentley Gilbert is talking about do you? we know cochran had a penchant for fancy cars. :D

I've learned that some people's souls are for sale.

[William Anthony]

nah -- it was the money. you don't suppose he's the lawyer that got the Bentley Gilbert is talking about do you? we know cochran had a penchant for fancy cars. :D

I've learned that some people's souls are for sale.

I see nothing wrong with being a capitalist in a capitalist society. I have learned that hatred and envy devour a person's soul.

[weezer]

I see nothing wrong with being a capitalist in a capitalist society. I have learned that hatred and envy devour a person's soul.

I believe in karma too --

[martin II]

nah -- it was the money. you don't suppose he's the lawyer that got the Bentley Gilbert is talking about do you? we know cochran had a penchant for fancy cars. :D

I've learned that some people's souls are for sale.

J Cochran owned a Rolls Royce when he was a la prosecutor so cars did not excite him. Why would one believe Gilbert anyway.

[fgump2]

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 OJS was innocent when I first heard about it, probably about 2 days after the murder. I thought it was an honest mistake on the part of the police. I changed my mind well before the trial, and possibly before the arrest for the following reasons:
- NBS predicted that OJS would murder her. If a person in a low crime area predicts they will be murdered by a certain person, and I hear they are later murdered, it makes sense to check out the person who the victim as afraid of; I doubt the police knew she predicted her own murder.
- OJS acted and talked in a manner that I thought was more consistent with guilt with innocence. He expressed no regret for not acting nicer to her, which people often do after an unexpected death.
- The killing of NBS seemed to indicate a lot of anger. The killer kept cutting away at her neck after she was dead, almost cutting her head off. John Douglas the retired FBI profiler said this indicates that the killer once had a romantic relation with NBS. I probably didn’t know that at the time, but anyone should be able to realize that slashing away at a dead person’s neck indicates irrational anger. Ron Goldman wasn’t killed in this manner.
- I thought that any police force would be more careful in dealing with people who are either celebrities or rich. The reasons for this are obvious, the police don’t want to get sued, and don’t want bad publicity.
- As far as I know of none of the players and coaches from OJS’s football career stuck their neck out to defend him. Pro foot ball is a sport that generates a lot of loyalty. This is a bad character reference.

Answering a previous disagreement. I don’t think OJS got his life back. Not his old life in which the majority of the American public thought he was a great guy.

[fgump2]

Maybe, the magnificent JC changed his mind after seeing the evidence or lack thereof, if you will.
If so he must have changed his mind again after the civil trial because he said then that OJS should accept it and move on. Also a few years later JC acted as a lawyer for a pro basketball player, Latrell Sprewell I think, name may be misspelled. JC and the player prepared a statement which the player read that said “I am not another OJ Simpson, I didn’t kill two people’. What do you suppose he was referring to?

[William Anthony]

I thought OJS was innocent when I first heard about it, probably about 2 days after the murder. I thought it was an honest mistake on the part of the police. I changed my mind well before the trial, and possibly before the arrest for the following reasons:
- NBS predicted that OJS would murder her. If a person in a low crime area predicts they will be murdered by a certain person, and I hear they are later murdered, it makes sense to check out the person who the victim as afraid of; I doubt the police knew she predicted her own murder.
- OJS acted and talked in a manner that I thought was more consistent with guilt with innocence. He expressed no regret for not acting nicer to her, which people often do after an unexpected death.
- The killing of NBS seemed to indicate a lot of anger. The killer kept cutting away at her neck after she was dead, almost cutting her head off. John Douglas the retired FBI profiler said this indicates that the killer once had a romantic relation with NBS. I probably didn’t know that at the time, but anyone should be able to realize that slashing away at a dead person’s neck indicates irrational anger. Ron Goldman wasn’t killed in this manner.
- I thought that any police force would be more careful in dealing with people who are either celebrities or rich. The reasons for this are obvious, the police don’t want to get sued, and don’t want bad publicity.
- As far as I know of none of the players and coaches from OJS’s football career stuck their neck out to defend him. Pro foot ball is a sport that generates a lot of loyalty. This is a bad character reference.

Answering a previous disagreement. I don’t think OJS got his life back. Not his old life in which the majority of the American public thought he was a great guy.


Thanks for your honesty in announcing that you concluded he was guilty well before the trial and possibly the arrest. I do not think anything anyone said could change the mind of someone that had made up their mind under those circumstances. I also see that your conclusion was made on sound legal principles and unbiased beliefs on your part.

I agree with your last paragraph.

[William Anthony]

If so he must have changed his mind again after the civil trial because he said then that OJS should accept it and move on. Also a few years later JC acted as a lawyer for a pro basketball player, Latrell Sprewell I think, name may be misspelled. JC and the player prepared a statement which the player read that said “I am not another OJ Simpson, I didn’t kill two people’. What do you suppose he was referring to?

If I ever meet him personally, I will ask him.

[William Anthony]

:shrug: Not Simpson. U'mm. Perhaps someone else who played American football....{Insert name...}

Not an American football fan, I presume. :)

[William Anthony]

Know nothing about it. Does it matter?

Yes, because I don't understand your original post about insert name. Please, explain?

[William Anthony]

In light of some of the recent posts, I would like to ask the following question,

Has a defense attorney violated his oath or acted unethically or immorally by giving the client, who he thinks is guilty, the best defense possible?

[SlowHandSam]

In light of some of the recent posts, I would like to ask the following question,

Has a defense attorney violated his oath or acted unethically or immorally by giving the client, who he thinks is guilty, the best defense possible?

If that defense is to bring false allegations against another, attack the credibility of LE instead of focusing on the evidence, playing race games, playing word games and otherwise manipulating information in a way to confuse the jury ...

then yeah.

Hmm, "...who he thinks is guilty..." ... is this to mean that you believe oj's defense attorney(s) believed he was guilty?

[tv]

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 Phil Spector, Scott Peterson, Robert Blake, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy were guilty before their trials started. Unless you're serving on a jury it's okay to have an opinion before the trial starts. You think those white guys in the LV hotel room are thieves and they haven't even been charged with anything.

[William Anthony]

If that defense is to bring false allegations against another, attack the credibility of LE instead of focusing on the evidence, playing race games, playing word games and otherwise manipulating information in a way to confuse the jury ...

then yeah.

Hmm, "...who he thinks is guilty..." ... is this to mean that you believe oj's defense attorney(s) believed he was guilty?

If the defense pointed out evidence that all other suspectsw had not been properly or investigated, pointed out evidence of LE's mistakes, human errors and lies pertaining to the evidence and pointed to the issue of race as motive, means and opportunity of evidence planting, by a convicted perjurer, genocidal speaking, as supported by the evidence, racist, as conceded by the prosecution, detective, then, yes I believe they did their job.

No, that is not what I meant, as others have claimed the magnificent JC thought Simpson was guilty. I reiterate, has a defense attorney acted morally, ethically and legally correct by providing his client the best defense possible, even though he thinks his client is guilty.

[Kate Sachel]

If the defense pointed out evidence that all other suspectsw had not been properly or investigated, pointed out evidence of LE's mistakes, human errors and lies pertaining to the evidence and pointed to the issue of race as motive, means and opportunity of evidence planting, by a convicted perjurer, genocidal speaking, as supported by the evidence, racist, as conceded by the prosecution, detective, then, yes I believe they did their job.

No, that is not what I meant, as others have claimed the magnificent JC thought Simpson was guilty. I reiterate, has a defense attorney acted morally, ethically and legally correct by providing his client the best defense possible, even though he thinks his client is guilty.

Mark Fuhrman was not convicted of perjury until October 2, 1996 and thus was not a convicted perjurer at the time of trial.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Mark Fuhrman was not convicted of perjury until October 2, 1996 and thus was not a convicted perjurer at the time of trial.

Kate


Duly noted and corrected.

If the defense pointed out evidence that all other suspects had not been properly or investigated, pointed out evidence of LE's mistakes, human errors and lies pertaining to the evidence and pointed to the issue of race as motive, means and opportunity of evidence planting, by direct evidence that a detective had committed perjury and was a genocidal speaking, as supported by the evidence, and a racist, as conceded by the prosecution, detective, then, yes I believe they did their job.

No, that is not what I meant, as others have claimed the magnificent JC thought Simpson was guilty. I reiterate, has a defense attorney acted morally, ethically and legally correct by providing his client the best defense possible, even though he thinks his client is guilty.

[Kate Sachel]

Duly noted and corrected.

If the defense pointed out evidence that all other suspects had not been properly or investigated, pointed out evidence of LE's mistakes, human errors and lies pertaining to the evidence and pointed to the issue of race as motive, means and opportunity of evidence planting, by direct evidence that a detective had committed perjury and was a genocidal speaking, as supported by the evidence, and a racist, as conceded by the prosecution, detective, then, yes I believe they did their job.

No, that is not what I meant, as others have claimed the magnificent JC thought Simpson was guilty. I reiterate, has a defense attorney acted morally, ethically and legally correct by providing his client the best defense possible, even though he thinks his client is guilty.

Thank you:)

[William Anthony]

Thank you:)

No problem.:) If you answered my question I missed it. What do you think the answer is?

[martin II]

I thought Phil Spector, Scott Peterson, Robert Blake, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy were guilty before their trials started. Unless you're serving on a jury it's okay to have an opinion before the trial starts. You think those white guys in the LV hotel room are thieves and they haven't even been charged with anything.

without a bill of sale indicating they legally purchased the STUFF they had, they were in posession of stolen goods and were attempting to sell said stolen goods. The fact that the porsecution has not charged them just shows that they are willing to ignore some crimes to get their target.

[weezer]

without a bill of sale indicating they legally purchased the STUFF they had, they were in posession of stolen goods and were attempting to sell said stolen goods. The fact that the porsecution has not charged them just shows that they are willing to ignore some crimes to get their target.

so who says they didn't have a bill of sale?

[martin II]

so who says they didn't have a bill of sale?

It was reported in some media that they said they didn't but i doubt they had one from the owner of the goods oj simpson.

[weezer]

It was reported in some media that they said they didn't but i doubt they had one from the owner of the goods oj simpson.

I guess when orenthal proves the sh*t belongs to him -- it'll be all settled.

[martin II]

I guess when orenthal proves the sh*t belongs to him -- it'll be all settled.

Was it stuff or what you call it?

[William Anthony]

Let's talk fibre evidence. Cotton fibres CONSISTENT with the carpet in the Bronco were found on the glove at Rockingham. Fibres CONSISTENT with the carpet in the Bronco were found on the cap at the Bundy residence.

Although there was no dandruff found in the hair on the knit cap that we allege belong to Simpson and he had dandruff every summer, we believe the hair was Simpson's, because we believe the fibers that were consistent with the carpet in Simpson's Bronco were found in the Cap and, although you will hear evidence that this fiber is consistent with carpet in other vehicles, we believe it only came from Simpson's Bronco, because we believe Simpson did it. We know that you heard evidence that the detective, who lied on the stand which was shown by direct evidence, and, who was a racist, which we conceded, and you heard evidence that this detective harbored hatred for interracial couples denied saying he was in the Bronco, much like he lied about using the n word, but there is evidence he did say he was in the Bronco and this detective traveled in between the crime scenes moving evidence and you will hear evidence of how easily trace such as the fibers is transferable, we believe that you should not draw any reasonable inference from the above evidence other than the cap and the fibers came from Simpson's property and was deposited there at the time of the murders or that the cap could have been left with his kids or wife in the winter, when he would have had no dandruff, because we believe Simpson did it.

I would be happy to add this to the assessment, if you like.

[William Anthony]

:)
What well written and informative posts Weeze and TV . Based on the truth and not on supposition. It's good to read posts written by people who are well informed.

I would think that a person who desires to be well informed would want to make their decision about what is well written and truthful, in this instance, based on all the evidence as it was presented and not slanted to favor just one side, such as the glove that was allegedly found could have been planted and the glove did not fit and another detective moved a glove placing it on a banister downstairs in Simpson's home, claiming he got it from the closet and there was no match to that particular glove and that the gloves entered into evidence did not fit Simpson.

[William Anthony]

:)
What well written and informative posts Weeze and TV . Based on the truth and not on supposition. It's good to read posts written by people who are well informed.

There was evidence that the stitching on the gloves in the photo was the same as the stitching on the Aris gloves and other types, there was no testimony that the gloves were the same gloves that were found at Bundy or Rockingham. There was testimony that the prosecution's alleged glove expert did not know how many glove manufactures used that type of stitching. The prosecution's case was entirely circumstantial, which means that the entire case was based on supposition.

[William Anthony]

Let's talk hair evidence. Hairs CONSISTENT with Simpson found on the carpet at Bundy residence. Hairs CONSISTENT with Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

Hair with no dandruff, right? Hair like other trace is easily transferable, If you would like I will include hair in the fiber assessment or start another one.

[William Anthony]

Let's talk apology to the community for saying "your Martin".

[martin II]

Let's talk hair evidence. Hairs CONSISTENT with Simpson found on the carpet at Bundy residence. Hairs CONSISTENT with Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

What "hair found consistant with simpson found on what carpet at Bundy residence" ??

[martin II]

Let's talk glove evidence. Nicole bought a pair of Aris Light XL gloves at Bloomingdales. Simpson wore them from 90 to 94. The left hand glove was found at Bundy. The right hand glove was found at Rockingham. Both were Aris Light Gloves

What color was the gloves Nicole baught at Bloomingdales?

[martin II]

Let's talk hair evidence. Hairs CONSISTENT with Simpson found on the carpet at Bundy residence. Hairs CONSISTENT with Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

I am not aware of any evidence taken from inside Nicoles house was entered into evidence.Not sure about the ice cream carton. So the carpet at Bundy must have been outside her house right?

[William Anthony]

Let's discuss blood evidence.

1. Blood on socks in OJ's home MATCHED Nicole.

2.Blood found in Bronco, foyer and master bedroom.

3. Blood found on Simpson's driveway.

4. Blood dropped near shoe prints at Bundy.

5. Blood dropped at Bundy. It's Simpson's.

1. You mean the magically disappearing and reappearing socks.

2. You mean the blood found after he cut his finger reaching into the Bronco.

3. See two above.

4. Where is the evidence of when was that blood put there?

5. See 5 above.

Let's talk apology.

[William Anthony]

Let's talk glove evidence. Nicole bought a pair of Aris Light XL gloves at Bloomingdales. Simpson wore them from 90 to 94. The left hand glove was found at Bundy. The right hand glove was found at Rockingham. Both were Aris Light Gloves

Let's talk evidence of planting and gloves that did not fit.

Let's talk apology.

[William Anthony]

Let's talk blood evidence. Blood dropped at Bundy was THE SAME TYPE as Simspon's. Blood found on socks in Simpson's home MATCHED NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON.

Already addressed. Let's talk apology.

[William Anthony]

Let's talk shoe evidence. Shoe prints were found at Bundy from Size 12 Bruno Maghli shoes. Simpson wore Size 12 shoes. There are photos of Simpson wearing Size 12 Bruno Maghli shoes.

Let's talk about the evidence placing Simpson in any shoes besides sneakers on the night of June 12. Let's talk apology.

[weezer]

Was it stuff or what you call it?

orenthal said it was his sh*t -- not me. ;)

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . . because we believe the fibers that were consistent with the carpet in Simpson's Bronco were found in the Cap and, although you will hear evidence that this fiber is consistent with carpet in other vehicles, we believe it only came from Simpson's Bronco, because we believe Simpson did it. . ."

Simpson Judge Disallows Belated Evidence on Fiber
By DAVID MARGOLICK
Published: June 30, 1995
"An important witness on hair and fiber evidence began testifying in the O. J. Simpson trial today. But because of bungling by prosecutors, he was prevented from disclosing a crucial finding: that the fibers found on two exhibits could have come only from a very limited number of Ford Broncos, Mr. Simpson's among them.

The witness, Douglas Deedrick, unit chief of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's hair and fiber section, has concluded that fibers found on the knit cap near the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald L. Goldman and on a leather glove found behind Mr. Simpson's house are consistent with the carpeting in Mr. Simpson's Bronco. Mr. Deedrick is expected to testify to that effect in the next few days.

But Judge Lance A. Ito today barred evidence in a separate report in which Mr. Deedrick concluded that the fiber could have come from only a small number of Broncos, manufactured in late 1993 and 1994. It could not have originated, he concluded, from other Ford vehicles, including cars that the police drove to the crime scene. . ."

[martin II]

*Snipped*

Simpson Judge Disallows Belated Evidence on Fiber
By DAVID MARGOLICK
Published: June 30, 1995
"An important witness on hair and fiber evidence began testifying in the O. J. Simpson trial today. But because of bungling by prosecutors, he was prevented from disclosing a crucial finding: that the fibers found on two exhibits could have come only from a very limited number of Ford Broncos, Mr. Simpson's among them.

The witness, Douglas Deedrick, unit chief of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's hair and fiber section, has concluded that fibers found on the knit cap near the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald L. Goldman and on a leather glove found behind Mr. Simpson's house are consistent with the carpeting in Mr. Simpson's Bronco. Mr. Deedrick is expected to testify to that effect in the next few days.

But Judge Lance A. Ito today barred evidence in a separate report in which Mr. Deedrick concluded that the fiber could have come from only a small number of Broncos, manufactured in late 1993 and 1994. It could not have originated, he concluded, from other Ford vehicles, including cars that the police drove to the crime scene. . ."

So said Deedrick. HHHHMMMMM

[martin II]

orenthal said it was his sh*t -- not me. ;)

YOU JUST DID

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .the cap could have been left with his kids or wife in the winter, when he would have had no dandruff, because we believe Simpson did it.

so you think orenthal wore that knit cap in the summer? maybe with his fannypack?

[weezer]

*Snipped*"Although there was no dandruff found in the hair on the knit cap that we allege belong to Simpson and he had dandruff every summer. . ."

Moore, Juanita
Simpson's personal barber for 20 years testified she saw Nicole Simpson on May 1, 1994 and Paula Barbieri, May 23, 1994, both at the Simpson estate. She testified that Simpson sometimes has dandruff

yep, I guess that's evidence that can't be contested -- LOL

[weezer]

There was evidence that the stitching on the gloves in the photo was the same as the stitching on the Aris gloves and other types, there was no testimony that the gloves were the same gloves that were found at Bundy or Rockingham. There was testimony that the prosecution's alleged glove expert did not know how many glove manufactures used that type of stitching. The prosecution's case was entirely circumstantial, which means that the entire case was based on supposition.

By DAVID MARGOLICK
Published: September 13, 1995
After a dissertation on stitching, hemming, antique sewing machines and the properties of "naked" leather, a prosecution expert testified today that the distinctive brown leather gloves O. J. Simpson wore as a football commentator were the same model as those at the heart of the case against him.

Richard Rubin, a former executive at Aris Isotoner, said he was "100 percent certain" that the gloves that appeared to fit so snugly over Mr. Simpson's hands in a photograph taken at the Cincinnati Bengals-Houston Oilers football game in January 1991 were identical to the crumpled, bloody gloves found on Mr. Simpson's property and alongside the people he is charged with killing: extra large, brown Aris Lights, serial number 70263.

[weezer]

There was evidence that the stitching on the gloves in the photo was the same as the stitching on the Aris gloves and other types, there was no testimony that the gloves were the same gloves that were found at Bundy or Rockingham. There was testimony that the prosecution's alleged glove expert did not know how many glove manufactures used that type of stitching. The prosecution's case was entirely circumstantial, which means that the entire case was based on supposition.

". . .only 300 pairs of the gloves were manufactured in 1990, 200 to 240 of which were sold, all at Bloomingdale's.

It was at Bloomingdale's flagship store in Manhattan that Nicole Brown Simpson bought her husband two pairs of $55 Aris gloves, color and size unspecified by the sales slip, in December 1990. . ." By DAVID MARGOLICK
Published: September 13, 1995

[weezer]

YOU JUST DID

my bad -- I should have used quotes: "Simpson repeatedly says, "Think you can steal my s**t and sell it?""

[martin II]

Let's talk blood evidence. Blood dropped at Bundy was THE SAME TYPE as Simspon's. Blood found on socks in Simpson's home MATCHED NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON.

Lest talk how. How did this blood you speak of, get on the sock?

[William Anthony]

By DAVID MARGOLICK
Published: September 13, 1995
After a dissertation on stitching, hemming, antique sewing machines and the properties of "naked" leather, a prosecution expert testified today that the distinctive brown leather gloves O. J. Simpson wore as a football commentator were the same model as those at the heart of the case against him.

Richard Rubin, a former executive at Aris Isotoner, said he was "100 percent certain" that the gloves that appeared to fit so snugly over Mr. Simpson's hands in a photograph taken at the Cincinnati Bengals-Houston Oilers football game in January 1991 were identical to the crumpled, bloody gloves found on Mr. Simpson's property and alongside the people he is charged with killing: extra large, brown Aris Lights, serial number 70263.

Would you like the link so that you can post the actual testimony?

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .not slanted to favor just one side, such as the glove that was allegedly found could have been planted and the glove did not fit. . ."

Jurors Carrie Bess and Rubin-Jackson collaborated with Cooley on the book, which comes out this week.

The book plays down the importance of the now-infamous glove demonstration, however, in which prosecutor Christopher Darden had Simpson try on the evidence gloves found at his estate and at the crime scene. The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

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

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

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns047.htm

[William Anthony]

". . .only 300 pairs of the gloves were manufactured in 1990, 200 to 240 of which were sold, all at Bloomingdale's.

It was at Bloomingdale's flagship store in Manhattan that Nicole Brown Simpson bought her husband two pairs of $55 Aris gloves, color and size unspecified by the sales slip, in December 1990. . ." By DAVID MARGOLICK
Published: September 13, 1995

Supposition on top of supposition. We suppose that she brought them for him and we suppose she bought gloves the color of the gloves the killer wore and we suppose that she bought gloves the size the the killer wore, although we admit that the gloves the killer wore seemingly did not fit Simpson, but we ask you no to suppose about this, because we believe Simpson did it. I will add this to the assessment, if you'd like.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

Jurors Carrie Bess and Rubin-Jackson collaborated with Cooley on the book, which comes out this week.

The book plays down the importance of the now-infamous glove demonstration, however, in which prosecutor Christopher Darden had Simpson try on the evidence gloves found at his estate and at the crime scene. The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

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

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

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns047.htm

How many times are you going to post that 3 out of the 12 jurors thought the gloves fit, which was the minority opinion? Ergo, 9 out of 12 believed they did not fit.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

Jurors Carrie Bess and Rubin-Jackson collaborated with Cooley on the book, which comes out this week.

The book plays down the importance of the now-infamous glove demonstration, however, in which prosecutor Christopher Darden had Simpson try on the evidence gloves found at his estate and at the crime scene. The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

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

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

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns047.htm

This from 3 jurors trying to promote the sale of their work of fiction. Sounds like Simpson, Gilbert and many others, imho.

[weezer]

Lest talk how. How did this blood you speak of, get on the sock?

you tell us martin -- how did Nicole's unpreserved blood get on the socks?

[William Anthony]

you tell us martin -- how did Nicole's unpreserved blood get on the socks?

Peratis figured it out and tried shamefully to change his testimony, imho.

[martin II]

". . .only 300 pairs of the gloves were manufactured in 1990, 200 to 240 of which were sold, all at Bloomingdale's.

It was at Bloomingdale's flagship store in Manhattan that Nicole Brown Simpson bought her husband two pairs of $55 Aris gloves, color and size unspecified by the sales slip, in December 1990. . ." By DAVID MARGOLICK
Published: September 13, 1995

The stitching on the glove was used by many others before Aris even made the first pair for themselves.It was reported that Nicole gave at least one pair of that glove purchase to a friend of hers for xmas gift.
Now since we don't know what size she baught we would just have to GUESS/ASSUME that the gloves found on 6/13 and presented in court was the same golves she baught.Only problem is the presnted glove did not fit oj.

[weezer]

How many times are you going to post that 3 out of the 12 jurors thought the gloves fit, which was the minority opinion? Ergo, 9 out of 12 believed they did not fit.

odd that you would discount the 'tryors' of fact

ergo, the majority of people believe orenthal james simpson is the Butcher of Brentwood. does the majority still rule?

[weezer]

This from 3 jurors trying to promote the sale of their work of fiction. Sounds like Simpson, Gilbert and many others, imho.

oh my -- did you just call the simpson criminal jury liars?

[weezer]

Supposition on top of supposition. We suppose that she brought them for him and we suppose she bought gloves the color of the gloves the killer wore and we suppose that she bought gloves the size the the killer wore, although we admit that the gloves the killer wore seemingly did not fit Simpson, but we ask you no to suppose about this, because we believe Simpson did it. I will add this to the assessment, if you'd like.

yep -- way too many coincidence for it to be real. Let's see, Nicole bought gloves at Christmas time in the size her husband wore. orenthal is pictured wearing the same size/model of glove during that time period. the same size/model glove with fiber from the Bronco, orenthal's and the victims' blood is found at the murder scene and at orenthal's rockingham home on the night of the murders. go figure.

BTW william, only the OJI's have fooled themselves into believing the gloves didn't fit. even the 'tryors' of fact knew better. imo

By DAVID MARGOLICK
Published: September 13, 1995
". . .As Mr. Simpson schmoozed, he exposed different facets of different hands. With each frame, Mr. Rubin identified the distinctive features of model number 70263, all designed to justify their high price. There was the intricate "Brasser" stitching -- 22 to 24 stitches per inch -- made by Singer sewing machines long out of production, which only a few craftsmen can operate; a palm vent; a blind hem by the wrist; decorative "silking" on their back made by a particular configuration of needles. . ."

[martin II]

Moran, a 45-year-old computer technician, told CNN she respected the lawyers on both sides of the case. "I think both sides did a great job," she said. "It's just that someone has to lose, someone has to win."

Asked about the speedy verdict, Moran said the jurors had plenty of time to weigh the facts. "You sit there for nine months. You heard evidence, so that's enough right there. You heard the evidence for nine months," she said.


Another juror, Lyonel Cryer, also cited evidence in the decision, specifically the botched handling of crucial material that could have convicted Simpson. "It was garbage in, garbage out," Cryer told the Los Angeles Times.

"There was a problem with what was being presented to prosecutors for testing from LAPD," Cryer maintained. "We felt there were a lot of opportunities for ... contamination of evidence, samples being mixed or stored together."

Ultimately, Cryer said, the shoddy lab work caused him to believe defense expert and renowned forensic pathologist Henry Lee, who had argued, "something is wrong."



http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9510/10-04/jurors_speak/index.html

[martin II]

yep -- way too many coincidence for it to be real. Let's see, Nicole bought gloves at Christmas time in the size her husband wore. orenthal is pictured wearing the same size/model of glove during that time period. the same size/model glove with fiber from the Bronco, orenthal's and the victims' blood is found at the murder scene and at orenthal's rockingham home on the night of the murders. go figure.

BTW william, only the OJI's have fooled themselves into believing the gloves didn't fit. even the 'tryors' of fact knew better. imo

By DAVID MARGOLICK
Published: September 13, 1995
". . .As Mr. Simpson schmoozed, he exposed different facets of different hands. With each frame, Mr. Rubin identified the distinctive features of model number 70263, all designed to justify their high price. There was the intricate "Brasser" stitching -- 22 to 24 stitches per inch -- made by Singer sewing machines long out of production, which only a few craftsmen can operate; a palm vent; a blind hem by the wrist; decorative "silking" on their back made by a particular configuration of needles. . ."

You should amend your post to say three jurors commented that they thought the glove fit month after the trial in a book. Not the 'TRYORS' of fact.

Obviously it was a minor issue for even those three as all 12 voted not guilty.

[martin II]

odd that you would discount the 'tryors' of fact

ergo, the majority of people believe orenthal james simpson is the Butcher of Brentwood. does the majority still rule?

Can you please describe this majority you speak of?

[weezer]

*Snipped*Moran, a 45-year-old computer technician, told CNN she respected the lawyers on both sides of the case. "I think both sides did a great job," she said. "It's just that someone has to lose, someone has to win."

Asked about the speedy verdict, Moran said the jurors had plenty of time to weigh the facts. "You sit there for nine months. You heard evidence, so that's enough right there. You heard the evidence for nine months," she said.

so I guess she didn't understand the part that said she wasn't to draw any conclusions until she had heard all of the evidence. . .

well, we knew she was one of the bright ones. . .;)

[weezer]

You should amend your post to say three jurors commented that they thought the glove fit month after the trial in a book. Not the 'TRYORS' of fact.

Obviously it was a minor issue for even those three as all 12 voted not guilty.

obviously all of the evidence and/or testimony that dealt with anything other than "LE is bad" were 'minor issues' to the criminal jury. imo

[martin II]

oh my -- did you just call the simpson criminal jury liars?

You seem to be streatching again.

[weezer]

You seem to be streatching again.

really?

"Originally Posted by William Anthony
This from 3 jurors trying to promote the sale of their work of fiction. Sounds like Simpson, Gilbert and many others, imho."

[martin II]

obviously all of the evidence and/or testimony that dealt with anything other than "LE is bad" were 'minor issues' to the criminal jury. imo

I think it was a accumulation of issues, 'MISTAKES" unresolved issues, untruthful prosecutions witnesses, faulty collection of 'EVIDENCE' suspect lab processing of evidence, blue wall of silence and other issues that informed the jury that the prosecutions case had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Gargage in Garbage out is how some have described the prosecutions case.

[martin II]

really?

"Originally Posted by William Anthony
This from 3 jurors trying to promote the sale of their work of fiction. Sounds like Simpson, Gilbert and many others, imho."

And
martinii

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .Gargage in Garbage out is how some have described the prosecutions case.

yeah - it was the black panther guy that said that wasn't it?

[martin II]

*Snipped*

so I guess she didn't understand the part that said she wasn't to draw any conclusions until she had heard all of the evidence. . .

well, we knew she was one of the bright ones. . .;)

She did what jurors do. listen to the testimony. remember what he/she has heard and then discuss in deliberations their concerns.then vote.

[weezer]

Hair with no dandruff, right? Hair like other trace is easily transferable, If you would like I will include hair in the fiber assessment or start another one.

Henry Lee testimony in civil trial (Jan 9). I think it is a logical inference that if lee believed this for the civil trial, he also believed it during the criminal trial.

"Q. Isn't that true? Isn't it a correct statement that when FBI representatives, in particular Douglas Deedrick, has reported examining certain hairs allegedly found at certain places that were microscopically consistent with the known head hairs of Nicole Brown, with the known head hairs of Ronald Goldman or with the known head hairs of Mr. Simpson, you're not challenging the accuracy of any of those findings, are you?

A. No, I'm not. Mr. Deedrick is an excellent hair examiner. Of course, Dr. DeForest even better. We all examine hair. I did not verify Mr. Deedrick's hair examination. I'm not challenging him. I think he always do good work. No reason for me to challenge, as I only indicate to you I did look at the worksheet and the report linking inconsistency.

Q. And based on that one inconsistency that you've pointed out that was correct, your testimony, as I understand it, is, you are not saying that any of the hairs that Mr. Deedrick or Agent Deedrick or the FBI found were microscopically consistent with the known head hairs of Nicole Brown or Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson were properly identified?

A. I'm not -- I'm not in the position to say any statement beyond that I believe him. I'm not saying for me to either say he's wrong or he's right.

[weezer]

She did what jurors do. listen to the testimony. remember what he/she has heard and then discuss in deliberations their concerns.then vote.

that's not what she said.

[William Anthony]

odd that you would discount the 'tryors' of fact

ergo, the majority of people believe orenthal james simpson is the Butcher of Brentwood. does the majority still rule?

I did not discount the jurors-3 out of 12 is what I said.

The only majority that could have convicted him of murder and, which was legally counted, was the unanimous verdict-12 out of 12 for not guilty.

[William Anthony]

yep -- way too many coincidence for it to be real. Let's see, Nicole bought gloves at Christmas time in the size her husband wore. orenthal is pictured wearing the same size/model of glove during that time period. the same size/model glove with fiber from the Bronco, orenthal's and the victims' blood is found at the murder scene and at orenthal's rockingham home on the night of the murders. go figure.

BTW william, only the OJI's have fooled themselves into believing the gloves didn't fit. even the 'tryors' of fact knew better. imo

By DAVID MARGOLICK
Published: September 13, 1995
". . .As Mr. Simpson schmoozed, he exposed different facets of different hands. With each frame, Mr. Rubin identified the distinctive features of model number 70263, all designed to justify their high price. There was the intricate "Brasser" stitching -- 22 to 24 stitches per inch -- made by Singer sewing machines long out of production, which only a few craftsmen can operate; a palm vent; a blind hem by the wrist; decorative "silking" on their back made by a particular configuration of needles. . ."

You and David seem to think that, because the color and the size cannot be identified they must be the killer gloves.

Only those who are determined to prove that Simpson is guilty have fooled themselves into thinking the gloves in evidence could be properly put on his hands, imho.

[William Anthony]

really?

"Originally Posted by William Anthony
This from 3 jurors trying to promote the sale of their work of fiction. Sounds like Simpson, Gilbert and many others, imho."

Truly.

[weezer]

Truly.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - fic·tion/ˈfɪkʃən/ –noun
1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form.
2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.
6. Law. an allegation that a fact exists that is known not to exist, made by authority of law to bring a case within the operation of a rule of law.

[William Anthony]

Henry Lee testimony in civil trial (Jan 9). I think it is a logical inference that if lee believed this for the civil trial, he also believed it during the criminal trial.

"Q. Isn't that true? Isn't it a correct statement that when FBI representatives, in particular Douglas Deedrick, has reported examining certain hairs allegedly found at certain places that were microscopically consistent with the known head hairs of Nicole Brown, with the known head hairs of Ronald Goldman or with the known head hairs of Mr. Simpson, you're not challenging the accuracy of any of those findings, are you?

A. No, I'm not. Mr. Deedrick is an excellent hair examiner. Of course, Dr. DeForest even better. We all examine hair. I did not verify Mr. Deedrick's hair examination. I'm not challenging him. I think he always do good work. No reason for me to challenge, as I only indicate to you I did look at the worksheet and the report linking inconsistency.

Q. And based on that one inconsistency that you've pointed out that was correct, your testimony, as I understand it, is, you are not saying that any of the hairs that Mr. Deedrick or Agent Deedrick or the FBI found were microscopically consistent with the known head hairs of Nicole Brown or Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson were properly identified?

A. I'm not -- I'm not in the position to say any statement beyond that I believe him. I'm not saying for me to either say he's wrong or he's right.

"I did not verify Mr. Deedrick's hair examination.

I'm not saying for me to either say he's wrong or he's right."


The evidence is that Simpson's hair should have had dandruff and there were no hair found with dandruff. Therefore, the reasonable inference is that those hairs were not Simpson's.

[William Anthony]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - fic·tion/ˈfɪkʃən/ –noun
1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form.
2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.
6. Law. an allegation that a fact exists that is known not to exist, made by authority of law to bring a case within the operation of a rule of law.

Yes, you are right I forgot the prosecution.

[William Anthony]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - fic·tion/ˈfɪkʃən/ –noun
1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form.
2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.
6. Law. an allegation that a fact exists that is known not to exist, made by authority of law to bring a case within the operation of a rule of law.

The number 2 for the jury members, Simpson and Gilbert, and others and the numbers 5 and/or 6 for the prosecution and Gilbert.

[weezer]

The number 2 for the jury members, Simpson and Gilbert, and others and the numbers 5 and/or 6 for the prosecution and Gilbert.

yep -- I thought there was a lot of fiction going on with the criminal jury too.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

so I guess she didn't understand the part that said she wasn't to draw any conclusions until she had heard all of the evidence. . .

well, we knew she was one of the bright ones. . .;)

Please show me where she said that she drew a conclusion as opposed to weighing the evidence she heard and, if you will please be so kind, include the time that she said she began to weigh the evidence. I think it is rude to make remarks about someone by reading into someone's statement what we want to believe someone said as opposed to reading what they actually said.

[weezer]

"I did not verify Mr. Deedrick's hair examination.

I'm not saying for me to either say he's wrong or he's right."


The evidence is that Simpson's hair should have had dandruff and there were no hair found with dandruff. Therefore, the reasonable inference is that those hairs were not Simpson's.

"A. I'm not -- I'm not in the position to say any statement beyond that I believe him. . ."

[William Anthony]

yep -- I thought there was a lot of fiction going on with the criminal jury too.

Do you have any evidence of this or is this just a thought that popped into your head?

[William Anthony]

"A. I'm not -- I'm not in the position to say any statement beyond that I believe him. . ."

Please, post the entire answer but there is no need to because I will.

"A. I'm not -- I'm not in the position to say any statement beyond that I believe him. I'm not saying for me to either say he's wrong or he's right."

[weezer]

Please show me where she said that she drew a conclusion as opposed to weighing the evidence she heard and, if you will please be so kind, include the time that she said she began to weigh the evidence. I think it is rude to make remarks about someone by reading into someone's statement what we want to believe someone said as opposed to reading what they actually said.

"QUESTION: Why did it take you less than four hours to return a verdict if you had all of that evidence?

MORAN: Well, sir, I'll tell you why. We've been sitting on this case for nine months. We've taken this case serious for nine months; we didn't take it serious for four hours, we've taken it serious for nine months. So, we had nine months to weigh the evidence. So we knew when we looked at the evidence in the jury room in deliberations ... we went over it again ... it didn't take us nine for months to figure it out. We're not that ignorant.

QUESTION: At what point did you make your mind?

MORAN: To be honest, after I listened to all the evidence, all the people that came to testify ... after all of that was over with ... that's when I came up with my decision. After I got deliberated ... in the back room, in jury deliberations."

My very favorite quote is her last sentence! ;)

October 4, 1995
CNN transcript of Simpson juror Brenda Moran's press conference

[weezer]

Do you have any evidence of this or is this just a thought that popped into your head?

oh -- I must have misunderstood you:

"Originally Posted by William Anthony
This from 3 jurors trying to promote the sale of their work of fiction. Sounds like Simpson, Gilbert and many others, imho."

"Originally Posted by William Anthony
The number 2 for the jury members"

Originally Posted by fbgweezer
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - fic·tion/ˈfɪkʃən/ –noun

2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.

[martin II]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - fic·tion/ˈfɪkʃən/ –noun
1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form.
2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.
6. Law. an allegation that a fact exists that is known not to exist, made by authority of law to bring a case within the operation of a rule of law.

Weezer
This sounds like a correct description of the prosecutions case, Thanks for the post.

[William Anthony]

oh -- I must have misunderstood you:

"Originally Posted by William Anthony
This from 3 jurors trying to promote the sale of their work of fiction. Sounds like Simpson, Gilbert and many others, imho."

"Originally Posted by William Anthony
The number 2 for the jury members"

Originally Posted by fbgweezer
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - fic·tion/ˈfɪkʃən/ –noun

2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.

I don't know if you misunderstood me or your post with the definition. So, here it is.

1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form.
2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.

[William Anthony]

"QUESTION: Why did it take you less than four hours to return a verdict if you had all of that evidence?

MORAN: Well, sir, I'll tell you why. We've been sitting on this case for nine months. We've taken this case serious for nine months; we didn't take it serious for four hours, we've taken it serious for nine months. So, we had nine months to weigh the evidence. So we knew when we looked at the evidence in the jury room in deliberations ... we went over it again ... it didn't take us nine for months to figure it out. We're not that ignorant.

QUESTION: At what point did you make your mind?

MORAN: To be honest, after I listened to all the evidence, all the people that came to testify ... after all of that was over with ... that's when I came up with my decision. After I got deliberated ... in the back room, in jury deliberations."

My very favorite quote is her last sentence! ;)

October 4, 1995
CNN transcript of Simpson juror Brenda Moran's press conference

There is no instruction that the jury cannot weigh the evidence as they hear it. She showed her sophistication and waited until after she had heard all the evidence, taking seriously her oath, unlike some of the prosecution witnesses. Yes, it is easy for some to laugh at others' mistakes but it is obvious what she said, imho, which is she came up with her conclusion in the jury room during jury deliberations. She again showed her sophistication for the law and dedication to the oath she took.

[William Anthony]

"QUESTION: Why did it take you less than four hours to return a verdict if you had all of that evidence?

MORAN: Well, sir, I'll tell you why. We've been sitting on this case for nine months. We've taken this case serious for nine months; we didn't take it serious for four hours, we've taken it serious for nine months. So, we had nine months to weigh the evidence. So we knew when we looked at the evidence in the jury room in deliberations ... we went over it again ... it didn't take us nine for months to figure it out. We're not that ignorant.

QUESTION: At what point did you make your mind?

MORAN: To be honest, after I listened to all the evidence, all the people that came to testify ... after all of that was over with ... that's when I came up with my decision. After I got deliberated ... in the back room, in jury deliberations."

My very favorite quote is her last sentence! ;)

October 4, 1995
CNN transcript of Simpson juror Brenda Moran's press conference

IIRC, you made comments about Martin's alleged rudeness and I know you made comments about me thinking I was smarter than people. Let me ask, did you confuse us with you?:)

[weezer]

I don't know if you misunderstood me or your post with the definition. So, here it is.

1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form.
2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.

yep -- that's what I thought you said: at least three of the 'tryers' of fact were liars when they told their story about the trial since they said it wasn't fiction. thanks.

[William Anthony]

yep -- that's what I thought you said: at least three of the 'tryers' of fact were liars when they told their story about the trial since they said it wasn't fiction. thanks.

Didn't the prosecution in the criminal trial show you that just saying something is true does not make it true, like your post on what Lee said proved, when the last sentence, my favorite from the excerpt you posted, stated he could not say whether the hair expert was right of wrong? You're welcome.

[William Anthony]

obviously all of the evidence and/or testimony that dealt with anything other than "LE is bad" were 'minor issues' to the criminal jury. imo

Did you mean to say LE being bad/should have been taken by the jury as minor or that all of the mistakes made by LE should have been taken by the jury as being minor? Are you saying that the jury should not have taken evidence of police corruption and mistakes seriously? Please, clarify?

[weezer]

as has become obvious, the OJI's are working hard to high-jack the board. I don't know about other posters, but I'm not playing. When and IF there is a discussion that isn't based on incredible, ridiculous, ludicrous fiction, I'll be back. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

What "hair found consistant with simpson found on what carpet at Bundy residence" ??

You think the poster meant the blanket? Maybe the poster has some inside (pun intended) information. smile.

[weezer]

"Q: How long after Simpson was found innocent will it be before he is actually considered "innocent"? Personally, I think he did it, but he had his day in court and won. Isn't that how the American justice system works?

Alan Dershowitz: No. Every citizen has the right to make up their minds as to whether they think he did it or didn't do it. The verdict of history is very different from the verdict of two juries. He can't ever go to jail on this accusation, but everybody has the right to make his or her own decision."

Alan Dershowitz:
Looking Back at the OJ Trial
Transcript from June 9, 1999

Time.com

[William Anthony]

as has become obvious, the OJI's are working hard to high-jack the board. I don't know about other posters, but I'm not playing. When and IF there is a discussion that isn't based on incredible, ridiculous, ludicrous fiction, I'll be back. :seeya:

I guess when some posters have to stop responding to those type of incredible, ridiculous, ludicrous, and irresponsible posts, in which it is claimed that people say things they have not and say that what someone testified to proved something, when the testimony proved the opposite of that claim that they will be happy. So until such time as that occurs, let me give you my best wishes and thanks for your assistance in helping to improve the community. :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

as has become obvious, the OJI's are working hard to high-jack the board. I don't know about other posters, but I'm not playing. When and IF there is a discussion that isn't based on incredible, ridiculous, ludicrous fiction, I'll be back. :seeya:

No one is attempting to high-jack the board, imho. I am only responding to posts, making observations, stating opinions, asking questions and seeking clarification, all in an effort to improve the level of posting in this community.

[William Anthony]

"Q: How long after Simpson was found innocent will it be before he is actually considered "innocent"? Personally, I think he did it, but he had his day in court and won. Isn't that how the American justice system works?

Alan Dershowitz: No. Every citizen has the right to make up their minds as to whether they think he did it or didn't do it. The verdict of history is very different from the verdict of two juries. He can't ever go to jail on this accusation, but everybody has the right to make his or her own decision."

Alan Dershowitz:
Looking Back at the OJ Trial
Transcript from June 9, 1999

Time.com

I do not disagree with what AD said and, in fact, that was what I said in a prior post. I said that the only verdict that legally counted, as far as being convicted of a murder, was the criminal verdict.

[William Anthony]

July 18, 1995

"MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, in that connection, during the time, the 16 years that you cut Mr. Simpson's hair, did he have dandruff in his hair?

MS. MOORE: Uh, periodically he would have dandruff, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you recall particular times when he'd have dandruff more than at other times?

MS. MOORE: Uh, it seemed that he would have dandruff more in the off season, when he was playing golf and in the sun a lot.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, when you say the off season, so we're clear about that, in the last 10 years or so, when you would cut Mr. Simpson's hair, when you say off season, what do you mean by off season as opposed to on season?

MS. MOORE: Well, when he wasn't working as a reporter or he wasn't playing football.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So was there a particular period of the year when Mr. Simpson would either be playing football or working as a sportscaster?

MS. MOORE: Yes. Uh, well, in the recent years, he would be gone like on the season, which would start like September to like January.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Would that be during football season?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And during those periods of time, you wouldn't see him to cut his hair regularly; is that correct?

MS. MOORE: Not as regularly as during the off season.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Would there be times, however, during the on season, during football season that he would still come in to see you when was in town?

MS. MOORE: The on season?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And in those times in the recent past when he came in to see you, would you always cut his hair at your shop on Adams Boulevard or would you do it someplace else on occasion?

MS. MOORE: I would do it in both places. I would do it at his home and at the shop.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And his home, you know his home to be on Rockingham, do you?

MS. MOORE: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you've been there?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right, ma'am. Now, with regard to the so-called off season, you were saying that this condition of dandruff would be perhaps worse at times during the--I think you said off season when he's playing golf; is that correct?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what, if anything, would attribute to that, that he would have more dandruff in the off season?

MS. MOORE: Well, it would happen mostly if he didn't put oil on his hair. If he put oil on his hair, he wouldn't have dandruff like he did. It would be in--when he played golf, he was in the sun, you know, and with the lack of oil that would create the dry scalp.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you're not a dermatologist, are you?

MS. MOORE: I'm not a dermatologist, no.

MR. COCHRAN: And as such, with regard to when you would see dandruff in his hair or around his shoulders or whatever, what would you do for him or recommend to him?

MS. MOORE: Well, I would tell him to be sure and to put more oil in his hair if he's going to be in the sun and I would tell him to use some kind of dandruff shampoo, you know, over-the-counter shampoo. It wasn't bad enough for him to go to a dermatologist, you know. He could just use a dandruff shampoo.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Okay. And would you ever shampoo his hair or was that something he took care of himself?

MS. MOORE: Oh, he would do that himself.

[weezer]

MS. MOORE: Uh, periodically he would have dandruff, yes.

[William Anthony]

MS. MOORE: Uh, periodically he would have dandruff, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you recall particular times when he'd have dandruff more than at other times?

MS. MOORE: Uh, it seemed that he would have dandruff more in the off season, when he was playing golf and in the sun a lot.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, when you say the off season, so we're clear about that, in the last 10 years or so, when you would cut Mr. Simpson's hair, when you say off season, what do you mean by off season as opposed to on season?

MS. MOORE: Well, when he wasn't working as a reporter or he wasn't playing football.

I don't think he was reporting on football or there was football being played in June. The evidence was that there was no dandruff found in the hair alleged to be consistent with Simpson.

[William Anthony]

July 18th. Here is a portion of the cross.

"MS. CLARK: Okay. And just from a layperson's understanding, because that's all I have, it's when your scalp gets dry, correct?

MS. MOORE: Right.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And when you have that condition where your scalp gets dry, if you comb your hair, you're going to pull those flakes off the scalp; is that right?

MS. MOORE: This is very true.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And so when you would comb his hair when he had dandruff, those flakes would come out, correct?

MS. MOORE: Yes. Sometimes, yes.

MS. CLARK: Sometimes yes and sometimes no?

MS. MOORE: Yes. Well, if I--the more vigorous I comb it, the more it would come out. Sometimes I would just brush it and cut it. I didn't use a comb.

MS. CLARK: Right. So if you didn't use a comb, even if he had dandruff, you wouldn't disturb any flakes on the hair. Is that a fair statement?

MS. MOORE: That's true.

MS. CLARK: And so if his hairs came out by themselves, if they were naturally shed, you know what I mean, without being pulled out by combing, then they might not show any flakes of dandruff: Is that right?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MOORE: Would you repeat the question, please?

MS. CLARK: Sure. If you did not comb the hair, if his hair was just--you know, we shed hairs every day, don't we?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Unfortunately.

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: All right. In that process, if you just shed your hair naturally and you're not combing, then the dandruff is not going to come off on the hair; isn't that right?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of that question, your Honor. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MOORE: Dandruff's not going to come off on the--on where? I don't understand the question.

MS. CLARK: When you--you just indicated when you comb the hair vigorously, dandruff will come off.

MS. MOORE: Right.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And if you don't, if you just brush his hair, the dandruff doesn't come off?

MS. MOORE: Right.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Which means if you don't brush or comb the hair and it just falls off by itself, the dandruff doesn't come off.

MR. COCHRAN: I object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MOORE: If you don't do anything to the hair, I guess it will just stay there. I'm not sure really. I guess it will just stay on the scalp.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And it won't being showing up in the hair, right?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. MOORE: I can't say that. I don't know.

THE COURT: Ma'am, ma'am. When I sustain the objection, that means don't answer the question.

MS. MOORE: Okay.

THE COURT: Next question.

MS. CLARK: So sometimes he had dandruff and sometimes he did not?

MS. MOORE: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And sometimes in the summer when you saw him to take care of his hair, he would have dandruff and sometimes he would not?

MS. MOORE: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And dandruff, can that be caused by a change in hygiene like what you eat and how you take care of yourself?

MS. MOORE: Umm, I'm not sure.

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of that question. She indicated she's not a dermatologist. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. She's indicated she's not sure.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: Next question.

MS. CLARK: For example, if you have a change in shampoo, can that cause dandruff?

MR. COCHRAN: Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MOORE: I'm not sure.

MS. CLARK: You're not sure?

MS. MOORE: I'm not sure if a change in shampoo--it--that's--yeah, it could have. It could cause it and could help it.

MS. CLARK: Aggravate it?

MS. MOORE: It could cause it, make it better or make it worse.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So what about a change in the type of water you use? Could that cause dandruff or affect it or aggravate it?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Overruled. Answer will stand.

MS. CLARK: Now, dandruff can occur in a one- to two-day period. Is that fair to say?

MR. COCHRAN: I object. Without foundation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: How long does it, if you know, because you've been treating--how many people have you had as customers over the 30 years?

MS. MOORE: How many people I've had as customers?

MS. CLARK: Regular customers. Let's narrow it down some.

MS. MOORE: I really don't know the answer to that one.

MS. CLARK: Would it be fair to say thousands?

MS. MOORE: No.

MS. CLARK: Hundreds?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Yes. Okay. Of those hundreds over the past 30 years, have some of them had dandruff?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: What percentage would you say had dandruff?

MS. MOORE: I'm not sure. Maybe five percent.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And of that five percent that had dandruff, did you notice that some would have dandruff at times and not at others?

MS. MOORE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And in--on those occasions when those people had dandruff sometimes and didn't have it other times, can dandruff build--can the condition of having dandruff occur in the period of say a week to two weeks?

MS. MOORE: I suppose so.

MS. CLARK: Depending on the change of water, shampoo and whatnot?

MS. MOORE: That's correct."

The witness seemed impartial, imho, and there is one obvious flaw in the prosecution's line of questioning, which is that the dandruff would have been disturbed with the putting on and taking off of a knit dark cap, imho.

[martin II]

You think the poster meant the blanket? Maybe the poster has some inside (pun intended) information. smile.

I am not sure which is why i asked the question.

[martin II]

I agree 100%

I have looked but not found any evidence taken from Nicoles carpet that was
presented in court.

[William Anthony]

Recently, there was a post on another thread that was I believe intended to convey that the thread was not necessary and that another thread should be started for those who thought Simpson was innocent. I do not understand this type of thinking as I believe these threads offer an opportunity for all members, who may be interested in the topics, being discussed on the thread to post. I suggested to the poster that, if he/she thought that another thread was necessary to start one. That suggestion was not followed, which meant to me that the start of another thread was unnecessary. I offered this suggestion because I want to improve this community and allow the voices of all members to be heard as they would like to be heard.

I have noticed a rather disturbing trend, which may have been allowed in another community, that is occurring here. It seems that some want to accuse other posters of off topic, after they, themselves, have engaged in the conversations of the topic, bring back the topic of which they originally complained, accuse other posters of thread derailment after they have engaged in the derailment, irrespective of the fact that the poster they accused did not start what they say is derailment. Additionally, these type of remarks are made against individuals that some think think Simpson is innocent. I think these community should allow for the expression and discussion of different and conflicting opinions, without fear of being accused.

It also seems that several adjectives are used in a derogatory manner when describing some of the posters comments. In an effort to improve the level of the postings in this community, I asked that such adjectives not be used and was happy to see that my request was followed until recently. It seems that a poster used the derogatory adjectives of another poster, who has since stopped using them, for whatever, imho, unproductive reason. I do not think that, because some do not like the manner in which a discussion is going, they should use the derogatory adjectives or accuse others of things they are not doing. Those things do not serve to improve the community, imho, nor does trying to eliminate a thread in order to silence the opinions or comments of others, imho.

[William Anthony]

I have looked but not found any evidence taken from Nicoles carpet that was
presented in court.

I agree 100%.

[martin II]

Recently, there was a post on another thread that was I believe intended to convey that the thread was not necessary and that another thread should be started for those who thought Simpson was innocent. I do not understand this type of thinking as I believe these threads offer an opportunity for all members, who may be interested in the topics, being discussed on the thread to post. I suggested to the poster that, if he/she thought that another thread was necessary to start one. That suggestion was not followed, which meant to me that the start of another thread was unnecessary. I offered this suggestion because I want to improve this community and allow the voices of all members to be heard as they would like to be heard.

I have noticed a rather disturbing trend, which may have been allowed in another community, that is occurring here. It seems that some want to accuse other posters of off topic, after they, themselves, have engaged in the conversations of the topic, bring back the topic of which they originally complained, accuse other posters of thread derailment after they have engaged in the derailment, irrespective of the fact that the poster they accused did not start what they say is derailment. Additionally, these type of remarks are made against individuals that some think think Simpson is innocent. I think these community should allow for the expression and discussion of different and conflicting opinions, without fear of being accused.

It also seems that several adjectives are used in a derogatory manner when describing some of the posters comments. In an effort to improve the level of the postings in this community, I asked that such adjectives not be used and was happy to see that my request was followed until recently. It seems that a poster used the derogatory adjectives of another poster, who has since stopped using them, for whatever, imho, unproductive reason. I do not think that, because some do not like the manner in which a discussion is going, they should use the derogatory adjectives or accuse others of things they are not doing. Those things do not serve to improve the community, imho, nor does trying to eliminate a thread in order to silence the opinions or comments of others, imho.

I agree with your coments.

[William Anthony]

I agree with your coments.

Thank You and I am sure you understood what I was saying. However, to make it clear, I am happy that the other poster stopped using the derogatory adjectives and this was a productive effort, imho. Because of the way my original post was made I did not want anyone to think that the stoppage was unproductive. What I saw as unproductive was another poster's use of the aforementioned adjectives.

[martin II]

I agree with your coments.

correction

comments

[William Anthony]

correction

comments

Aside from the lack of dandruff in the hair, it never made sense to me that Simpson would have worn a knit wool cap in June, if he wanted to avoid attention and I am sure that Nicole would have recognized him with the cap on. I don't see how the cap would have aided in concealment. As the magnificent one said, if it does not fit...

[martin II]

that's not what she said.

She said she listened to the testimony for 9 months, went into deliberaitons, made up her mind and voted.Right.

[Kate Sachel]

How many times are you going to post that 3 out of the 12 jurors thought the gloves fit, which was the minority opinion? Ergo, 9 out of 12 believed they did not fit.

Do we know that nine of the twelve believed that they did fit? I am not aware of any others who have spoken publicly about the glove, other than the three who wrote their book. If you have, can you tell me where to find those statements?

Kate

[martin II]

Aside from the lack of dandruff in the hair, it never made sense to me that Simpson would have worn a knit wool cap in June, if he wanted to avoid attention and I am sure that Nicole would have recognized him with the cap on. I don't see how the cap would have aided in concealment. As the magnificent one said, if it does not fit...

Additionally this was a watch cap that fits on top of the head not over the face etc. JC put the cap on to show JC with that cap on was still jc and oj with a cap on was still oj. Very smart simple demo to explain many words on the subject.imo

[martin II]

William

I believe there were many many claims made by the prosecution and the defense was able to show that most were not proven by the standard of proof required. On some issue some jury members may have agreed with the prosecution(3 members later saying the glove fit ) but the verdict means that taking all of the prosecutions claims and witness testimony into account and looking at the big picture all 12 decided that the prosecutuion did not prove their claims beyond a reasonable doubt as they all voted not guilty.This includes the three.

[William Anthony]

Do we know that nine of the twelve believed that they did fit? I am not aware of any others who have spoken publicly about the glove, other than the three who wrote their book. If you have, can you tell me where to find those statements?

Kate

Are we to believe that the media only spoke to these three jury members or are we to believe that the media was only interested in the jury members who believed the gloves fit? Either way, we are limited to what the media publishes, unless we were present during the questioning. I think it is a reasonable inference to conclude that the remainder thought the gloves did not fit by the verdict. As far as the ratio goes, here is a link that only says some believed and some did not believe the gloves fit. With that, there are only three that I know of as being reported that said the gloves did not fit, which leaves 9 that reasonably can be inferred that they believed the gloves did not fit. If you know of anything to contradict this reasonable inference, then please post it so that the correct ratio may be posted, if mine is incorrect.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns093.htm

[William Anthony]

Do we know that nine of the twelve believed that they did fit? I am not aware of any others who have spoken publicly about the glove, other than the three who wrote their book. If you have, can you tell me where to find those statements?

Kate

Are we to believe that the media only spoke to these three jury members or are we to believe that the media was only interested in the jury members who believed the gloves fit? Either way, we are limited to what the media publishes, unless we were present during the questioning. I think it is a reasonable inference to conclude that the remainder thought the gloves did not fit by the verdict. As far as the ratio goes, here is a link that only says some believed and some did not believe the gloves fit. With that, there are only three that I know of as being reported that said the gloves did not fit, which leaves 9 that reasonably can be inferred that they believed the gloves did not fit. If you know of anything to contradict this reasonable inference, then please post it so that the correct ratio may be posted, if mine is incorrect.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns093.htm

Here is another link that we know one of the jurors thought they did not fit.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0010495

[Kate Sachel]

Are we to believe that the media only spoke to these three jury members or are we to believe that the media was only interested in the jury members who believed the gloves fit? Either way, we are limited to what the media publishes, unless we were present during the questioning. I think it is a reasonable inference to conclude that the remainder thought the gloves did not fit by the verdict. As far as the ratio goes, here is a link that only says some believed and some did not believe the gloves fit. With that, there are only three that I know of as being reported that said the gloves did not fit, which leaves 9 that reasonably can be inferred that they believed the gloves did not fit. If you know of anything to contradict this reasonable inference, then please post it so that the correct ratio may be posted, if mine is incorrect.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns093.htm

Here is another link that we know one of the jurors thought they did not fit.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0010495

You sound defensive, is everything alright?

I was asking a simple question, not challenging you. I don't know whether or not your ratio is correct but I don't agree with the notion that we can assume that the remaining jurors thought the gloves did not fit based on the verdict. With all of the evidence offered and arguments presented by both the prosecution and defense I think it is just as reasonable to believe that whether or not the gloves fit was not important enough to the jurors to affect what their verdict was.

Kate

[William Anthony]

You sound defensive, is everything alright?

I was asking a simple question, not challenging you. I don't know whether or not your ratio is correct but I don't agree with the notion that we can assume that the remaining jurors thought the gloves did not fit based on the verdict. With all of the evidence offered and arguments presented by both the prosecution and defense I think it is just as reasonable to believe that whether or not the gloves fit was not important enough to the jurors to affect what their verdict was.

Kate

Of course everything is alright. I did not intend it to sound defensive, only supportive of my figures. I thought that, given the massive amount of attention and accusations about the glove demonstration and the thoughts that the demonstration was probably the final straw that broke the back of the camel in the prosecution's case, the media would have published the opinions of all the jurors, who thought the glove did not fit, and was explaining how I arrived at the figure of 9. Nothing more and nothing less, smile. I agree with your last statement, because I believe the prosecution's case was otherwise too weak.

[William Anthony]

Did I recognize a point of agreement between Kate and Martin. :)

[Kate Sachel]

Did I recognize a point of agreement between Kate and Martin. :)

It actually woulnd't be the first time that I have agreed with something martin has pointed out. That fact simply gets lost because he has chosen not to acknowledge my posts regarding such.

Kate

[William Anthony]

It actually woulnd't be the first time that I have agreed with something martin has pointed out. That fact simply gets lost because he has chosen not to acknowledge my posts regarding such.

Kate

I am almost positive that he reads your posts. I am happy to see that we, as members, can agree and disagree. I hope that we can do so in a less combative fashion. I also hope that the manner in which we agree or disagree will help to promote more participation from the various members of this community.

[Kate Sachel]

I am almost positive that he reads your posts. I am happy to see that we, as members, can agree and disagree. I hope that we can do so in a less combative fashion. I also hope that the manner in which we agree or disagree will help to promote more participation from the various members of this community.

I'm not sure about that since he publicly said some time ago that he put me on "ignore".

Oh well, there's nothing I can do about that. When and if he should decide that he would be open to discussion with me I would be more than happy to welcome such.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure about that since he publicly said some time ago that he put me on "ignore".

Oh well, there's nothing I can do about that. When and if he should decide that he would be open to discussion with me I would be more than happy to welcome such.

Kate

I think that, if we look at some of his posts, we can see that he at least reads them. I appreciate your public expression of an offer to enter into further discussions with Martin. I hope that the two of you will publicly agree to bury the hatchet, because it will serve as an example to the community I think can be built here. I will follow your lead and offer to engage in discussions with all the members of this community, forgetting and forgiving all past, imho, transgressions. I realize that there may be times when the discussions become combative and I hope that other members will feel free to intercede in an effort to curtail those situations.

[bobaugust]

Aside from the lack of dandruff in the hair, it never made sense to me that Simpson would have worn a knit wool cap in June, if he wanted to avoid attention and I am sure that Nicole would have recognized him with the cap on. I don't see how the cap would have aided in concealment. As the magnificent one said, if it does not fit...

Juanita Moore testified the last time she saw Simpson was on May 23, 1994. I don't recall any evidence that Simpson had dandruff then or on June 12 or the days following the murders.

Simpson most likely wore the dark colored knit cap for the same reason he wore all dark clothing. He dressed just like the character dressed he recently played in the movie Frogman while conducting clandestine missions at night.

The only thing that didn't fit was Cochran's demonstration of putting the knit cap on his head wearing it like a hat in the glaring lights of the court room.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Juanita Moore testified the last time she saw Simpson was on May 23, 1994. I don't recall any evidence that Simpson had dandruff then or on June 12 or the days following the murders.

Simpson most likely wore the dark colored knit cap for the same reason he wore all dark clothing. He dressed just like the character dressed he recently played in the movie Frogman while conducting clandestine missions at night.

The only thing that didn't fit was Cochran's demonstration of putting the knit cap on his head wearing it like a hat in the glaring lights of the court room.

bobaugust

You seem to be overlooking the fact that Ms. Moore's testimony was that he had more dandruff during certain times of the year. The obvious import of her testimony is that Simpson's hair was never dandruff free. If Simpson wore the knit cap on the night of June 12th, placing it on and pulling it off, there should have been signs of dandruff in the cap or the hair. The obvious import of those facts is that, although the hair may have been consistent with Simpson's, it was not his hair or the hair came from some other source and was deposited on that source on some prior occasion.

The magnificent JC could have placed that cap on his head in the presence of Stevie Wonder in the midst of a blackout and it would not have served as a disguise, likewise with Simpson. Being seen in a knit wool cap and dressed in a sweat suit with dress shoes on a warm mid-June night would have drawn anyone's, who was sober and rational, attention. I don't think anyone bent on murder and wanting to avoid attention would have worn the aforementioned outfit; if it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

[martin II]

PETROCELLI: What was O.J. Simpson wearing when you had that conversation with him in the afternoon of June 12?
KATO: I believe it was white shorts and a sport top and tennis shoes. That's what I recollect in my mind.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1472/analysis.html

So when did Kato see oj in this black sweat suit with the white zipper on the evening of 6/12.oj wore trousers and a top or suit to the recital. When oj left for the airport Kato said he was wearing white shirt and jeans.imo

Now a star prosecution witness said that when oj came out of the house to go to the airport with the lv suiter in hand, he was wearing a black overcoat.

imo
martin II

[martin II]

Juanita Moore testified the last time she saw Simpson was on May 23, 1994. I don't recall any evidence that Simpson had dandruff then or on June 12 or the days following the murders.

Simpson most likely wore the dark colored knit cap for the same reason he wore all dark clothing. He dressed just like the character dressed he recently played in the movie Frogman while conducting clandestine missions at night.

The only thing that didn't fit was Cochran's demonstration of putting the knit cap on his head wearing it like a hat in the glaring lights of the court room.

bobaugust

The message Cochran successfully sent to the jury was oj would not have thought a little watch cap on the top of his head would have prevented anyone from recogizing him. That said more than 20 minutes of words.Genious
if you ask me and good lawyers are creatrive like that.

imo

[bobaugust]

You seem to be overlooking the fact that Ms. Moore's testimony was that he had more dandruff during certain times of the year. The obvious import of her testimony is that Simpson's hair was never dandruff free. If Simpson wore the knit cap on the night of June 12th, placing it on and pulling it off, there should have been signs of dandruff in the cap or the hair. The obvious import of those facts is that, although the hair may have been consistent with Simpson's, it was not his hair or the hair came from some other source and was deposited on that source on some prior occasion.

The magnificent JC could have placed that cap on his head in the presence of Stevie Wonder in the midst of a blackout and it would not have served as a disguise, likewise with Simpson. Being seen in a knit wool cap and dressed in a sweat suit with dress shoes on a warm mid-June night would have drawn anyone's, who was sober and rational, attention. I don't think anyone bent on murder and wanting to avoid attention would have worn the aforementioned outfit; if it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that Moore saw Simpson on May 23 and never said Simpson had dandruff then. Just because Simpson had dandruff at different times in his life and had treated it himself is not evidence that he had or even might have had dandruff on June 12 since there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 13 or in the days following the murders.

Cochran's attempt to wear the knit cap that was too big for him in a lit court room had absolutely nothing to do with the reasons Simpson wore that cap on the night of June 12 except for the fact that the cap would hide anyone from knowing what kind of hair he had. Simpson dressed in all dark clothing. dark colored socks, dark colored shoes, dark colored gloves, and a dark colored watch cap for concealment to blend into the dark shadows at night so as not to be noticed after he entered Nicole's property. Just like his character wore in the movie Frogman when conducting night time clandestine operations.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Juanita Moore testified the last time she saw Simpson was on May 23, 1994. I don't recall any evidence that Simpson had dandruff then or on June 12 or the days following the murders.

Simpson most likely wore the dark colored knit cap for the same reason he wore all dark clothing. He dressed just like the character dressed he recently played in the movie Frogman while conducting clandestine missions at night.

The only thing that didn't fit was Cochran's demonstration of putting the knit cap on his head wearing it like a hat in the glaring lights of the court room.

bobaugust

SO you think that oj would not have known how to go to nicoles house at night
to harm her if not for that movie?:shrug:

[martin II]

You seem to be overlooking the fact that Moore saw Simpson on May 23 and never said Simpson had dandruff then. Just because Simpson had dandruff at different times in his life and had treated it himself is not evidence that he had or even might have had dandruff on June 12 since there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 13 or in the days following the murders.

Cochran's attempt to wear the knit cap that was too big for him in a lit court room had absolutely nothing to do with the reasons Simpson wore that cap on the night of June 12 except for the fact that the cap would hide anyone from knowing what kind of hair he had. Simpson dressed in all dark clothing. dark colored socks, dark colored shoes, dark colored gloves, and a dark colored watch cap for concealment to blend into the dark shadows at night so as not to be noticed after he entered Nicole's property. Just like his character wore in the movie Frogman when conducting night time clandestine operations.

bobaugust


For all we know Ron could have had the cap on when he arrived.

[martin II]

There is no instruction that the jury cannot weigh the evidence as they hear it. She showed her sophistication and waited until after she had heard all the evidence, taking seriously her oath, unlike some of the prosecution witnesses. Yes, it is easy for some to laugh at others' mistakes but it is obvious what she said, imho, which is she came up with her conclusion in the jury room during jury deliberations. She again showed her sophistication for the law and dedication to the oath she took.


Some views of a white juror.Criminal trial

Aschenbach, in an ABC telephone interview last week, tearfully explained why she changed her original guilty vote.

Lead detective Philip Vannatter "made misstatements" on the witness stand, she said. Former detective Mark Fuhrman, discredited as a lying racist, cast too much doubt on the most prized evidence - a bloody glove found on Simpson's estate.

"I thought it was possible it was planted," Aschenbach said. "And most of the evidence was DNA evidence and that's what was so shaky."

[William Anthony]

You seem to be overlooking the fact that Moore saw Simpson on May 23 and never said Simpson had dandruff then. Just because Simpson had dandruff at different times in his life and had treated it himself is not evidence that he had or even might have had dandruff on June 12 since there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 13 or in the days following the murders.

Cochran's attempt to wear the knit cap that was too big for him in a lit court room had absolutely nothing to do with the reasons Simpson wore that cap on the night of June 12 except for the fact that the cap would hide anyone from knowing what kind of hair he had. Simpson dressed in all dark clothing. dark colored socks, dark colored shoes, dark colored gloves, and a dark colored watch cap for concealment to blend into the dark shadows at night so as not to be noticed after he entered Nicole's property. Just like his character wore in the movie Frogman when conducting night time clandestine operations.

bobaugust

Whose duty was it to prove that he had no dandruff in his hair on June 12? Answer, the prosecution. Whose duty was it to ask Ms. Moore if Simpson had dandruff on May 23rd? Answer, the prosecution. The prosecution failed to meet its burden when the evidence was shown not to be trustworthy, i.e. reasonable doubt.

There were no dark clothing, except for magical socks, non-fitting gloves and a cap with no dandruff entered into evidence. Whose duty was it to prove that Simpson wore those clothes? Answer, the prosecution. Why would someone as well known as Simpson dress in such a manner on the early night hours of June 12, not knowing who was out and about or who might see him getting into or out of his Bronco, knowing that to be attired in such a fashion, or lack thereof, if you will, would definitely draw attention to himself? Whose duty was it to answer that question? Answer, the prosecution. The prosecution, although I don't think they ever said that, or your theory is that he thought that frogmen dressed in sweat suits, dressed socks and dress shoes when they went to commit murder. :)

[William Anthony]

You seem to be overlooking the fact that Moore saw Simpson on May 23 and never said Simpson had dandruff then. Just because Simpson had dandruff at different times in his life and had treated it himself is not evidence that he had or even might have had dandruff on June 12 since there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 13 or in the days following the murders.

Cochran's attempt to wear the knit cap that was too big for him in a lit court room had absolutely nothing to do with the reasons Simpson wore that cap on the night of June 12 except for the fact that the cap would hide anyone from knowing what kind of hair he had. Simpson dressed in all dark clothing. dark colored socks, dark colored shoes, dark colored gloves, and a dark colored watch cap for concealment to blend into the dark shadows at night so as not to be noticed after he entered Nicole's property. Just like his character wore in the movie Frogman when conducting night time clandestine operations.

bobaugust

What color were the shoes the prosecution entered into evidence?:)

[William Anthony]

Some views of a white juror.Criminal trial

Aschenbach, in an ABC telephone interview last week, tearfully explained why she changed her original guilty vote.

Lead detective Philip Vannatter "made misstatements" on the witness stand, she said. Former detective Mark Fuhrman, discredited as a lying racist, cast too much doubt on the most prized evidence - a bloody glove found on Simpson's estate.

"I thought it was possible it was planted," Aschenbach said. "And most of the evidence was DNA evidence and that's what was so shaky."

She sounds like a gracious and diplomatic person, imho.

[William Anthony]

You seem to be overlooking the fact that Moore saw Simpson on May 23 and never said Simpson had dandruff then. Just because Simpson had dandruff at different times in his life and had treated it himself is not evidence that he had or even might have had dandruff on June 12 since there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 13 or in the days following the murders.

Cochran's attempt to wear the knit cap that was too big for him in a lit court room had absolutely nothing to do with the reasons Simpson wore that cap on the night of June 12 except for the fact that the cap would hide anyone from knowing what kind of hair he had. Simpson dressed in all dark clothing. dark colored socks, dark colored shoes, dark colored gloves, and a dark colored watch cap for concealment to blend into the dark shadows at night so as not to be noticed after he entered Nicole's property. Just like his character wore in the movie Frogman when conducting night time clandestine operations.

bobaugust

If you know, do frogmen cut the throats and pull the tongues through the wounds of those they murder?

[William Anthony]

It might be informative to look at the cross of the prosecution's fiber and hair expert. July 5th.

MR. BAILEY: Did you ask whether or not you could see any samples of clothing belonging to Mr. Simpson that might relate to some of the fibers that you were looking at?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did--I did request samples of fabric, yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Did you ever receive any samples of fabric?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Now, did you similarly request samples of fabric from others who were present in the vicinity of the places where these fibers, for instance, the blue black fibers were found?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did--I did request a number of different possible sources of fiber, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Can you give us an example of the kinds of requests you made for sources of fibers from people other than Mr. Simpson?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I had a number of fibers that were recovered on--in specific items, the gloves, the hat had a lot--a lot of fibers off the knit hat and those were the main items. The fibers off of the victims, I--I had--well, I had a few, but the key items I believe were the two gloves as well as the knit hat. And I made several requests regarding possible clothing. I gave a list of fibers and by color and by type and to see if these would be of value from an investigative standpoint.

MR. BAILEY: Did you receive any example, for instance, of an LAPD uniform?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I didn't."

[martin II]

You seem to be overlooking the fact that Moore saw Simpson on May 23 and never said Simpson had dandruff then. Just because Simpson had dandruff at different times in his life and had treated it himself is not evidence that he had or even might have had dandruff on June 12 since there is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 13 or in the days following the murders.

Cochran's attempt to wear the knit cap that was too big for him in a lit court room had absolutely nothing to do with the reasons Simpson wore that cap on the night of June 12 except for the fact that the cap would hide anyone from knowing what kind of hair he had. Simpson dressed in all dark clothing. dark colored socks, dark colored shoes, dark colored gloves, and a dark colored watch cap for concealment to blend into the dark shadows at night so as not to be noticed after he entered Nicole's property. Just like his character wore in the movie Frogman when conducting night time clandestine operations.

bobaugust

So oj should be convicted of murder because he had or did not have dandruff in his hair on 6/12 or another day before or after that.Makes no sense.

[William Anthony]

It might be informative to look at the cross of the prosecution's fiber and hair expert. July 5th.

MR. BAILEY: Did you ask whether or not you could see any samples of clothing belonging to Mr. Simpson that might relate to some of the fibers that you were looking at?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did--I did request samples of fabric, yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Did you ever receive any samples of fabric?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Now, did you similarly request samples of fabric from others who were present in the vicinity of the places where these fibers, for instance, the blue black fibers were found?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did--I did request a number of different possible sources of fiber, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Can you give us an example of the kinds of requests you made for sources of fibers from people other than Mr. Simpson?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I had a number of fibers that were recovered on--in specific items, the gloves, the hat had a lot--a lot of fibers off the knit hat and those were the main items. The fibers off of the victims, I--I had--well, I had a few, but the key items I believe were the two gloves as well as the knit hat. And I made several requests regarding possible clothing. I gave a list of fibers and by color and by type and to see if these would be of value from an investigative standpoint.

MR. BAILEY: Did you receive any example, for instance, of an LAPD uniform?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I didn't."

MR. BAILEY: Do you know what color they are?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Do you know how many uniformed officers were in and about the scene prior to the time that the victims were removed?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Are you concerned when you were attempting to make comparisons with possible sources of the fibers you're looking at?

MR. DEEDRICK: I thought you were going on with that. I was waiting for the punch line.

MR. BAILEY: No punch.

MR. DEEDRICK: Oh.

MR. BAILEY: No. Are you concerned about sources?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. It's a concern, sure, as you're trying to determine the origin of a particular fiber as to where it may have come from.

MR. BAILEY: If you thought a fiber looked significant and found that a day earlier, someone had thrown a hundred of them in the area, that would have a bearing on any inferences you might draw, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it has a bearing on what value you place on it, sure.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, are you aware of the circumstances that existed as between the two locations involved here, that is Rockingham and Bundy and the people who were common to both?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have some general understanding of that. I know there's some detectives that were at both locations.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. But I'm talking prior to the crime.

MR. DEEDRICK: Oh, no.

MR. BAILEY: Do you know whether or not Mr. Simpson regularly visited the Bundy location?

MR. DEEDRICK: I--I assumed that was a logical, logical thing.

MR. BAILEY: Do you know whether or not Mrs. Simpson visited the Rockingham location?

MR. DEEDRICK: Again, I assumed that that was logical.

MR. BAILEY: Did you know that the children were back and forth a good deal?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. I figured that also.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. Did you know that the vehicle, the Bronco, was used by both?

MR. DEEDRICK: I wasn't sure of that.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Objection. That assumes facts not in evidence. Motion to strike. Ask the jury to be admonish.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAILEY: Did you know that the dogs would go back and forth between the locations?

MR. DEEDRICK: I figured that was a possibility, sure.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And in matters of primary, secondary, tertiary and whatever transfer, the movement of people back and forth between relevant locations is always a possible source for hairs, fibers and other things, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, you can--you can eliminate that possibility, right.

MR. BAILEY: Exactly. Now, do you know the condition of the soil in the vicinity of the place where Ronald Goldman's body was discovered prior to its being placed there by someone in the course of the killing?

MR. DEEDRICK: The soil?

MR. BAILEY: Yeah.

[William Anthony]

MR. DEEDRICK: The soil?

MR. BAILEY: Yeah.

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Did you know that the LAPD collected a sample of that soil?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I didn't know that.

MR. BAILEY: Was it ever submitted to you for examination?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Do you know whether or not it was loaded with hairs, both animal and human?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I wouldn't know what was in it.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Would it be important for you to know in what parts of a property or a home people spent time or animals spent time in trying to assess the significance of hairs and fibers?

MR. DEEDRICK: That--that may be--again, it's a point that the listeners to the results would have--it would have more meaning to them. It would have less significance if you found something that you'd expected to find a lot of stuff there.

MR. BAILEY: What I'm trying to learn is whether or not in this case you made all of those inquiries.

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't know if I made all of the inquiries, but these are obvious questions that came to mind at some point.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, you know that a number of police officers were at both locations sometime after midnight on the 13th of June, 1994?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I'm aware of that.

MR. BAILEY: And that some went back and forth like the detective, Bundy, Rockingham, back to Bundy and so forth?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did you collect any samples of any of the fabrics as to what they were wearing that day while they were performing their duties?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: How about the medical personnel who were on the scene, Mr. Fung, Miss Ratcliffe and others from the Coroner's office?

MR. DEEDRICK: Nothing was submitted.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Well, did you ask, as you did with hairs--I assume that was your request that brought forth the elimination hairs; was it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. Along with the fiber request.

MR. BAILEY: Right.

MR. DEEDRICK: I'm sorry.

MR. BAILEY: Did you ask that the people who were wearing clothes that day, as we assumed all of them were, identify at least the color and fabric that they were wearing?

MR. DEEDRICK: That went hand in hand with the hair request--

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. DEEDRICK: --that it would be--it would be good to get elimination standards of clothing of personnel if there was a question about that.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And how many people was it reported to you were wearing a blue black fiber constructed garment that day?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Incomplete hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Nobody explained anything to me about what they were wearing.

MR. BAILEY: Well, what did you do with the information you received? You say you asked to know what everybody was wearing that day who was on the scene, and I assume you got a response?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't believe I asked them what everybody was wearing. I indicated that it might be useful information to know if we have certain fiber types if there's a question about their possibly originating from a police officer or detective or whoever else might have been there, and that request went out.

MR. BAILEY: And what response did you receive?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I got elimination hair standards at a later date.

MR. BAILEY: I understand that. And you've talked about that. I'm asking you, what response did you receive to the question who was wearing what who was at the crime scene?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I don't recall any specific response.

MR. BAILEY: You didn't get a response, did you?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. Like I said, the only thing I got were the hair samples.

MR. BAILEY: You haven't the vaguest idea to this day whether 1, 10 or 30 people were wearing dark cotton clothing around that crime scene, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I--I don't know.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Did you inquire as to whether or not samples had been taken from either of the homes inside the homes?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. Well, I don't believe I recall ever asking for samples except for perhaps from carpet samples.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. DEEDRICK: But as far as other furnishings or clothing, no.

MR. BAILEY: How about the clothing inside Mrs. Simpson's home? Did you ask to examine any of that, particularly any that might be dark blue or blue black?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Did you receive a single garment from anyone for examination and comparison?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I did not receive any fabrics from anybody or anyplace to try to account for the blue black fibers you're referring to.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Let's talk for a minute about the knit cap. Have you been made privy to the fact that a second knit cap was discovered?

MR. DEEDRICK: I had a number of caps submitted. I'm not sure which one--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Misstates--

THE COURT: Sustained. Assumes facts that are in evidence.

MR. BAILEY: I'm sorry, your Honor?

THE COURT: Assumes facts that are not in evidence.

MR. BAILEY: Your Honor--15874, your Honor.

THE COURT: Excuse me. I stand corrected. One of the detectives who testified to that.

MR. BAILEY: Page 15874.

THE COURT: I had to recollect four months back.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

THE COURT: It took me five seconds to remember. Thank you.

MR. BAILEY: Were you informed that a Defense investigator in the company of a lead detective in this case discovered in a closet on the second floor of the Bundy residence a knit cap similar in appearance to the one found near the body of Ronald Goldman?

MS. CLARK: Objection. "Similar appearance" misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. I don't know if I received that particular cap or not. I did receive some additional caps at a later date. But if that's one of them, I wouldn't know.

MR. BAILEY: Well, if I tell you that the detective refused to book it, would you assume that you never received it?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that's a good assumption.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAILEY: If you had examined that cap and found the hair compatible with or could have come from Mr. Simpson in the hat, would that have been of any significance?

MR. DEEDRICK: I'm not sure how other than maybe left his hat in the house at one point in time.

MR. BAILEY: Would you have reported the fact that you found a similar cap with hairs similar to Mr. Simpson or could have come from located in the house of his ex-wife and children?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I would have reported that.

[William Anthony]

Should I add to the assessment that the prosecution's expert received no clothing to relate the blue black fibers found to Simpson's clothes, because we (the prosecution) believed it was not necessary, because we believed Simpson did it? Should I add that, although the expert asked for fibers from the police clothing and members of the coroner's office to eliminate the possibility that they could have been the source of the fibers, we did not provide them, because we believed it was not necessary, because we believe Simpson did it.

[William Anthony]

So oj should be convicted of murder because he had or did not have dandruff in his hair on 6/12 or another day before or after that.Makes no sense.

I agree. The testimony of his barber and hairdresser for 16 years was that he had dandruff, more in the off season-months other than September, October, November, December and January, and there should have been some in the cap but there was none or no evidence of any dandruff in the cap or hair alleged to be Simpson's on the night of June 12th. Reasonable doubt, imho. This seems to be the prosecution's strategy. We have pictures of him wearing shoes and a sweat suit similar to the ones we say he wore to commit the murders, although we do not have any shoes or sweat suit. No shoes, no sweat suit, and no dandruff and no case.

[William Anthony]

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I would have reported that.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, I think you said on Thursday, if I recollect correctly, in the first part of your testimony, that you had examined some 500,000 hairs over the course of your career.

MR. DEEDRICK: I'm not sure if it was examinations or--I probably have. I probably have.

MR. BAILEY: Well, do you recall that testimony or not?

MR. DEEDRICK: I do recall the words "Half a million." I don't recall if it was hairs or hairs and fibers or examinations or--but I think I've at least seen that many hairs.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Half a million was in fact the words you yourself used.

MR. DEEDRICK: I recall those vividly, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And you meant for that to include the total 17 years that you've been devoting to this specialty. Does that include the year that you were sort of an intern?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, I take it with this many examinations or views of substances in your background, that it is not feasible to individually recall each experience to the point of being able to differentiate.

MR. DEEDRICK: No. You can't do that.

MR. BAILEY: For instance, if I were to ask you about evidence in one of the cases in which you've testified, you might or might not be able to remember what the objects look like, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: And in cases that were of little moment, you probably would not, true?

MR. DEEDRICK: I probably wouldn't.

MR. BAILEY: And because of that, when you examine something through the comparison microscope, the only basis upon which you have formed opinions in the past, you make notes of what you see; do you not?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: And that is because if someone should later challenge the correctness of your comparison, you will be able to give detail somewhat like the lists that we viewed earlier to back up the opinion that you have reached, whether it be exclusion or inclusion?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. That's not what I do.

MR. BAILEY: You don't? Well, if you don't make notes as to what characteristics there are in a questioned and known sample, how are you able to tell later on which characteristics seem sufficiently similar or dissimilar to you to reach a conclusion?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, you do it at the moment when you--

MR. BAILEY: You do it at the moment?

MR. DEEDRICK: When you do your comparisons, right. The conclusions that I draw regarding whether or not a hair looks like another hair in a known standard, there are visual observations and some brief notes will be made regarding the hair, a brown Caucasian head hair. I may describe the roots. I may describe the length. I may describe the color or other characteristics, and I'll just put "Like K1," and that means to me that I compared all the characteristics that I felt were important and reached that conclusion.

MR. BAILEY: Is it the case then, Mr. Deedrick, that as to any of the individual comparisons about which you've testified in this case, you are unable to reconstruct what individual similarities led you to your opinion?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. I couldn't do that from the notes.

MR. BAILEY: But isn't that, sir, very much like, "I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it"?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, again, I don't--I don't know if it's quite the same, but the characteristics are compared visually. The conclusions are reached based on that observation. The notes are there just as reminders, that is all, and the notes are not intended to be the basis for a conclusion.

MR. BAILEY: The notes that you write are not the basis for your conclusion?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they're not--I mean in terms of--I mean obviously I put a draw a conclusion, I put in it my notes like K1. That's the conclusion I reached. But the notes themselves are not the basis. I couldn't have somebody look at the notes and say, oh, yeah, that hair looks like that hair. They couldn't do that.

MR. BAILEY: Well, now, Mr. Deedrick, examiners occasionally disagree on similarities and differences; do they not?

MR. DEEDRICK: They could and they do, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And whether or not they are sufficiently significant to warrant reaching conclusion a versus b?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. Examiners may differ in their opinions.

MR. BAILEY: And when two examiners come to different conclusions in a lawsuit of this sort, somebody has to decide which one has used the better procedure. The more reliable procedure is the more credible, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, someone might have to, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Yes. And not having any individual notes as to what you were seeing in the microscope, but taking the position, "I made a judgment then even though I can't reconstruct it," is a wonderful Defense for cross-examination; is it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that's--I'm not really sure I understand what you mean by that.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. If you had a listed criteria for each comparison you made, that is to say, you found a trace medulla in both samples, you found similarly shaped and placed ovoid bodies, you found similar clumping of the pigment all located on one side of the hair as opposed to around the inner diameter of the cuticle and you found that certain twists or bends or buckles were in the hair, that would give another expert an opportunity to decide whether your application of those criteria of similarity or distinction were done correctly and professionally; would it not?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. I don't think so. Again, that's just a matter of procedure and how one goes about this process of comparing hairs. If another examiner is going to look at the same hairs and reach a conclusion, they can write down whatever they want. If they want to use a chart, if they want to use a graph, if they want to draw a picture of it or take a million photographs, it really doesn't matter. They have to decide for themselves if it could have come from the source or is it different. That's their opinion and they have to base it on what they know and from their experience. The conclusions I reached are based on my experience, my observations at the time I conducted the examination. I think it's improper to go about trying to compare notes.

MR. BAILEY: Well, Mr. Deedrick, you are unable, I take it, except as these notes may disclose in an individual comparison to reconstruct what it is you were looking at that persuaded you to arrive at a judgment, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I can refer to the known standards, describe those from the notes. The questioned hairs that I found correspond in many respects, if not all, to the known--the notes prepared from the known standard. So I find it duplicity in going through--I could write them down. I could write all the characteristics and I could make sure that all the notes corresponded perfectly just so I could avoid this bantering on whether or not they exhibit the same characteristics. But that's not what I do. I reach conclusions based on my observations. The notes are just to help me along as I go through my exam.

MR. BAILEY: All right. You did make some notes; did you not?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MR. BAILEY: Tell me about your habits in making notes. Do you date them, put them in any particular order?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I don't date them.

MR. BAILEY: Can we tell from your notes when you claim you made certain observations through the microscope?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Can we tell from your notes how long you spent looking at a particular comparison?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MR. BAILEY: Can we tell from your notes what it was you thought you saw that entitled you to make a comparison or the lack thereof or a distinction?

MR. DEEDRICK: Probably not.

[William Anthony]

MR. BAILEY: All right. Well, why do you keep any notes?

MR. DEEDRICK: I'm sorry?

MR. BAILEY: Why do you keep any notes? What do you need them for?

MR. DEEDRICK: Just to refresh my memory if I have to go testify or at least comment on the case at a later date for some reason.

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Deedrick, was there ever the slightest doubt in your mind that you would wind up on the witness stand in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Not after the first couple slides. I realized I'd be here.

MR. BAILEY: Yes. And did you not note the fact that this is probably the most widely publicized case that you've ever been involved in.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Oh, sure. I think we all agree on that.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And did you not realize as you made your notes that the world might one day look at what you had done and how you had done it?

MR. DEEDRICK: I wasn't--

MS. CLARK: Objection. That's argumentative.

THE COURT: That's irrelevant.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. In any event, preparatory to turning to those notes, Mr. Deedrick, you turned handwritten notes to the Defense through the discovery process; did you not?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MR. BAILEY: The Defense had those typed up and submitted to you for any corrections or omissions or little hand scratches that couldn't be deciphered?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: You were kind enough to edit them and returned them?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, sir.

MR. BAILEY: They were corrected and returned to you?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: And this morning, you have given them back to me with just a few corrections, right?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Tonight, would you be kind enough to go over those notes so that we don't get bogged down. There are a few questions I have about the manner in which they were made and to be disclosed.

MR. DEEDRICK: Be glad to.

[William Anthony]

I think from the testimony posted above we can place Lee's testimony in context. It is obvious that Lee could not verify the alleged hair expert's opinion, because the expert kept no notes of the characteristics he considered that were similar. That explains why Lee said he could not say whether or not the expert was correct and why he said he believed him. Lee was saying that he did not think that the expert would lie, even though the expert could have been wrong. In other words, Lee believed the expert believed his conclusion that the hair was consistent with Simpson's, although Lee had no way of verifying the expert's results because the expert kept no notes on the hair characteristics he claimed to have seen.

[William Anthony]

July 6

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Deedrick, I want to ask you, with respect to certain items that have been referred to in your testimony, whether these assertions are acceptable, from your point of view, in other words, whether or not you find them to be true. First of all, as to hair found in the Bronco, would you agree that no hair consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Would you also agree that no hair consistent with Ronald Goldman was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. With respect to fiber in the Bronco, would you agree that no fiber consistent with either glove was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Would you agree that no fiber consistent with Goldman's clothes was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: As to both gloves--I'm sorry--and that no fiber consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson's clothes was found in the Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: With respect to both gloves, would you agree that no hair consistent with O.J. Simpson, as you have used that term "Consistent," was on the Bundy glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And quite apart from the unidentified hairs, one limb, one fragment I think that you thought were from an African American, is it not also true that no hair consistent with O.J. Simpson was found on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: As to the socks that you examined, would you agree that no hair consistent with Ronald Goldman was found on the sock?

MR. DEEDRICK: I would.

MR. BAILEY: And that no hair consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson was found on the sock?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: As to fiber with respect to your examination of the sock, would you agree that there is no fiber consistent with either glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: I would, yes.

MR. BAILEY: No fiber consistent with Goldman's clothes?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: And no fiber consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson's clothes?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: Would you also agree that the fact that 35 hairs with roots were found on Ronald Goldman's shirt area--I believe, that is where the bulk of them were located?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: --strongly suggest to you that those hairs were pulled out by an attacker before he attacked Goldman and that the directionality goes from Nicole Brown Simpson to Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: It appears from that evidence, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Would you also agree that you found in the hairs in the hat what appeared to be an indication of dandruff on the cuticle?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. There was dandruff in the known hairs.

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

MR. DEEDRICK: In the known sample.

MR. BAILEY: I'm sorry, in the known sample?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Is it not true that you found no indication of dandruff in the knit hat?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MR. BAILEY: Or on any of the hairs that you have said could have come from O.J. Simpson?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right. That's correct.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

[William Anthony]

Old 06-05-2008, 09:14 AM
Joseph Bell Joseph Bell
Member

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 75
Hairs CONSISTENT with Simpson found on the carpet at Bundy residence. Hairs CONSISTENT with Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.
Reply With Quote

Still want to talk about hair? Let's talk about what consistent means and why the expert kept no notes. Let's talk apology.

[martin II]

I think from the testimony posted above we can place Lee's testimony in context. It is obvious that Lee could not verify the alleged hair expert's opinion, because the expert kept no notes of the characteristics he considered that were similar. That explains why Lee said he could not say whether or not the expert was correct and why he said he believed him. Lee was saying that he did not think that the expert would lie, even though the expert could have been wrong. In other words, Lee believed the expert believed his conclusion that the hair was consistent with Simpson's, although Lee had no way of verifying the expert's results because the expert kept no notes on the hair characteristics he claimed to have seen.

What i have found about Dr. lee when he testifies is that he usually does not attack another 'EXPERTS' opinions unless all the details are presented and he dissagrees.When those details are not present or presented he usually gives a response like i cannot say because the details are not present. or it could be that way or it couls be another way. It is like he is not agreeing but leaving it up to the listner to decide if the 'EXPERTS' examination was accurate and complete.
DrLee is very detailed in his examination as opposed to what this 'EXPERT' did.

[martin II]

Old 06-05-2008, 09:14 AM
Joseph Bell Joseph Bell
Member

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 75
Hairs CONSISTENT with Simpson found on the carpet at Bundy residence. Hairs CONSISTENT with Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.
Reply With Quote

Still want to talk about hair? Let's talk about what consistent means and why the expert kept no notes. Let's talk apology.

Well we know that that claim by a poster was not true.
What i don't understand is that this FBI 'EXPERT' says he did this detail examination of the hairs and did not make detail notes of his examination.
He is unable to prove the points of his examination to any other 'EXPERT' in court and we are left with him suggesting that we believe his comparisons were accurate because he says they were.This is nonsense unless he had a motive not to make notes that could be examined.That is what Martz did when he deleted his detail notes.
Why he did not request or receive samples of all the cops dark blue clothing
worn by le at bundy is not a way to conduct a professional investigation of those items.So i reject his claims for myself.:cool:

[martin II]

Let's talk hair evidence. Hairs CONSISTENT with Simpson found on the carpet at Bundy residence. Hairs CONSISTENT with Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

Was there testinmony given to support these claims?

[martin II]

I will make a assumption and say maby the jury members were listening to Deedrick say he made no detail notes of his hair 'investigation" and did not examine any of the fibers worn by le at bundy, and ask myself or Deedrick
where is the beef in this hamburger you are trying to sell us. Without the beef it is just a piece of bread with lettuce and tomato and i ain't buying it.imo

[martin II]

Let's talk shoe evidence. Shoe prints were found at Bundy from Size 12 Bruno Maghli shoes. Simpson wore Size 12 shoes. There are photos of Simpson wearing Size 12 Bruno Maghli shoes.

Are you sure that someone testified to the SIZE of the shoes oj was shown wearing in the pictures at the football game?

[William Anthony]

I will make a assumption and say maby the jury members were listening to Deedrick say he made no detail notes of his hair 'investigation" and did not examine any of the fibers worn by le at bundy, and ask myself or Deedrick
where is the beef in this hamburger you are trying to sell us. Without the beef it is just a piece of bread with lettuce and tomato and i ain't buying it.imo

Sounds very much like the type of hamburger Martz tried to sell, imho.

[martin II]

Let's talk fibre evidence. Cotton fibres CONSISTENT with the carpet in the Bronco were found on the glove at Rockingham. Fibres CONSISTENT with the carpet in the Bronco were found on the cap at the Bundy residence.

Joseph Bell
Was the Bronco carpet made of cotton or sythentic fibers?
How would the fibers from the bronco floor get transfered to the cap at Bundy?

[martin II]

Sounds very much like the type of hamburger Martz tried to sell, imho.

It sound like these FBI guys offer the idea that we are the FBI and you must believe what we say even when we do not give details of how we make conclusions. Bailey outed Deedrick on that issue.:cool:

[martin II]

Sounds very much like the type of hamburger Martz tried to sell, imho.

The quality of a hamburger is determined by the grade of beef used.In this case Deedrick did not include beef in his presentation.Detail notes. He, in my opinion was telling the jury, while there may not be any beef you can taste or see, it is there.imo

[martin II]

Joseph Bell.

I believe the bronco carpet fibers were rayon/vinyl not cotton

[martin II]

I believe DRRDRICK had said the carpert was very rare, but the defense uncovered a report stating otherwise. Clark had witheld this report from the defense.

Because of a ruling last week by Judge Lance A. Ito, the witness, Douglas Deedrick, a specialist from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's division on hair and trace evidence, was not permitted to say just how distinctive the fibers are: that they appear almost nowhere, only in a limited number of Broncos made in late 1993 and 1994. Those Broncos include Mr. Simpson's, which prosecutors say he drove to the scene of the murders with which he is charged and then back home.





carpet fibers matching samples taken from Simpson's 1994 Bronco found inside cap and on glove at Simpson's - such carpet was installed in 72,000 Ford Broncos, vans and trucks made after May 1993; Goldman's shirt had hair fragment that could have been Simpson's and cashmere strands that could

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns172.htm

[martin II]

Whose duty was it to prove that he had no dandruff in his hair on June 12? Answer, the prosecution. Whose duty was it to ask Ms. Moore if Simpson had dandruff on May 23rd? Answer, the prosecution. The prosecution failed to meet its burden when the evidence was shown not to be trustworthy, i.e. reasonable doubt.

There were no dark clothing, except for magical socks, non-fitting gloves and a cap with no dandruff entered into evidence. Whose duty was it to prove that Simpson wore those clothes? Answer, the prosecution. Why would someone as well known as Simpson dress in such a manner on the early night hours of June 12, not knowing who was out and about or who might see him getting into or out of his Bronco, knowing that to be attired in such a fashion, or lack thereof, if you will, would definitely draw attention to himself? Whose duty was it to answer that question? Answer, the prosecution. The prosecution, although I don't think they ever said that, or your theory is that he thought that frogmen dressed in sweat suits, dressed socks and dress shoes when they went to commit murder. :)


when the prosecution is unable to prove their clains some believe it is the defenses responsibility to prove something. i have wondered where this concept comes from. Not from the cjs that is for sure.imo

[martin II]

Although there was no dandruff found in the hair on the knit cap that we allege belong to Simpson and he had dandruff every summer, we believe the hair was Simpson's, because we believe the fibers that were consistent with the carpet in Simpson's Bronco were found in the Cap and, although you will hear evidence that this fiber is consistent with carpet in other vehicles, we believe it only came from Simpson's Bronco, because we believe Simpson did it. We know that you heard evidence that the detective, who lied on the stand which was shown by direct evidence, and, who was a racist, which we conceded, and you heard evidence that this detective harbored hatred for interracial couples denied saying he was in the Bronco, much like he lied about using the n word, but there is evidence he did say he was in the Bronco and this detective traveled in between the crime scenes moving evidence and you will hear evidence of how easily trace such as the fibers is transferable, we believe that you should not draw any reasonable inference from the above evidence other than the cap and the fibers came from Simpson's property and was deposited there at the time of the murders or that the cap could have been left with his kids or wife in the winter, when he would have had no dandruff, because we believe Simpson did it.

I would be happy to add this to the assessment, if you like.


william
your running explanation of issues the prosecution had hoped the jury would accept has been nothing less that brillent. They prersented so much 'SWISS CHEESE' type testimony that some may have been fooled but your presentation shines light on what was claimed and how it was never proved in that criminal court. Thanks for your efforts to inform the community.
:beer: :beer: :beer:

[William Anthony]

when the prosecution is unable to prove their clains some believe it is the defenses responsibility to prove something. i have wondered where this concept comes from. Not from the cjs that is for sure.imo

It comes from watching too many tv shows with the fragmented, frayed, fibers of fertile, fictional, fantastic fabrications, imho.

[William Anthony]

I believe DRRDRICK had said the carpert was very rare, but the defense uncovered a report stating otherwise. Clark had witheld this report from the defense.

Because of a ruling last week by Judge Lance A. Ito, the witness, Douglas Deedrick, a specialist from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's division on hair and trace evidence, was not permitted to say just how distinctive the fibers are: that they appear almost nowhere, only in a limited number of Broncos made in late 1993 and 1994. Those Broncos include Mr. Simpson's, which prosecutors say he drove to the scene of the murders with which he is charged and then back home.


carpet fibers matching samples taken from Simpson's 1994 Bronco found inside cap and on glove at Simpson's - such carpet was installed in 72,000 Ford Broncos, vans and trucks made after May 1993; Goldman's shirt had hair fragment that could have been Simpson's and cashmere strands that could

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns172.htm

Thank you for the unbiased link and information, imho.

[William Anthony]

william
your running explanation of issues the prosecution had hoped the jury would accept has been nothing less that brillent. They prersented so much 'SWISS CHEESE' type testimony that some may have been fooled but your presentation shines light on what was claimed and how it was never proved in that criminal court. Thanks for your efforts to inform the community.
:beer: :beer: :beer:

Thank you Martin. The sad part is that some believe they proved their case, as the prosecution claimed but, I believe, Darden's tears let the world know they knew they had not proved it. Didn't he say something about we let the families down?

[William Anthony]

The saddest part of this is that two people lay brutally murdered and the trial tore asunder, families, children and brought to America's forefront the racial divide in America. Whether or not either verdict was right or wrong, justice, in the legal context, has been served, yet in continues to be stated that this was an injustice. People want to blame others for the criminal verdict but do not want to blame anyone for the civil verdict. Imho, both verdicts were based on the skill of the lawyers to get evidence they wanted admitted or excluded and the ruling of the respective judges. For some, the criminal jury will forever bare the blame for the outcome of the criminal case while the civil jury will be praised, while the opposite will be true for some others. In the meantime, there is much bitterness, loss and hatred, imho, among some of the survivors of the two people who lay brutally slain. I do not think that any healing can come for those, unless they realize that both juries rendered verdicts on the evidence they were allowed to consider, as presented by the lawyers. I now appreciate the paramount value of motions in limine and the art of persuasion. Perhaps, the greatest benefit from discussing this case is the fact that members of the public will be informed as to what a trial really is and the value of healing and, in that context, some greater purpose will be achieved from the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. May God bless all those who are suffering and bring peace into their lives.

[martin II]

The saddest part of this is that two people lay brutally murdered and the trial tore asunder, families, children and brought to America's forefront the racial divide in America. Whether or not either verdict was right or wrong, justice, in the legal context, has been served, yet in continues to be stated that this was an injustice. People want to blame others for the criminal verdict but do not want to blame anyone for the civil verdict. Imho, both verdicts were based on the skill of the lawyers to get evidence they wanted admitted or excluded and the ruling of the respective judges. For some, the criminal jury will forever bare the blame for the outcome of the criminal case while the civil jury will be praised, while the opposite will be true for some others. In the meantime, there is much bitterness, loss and hatred, imho, among some of the survivors of the two people who lay brutally slain. I do not think that any healing can come for those, unless they realize that both juries rendered verdicts on the evidence they were allowed to consider, as presented by the lawyers. I now appreciate the paramount value of motions in limine and the art of persuasion. Perhaps, the greatest benefit from discussing this case is the fact that members of the public will be informed as to what a trial really is and the value of healing and, in that context, some greater purpose will be achieved from the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. May God bless all those who are suffering and bring peace into their lives.

Very true and well said.

[William Anthony]

Very true and well said.

It may be an unfortunate occurrence but in balancing the right of society against the right of an individual to be free from incarceration the state must be held to its burden of proof and to do otherwise would set a dangerous precedent, imho. I truly believe that California did not come close to meeting its burden in the case of California v. Orenthal James Simpson.

[martin II]

Some comments on the criminal trial.Media etc

My point, for this paper, however, is that in all of the events involving black men, cultural common senses transformed the men into racialised and sexualised beings who were also criminalised, a transformation that was both reflected, and perhaps created, by the media reports of the events'

For example, the media presented O.J. Simpson as a "black man out of control" (Fiske, 1996, p. 256). While whiteness, culturally, is usually unmarked, in the instance of the trial of O.J. Simpson for murder, the whiteness of the victims was very apparent through the social representations deployed by the media. What happened was that the media had the whiteness of the victims at the forefront of the reporting of the case -- not through direct comments but through reference to their pictures, their families, - while underplaying the racism of another key white person - the racist detective Mark Fuhrman. At the same time, the media reports described the murders as "rage killings", that Simpson was a "burning fuse" and that "justice (for which read brutally killed white victims) was crying out".(NYT 28th September" Excerpts From Closing Charges Against O.J. Simpson).

The prosecutors also participated in reproducing this image of Simpson. For example, the prosecution team, led by a white woman, drew upon prevailing cultural common senses about black men as emotional and uncontrolled people, while simultaneously dismissing the incontrovertible fact of police misconduct by arguing that "Everybody knows he killed - everybody knows. The evidence is there" (Darden 1995, NYT30th September "Excerpts From Final Rebuttal Arguments by Prosecution").

My examination of the Closing Statements of this trial from which the quote in the title of this talk comes - it was said by Johnnie Cochrane, the lead defence lawyer - led me also to see that the issues highlighted by the prosecution and the defence in these statements seemed to differ in both content and style. . .

The prosecution stressed Nicole brown's domestic abuse at the hand of Mr. Simpson, the DNA evidence in a rather protracted and tedious manner, the brutality of the killings, and closed by stating that if he had beaten her, he was also capable of murdering her. While the prosecution did mention police misconduct and the racism of Mark Fuhrman, they did so only to argue that these issues were peripheral to the main DNA evidence, which they claimed proved that O.J. Simpson was the murderer. In reading those Closing Statements, one is rather struck by how much emotion the prosecution used to assert that he was the murderer. While the style of presentation was, at times, rather dry, tedious and ponderous, the content of their Closing Statements amounted to a demand for the jury to act in good faith towards the prosecution - namely, that they would never have taken this case on if they had not known he was the murderer, and inconsistencies in much of the evidence were not relevant to this central fact.

In contrast, and despite press reports to the contrary, the Defence Closing Statements focused on the evidence, and the inconsistencies within it. They explained the idea of "reasonable doubt", and linked this to the credibility of Mark Fuhrman - the racist detective who had been involved at the time of O.J. Simpson's arrest. This legal team also emphasised inconsistencies in key pieces of evidence such as the time line of the events around the murder, the glove not fitting Simpson despite it being a key element in the prosecution's case, and they also spent time in commiserating with the jury about their prolonged sequestration. In sum, although the style of speaking was rather flamboyant at times - "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit" - the Defence Closing Statements worked through all the evidentiary material, and claimed it showed there was more than a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the murderer. In other words, it was the Defence team who took the jury through step by step over the evidence, and showed the flaws in the prosecution's case.

In the LA Times and the New York Times, journalists argued the trial was about domestic abuse, police misconduct, judicial reform by bringing up the role of wealth in obtaining justice (not something that was done in the instance of WKS) and the need for non-unanimous jury verdicts, and victim's rights - that is discourses that were similar to those of the prosecution - and made almost no mention of racism.

http://www.criticalmethods.org/bodone.htm

[William Anthony]

Some comments on the criminal trial.Media etc

My point, for this paper, however, is that in all of the events involving black men, cultural common senses transformed the men into racialised and sexualised beings who were also criminalised, a transformation that was both reflected, and perhaps created, by the media reports of the events'

For example, the media presented O.J. Simpson as a "black man out of control" (Fiske, 1996, p. 256). While whiteness, culturally, is usually unmarked, in the instance of the trial of O.J. Simpson for murder, the whiteness of the victims was very apparent through the social representations deployed by the media. What happened was that the media had the whiteness of the victims at the forefront of the reporting of the case -- not through direct comments but through reference to their pictures, their families, - while underplaying the racism of another key white person - the racist detective Mark Fuhrman. At the same time, the media reports described the murders as "rage killings", that Simpson was a "burning fuse" and that "justice (for which read brutally killed white victims) was crying out".(NYT 28th September" Excerpts From Closing Charges Against O.J. Simpson).

The prosecutors also participated in reproducing this image of Simpson. For example, the prosecution team, led by a white woman, drew upon prevailing cultural common senses about black men as emotional and uncontrolled people, while simultaneously dismissing the incontrovertible fact of police misconduct by arguing that "Everybody knows he killed - everybody knows. The evidence is there" (Darden 1995, NYT30th September "Excerpts From Final Rebuttal Arguments by Prosecution").

My examination of the Closing Statements of this trial from which the quote in the title of this talk comes - it was said by Johnnie Cochrane, the lead defence lawyer - led me also to see that the issues highlighted by the prosecution and the defence in these statements seemed to differ in both content and style. . .

The prosecution stressed Nicole brown's domestic abuse at the hand of Mr. Simpson, the DNA evidence in a rather protracted and tedious manner, the brutality of the killings, and closed by stating that if he had beaten her, he was also capable of murdering her. While the prosecution did mention police misconduct and the racism of Mark Fuhrman, they did so only to argue that these issues were peripheral to the main DNA evidence, which they claimed proved that O.J. Simpson was the murderer. In reading those Closing Statements, one is rather struck by how much emotion the prosecution used to assert that he was the murderer. While the style of presentation was, at times, rather dry, tedious and ponderous, the content of their Closing Statements amounted to a demand for the jury to act in good faith towards the prosecution - namely, that they would never have taken this case on if they had not known he was the murderer, and inconsistencies in much of the evidence were not relevant to this central fact.

In contrast, and despite press reports to the contrary, the Defence Closing Statements focused on the evidence, and the inconsistencies within it. They explained the idea of "reasonable doubt", and linked this to the credibility of Mark Fuhrman - the racist detective who had been involved at the time of O.J. Simpson's arrest. This legal team also emphasised inconsistencies in key pieces of evidence such as the time line of the events around the murder, the glove not fitting Simpson despite it being a key element in the prosecution's case, and they also spent time in commiserating with the jury about their prolonged sequestration. In sum, although the style of speaking was rather flamboyant at times - "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit" - the Defence Closing Statements worked through all the evidentiary material, and claimed it showed there was more than a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the murderer. In other words, it was the Defence team who took the jury through step by step over the evidence, and showed the flaws in the prosecution's case.

In the LA Times and the New York Times, journalists argued the trial was about domestic abuse, police misconduct, judicial reform by bringing up the role of wealth in obtaining justice (not something that was done in the instance of WKS) and the need for non-unanimous jury verdicts, and victim's rights - that is discourses that were similar to those of the prosecution - and made almost no mention of racism.

http://www.criticalmethods.org/bodone.htm

An excellent and most informative post on the issues in the trial and what I have called the tip-toeing around racism or, if you will, the covert ways racism played a part in the trial.

[martin II]

An excellent and most informative post on the issues in the trial and what I have called the tip-toeing around racism or, if you will, the covert ways racism played a part in the trial.

It also points out the brilliance of Cochran of talking to the jury about what was important.Telling the jury what the case was about instead of emotional
race issues.imo

[William Anthony]

It also points out the brilliance of Cochran of talking to the jury about what was important.Telling the jury what the case was about instead of emotional
race issues.imo

Careful Martin, you are coming close to becoming a lawyer, imho:) .

[fgump2]

I believe that the evidence I listed was enough to assume probable guilt, but not enough for legal guilt in a criminal trial. Couldn't vote for legal guilt on the basis of the evidence I listed. I would like to raise some questions that you sort of brought up. You seem to think that the prosecution had some obligation to find the clothes that the killer wore to convict him. My guess is that the prisons are full of people who were convicted without the availability of the clothes or shoes they commited a felony with. I am also guessing that it is rare for an accused to beat the rap with proof of his blood at the killing scene, and the victems blood in his car.

[William Anthony]

I believe that the evidence I listed was enough to assume probable guilt, but not enough for legal guilt in a criminal trial. Couldn't vote for legal guilt on the basis of the evidence I listed. I would like to raise some questions that you sort of brought up. You seem to think that the prosecution had some obligation to find the clothes that the killer wore to convict him. My guess is that the prisons are full of people who were convicted without the availability of the clothes or shoes they commited a felony with. I am also guessing that it is rare for an accused to beat the rap with proof of his blood at the killing scene, and the victems blood in his car.

I believe that two say that a person was wearing a particular type of clothing and then to not be able or to submit any type of clothing similar to those you allege he was wearing after your expert requests them raises reasonable doubt. I do not know how many others had the caliber of lawyers as the dream team and may have been convicted due to the caliber of their lawyers. I do not know how rare it is that people beat the rap when blood alleged to be theirs is found at a crime scene, taking into account that the person visited the crime scene, playing with the pet dog and his children. I do not know how often a person beats the rap when there is evidence of a detective, who is a genocidal speaking individual, as supported by the evidence, a perjurer, as supported by the evidence, admitted to planting evidence as supported by the evidence, racist, as conceded by the prosecution, and hated interracial couples and would make up reasons to harass them, as supported by the evidence, who allegedly found a glove that appeared to be wet with blood and no blood was found near that location, and the gloves did not fit, and the detective had a slip of the tongue and said he saw blood in the vehicle but then tried to deny saying he said that. I don't know how rare it would be to have an acquittal under those circumstances.

[fgump2]

Moral values vary from one person to another. VB said that he declined to defend Jeff Macdonald because he thought Jeff Macdonald was guilty. It is quite odd the defense, not just Cochran, to talk about the LA police force framing people, and the blue wall of silence being substantial than the great wall of China, and then show no interest in either showing proof of this, or in investigating.
None of the defense team showed any interest in trying to investigate any prior sins of MF, Lange, Vanneter, or Fung, (names possible misspelled). Law students have investigated past crimes at a low cost. I guess they didn't want to investigate it because they didn't want to discover that there wasn't much there. To talk and write about what terrible attitudes MF had and then show no interest in finding out if he had sent innocent minorities to prison, is odd. To also show no interest in why the number of complaints filed against him was only four, about average, is also strange. Am I supposed to think that the average LA police man is a neo nazi? MF worked in South Central LA for several years. I am pretty sure he had less than one complaint per year filed against him there. To talk and write about what a terrible thing the blue wall of silence is, and then to not want to investigate it, is also strange. It would be like a doctor saying horrifying things about some virus, and then not recommending that NIH, or someone, do research on it.
I think the blue wall of silence is real, but not substantial enough to cause policemen to frame OJS. It is sort of like the wall of silence among doctors. Most doctors are reluctant to testify against a doctor about medical carelessness; but there have been plenty of cases of doctors testifying against other doctors, the medical wall of silence is a real and unfortunate barrier, but not penetrable.
I found it morally repugnant that the defense, B. Scheck woud accuse Mr. Fung of evidence tampering, and of doing it because he was a coward afraid of his boss, and tScheck never showed a shred of evidence of this. If he had any evidence of this, he should have shown it; if he (Scheck) didn't, he shouldn't drag other people's name through the mud.

[martin II]

Moral values vary from one person to another. VB said that he declined to defend Jeff Macdonald because he thought Jeff Macdonald was guilty. It is quite odd the defense, not just Cochran, to talk about the LA police force framing people, and the blue wall of silence being substantial than the great wall of China, and then show no interest in either showing proof of this, or in investigating.
None of the defense team showed any interest in trying to investigate any prior sins of MF, Lange, Vanneter, or Fung, (names possible misspelled). Law students have investigated past crimes at a low cost. I guess they didn't want to investigate it because they didn't want to discover that there wasn't much there. To talk and write about what terrible attitudes MF had and then show no interest in finding out if he had sent innocent minorities to prison, is odd. To also show no interest in why the number of complaints filed against him was only four, about average, is also strange. Am I supposed to think that the average LA police man is a neo nazi? MF worked in South Central LA for several years. I am pretty sure he had less than one complaint per year filed against him there. To talk and write about what a terrible thing the blue wall of silence is, and then to not want to investigate it, is also strange. It would be like a doctor saying horrifying things about some virus, and then not recommending that NIH, or someone, do research on it.
I think the blue wall of silence is real, but not substantial enough to cause policemen to frame OJS. It is sort of like the wall of silence among doctors. Most doctors are reluctant to testify against a doctor about medical carelessness; but there have been plenty of cases of doctors testifying against other doctors, the medical wall of silence is a real and unfortunate barrier, but not penetrable.
I found it morally repugnant that the defense, B. Scheck woud accuse Mr. Fung of evidence tampering, and of doing it because he was a coward afraid of his boss, and tScheck never showed a shred of evidence of this. If he had any evidence of this, he should have shown it; if he (Scheck) didn't, he shouldn't drag other people's name through the mud.

Have you read about the LAPD RAMPART police drug scandle.
Do you know why the U.S. Justice Department took over the management of the lapd.It was not becuase everything was ok.

if memory serves me correctly the lapd own investigation of all cops found that Furhman had more complaints than most cops.One case involved a mr Brittin (sp) that the city decided to settle for $100,000 just prior to the commencement of the oj trial.Wonder why they decided to settle it then.imo
In order to be puzzled as to why the jury found oj not guilty one would have to predisposed to to just accept the prosecutions claims and ignore how the defense created reasonable doubt.

If the prosecution makes a claim that the defendant had on certain items of clothing when he commited the murders then yes they must prove that claim
with evidence or looss that particular issue.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

Moral values vary from one person to another. VB said that he declined to defend Jeff Macdonald because he thought Jeff Macdonald was guilty. It is quite odd the defense, not just Cochran, to talk about the LA police force framing people, and the blue wall of silence being substantial than the great wall of China, and then show no interest in either showing proof of this, or in investigating.
None of the defense team showed any interest in trying to investigate any prior sins of MF, Lange, Vanneter, or Fung, (names possible misspelled). Law students have investigated past crimes at a low cost. I guess they didn't want to investigate it because they didn't want to discover that there wasn't much there. To talk and write about what terrible attitudes MF had and then show no interest in finding out if he had sent innocent minorities to prison, is odd. To also show no interest in why the number of complaints filed against him was only four, about average, is also strange. Am I supposed to think that the average LA police man is a neo nazi? MF worked in South Central LA for several years. I am pretty sure he had less than one complaint per year filed against him there. To talk and write about what a terrible thing the blue wall of silence is, and then to not want to investigate it, is also strange. It would be like a doctor saying horrifying things about some virus, and then not recommending that NIH, or someone, do research on it.
I think the blue wall of silence is real, but not substantial enough to cause policemen to frame OJS. It is sort of like the wall of silence among doctors. Most doctors are reluctant to testify against a doctor about medical carelessness; but there have been plenty of cases of doctors testifying against other doctors, the medical wall of silence is a real and unfortunate barrier, but not penetrable.
I found it morally repugnant that the defense, B. Scheck woud accuse Mr. Fung of evidence tampering, and of doing it because he was a coward afraid of his boss, and tScheck never showed a shred of evidence of this. If he had any evidence of this, he should have shown it; if he (Scheck) didn't, he shouldn't drag other people's name through the mud.


Vanhatter lied to the judge to get that illegal search warrant and carried blood evidence around on his person and then to another crime scene. Fung even said no one had ever brought him blood evidence to a crime scene. This testimony told the jury about Vanhatter.
Fung lied based on his own blunders in collecting evidence and record keeping
so his testimony told the jury what he did.
Everyone found out what Furhman said he did as a cop and his tape spoke for his actions.imo

[martin II]

I believe that the evidence I listed was enough to assume probable guilt, but not enough for legal guilt in a criminal trial. Couldn't vote for legal guilt on the basis of the evidence I listed. I would like to raise some questions that you sort of brought up. You seem to think that the prosecution had some obligation to find the clothes that the killer wore to convict him. My guess is that the prisons are full of people who were convicted without the availability of the clothes or shoes they commited a felony with. I am also guessing that it is rare for an accused to beat the rap with proof of his blood at the killing scene, and the victems blood in his car.

I agree with the white lady juror that said the DNA evidence was shaky.She sat through 9 months of testimony and evidence presentation by the prosecution and heard all of it.imo

[martin II]

This is one issue on the glove testimony of Mr Rubin the GLOVE "expert"


Nicole purchased two sets of gloves. We dont know that size or what color.
Rubin first says they are the identical gloves of ARIS light. Then on cross he admits that he cannot say they are the Aris gloves.
Which of his statements does the jury believe? Does it sound like he lied in his first statement and was forced to admit a mistatement under cross?
hhmmmm



SEPTEMBER 12 - A glove expert testified that the gloves worn by O.J. Simpson in videotapes of football games were identical to the bloody gloves found at the crime scene and at Simpson's home.

Richard Rubin, a former executive of Aris Isotoner, identified the gloves worn by Simpson during his broadcasting days as extra-large Aris Lights, a model featuring a lighter weight leather and special stitching.

Rubin, testifying for a fourth time in the trial, said that only 300 pairs of the gloves were manufactured, and that between 200 and 240 were sold, in 1990, all of those at Bloomingdale's.

The state contends that Nicole Brown Simpson bought her husband two pairs of Aris gloves -- color and size unspecified by the sales slip -- in December 1990.

But on cross-examination, Rubin conceded that he could not say the gloves from the videotapes were the same as those retrieved from South Bundy Drive and North Rockingham Avenue. Defense attorney Robert Blasier also suggested that Rubin was prejudiced against Simpson. He produced a letter from the witness to prosecutors saying, "Maybe I can make it to the victory party."

[martin II]

Here is something about the sock.
PS Martz was fired from his position of fbi lab supervisor for imcompatance and testifying above his experience level after the Oj case.imo


The planting theory is also supported by evidence that the chemical preservative ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid ("EDTA") was found in the stain, the defense argued. The victims' blood samples were stored at the LAPD laboratory in tubes that contained EDTA. When the defense first raised the theory that the blood on the sock had been planted, the prosecution sent the sock to the FBI laboratory and asked that the stain be tested for EDTA. Absence of EDTA would presumably have been taken as proof that the stain did not come from the laboratory tubes. But the tests performed by FBI agent-examiner Roger Martz did show evidence of the presence of EDTA. When the prosecution declined to call Martz as a witness, he was called by the defense. Martz admitted that the stain showed traces of EDTA but opined that the quantity was too low to be consistent with blood from a reference tube. The defense then presented Dr. Fredrick Reiders, who reviewed Martz test results and expressed the opinion that the quantities of EDTA present in the stain were indeed consistent with the stain originating in blood from a reference tube, and are too high to be consistent with blood from a living human being. The defense argued that Dr. Reiders was a better qualified and more credible witness than Martz, who does not have an advanced degree, and that Reider's conclusion, if true, proves that the blood on the sock was planted.

http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jweiss/laws131/unit3/simpson.htm

[martin II]

Moral values vary from one person to another. VB said that he declined to defend Jeff Macdonald because he thought Jeff Macdonald was guilty. It is quite odd the defense, not just Cochran, to talk about the LA police force framing people, and the blue wall of silence being substantial than the great wall of China, and then show no interest in either showing proof of this, or in investigating.
None of the defense team showed any interest in trying to investigate any prior sins of MF, Lange, Vanneter, or Fung, (names possible misspelled). Law students have investigated past crimes at a low cost. I guess they didn't want to investigate it because they didn't want to discover that there wasn't much there. To talk and write about what terrible attitudes MF had and then show no interest in finding out if he had sent innocent minorities to prison, is odd. To also show no interest in why the number of complaints filed against him was only four, about average, is also strange. Am I supposed to think that the average LA police man is a neo nazi? MF worked in South Central LA for several years. I am pretty sure he had less than one complaint per year filed against him there. To talk and write about what a terrible thing the blue wall of silence is, and then to not want to investigate it, is also strange. It would be like a doctor saying horrifying things about some virus, and then not recommending that NIH, or someone, do research on it.
I think the blue wall of silence is real, but not substantial enough to cause policemen to frame OJS. It is sort of like the wall of silence among doctors. Most doctors are reluctant to testify against a doctor about medical carelessness; but there have been plenty of cases of doctors testifying against other doctors, the medical wall of silence is a real and unfortunate barrier, but not penetrable.
I found it morally repugnant that the defense, B. Scheck woud accuse Mr. Fung of evidence tampering, and of doing it because he was a coward afraid of his boss, and tScheck never showed a shred of evidence of this. If he had any evidence of this, he should have shown it; if he (Scheck) didn't, he shouldn't drag other people's name through the mud.


furhman

Police Watch, a non-profit citizen advocacy group in Los Angeles, had received five complaints against Fuhrman since 1988. "I work with these files every day," says Police Watch official Michael Salcido, "and I personally handled over a thousand intakes a year and I know no other officer that has five counts against him"

It wasn't over for Fuhrman though. Now he had to answer a felony charge of perjury. He ended up pleading no contest, and received three years probation. He can no longer carry a gun or hold public office. He also could not be a cop anymore. Contrary to what many believe however, Fuhrman wasn't fired by the LAPD. He resigned, which meant he got his police pension. Meanwhilem the Justice Department initiated a review of allegations in 1995 against Fuhrman that came about when suspects Fuhrman arrested noticed that his descriptions of incidents on those tapes were similar to their own cases, and could be a possible case of brutality against him. Three years later, federal prosecutors determined that the five-year statute of limitations had long passed in relation to the allegations against Fuhrman and decided not to prosecute him. It was never determined that the charges against him were untrue, just that they could not do anything about them.

http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=29

[weezer]

too bad posters feel they must sink to inaccurate, incorrect, and unsubstantiated posting to support their hero: orenthal james simpson. I'm not surprised -- just think it's sad. imo

[martin II]

Public information on J Cochran

Mr. Cochran is the only attorney ever to be the recipient of the Trial Lawyer of the Year Award from both the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association and the Criminal Courts Bar Association. Mr. Cochran is a member of the prestigious International Academy of Trial Lawyers and The American College of Trial Lawyers, whose membership consists of the top one percent of trial attorneys in the United States. Mr. Cochran was inducted into The Inner Circle of Advocates, an organization of the country's top 100 plaintiff lawyers. His autobiography, Journey to Justice, a national bestseller written with Tim Rutten, was recently published by One World/Ballantine Books
IMO

[martin II]

too bad posters feel they must sink to inaccurate, incorrect, and unsubstantiated posting to support their hero: orenthal james simpson. I'm not surprised -- just think it's sad. imo

We all have opinions.

[William Anthony]

Moral values vary from one person to another. VB said that he declined to defend Jeff Macdonald because he thought Jeff Macdonald was guilty. It is quite odd the defense, not just Cochran, to talk about the LA police force framing people, and the blue wall of silence being substantial than the great wall of China, and then show no interest in either showing proof of this, or in investigating.
None of the defense team showed any interest in trying to investigate any prior sins of MF, Lange, Vanneter, or Fung, (names possible misspelled). Law students have investigated past crimes at a low cost. I guess they didn't want to investigate it because they didn't want to discover that there wasn't much there. To talk and write about what terrible attitudes MF had and then show no interest in finding out if he had sent innocent minorities to prison, is odd. To also show no interest in why the number of complaints filed against him was only four, about average, is also strange. Am I supposed to think that the average LA police man is a neo nazi? MF worked in South Central LA for several years. I am pretty sure he had less than one complaint per year filed against him there. To talk and write about what a terrible thing the blue wall of silence is, and then to not want to investigate it, is also strange. It would be like a doctor saying horrifying things about some virus, and then not recommending that NIH, or someone, do research on it.
I think the blue wall of silence is real, but not substantial enough to cause policemen to frame OJS. It is sort of like the wall of silence among doctors. Most doctors are reluctant to testify against a doctor about medical carelessness; but there have been plenty of cases of doctors testifying against other doctors, the medical wall of silence is a real and unfortunate barrier, but not penetrable.
I found it morally repugnant that the defense, B. Scheck woud accuse Mr. Fung of evidence tampering, and of doing it because he was a coward afraid of his boss, and tScheck never showed a shred of evidence of this. If he had any evidence of this, he should have shown it; if he (Scheck) didn't, he shouldn't drag other people's name through the mud.

Moral values may vary but ethical standards should not. A defense lawyer is ethically required to give his client the best defense possible, even though he thinks his client is guilty. To think someone is guilty and to know are different things. The blue wall of silence did not cause LE to frame Simpson, only to keep silent about the frame. I agree that the blue wall of silence in the Simpson case was not penetrable, imho. However, the defense provided evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that it existed, as well, as evidence that DF was not telling the truth for whatever reason, imho.

[tv]

Moral values may vary but ethical standards should not. A defense lawyer is ethically required to give his client the best defense possible, even though he thinks his client is guilty. To think someone is guilty and to know are different things. The blue wall of silence did not cause LE to frame Simpson, only to keep silent about the frame. I agree that the blue wall of silence in the Simpson case was not penetrable, imho. However, the defense provided evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that it existed, as well, as evidence that DF was not telling the truth for whatever reason, imho.You've not yet given a shred of proof to support this.

[William Anthony]

too bad posters feel they must sink to inaccurate, incorrect, and unsubstantiated posting to support their hero: orenthal james simpson. I'm not surprised -- just think it's sad. imo

I think you may be mistaken, because that is what so many of the prosecution's witnesses did in order to convict Simpson, imho. I know that many posters support their posts. There have been many requests for a poster to support the claim that pigeon-toed shoe prints were found at Bundy and that request has yet to be furnished.

[weezer]

and yet it was the defense that was sanctioned for hiding and lying about witnesses/evidence. there has been multiple investigations into LE and not one shred of evidence/proof that anyone -- including LE -- framed orenthal.

[William Anthony]

and yet it was the defense that was sanctioned for hiding and lying about witnesses/evidence. there has been multiple investigations into LE and not one shred of evidence/proof that anyone -- including LE -- framed orenthal.

Not quite correct. The defense provided evidence of MF's means, motive and opportunity. What about the link to those pigeon-toed shoe prints? If I saw that I might be inclined to change my mind.

[martin II]

and yet it was the defense that was sanctioned for hiding and lying about witnesses/evidence. there has been multiple investigations into LE and not one shred of evidence/proof that anyone -- including LE -- framed orenthal.

I believe Deedick had said the carpert was very rare, but the defense uncovered a report stating otherwise. Clark had witheld this report from the defense.

ps
The defense won their case.

[martin II]

and yet it was the defense that was sanctioned for hiding and lying about witnesses/evidence. there has been multiple investigations into LE and not one shred of evidence/proof that anyone -- including LE -- framed orenthal.

The defense was talented enough to shine light on their activities and convienced the jury that the claims were not true beyond a reasonable doubt.So they lost.
What about the link to the pigeon toed shoe prints.

[tv]

martin, looks like the reporter wasn't the biased fool you made him out to be. Here's the testimony of Dr. Michael Baden on August 10, 1995 when being questioned by Mr. Kelberg.


Q HAVE YOU EVER PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE IN ANY
RECOGNIZED FORENSIC PATHOLOGY TEXT ON THE SUBJECT OF
SHARP FORCE INJURIES, INCLUDING STAB WOUNDS?
A NOT SPECIFICALLY, NO.
Q DOCTOR, HAVE YOU EVER PUBLISHED A CHAPTER
IN ANY RECOGNIZED FORENSIC PATHOLOGY TEXTBOOK ON THE
SUBJECT OF BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA?
A NO.
Q HAVE YOU EVER PUBLISHED A CHAPTER IN ANY
RECOGNIZED FORENSIC PATHOLOGY TEXTBOOK ON THE SUBJECT
OF BLOOD SPATTER ANALYSIS?
A NO.
Q HAVE YOU EVER PUBLISHED A CHAPTER IN ANY
RECOGNIZED FORENSIC PATHOLOGY TEXTBOOK ON CRIME SCENE
COLLECTION?
A NO.
Q DOCTOR, HAVE YOU EVER PUBLISHED A CHAPTER
IN ANY RECOGNIZED FORENSIC PATHOLOGY TEXT ON THE
SUBJECT OF SHOEPRINT ANALYSIS?
A NO.
Q SHOEPRINT COMPARISON?
A NO.
Q HAVE YOU EVER PUBLISHED ANYTHING IN ANY
PEER REVIEW JOURNAL ON ANY OF THE TOPICS I JUST GAVE
YOU?
A NO, I HAVEN'T.
Q DOCTOR, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH DR. SPITZ?
A YES.
Q AND HIS BOOK, SPITZ AND FISHER?
A YES.
Q 3RD EDITION?
A YES.
Q IN THE FIRST EDITION, YOU DID PUBLISH A
CHAPTER. YOU WERE A CONTRIBUTOR TO A CHAPTER IN THAT
BOOK, WEREN'T YOU, SIR?
A I WROTE A CHAPTER.
Q WHAT WAS THAT CHAPTER ABOUT, SIR?
A ON DRUG ABUSE.

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/trial/aug/index.html

[martin II]

martin, looks like the reporter wasn't the biased fool you made him out to be. Here's the testimony of Dr. Michael Baden on August 10, 1995 when being questioned by Mr. Kelberg.


Q HAVE YOU EVER PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE IN ANY
RECOGNIZED FORENSIC PATHOLOGY TEXT ON THE SUBJECT OF
SHARP FORCE INJURIES, INCLUDING STAB WOUNDS?
A NOT SPECIFICALLY, NO.
Q DOCTOR, HAVE YOU EVER PUBLISHED A CHAPTER
IN ANY RECOGNIZED FORENSIC PATHOLOGY TEXTBOOK ON THE
SUBJECT OF BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA?
A NO.
Q HAVE YOU EVER PUBLISHED A CHAPTER IN ANY
RECOGNIZED FORENSIC PATHOLOGY TEXTBOOK ON THE SUBJECT
OF BLOOD SPATTER ANALYSIS?
A NO.
Q HAVE YOU EVER PUBLISHED A CHAPTER IN ANY
RECOGNIZED FORENSIC PATHOLOGY TEXTBOOK ON CRIME SCENE
COLLECTION?
A NO.
Q DOCTOR, HAVE YOU EVER PUBLISHED A CHAPTER
IN ANY RECOGNIZED FORENSIC PATHOLOGY TEXT ON THE
SUBJECT OF SHOEPRINT ANALYSIS?
A NO.
Q SHOEPRINT COMPARISON?
A NO.
Q HAVE YOU EVER PUBLISHED ANYTHING IN ANY
PEER REVIEW JOURNAL ON ANY OF THE TOPICS I JUST GAVE
YOU?
A NO, I HAVEN'T.
Q DOCTOR, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH DR. SPITZ?
A YES.
Q AND HIS BOOK, SPITZ AND FISHER?
A YES.
Q 3RD EDITION?
A YES.
Q IN THE FIRST EDITION, YOU DID PUBLISH A
CHAPTER. YOU WERE A CONTRIBUTOR TO A CHAPTER IN THAT
BOOK, WEREN'T YOU, SIR?
A I WROTE A CHAPTER.
Q WHAT WAS THAT CHAPTER ABOUT, SIR?
A ON DRUG ABUSE.

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/trial/aug/index.html

you must be kidding. writing a chapter on drug abuse in spitz book is not the same as sayiny his primary expertise if death by drug abuse. Get real.
His bio say quite something different about his experience.20,000 Autopsies
means one of his primary expertise if examining dead bodies.hahaha


Below is what you posted.
The doctor also told the court that he never published any article in the areas that he was testifying about and that his primary area of expertise is death by drug abuse.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/ojsimpson/weekly/29.html

[tv]

you must be kidding. writing a chapter on drug abuse in spitz book is not the same as sayiny his primary expertise if death by drug abuse. Get real.
His bio say quite something different about his experience.20,000 Autopsies
means one of his primary expertise if examining dead bodies.hahaha


Below is what you posted.
The doctor also told the court that he never published any article in the areas that he was testifying about and that his primary area of expertise is death by drug abuse.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/ojsimpson/weekly/29.html

Get real yourself. That is only part of his testimony but it backs up what the reporter said. There is more that I didn't include that backs it up even more. You do understand that the reporter was SUMMARIZING the day's testimony don't you? He wasn't quoting word for word but giving the general content of what Dr. Baden said.

[martin II]

MR. SHAPIRO: Dr. Baden, is what your profession?

DR. BADEN: I'm a physician, medical examiner forensic pathologist.

MR. SHAPIRO: And what is your educational background that qualified you to attain that position?

DR. BADEN: Well, I received a bachelor of sciences degree from the city college of New York in 1955 and a medical degree, Md. degree, from New York University school of medicine in 1959.

MR. SHAPIRO: Let me ask you now at city college, did you receive any awards?

DR. BADEN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: What did you receive?

DR. BADEN: I was senior class president, Phi Beta Kappa, editor in chief of the newspaper and I was essentially the valedictorian. I spoke at the commencement for the students.

MR. SHAPIRO: And where was that college located?

DR. BADEN: It is located in upper Manhattan, New York City, Harlem area of New York City.

MR. SHAPIRO: And from there you went to medical school?

DR. BADEN: From there I went to New York University medical school, which is also in manhattan.

MR. SHAPIRO: And how long did you attend there?

DR. BADEN: From 1955 to 1959.

MR. SHAPIRO: And upon graduation?

DR. BADEN: Upon graduation where I received the medical degree, I then did an internship residency, chief residency, at Belleview Hospital medical center in New York City, which is associated with at that time New York University school of medicine, also Colombia Presbyterian school of medicine.

MR. SHAPIRO: And who were your supervisors at that internship?

DR. BADEN: Well, my first two years at Belleview hospital I was an intern and resident in internal medicine under the training of Dr. Dickinson Richard, Dr. Andre Cornon, who had just won the Nobel prizes in medicine for their work on heart and lung disease, and I specialized in that.

MR. SHAPIRO: So this is internal medicine, heart and lung, something which you are not specializing in now, but which you have a background in?

DR. BADEN: That's correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: Tell the jury about the rest of your medical training at this level.

DR. BADEN: After those two years--two years in internal medicine, I then switched over to pathology internal medicine I treated live people and in pathology I tried to find out what was wrong with people by various tests, autopsies, blood tests. In pathology--I stayed in pathology from--for the next four years being resident, chief resident in pathology, fellow at Belleview hospital, and finished my training in pathology in 1965.

MR. SHAPIRO: After your formal education did you get any appointments as a medical examiner?

DR. BADEN: Yes. While--while a resident physician at Belleview hospital, beginning around 1960 when I was licensed to practice medicine in New York state, I moonlighted--I worked for the medical examiner's office on a part-time basis as an assistant medical examiner for the city of New York, which is much like the Coroner medical examiner system in Los Angeles. And on completion I stayed there the four years--five years, and on completion of my training in pathology at Belleview, my official training, I then became a full-time medical examiner for the city of New York.

MR. SHAPIRO: And the appointments that you had in New York, were they made by any specific person or persons?

DR. BADEN: Well, my initial--

MR. SHAPIRO: How does that system work in New York?

DR. BADEN: In New York City it worked as part of at that time--at that time as part of the civil service system, that it was--the initial entry positions of part-time position when I was at Belleview hospital, and then my first appointment was at the discretion of the chief medical examiner, Dr. Milton Helpburn at that time, and then all the subsequent positions are by examinations and merit in the civil service system of the city of New York.

MR. SHAPIRO: Will you tell the jury about the subsequent appointments, how they came about and what positions you have held.

DR. BADEN: Yes. I remained as a full-time medical examiner, junior medical examiner, associate medical examiner, and then I was appointed about the end of 1960's, around `69, `68, as deputy chief medical examiner city of New York. I remained in that position for about nine years and then was appointed from a civil service list as chief medical examiner for the city of New York, and I remained in that position for a year and reverted back to deputy chief medical examiner in the city of New York.

MR. SHAPIRO: When you say you "Reverted back," what were the circumstances surrounding that?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, as calling for hearsay or calling for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. BADEN: The circumstances were that the mayor at the time, Mayor Koch felt--wanted somebody else to be chief medical examiner and accumulated certain statements from the five District Attorneys in New York City--unlike most cities, New York City is one city and five counties, which is just a reverse usually, and there is Brooklyn and Manhattan and Bronx, Staten Island.

THE COURT: We call them boroughs.

DR. BADEN: We call them boroughs, but counties, actual counties, as opposed to Los Angeles County which has a lot cities. New York City is one city that has a lot of counties, and each county, each borough, has a District Attorney, but there is one chief medical examiner that handles all five boroughs, so at the time, after I had been chief examiner for a year, mayor Koch asked for opinions from the five District Attorneys, four of whom were very pleased with my work and one of whom, the District Attorney of manhattan, umm, felt I wasn't a team player and felt I shouldn't be chief medical examiner.

[martin II]

MR. SHAPIRO: And this is something that you have spoken about freely and in fact have written about published in material?

DR. BADEN: Written about it, yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Published material?

DR. BADEN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Now, you say about being a team player. What in your opinion is the role of a medical examiner, an independent medical examiner?

DR. BADEN: My opinion is that a medical examiner, chief, has to be an independent finder of scientific facts and truths, regardless of where those findings lead. We speak as much for the Defendant as for the Prosecutor. We speak as much for the doctor as for the patient. That we speak for the dead person and we are supposed to find in any death as much information that can properly determine how a person died and then answer--anticipate answering any questions that might arise later, whether criminally or civilly, or by the family. The family has a right to know how a loved one died, so the medical examiner, although working in a political system, which is a problem, has to remain an independent scientist and independent physician and be impartial to any sides that might be concerned in how a person died.

MR. SHAPIRO: And is that how you view your role?

DR. BADEN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Has that ever changed?

DR. BADEN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: In the course of your career in New York as a medical examiner, did you come in contact with Dr. Lakshmanan?

DR. BADEN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Would you tell the jury about that, please.

DR. BADEN: In the mid-seventies, I guess, 1977, `78, around that time, Dr. Lakshmanan did what I had done ten years earlier and he was kind of--he moonlighted--he was a pathology resident in one of the hospitals in New York City and he would do extra work in the medical examiner's office and under my supervision, as I had done when I was a resident at Belleview hospital, so he was a moonlighting pathologist learning about forensic pathology in New York City.

MR. SHAPIRO: Have you done any work in the field of teaching?

DR. BADEN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Related to your expertise as a forensic pathologist and medical examiner?

DR. BADEN: Yes.

[martin II]

MR. SHAPIRO: Would you kindly tell the jury what that has entailed.

DR. BADEN: Yes. I teach aspects of medical work, forensic medicine, forensic pathology, at a number of institutions. I am presently visited professor of pathology at Albert Einstein school of medicine in New York City, a adjunct professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at Albany medical center in Albany New York. I've just completed a visiting professorship as John Jay school of medicine--John Jay school of Criminal Justice which teaches law enforcement persons and gives a degree in law enforcement. And I am on the faculty or have been on the faculty at New York University school of medicine, Colombia physicians and surgeons school of medicine. In all these capacities I do teaching in--part-time teaching in forensic medicine; some are courses, some are just lectures.

MR. SHAPIRO: And who are you teaching? Who are the students that you address?

DR. BADEN: The students are either medical students, law students. I have been a professor at New York law school. Medical students, law students, house staff residents and law enforcement personnel.

MR. SHAPIRO: There has been a lot of expert witnesses who have testified about professional associations. Would you share with the jury any professional associations that you belong to and any positions you have held within those associations.

DR. BADEN: Yes. I'm past president of the society of medical jurisprudence, past vice-president of the American academy of forensic sciences, a fellow in the college of American pathology and other organizations that pertain to what pathologists and forensic pathologists do.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you attend meetings?

DR. BADEN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Of associations?

DR. BADEN: Yes. I attend meetings of associations, I run conferences on forensic medicine which I am supposed to do next week.

MR. SHAPIRO: When is that?

DR. BADEN: Which I'm supposed to do next week, Monday.

MR. SHAPIRO: When?

DR. BADEN: Monday. Sunday.

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, hopefully we will be finished with you before that time.

DR. BADEN: Thank you.

MR. SHAPIRO: Regarding publications, has any of the things you have studied and taught in your field been published?

DR. BADEN: Yes. I have published some eighty articles or been co-author relative to medical examiner work, mostly drug abuse, alcoholism, which I was interested in especially when I was in New York City. I have written a number of chapters in textbooks and I have been author of a book on alcohol, drugs and violent death. I edited a textbook on forensic medicine, legal medicine that was published in japan.

MR. SHAPIRO: What is the name of that book, do you recall?

DR. BADEN: Atlas of legal medicine, which is the first English book in forensic medicine in japan in the 1960's that I am aware of. And I recently did write a book meant for explaining to the public what medical examiners do called unnatural death, confessions of a medical examiner.

MR. SHAPIRO: And that tells basically your life story and--

DR. BADEN: Well, it goes into some of the--the investigation that I have been involved with that I thought could be informative as to how medical examiners should function and on how bad the system is in general in the United States.

MR. SHAPIRO: So--

THE COURT: Excuse me, gentlemen. Doctor, if you would, would you allow Mr. Shapiro to complete asking the question before you start to answer, because the court reporter is having some difficulty.

DR. BADEN: I apologize, sir, yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And basically explain to the jury what your thoughts were in that book.

DR. BADEN: My thoughts are and were that medical--the investigation of unnatural death in this country is really a national disgrace, that most jurisdictions, not--not Los Angeles, but in the United States, most jurisdictions, untrained people investigate homicide and accidents and suicides, both from an investigation at the scene point of view, which are often done by a funeral director, and from an autopsy, which is usually done by a hospital pathologist who is super on natural death, heart disease, cancer, stroke, but have no training in gunshot wounds and automobile accidents and suicide, which leads to lots of errors that occur around the country.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you also talk about that in book your background and what attracted you to the field of forensic medicine?

DR. BADEN: Yes, I did.

MR. SHAPIRO: And what did you say in that regard?

DR. BADEN: I think in general I commented, I wrote about how initially when I went to NYU medical school and Belleview hospital I trained to be a real doctor and treat people who were sick, and while at Belleview hospital, because of the coincidence that at Belleview was where the medical examiner's office for New York was situated, when I used to come down and see deaths that had occurred at Belleview from heart disease and cancer, I would see often the Coroners, medical examiners, investigating deaths of auto accidents and suicides and homicides, and Belleview at NYU at that time, and still, was a mayor institution investigating natural disease which I was very--I had a number of professors who were Nobel laureates. And when I saw in the medical examiner's corner that there was very little interest on investigations by academic medicine into violent death, which involves about seven or eight percent of deaths--all other deaths would be natural deaths or suicide--and I just felt that by going into forensic pathology, I could contribute more to preventing suicide, drug addiction, alcohol, even homicides, than by being another person trying to cure cancer. So that is--it was just a coincidence of my being at NYU where the medical examiner's office was situated that turned me on to forensic pathology and, umm, where I have been for the past forty years.

MR. SHAPIRO: As a young doctor did you find something exciting about the field of forensic pathology?

DR. BADEN: Oh, I think initially it was exciting to hear something on the radio about somebody dying and somebody being killed and coming into the autopsy room and seeing the individual there and seeing how the doctors were able to, within an hour or so, figure out a puzzle, a puzzle as to why somebody died. And with the proper investigation work proper autopsy, with proper evaluation and with experience, magic occurred. The human body gave forth secrets that permitted the answering of a lot of questions, mostly for the family, because the family is most concerned about the dead body, but also for insurance companies and hospitals and law enforcement. We saw that if a hospital made a mistake, we would notify the hospital and try to correct them so they wouldn't make the same mistake again, and it was all very exciting. The media attention initially was very exciting, that the people paid attention to this and the daily news and other things, but the media rapidly wore off.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are there such areas appointed by different governmental

[martin II]

tv
please note Dr LAKSHMANAN worked under Dr Baden in n.y.city.
There is more about Dr Baden experience if you need it.

[martin II]

Get real yourself. That is only part of his testimony but it backs up what the reporter said. There is more that I didn't include that backs it up even more. You do understand that the reporter was SUMMARIZING the day's testimony don't you? He wasn't quoting word for word but giving the general content of what Dr. Baden said.

I have given you some of Dr Badens expertise. i can give more.

[tv]

tv
please note Dr LAKSHMANAN worked under Dr Baden in n.y.city.
There is more about Dr Baden experience if you need it.That won't be necessary. I'll stick with what he said under questioning by Mr. Kelberg. I notice you left out the part of the testimony that backs up the reporter. That's okay.

[martin II]

That won't be necessary. I'll stick with what he said under questioning by Mr. Kelberg. I notice you left out the part of the testimony that backs up the reporter. That's okay.

it is included

[martin II]

That won't be necessary. I'll stick with what he said under questioning by Mr. Kelberg. I notice you left out the part of the testimony that backs up the reporter. That's okay.

look at post 2228.He speaks about his drug experience. To say this mans primary expertise is about drugs after listening to his testimony is an act of biased reporting.imo

[tv]

It was not biased. Here is the testimony from Dr. Baden on cross from Mr. Kelberg.

Q AND IN FACT, THAT IS WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BE
YOUR PRIMARY AREA OF SPECIALTY WITHIN THE FIELD OF
FORENSIC PATHOLOGY; ISN'T THAT THE CASE?
A NOT QUITE.
Q WELL, SIR -- I'M SORRY.
A IF I MAY ANSWER.
Q SURE.
A IT'S THE AREA THAT I DID MOST OF MY
PUBLISHING WHEN I WAS IN NEW YORK CITY AND WE USED TO
SEE A LOT OF DRUG ABUSE DEATHS. SO THAT WAS THE AREA
THAT I HAD SPECIAL INTEREST IN.
Q AND, SIR, WHEN YOU SAY THAT'S WHERE YOU
PUBLISHED MOST OF YOUR MATERIALS IN, IN YOUR
CURRICULUM VITAE, YOU LIST 80 PUBLICATIONS, DON'T
YOU?
A YES.
Q AND OF THOSE 80, WHAT NUMBER RELATE TO
THE SUBJECT OF DRUG AND/OR ALCOHOL?
A THE GREAT MAJORITY. I'M SORRY. THE
GREAT MAJORITY.

[martin II]

That won't be necessary. I'll stick with what he said under questioning by Mr. Kelberg. I notice you left out the part of the testimony that backs up the reporter. That's okay.

your reporter stated that Baden testified that his primary area of expertise was death by drug abuse. He never testifies to any such thing.

Baden testified to a wide range of expertise and as a DR at Belview hospitle did some work in the area of DRUG ABUSE.

No way are those the same but it does point out how some take media reports as fact and try to run with it. With 20,000 autopsies performed i bet Baden has seen more blunt force trama and stab wounds, cuts, gun shots auto accident and poisin victims than Spitz has ever dreamed of.imo

[martin II]

It was not biased. Here is the testimony from Dr. Baden on cross from Mr. Kelberg.

Q AND IN FACT, THAT IS WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BE
YOUR PRIMARY AREA OF SPECIALTY WITHIN THE FIELD OF
FORENSIC PATHOLOGY; ISN'T THAT THE CASE?
A NOT QUITE.
Q WELL, SIR -- I'M SORRY.
A IF I MAY ANSWER.
Q SURE.
A IT'S THE AREA THAT I DID MOST OF MY
PUBLISHING WHEN I WAS IN NEW YORK CITY AND WE USED TO
SEE A LOT OF DRUG ABUSE DEATHS. SO THAT WAS THE AREA
THAT I HAD SPECIAL INTEREST IN.
Q AND, SIR, WHEN YOU SAY THAT'S WHERE YOU
PUBLISHED MOST OF YOUR MATERIALS IN, IN YOUR
CURRICULUM VITAE, YOU LIST 80 PUBLICATIONS, DON'T
YOU?
A YES.
Q AND OF THOSE 80, WHAT NUMBER RELATE TO
THE SUBJECT OF DRUG AND/OR ALCOHOL?
A THE GREAT MAJORITY. I'M SORRY. THE
GREAT MAJORITY.


YOUR PRIMARY AREA OF SPECIALTY WITHIN THE FIELD OF
FORENSIC PATHOLOGY; ISN'T THAT THE CASE?
A NOT QUITE.
Q WELL, SIR -- I'M SORRY.
A IF I MAY ANSWER.
Q SURE.
A IT'S THE AREA THAT I DID MOST OF MY
PUBLISHING WHEN I WAS IN NEW YORK CITY AND WE USED TO
SEE A LOT OF DRUG ABUSE DEATHS. SO THAT WAS THE AREA
THAT I HAD SPECIAL INTEREST IN.

NOTE HE IS TALKING ABOUT A AREA THAT HE DID A LOT OF PUBLISHING IN NOT THAT THIS WAS HIS PRIMARY AREA OF EXPERTISE. GOT THAT
AS THE MEDICAL EXAMINER AND 20,000 autopsies his prime area of work seem to be examining dead bodies. what else you got.

[martin II]

When Mr. Kelberg crossed Baden, Baden had already given a long list of his work outlinning all of his expertise and experience leadership in national professional organizations and a list of his education and work. So these question of did he write a book on fingernails is nonsense.Dont forget 20,000 autopies qualifies him as a super expert in that case.imo

[tv]

YOUR PRIMARY AREA OF SPECIALTY WITHIN THE FIELD OF
FORENSIC PATHOLOGY; ISN'T THAT THE CASE?
A NOT QUITE.
Q WELL, SIR -- I'M SORRY.
A IF I MAY ANSWER.
Q SURE.
A IT'S THE AREA THAT I DID MOST OF MY
PUBLISHING WHEN I WAS IN NEW YORK CITY AND WE USED TO
SEE A LOT OF DRUG ABUSE DEATHS. SO THAT WAS THE AREA
THAT I HAD SPECIAL INTEREST IN.

NOTE HE IS TALKING ABOUT A AREA THAT HE DID A LOT OF PUBLISHING IN NOT THAT THIS WAS HIS PRIMARY AREA OF EXPERTISE. GOT THAT
AS THE MEDICAL EXAMINER AND 20,000 autopsies his prime area of work seem to be examining dead bodies. what else you got.


martin, to be honest with you, I don't like it when you say "got that" to me which you seem to have a habit of doing. See you in another conversation because this one is finished for me. :seeya:

[martin II]

Professional organizationa
Baden

MR. SHAPIRO: There has been a lot of expert witnesses who have testified about professional associations. Would you share with the jury any professional associations that you belong to and any positions you have held within those associations.

DR. BADEN: Yes. I'm past president of the society of medical jurisprudence, past vice-president of the American academy of forensic sciences, a fellow in the college of American pathology and other organizations that pertain to what pathologists and forensic pathologists do.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you attend meetings?

DR. BADEN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Of associations?

DR. BADEN: Yes. I attend meetings of associations, I run conferences on forensic medicine which I am supposed to do next week.

MR. SHAPIRO: When is that?

DR. BADEN: Which I'm supposed to do next week, Monday.

MR. SHAPIRO: When?

DR. BADEN: Monday. Sunday.

[martin II]

martin, to be honest with you, I don't like it when you say "got that" to me which you seem to have a habit of doing. See you in another conversation because this one is finished for me. :seeya:

Sorry no harm intended

[martin II]

martin, to be honest with you, I don't like it when you say "got that" to me which you seem to have a habit of doing. See you in another conversation because this one is finished for me. :seeya:

I think i will do more research to offer more on Dr Baden areas of expertise and work to correct and wrong info your post seem to have given about his priomary area of expertise.

[William Anthony]

You've not yet given a shred of proof to support this.

I don't think you have to offer evidence to support what is common knowledge. However, the defense offered the evidence. What do you think the mistakes/human errors/lies/changing of testimonies was about?

[William Anthony]

Sorry no harm intended

Thank you for your continued efforts to improve the quality of postings in this community.

[martin II]

DR. BADEN: Yes. Eventually about a year or two--a year ago, I went with a group of American scientists to Croatia to identify persons who died in the current Serbo-Croatian conflicts, by autopsy and DNA techniques. I have been over to at--at the request of various human rights groups, to the Gaza Strip and to the West Bank in Israel to investigate prisoners, Palestinian prisoners who died in Israeli jails and do autopsies there. I have been over about three years ago to--at the request of the U.S. State Department and the Russian government, to Russia to examine remains that had been found that were thought to have been the Romonoff family and Nicholas and Alexandra and Anastasia, people who were murdered in 1918 at the time of the communist revolution. And I have been to many countries to do teaching and training in how to do proper forensic investigation into violent deaths, in Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, at various governmental requests.



DR. BADEN: The highlight would be I was asked to be chairman of the forensic pathology panel of the United States congressional select committee in assassinations at the end of the 1970's that was formed to investigate the deaths of president John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King. And there were two panels; one to investigate the death of president John Kennedy and one to investigate the death of Dr. King and I was the chairmen of both for the pathologist investigation.

DR. BADEN: Over the years I have performed going back to 1955, I guess when I started out in medical examiner's office as a volunteer, over 20,000 autopsies.

MR. SHAPIRO: And how many autopsies have you supervised, approximately?



Below is some of the work Baden did while publishing his work on drug abuse. Yore reporter listening to all of BADENS wide range of experience wrote that his primary expertise was in death by drug abuse WHICH WAS MISLEADING AND FALSE. But then he was a court tv reporter.

Just thought there needed to be clarity.

DR. BADEN: Many times that number. When I was medical examiner of New York City we performed--the office performed something like seven or 8000 autopsies a year and there were about eight physicians doing autopsies and we would do a thousand or more than a thousand autopsies each year.

MR. SHAPIRO: You've told the jury of the major cases that you have reviewed. Can you approximate how many cases of autopsies you have reviewed that were performed by others?

DR. BADEN: Umm, I--over the years there would be many hundreds, thousands of autopsies--just autopsies, not the remains?

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, both, autopsies and remains?

DR. BADEN: Oh, I have reviewed--

MR. SHAPIRO: Call--

DR. BADEN: When I was medical examiner commonly there would be eight autopsies going on at a time and commonly review thousands of autopsies each year that other doctors did.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you frequently called upon, as a consultant, to review findings of others in the field of medical examination relating to death?

DR. BADEN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And are you called by members of both the Prosecution and the Defense?

DR. BADEN: Yes.

[martin II]

I think a critique of the prosecutions failed claims is necessart to understand why their case ended up looking like a small pile of sand on the courtroom floor. It is my opinion that shortly after Cochran and the dream started working the prosecution realized their case was in trouble. M Clarke changing hair styles did not change these events which may have led to the attempt to hit a home run by setting Darden up to do that dumb glove did not fit bit.

Without the critique some may walk away thinking there was enought evidence to convic and blame the jury in addition to the prosecution.
imo

[William Anthony]

I think a critique of the prosecutions failed claims is necessart to understand why their case ended up looking like a small pile of sand on the courtroom floor. It is my opinion that shortly after Cochran and the dream started working the prosecution realized their case was in trouble. M Clarke changing hair styles did not change these events which may have led to the attempt to hit a home run by setting Darden up to do that dumb glove did not fit bit.

Without the critique some may walk away thinking there was enought evidence to convic and blame the jury in addition to the prosecution.
imo

I agree. It is necessary to see how the evidence was presented and tested in order to understand the reasonable inferences that the jury could have reached after listening to the evidence in its entirety. I know that there will still be those who disagree, because they hold such passionate opinions. However, the assessment may help others, who do not hold such strong convictions, to evaluate the the trial for themselves.

[William Anthony]

Off topic for a moment, I saw on another community's board there was a thread asking for donations, is there such a thread in this community?

[tv]

Off topic for a moment, I saw on another community's board there was a thread asking for donations, is there such a thread in this community?I haven't seen one but I doubt truTV needs money.

[tv]

Thank you for your continued efforts to improve the quality of postings in this community.You're welcome. ;)

[martin II]

Off topic for a moment, I saw on another community's board there was a thread asking for donations, is there such a thread in this community?

I have never seem such a request from this community.

[William Anthony]

I haven't seen one but I doubt truTV needs money.

So, I guess its a proper thing to do if you need money. As it pertains to me, don't hate, donate. :)

[William Anthony]

Rikki on tru tv just gave my secret away in referring to the Simpson case and what the defense lawyer said in the Entwisel trial.

[William Anthony]

From the testimony I posted it seems that Baden did not say the struggle lasted for twenty minutes. The jury had the benefit of testimony read back, if they needed it, and did not have to rely on faulty memory. This is why I believe the jury is deserving of more credit than some allow them.

[William Anthony]

You're welcome. ;)

Although, the thanks was not initially meant for you, it should have included you. Let me thank you for taking responsibility for your inadvertence and thank you for your assistance in improving the quality of posting in this community. Forgive me for being remiss?

[tv]

From the testimony I posted it seems that Baden did not say the struggle lasted for twenty minutes. The jury had the benefit of testimony read back, if they needed it, and did not have to rely on faulty memory. This is why I believe the jury is deserving of more credit than some allow them.You're correct. I believe he said at least 10. Still not a believable amount of time.

[tv]

Although, the thanks was not initially meant for you, it should have included you. Let me thank you for taking responsibility for your inadvertence and thank you for your assistance in improving the quality of posting in this community. Forgive me for being remiss?

I don't know what inadvertance you are referencing but it must not have been too significant or you would be demanding an apology to the community. I realize the thanks was not directed at me...but that's okay.

[martin II]

You're correct. I believe he said at least 10. Still not a believable amount of time.

Two killers, two victims. killing time, placement of the bodies, wipe out their foot prints, place the evidence one leave by the rear gate and one by the front. Sounds reasonable to me.imo

[martin II]

You're correct. I believe he said at least 10. Still not a believable amount of time.

Remember, some say Ron put up a hugh fight trying to get out of that headlock one killer had him in.So that would extend the time some. imo

[martin II]

too bad posters feel they must sink to inaccurate, incorrect, and unsubstantiated posting to support their hero: orenthal james simpson. I'm not surprised -- just think it's sad. imo

I know of no poster that has posted what you claim.

[tv]

Two killers, two victims. killing time, placement of the bodies, wipe out their foot prints, place the evidence one leave by the rear gate and one by the front. Sounds reasonable to me.imoIt doesn't sound reasonable to me.

[William Anthony]

You're correct. I believe he said at least 10. Still not a believable amount of time.

Not quite correct. You said he testified that the struggle took 20 minutes. He actually testified that Ron would have been alive for 10 to 20 minutes, although he may have been unconscious, after the jugular was cut.

[martin II]

It doesn't sound reasonable to me.

Let me go out on a limb and say that some people may have had the experience of a hot fist fight than some others and may have experience of such a event and understand of how much time this type fight may take.imo

[William Anthony]

I don't know what inadvertance you are referencing but it must not have been too significant or you would be demanding an apology to the community. I realize the thanks was not directed at me...but that's okay.

The inadvertence I speak of is your posting of Baden's testimony from the criminal trial on the wrong thread. I don't demand apologies; I request or suggest an apology for being rude, uncivil, disrespectful, making false accusations and personal attacks.

[martin II]

:cool: It doesn't sound reasonable to me.

Let me go out on a limb and say that some people may have had the experience of a hot fist fight than some others and may have experience of such a event and understand of how much time this type fight may take.imo:cool:

[William Anthony]

I know of no poster that has posted what you claim.

Did you forget the posts about the pigeon-toed shoe prints, the fibers found on the Bundy carpet, the defense never making the argument that MF said them, meaning he saw two gloves at Bundy, the posts about the civil verdict meant that they found Simpson liable for the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole, and that Baden testified the struggle took ten to twenty minutes?